Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 24th March 2025
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 74 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Gideon Amos has not been selected.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is time to get Britain building again. It is what working people expect of this Government and it is what we will deliver. Our Planning and Infrastructure Bill is critical to achieving economic growth, higher living standards and a more secure future for our country. This is our plan for change in action: action to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament and a fast track of 150 major infrastructure projects—more than were decided over the 14 years of the previous Government. The Bill is also key to making Britain a clean energy superpower, bringing down bills for working people and securing our energy supply in a more uncertain world.
Make no mistake: the Bill will transform the lives of working people and Britain’s prospects for years to come. It is hugely ambitious, and rightly so. Everywhere I go, I hear the same frustrations: “We just can’t build anything any more,” and, “We desperately need more homes and more development.” For too long, the answer has always been no, which has choked growth, leaving working people worse off and leaving Britain behind, with trains that do not work, roads that are clogged and not enough homes being built.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I gently say to the Secretary of State that none of my constituents is saying, “In Shropshire, we don’t need any more homes. We don’t want any more homes.” They just want to be consulted. They want the homes in the right place, at the right scale, with the right architecture and in the right numbers. They want their voices listened to through a local plan—not ignored, as the current Government are doing.
Angela Rayner
I gently say to the right hon. Member that it is this Government who have brought forward mandatory local plans, and it was his Government who did not. For too long we have left home ownership to collapse, with homelessness soaring and over 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. This is a country that simply is not working.
The time it takes to secure planning permission for major projects has almost doubled in the last decade, and it now takes more than four years. It is slower and more costly to build big infrastructure in England than in France and Italy. No new reservoir has been built for over 30 years. There are countless other examples, such as the critical new road improvement scheme for Norwich, which would create jobs and speed up journeys yet was held up for two years by unsuccessful legal challenges. We have the ridiculous situation where 139 desperately needed houses were delayed in Bingley because of a row over the speed of balls at the neighbouring cricket club.
The result of such delays has been fewer homes built, higher energy bills, and lower productivity and growth. For 14 years, the country has been crying out for a Government with the will to change that. Successive Tory Prime Ministers promised that change, but when the bold action was demanded they were too afraid to stand up to their Back Benchers.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State outline what powers in the Bill she will use to take on developers and make sure that they build based on the planning permissions they already have?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Member will know as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that we have already made changes through the national planning policy framework, and we have our new homes accelerator programme, which is already providing thousands of homes. The Bill is about building on those powers to ensure that we get Britain building. It was his Government who did not build the houses and the infrastructure that we desperately need and who were too timid to face down the vested interests. This Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers, and we are saying, “No more.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is nobody who does not welcome the 1.5 million houses target, and it is important that we see those homes. Part of infrastructure is electric vehicle charging systems. Many people I ask about electric cars say that they are not getting one because there are not enough charging points. Clause 43 indicates that there will be more EV charge points. Is that something the Secretary of State will share with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland? I also understand that some of the standard accessibility requirements do not meet the standards. Can she confirm that that will be changed?
Angela Rayner
The Bill will streamline the approval of street works needed for the installation of EV charge points, removing the need for licensing where works are able to be authorised by permits, because we recognise that people need that critical infrastructure as part of these reforms.
We have taken more action in eight months than the Opposition managed in 14 years of government. We have reversed the damaging changes made by the Tories to the national planning policy framework and have brought green belt into the 21st century. We have ended the de facto ban on new onshore wind, and we are supporting local authorities with an additional 300 planning officers. Just this month, we set out reforms to put growth at the heart of the statutory consultee system.
Many would have said, “Stop there and allow the reforms to bed in,” but Britain cannot afford to wait. We have been held back for too long by Governments without the will to drive change. This landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill goes even further and faster.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on championing the expansion of affordable and social housing in particular. I ask her to take account of another excluded group: Gypsies and Travellers. They have been systematically discriminated against by the Conservatives over 14 years. There is no assessment of needs or statutory duty to provide sites any longer, and they are not in the strategic planning provisions. Can we rectify that in the Bill so that we have a level playing field for everybody who is in need of housing?
Angela Rayner
We are working with local authorities, and the Bill includes provision for strategic authorities so that we can look at where we have sites and ensure that people are accommodated. It is for local authorities to be able to do that.
The Bill starts with a quicker and more certain system for big ticket infrastructure projects. It will slice through the bureaucracy and speed up transport projects. It will overhaul how Government decisions on major infrastructure projects can be challenged, so that meritless cases will have one, rather than three, attempts at a legal challenge, stopping cases from being dragged endlessly and needlessly through the courts.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Somewhere knocking around in the system is a Government press release that says that the National Grid Sea Link project is being obstructed by too many objections. The reason that it is being objected to is that the National Grid wants to build a 90-foot-high converter station the size of five football pitches on the Minster marshes in Kent. We must have the right to object to that kind of project.
Angela Rayner
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a loss of the right to object. In fact, we are strengthening and clarifying those processes as part of the Bill. I will say it again: there will be a quicker and more certain system for big ticket infrastructure projects. The Bill will slice through bureaucracy and speed up transport projects. What it will not do is allow meritless cases to have three attempts at a legal challenge. It will stop cases from being dragged endlessly and needlessly through the courts. It will begin to strip away the unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications and do not meaningfully engage communities, but slow down the delivery of infrastructure that will benefit communities in the future. It will create greater flexibility so that projects can go through a more appropriate and faster planning route.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State will understand that when a number of nationally strategic infrastructure projects are in one area, that has a huge impact. In my constituency we are looking at a strategic rail interchange, a major solar plant and the East West Rail project. Will she reassure my constituents that their voices will be heard under the Bill? Will she reassure us that when these issues go to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Secretary of State, the cumulative effect of national projects that are not present in local plans will be considered before decisions are taken?
Angela Rayner
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will consult on the draft we have put forward. We want better and quality engagement as part of the Bill. Our changes will ensure that everyone works together early on, and that we have proportionate and faster decisions. We will make sure that the Government’s infrastructure policies are updated at least every five years, but the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The Secretary of State is outlining the process by which essential infrastructure needs to be built, but she will forgive me for coming back to Heathrow expansion. I would be extremely grateful if she could set out for us—perhaps not today, but later or in writing—the exact process for considering the expansion of Heathrow under the new legislation. In addition, could she explain why those who will be affected by compulsory purchase will now be removed as consultees at the pre-application stage?
Angela Rayner
I will not get into the details of any particular planning process, but I will say that the Bill is about better and quality engagement. Of course, statutory consultees will continue to be engaged, but what we do not want is major infrastructure projects continually being blocked for years and years. People have been speaking about some of these projects for decades, and we still do not have the connectivity that we desperately need.
We are open to strengthening the Bill, and we will give serious consideration to proposals that further our objectives. We will continue to engage with colleagues across the House, as well as with business and communities, on what might be done about existing requirements that are not working as they should. We are clear that where once the answer was always no, to get Britain building, to drive growth and to deliver opportunity, the answer must now be yes.
The Bill is also geared towards another crucial pledge: building the new homes that we need. We will boost house building in England by streamlining planning decisions.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the steps being taken to streamline the system and get more homes built. That, of course, includes social and affordable housing. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would go some way to helping the 160,000 children who are stuck in temporary accommodation?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the debate back to why we are all here and why we are in this mess in the first place. Over Christmas, when we all got to see our family and friends, I was thinking about the 160,000 children in temporary accommodation. During the general election campaign, one thing I was clear on was that we have to move forward to build the homes that people desperately need—behind every single one of those statistics is a family or an opportunity that is not being realised—and one of this Government’s missions is to strengthen that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
If the Government are going to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, and we are nine months into the first year of this Parliament, by my calculation they should have built 225,000 by now. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many homes have been built?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman has just given us an example of the mess the previous Government left us in. House building was going backwards, and they were nowhere near the figures they promised. That is why, within the first few months of us getting into power, we changed the national planning policy framework. We have been consulting, we have been working with industry, we have had a new homes accelerator—thousands more have been put into the system—and £2 billion for the affordable homes programme has been announced today.
We will boost house building in England by streamlining planning decisions, introducing a national scheme of delegation that sets out which types of application should be determined by officers and which by planning committees. Local democratic oversight is crucial to ensuring good development, but the right decisions must be taken at the right level to get Britain building.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Prime Minister is giving an excellent speech about the importance of building homes. She mentioned the importance of getting young people out of temporary accommodation, which I wholly support. Does she agree that it is not just about temporary accommodation but about families who are suffering from overcrowding, families in unsuitable accommodation and families at risk of homelessness, with the anxiety that brings? My inbox is full of that from residents in Harlow.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Not only have the Government inherited a really dire house building situation—we will turn the tide and build 1.5 million homes—but we have seen homelessness levels rise. The previous Government promised to end section 21 no-fault evictions but did not; we are going to do it. We will also bring in Awaab’s law, which will protect people in the rented sector. There is so much wrong with our housing system. The Government are starting to turn the tide on that. This Bill is one crucial step in the overall picture of what we are doing to improve circumstances for people, whether they want to buy a home, whether they are in a home or whether they are in privately rented accommodation.
I turn back to the planning committees. We will bring in new controls over the size of planning committees, increasing the pace and quality of decision making while maintaining robust debate. We are introducing mandatory training for planning committee members to improve their expertise while allowing councils to set their own planning fees to cover their costs, with a promise that that money will be reinvested in the system to help speed it up.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I welcome much of what the Bill will do. It will speeding up the planning system, which as a chartered surveyor who has practised in planning is I know desperately needed if we are to get more houses built. However, the one area of the Bill that I have concerns about is what she has just come on to. If local people feel completely overridden by their planning system, they will feel very hard done by. If we are to override local people, we might just as well have a nationally directed planning system rather than a local planning system. Will she think carefully about that balance?
Angela Rayner
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area, and he is absolutely right to say that there has to be a balance; that is why the Bill sets out that controversial schemes will still go to full planning committees. I am sure he would recognise that there are other areas where local planners could do some of that work. If we set out the rules clearly, we can make the process better, so that where there is more need for that engagement—with the mandatory training for those on planning committees—we will get a better result. I hope the hon. Member will continue to engage with us in that vein.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the £2 billion in extra money for social homes being announced today and the 150 new nationally significant infrastructure projects for which the Bill will pave the way. We are the party of the builders, not the blockers, so more importantly we need more builders. That is why the £600 million announced for a new army of 60,000 more brickies, electricians and engineers is very welcome. Can I suggest that Rochdale’s Hopwood Hall college, which has a brilliant record in training construction workers, is included in this project?
Angela Rayner
As my hon. Friend says, 10 colleges of excellence were announced as part of the £600 million funding and 60,000 new apprenticeships. By giving our young people opportunities, this is part of making work pay. It will be fantastic, and I hope my hon. Friend will be engaged in that process. My colleagues in Government will have heard what he said. As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, I feel that Greater Manchester definitely should be part of that process.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
To pick up on the tone of the comments made about blockers, I knock on many doors in my constituency and find the narrative about nimbys blocking housing and people not wanting homes built in their constituency to be untrue. People recognise the need for additional homes for themselves, their children and the growing population, but what they worry about is infrastructure. This Bill does not include mandatory infrastructure targets, and that is why residents are so sceptical. Given their inability to get GP appointments at the moment, with additional homes and additional demand they will struggle even more. How can we reassure them that those needs will be met in the future?
Angela Rayner
Let me be clear: I do not call people of this country the blockers. I do not see that when I am out and about; I never saw it during the general election campaign. People want this development. The hon. Member makes an important point about infrastructure; people often say that the infrastructure is not there. This Bill streamlines infrastructure. I think it goes some way towards doing the work. It is not everything; we have to do a lot of other things, like we have done with section 106, for example. Under the previous Government, we often did not get the benefit of that, because people wriggled out of their obligations. I appreciate the tone of the hon. Member’s remarks. This Government are going to make sure that we build the houses that people want, where they want them, with consultation and with the critical infrastructure that they need.
At the same time, we will unlock land for housing and infrastructure by reforming the compulsory purchase process, ensuring that important projects that deliver public benefits—such as many more social and affordable homes—are given the green light, and that compensation paid to landowners is not excessive.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I warmly welcome the changes to hope value in order to build more affordable homes, but will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will also apply to wider projects for community benefit such as playing fields? Udney Park in Teddington in my constituency has lain derelict for over a decade as successive owners have wanted to develop it but cannot do so. There is a huge demand for community playing fields and the community wants to be able to access that land. Will she assure me that the hope value changes will apply much more broadly than just to affordable housing?
Angela Rayner
I hope that the hon. Member continues to engage, because we want to make sure that we can go as wide as we possibly can so that we get the land that is needed and we can build the houses that we desperately need. We are also doing work within the devolution Bill, which will be coming forward, around compulsory purchase on other assets of public value that are not for building on. That touches on the point that the hon. Member has raised.
We are also strengthening development corporations to make it easier to deliver the housing projects we need. Those corporations delivered previous generations of new towns. This Labour Government are building on our post-war legacy by giving them enhanced powers to help deliver our next generation of new towns. These will be communities built with local people in mind, with the affordable housing, GP surgeries, schools and public transport that working people expect and need.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister and I have a mutual passion: she too is a great fan of His Majesty’s work on the built environment and ensuring the high quality of design. One concern that a lot of people have is seeing the quality of design eroded, so that we see the same design in Kent as we do in Staffordshire. Would she look at what could be done to enhance design codes, because it feels like they have been eroded not enhanced?
Angela Rayner
The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of our time sparring at the Dispatch Box, but I am glad that I am on the Government side now. [Interruption.] I beg to differ.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about design, and we are covering that in our new towns. He is right that His Majesty is also passionate about this; I think everybody is to be honest—nobody wants to live in an ugly home. Design is important, and it is different in different places: Yorkshire is different from Manchester, which is different from Devon. Ensuring that design is part of the process is crucial, but it must not prevent us from going forward. That is why we have clarified some of the issues around “beautiful” in the NPPF that were holding things up. I want to reassure Members across the House that we expect safe homes, beautiful homes and homes fit for the future in terms of renewables and energy efficiency.
To meet our net zero ambitions and drive growth, the Bill will speed up approvals for clean energy projects. Some projects currently face waits of over 10 years—another legacy of Tory failure. With a first ready, first connected system replacing the flawed first come, first served approach, and with £200 billion of investment unlocking growth through “Clean Power by 2030”, our reforms will protect households from the rollercoaster of foreign fossil fuel markets and usher in a new era of energy independence, in which despots like Putin can no longer have their boot on the nation’s throat.
Britain’s electricity grid needs a 21st century overhaul to connect the right power in the right places, which is why our plans for vital energy projects needed for clean power, including wind and solar projects, will be prioritised for grid connections, with those living within 500 metres of new pylons getting up to £250 a year off their electricity bills. We recognise the service of these communities in hosting the infrastructure that will lower everyone’s energy bills.
Bradley Thomas
The Deputy Prime Minister makes an important point about the access to energy that all our communities require. Particularly prominent in all our minds, at a time when we recognise that food security is national security, is the displacement of high-quality agricultural land and, in effect, energy becoming a new cash crop. Will she assure the House that we are not at risk of falling into that trap and that we will not displace high-quality agricultural land for energy?
Angela Rayner
I can assure the hon. Member—I gave him two chances; I must like him—that we will protect high-quality agricultural land. Farmers have used land in various ways throughout the decades and generations, and we will protect our high-quality agricultural land.
Finally, I want to turn to the measures in the Bill on development and nature recovery. We have some incredibly important habits and species in this country, and the Government could not have been clearer in our manifesto that we are committed to improving outcomes for nature.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a fantastic speech and a great piece of legislation that will turbocharge our plans to restore nature at scale and build the homes that we need. Will she say a little more about how the Bill could help us to restore our precious chalk streams, such as the River Pang in my constituency?
Angela Rayner
The Bill is about how we can do nature recovery and protect nature. We think that it is a win-win. Under the previous Government, all sorts of problems held us up, and we tried to work with the then Government but they would not work with us. That is why they are now on the Opposition Benches and we are on the Government Benches, building.
I am sure that all Members across the House share the goal of improving outcomes for nature, but I am also confident that no one here thinks that the system is working well. Any set of rules that results in a £100 million bat tunnel is an outrage. I know that Opposition Members agree, but they were determined to take a clumsy approach to fixing nutrient neutrality that risked ripping up environmental protections and would not have worked.
Thanks to a collaborative effort with organisations across the development and environmental sectors, our Bill sets out a better way. That is a win-win for development and for nature. The Bill establishes a nature restoration fund that will allow developers to make a simple payment to discharge their environmental obligations, and to crack on with the building of the homes and infrastructure projects that we desperately need. Natural England will use that money to take the action needed not just to avoid further decline in our natural world, but to bring about improvement.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is reassuring to hear that the right hon. Lady is so passionate about restoring nature. How, then, can she explain the fact that planning permission, which the local council had refused, has been granted for a battery energy storage system on the green belt in Walsall?
Angela Rayner
I will not comment on individual projects, but we have been clear about nature recovery and protecting our natural spaces, as set out in the Bill. That is how we will put talk of newts and nutrient neutrality behind us and get Britain building, while stopping the pointless pitting of nature against development.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The problems caused by the previous Government’s failure to tackle nutrient neutrality mean that north Cumbria faces significant house building issues. I strongly welcome the Bill’s provisions on the nature restoration fund. Will the Department work with the local authority to develop mitigation schemes that will get house building going in north Cumbria in the interim?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that long-standing issue. The Government are already engaging with the local authority in her area. She is absolutely right: for too long the previous Government were not listening. In the other place, and when I was in opposition, we tried to work with them on these issues and they refused.
The Bill is our reform to mark a new era for Britain. We are turning the page on the years of defeatism and decline in which this country of extraordinary talent and capability was held back by a system that was hobbled at every turn. With these landmark reforms, we are not just putting more money into the pockets of working people and strengthening communities; we are taking a major step forward to secure our country’s future for the long term. We are getting Britain building again, getting growth going and paving the way for national renewal. This is real delivery and real change to transform the lives of millions of people for years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am pleased to lead the response on behalf of the Opposition, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes more than 30 years of business experience and interest in the property sector.
We support some of the principles, aims and ambitions of the Bill, some of which build on the work we undertook while we were in office—a time that included a record period for house building in this country. We will also highlight our concerns in a number of areas, including whether the Bill goes far enough to achieve its goals; the removal of a councillor’s ability to vote on individual applications; and the potentially toxic mix of disproportionately large increases to housing targets in rural areas, the grey belt “Trojan horse”, including the removal of any protection for villages, the move to strategic plans and of course the ambition to build 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State is apparently keen on spotting elephants, but she seems to have missed a huge one, in that that target of 1.5 million homes is completely undeliverable.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In chapter 2, proposed new clause 12H(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 mentions the draft spatial development strategy and brings in a raft of changes, including consultation with representative bodies on
“different racial, ethnic or national groups”
but also “different religious groups”. Is there a danger that we are pitting communities one against another? There is a legislative reason to do that, and I wanted to intervene to ask the Secretary of State about it, but can my hon. Friend, with his expertise, shine some light on why we are enshrining that provision into legislation?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is right to spot that requirement, and we will certainly be considering that when we table amendments to the Bill. We believe it is completely inappropriate that certain groups should get preference over other groups in consultations that might occur during the planning process.
The ambition to build 1.5 million homes is all well and good, but the Government have not yet set out exactly how they will do that. There are many questions about its deliverability, certainly in the context of the February S&P Global UK construction purchasing managers’ index, which described one of the biggest monthly falls in house building and construction on record. Indeed, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation said that the Secretary of State would fall short of her target by 500,000 homes. The Government have not yet set out how many social or affordable homes they will deliver, or what measures they will put in place to help first-time buyers on to the housing ladder, particularly when they have scrapped Help to Buy and the stamp duty discounts, which helped 1 million young people to buy their first home.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that housing targets mean little if the Government do not get a grip on immigration, which is causing massive demand for housing?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The increase in this country’s population is part of the reason why we have a rising need for housing, as well as for temporary accommodation. That all impacts on the system.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The hon. Member talked about missed targets, and about affordability. In 2010, the first of 16 housing Ministers under the previous Conservative Government boldly claimed, as did many of his successors, that the Government would improve affordability of housing overall. While they were in power, affordability, as measured by the ratio between median house prices and wages, reduced from 6.85 to 7.7. Can he explain that failure to the House?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that there were quite a few different housing Ministers during Labour’s previous tenure as well, but he makes an interesting and important point that I am happy to answer. Of course we want to build more houses to tackle affordability problems. I say that in relation to social housing, because during those 14 years, as well as delivering 2.5 million new homes, we delivered 750,000 affordable homes.
Luke Murphy
The point I was making was about outcomes. The previous Government committed to improving affordability and abjectly failed to do so. Can the hon. Member explain why?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said, there is no question but that there are underlying problems in the marketplace. We delivered 1 million homes, which was our target, in the last Parliament, but of course we agree that supply and demand is part of the equation. It is not the only part, so we support the ambition to deliver more homes. We had a similar commitment in our manifesto, and there is a context for that within the overall framework for a higher target.
The Government must reflect on the fact that although the construction sector is an important part of the economy, it represents only around 6% of GDP. Growth in the other 94% has been killed stone dead by the twin human wrecking balls who are the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister. Having inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor proceeded to trash talk the economy recklessly for six months, before hitting it with £70 billion per annum of tax and borrowing. If that was not bad enough, the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the Employment Rights Bill—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Wonderful. All Labour Members’ union supporters will applaud them for it. It will kill tens if not thousands of businesses, and potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout our country.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
We have already heard comments from Conservative Members about cases where planning permission has been granted, but nothing has been built. Almost every developer I have spoken to during this Parliament has said that that has one cause. It took so long to get planning permission—the Bill is designed to fix that—and while developers sought it, Liz Truss crashed the economy. Consequently, we had an inflation crisis and costs skyrocketed. Before the hon. Gentleman comments on our economic record, will he apologise for his?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is absolute nonsense.
Talking of confidence, according to a monthly survey by the Institute of Directors, business confidence in this country has collapsed since Labour took over. A high of plus 5 in July last year has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Government inflicted that on this country.
There is a complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet. Having killed economic growth in most of the productive economy, the Government now resemble a clueless gambler at the end of a disastrous night in the casino—they are staking everything on a last-gasp gamble on the property market.
From 2013 to 2023, we saw the highest sustained level of new home formations in the past 50 years, surpassing even the levels in the 1970s. Since 2010, we have delivered 2.5 million new homes and 750,000 affordable homes.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in stamp duty that has been imposed on people creates a real challenge when it comes to encouraging more people to buy homes? If the Deputy Prime Minister could encourage the Chancellor to reconsider that, so that it is not so expensive to buy a new home, that would be an important reform.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What have the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor got against first-time buyers? We helped 1 million first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder through Help to Buy and discounts on stamp duty. The Government scrapped both those schemes.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Will the hon. Member reflect on the fact that although Help to Buy helped some people to purchase a new home, many others were priced out because of inflationary pressures and the exorbitant bonuses that were paid to the huge house building companies, which benefited the most from the scheme?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not disagree that there were some flaws in the scheme. Nevertheless, around 340,000 people made it on to the housing ladder through that process. They include people in my constituency and probably people in the hon. Member’s constituency.
We recognise the need to go further. That is why we commissioned work by Charles Banner KC on speeding up the planning and delivery of national infrastructure projects, and Nick Winser’s review on accelerating energy infrastructure. We are grateful to them for their work. When we compare their recommendations and others with the Bill, we believe that the Bill’s benefits have been significantly oversold. For example, on the infrastructure consenting process, measures to reduce decision times are welcome, but consideration should be given to removing specific critical projects, such as airports, reservoirs, nuclear power stations and national transport schemes from the judicial review process altogether. The nature restoration levy and environmental delivery plans to be delivered by Natural England could be welcome if they allow developers successfully to discharge the requirements of the habitats regulations, but there are key questions. What incentives are there for Natural England to set levies that are proportionate to the impact on the environment? Will they just become another tax and another deterrent to building?
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The work done by the Conservative party on the NPPF was welcome, particularly in respect of its views on incorporating nature into the structure of the build, but it was unsuccessful. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister talk about a win-win for nature, so can he give the House an assurance that the Conservatives will back the implementation of measures such as swift bricks? Swifts are cavity-nesting birds that have no other place in this country and are declining at a great rate. Will he back the incorporation of those as a mandatory requirement in new builds?
Kevin Hollinrake
I can guarantee that we will support measures that we think will be successful. The hon. Gentleman brings up some of the work we tried to do in the previous Parliament, some of which was successful. Other things were unsuccessful, including our solution on nutrient neutrality, which was blocked by his party by about 100 votes in the House of Lords. The impact of that particular measure is considered negligible. We want to ensure that where any levies are put in place by Natural England, if the impacts are considered negligible, they are also negligible for developers.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that more could be done to protect irreplaceable chalk stream habitats, particularly in the south of England? Does he also agree that one thing we could do is designate those chalk stream habitats to be irreplaceable and ensure that the Government specify clearly what permissions might be available there?
Kevin Hollinrake
We could talk with the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) about making such amendments to the legislation as it passes through Committee.
I have other questions. Is Natural England sufficiently resourced to carry out its work? How long will it be before these plans are in place? Have the Government taken into account the inevitable delays due to judicial reviews of the environmental delivery plans? Is it not the case that the habitats regulations remain in place beneath this new system, so if a development does not show the overall improvement test for each identified environmental feature, as referenced in clause 55, the system will not apply and the developer will still need to build those bat tunnels and fish discos? Indeed, Sam Richards of Britain Remade states that it might set the bar even higher by requiring a net gain for that species. If an EDP covers one element of environmental impact but not others, the developer might have to pay into the levy and build the bat tunnel.
Have the Government also considered changes to section 20 of the Environment Act 2021, which this legislation is subject to? I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections. Overall, we believe that it will take at least two to three years from Royal Assent for these EDPs to have meaningful effect. I am very happy to seek assurances from the Minister if that is not the case.
There are also understandable concerns about whether the route chosen will even deliver on its objective to protect the environment. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management has stated that the Government’s approach means that our natural capital assets will be destroyed immediately, and it could take decades for any improvement.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, nature can be effectively compensated for only in certain circumstances, but landscape can never be replaced: once it is gone, it is gone. Does he think there should be scope in this Bill to recognise the special status of protected landscapes—what are now called national landscapes or national parks—to ensure that development in those areas is appropriate and does not permanently damage our precious landscape for future generations?
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Constituencies such as his and mine that include those protected landscapes do not seem to have that considered or catered for in the housing targets, particularly the new ones that we have before us. Again, I am very keen to discuss with the Minister how we might address that.
On planning, we are very concerned about the national scheme of delegation, which will remove councillors’ right to vote on individual planning applications. If the Secretary of State does not believe that that is the case, I suggest that she reads clause 46 of her own legislation. This is particularly extraordinary considering that when Labour was in opposition, the former shadow Housing Minister said in a debate in this House on 21 June 2021 that the previous Government should
“protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 620.]
Clearly, the current Housing Minister is not doing that— he is doing the exact opposite through these rules—and he should be clear with the public about that, because sooner or later, that fact will hit home.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
indicated dissent.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very happy to have a debate with the Housing Minister—he is welcome to intervene on me. I suggest that he reads clause 46 as well. Of course, it is also a fact that 14 Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary, all campaigned to block housing developments in their own constituencies. What hypocrisy!
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I have often found that the right of a councillor to insist that a matter goes to the planning committee, rather than be determined by officers, actually leads to the application going through where pettifogging officers would have refused it.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is right to say that the vast majority of applications are consented to by planning committees. Removing councillors’ right to vote on them is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and Labour must be honest with the public that that is exactly what is happening.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
That raises a broader point. At the moment, councils in parts of the country such as my constituency are being abolished by this Government, so there will be no democratic accountability down the line, and there will be no democratic accountability at council level through planning committees, either. They are removing layer after layer of protection for local communities such as mine, with huge amounts of green-belt land suddenly redesignated as grey-belt land, despite recently being high-grade agricultural land. Can my hon. Friend understand the concerns in communities such as mine about what these proposals are doing? They want to see more housing, but not at the expense of London seeing a housing target—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That was a very long intervention.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am concerned about the points that my right hon. Friend has raised. The Government talk about abolishing a layer of government, but they are actually introducing a new layer of government: the strategic authorities, which will have the ability to push housing from urban areas into rural areas such as my right hon. Friend’s and those represented by other Members in this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Hollinrake
I will give way a final time, and then I will make some progress, if I can.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On the environment, national parks are rightly protected, so when the Government impose housing targets on east Hampshire, all of that housing will have to go in the bits that are not part of the South Downs national park, increasing the housing pressures on what is essentially green-belt land but is not in the park. Would it not be better for this to be taken in its totality, and for the national park to be excluded from the figures?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree that, in order to be fair to areas that include protected landscapes and national parks, that should be a consideration.
The removal of powers from councillors will only become apparent to many residents when they see a green notice on a nearby telegraph pole and contact their local councillor to express their concern, only to be told, “I’m sorry, but I no longer have the power to ask for the application to be considered and voted on by the planning committee.” The Local Government Association itself strongly opposes these changes, saying that
“The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.”
We also have concerns that the imposition of strategic planning will be used as a vehicle to force rural authorities to absorb urban housing need. This is of particular concern in many rural areas, given the disproportionately high increases in targets for rural locations. The Secretary of State has increased the national target for house building by 50%, so the average rural resident might expect that their local housing target has increased by a similar amount, but that is not the case. According to the House of Commons Library, the targets for major urban conurbations are up by 17% on average, while the targets in mainly rural areas have increased by 115%. For example, London’s target is down by 12%, Newcastle’s is down by 15%, Birmingham’s is down by 38% and Coventry’s is down by 55%, while Wyre Forest and New Forest’s targets are up by 100% and Westmorland’s is up by almost 500%.
Dr Luke Evans
Leicestershire is a prime example of where these things are happening. The target for Leicester city—where the infrastructure and plenty of brownfield sites are—is reducing by 31%, yet places such as Hinckley and Bosworth and North West Leicestershire are going up by 59% and 75% respectively. That sticks in the throats of people who want to see houses, when such areas are suffering. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply not right?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is totally unfair. In my view, it is cynical gerrymandering.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On the exact same point, in Walsall our housing target is going up by a staggering 27%, while Birmingham is going down. With all the trash in Birmingham—thanks to the Labour council—perhaps people do not want to live there, but does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just the rural communities that have been affected, but those that are peripheral to the cities?
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend is right to express her concerns. What everyone wants to see is fairness. We would expect everybody to carry a fair share of the extra housing, but that is not what is happening. [Interruption.] Labour Members should go and have a word with the House of Commons Library if they do not agree. They can check the numbers out.
The fact that housing delivery provided by new towns will not contribute to the targets will shock many councillors and local residents alike. Neighbourhood plans do not have to be consistent with the NPPF; they merely have to “have regard to” it. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be changed? There is nothing in Labour’s plans about adequately resourcing or having process reforms of the Planning Inspectorate, which is clearly a key part of the system. Why has she scrapped all the work we did on design codes to move away from identikit housing towards building more beautifully?
We welcome the greater emphasis on local plans, but we would like to see more ambitious requirements for sites to be made available for small builders and for self-build. Currently, it is a 10% requirement on local authorities, but we would like to see a 20% allocation, as requested by the Federation of Master Builders. We would also like to see Homes England’s remit extended to include micro-builders.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister recognise that, under the previous Government, communities were hindered in being able to shape proposed development by only a third of local authorities having up-to-date local plans?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with that, and I made the same point from the Back Benches on many occasions, including about Labour-run York, which has just put a local plan in place for the first time since 1956.
There are understandable concerns that compulsory purchase orders are an extension of the Government’s attacks on farmers. Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance said that
“giving councils more power to reduce the value of land is a step too far, especially in the context of…the inheritance tax fiasco.”
The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues should heed the words of National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos, who said:
“This Bill comes at a time when the UK farming industry is under immense financial pressure due to the loss of direct payments, extreme weather and the impacts of the family farm tax. So, farmers and landowners must be fully consulted every step of the way.”
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether that will be the case?
The grey belt, which was sold to the public as a few abandoned garage forecourts, has now been exposed as the Trojan horse we predicted it would be. Although not directly part of this Bill, it clearly interacts directly with it. It has been described as a death knell for the green belt due to the removal of parts of the definitions and protections of villages. Villages can now merge together or into nearby towns.
To conclude, we will not oppose the passage of the Bill this evening, but we will seek to amend it in ways that do not undermine the ambition to accelerate the delivery of new homes while ensuring that there are checks and balances that protect communities, rural areas, farmers and the environment and that deliver well-designed, affordable homes for everyone, not least those on lower incomes and first-time buyers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. About 60 Members are seeking to get in, so after the Front-Bench speeches have been completed there will be a five-minute time limit.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State.
As we heard from the Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister, this is rightly an ambitious Bill, with 97 clauses and six schedules. I will focus on part 2, which deals with planning decisions, because it is important for our constituents and because in the past I undertook planning cases for the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, when our client, the Planning Inspectorate, was affectionately known as PINS—just the pins; no needles.
Careful thought needs to be given to the transparency of decisions. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned consultation. Some local authorities count abstentions as a vote in favour while others do not, so will she consider introducing a standard process throughout the country? I hope that all decisions will be based on judicial review principles, whether they are made by a committee or by individual officers.
Clause 45 concerns training for local planning authorities. I know that there are committee members who, even after being given some training, would not know a material consideration if it hit them in the face. Given that some of the decisions may be controversial, our constituents need to be reassured that they can have confidence that the system is rules-based and features procedural fairness, adequacy of reasoning and no actual or apparent bias. Decisions must meet this test: would a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision maker had taken into account relevant considerations, and had not taken into account irrelevant considerations?
Let me set out five important issues that apply to either a committee or a planning officer. First, if the decision is delegated to a planning officer, the officer should have undertaken a site visit and it should be recorded. Secondly, all votes in the committee should be recorded, which is not the case now. When we ask our constituents, “How did your councillor vote?”, they are often unable to say. Thirdly, fees are ringfenced under clause 44, but documents should be available to members of the public. At present, people cannot see them all unless they are online; I had to look in three different places to find a highways report. There should still be a physical file that the public can consult. Fourthly, I hope that Ministers will consider term limits for the chair of planning.
Finally, there is the issue of transparency, which is one of the most important elements. There should be a proper procedure so that everyone, throughout the country, follows the same procedure and it is adhered to. I remember that just before the new NPPF, there was a decision involving a takeaway. The public health representatives said that there were no comments and the highways authority representatives said that there would be no impact and then changed their minds after speaking to the applicant. It is important for decisions to be transparent.
I welcome the strategic look at sites. Certain areas, such as mayoral districts with combined authorities, may be more convenient than others.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a very thorough speech, and has raised some interesting points about the nature of the system and how to speed up decision-making. She has just mentioned sites. Does she agree that it is important for us to free up brownfield sites in towns and cities? There is a great deal of brownfield land in my area, and there have sometimes been lengthy delays in building it out. That has a real-life impact on young people who are trying to find a house of their own. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are right to tackle this serious problem?
Valerie Vaz
I absolutely agree; it is always “brownfield first”. I am about to say something about the green belt, but first I should make the important point that local people should not be shut out of any statutory consultation. They, and other statutory consultees, must be included in the process.
Green belt should be protected, although in some cases infill on the edges of villages and other areas is acceptable. However, I must add that Walsall does not want to be joined up to Birmingham.
Wendy Morton
There are many things that the right hon. Lady and I may disagree on but, when it comes to not wanting the Walsall borough joined up to Greater Birmingham, I think we both agree.
Valerie Vaz
I also want to raise the issue of buy to let. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will speak to her colleagues in the Treasury about the fact that buy-to-let companies have become the largest single type of business in the UK. There are more companies set up to hold properties registered with Companies House than any other kind. Homes are for people to live in.
I ask those on the Front Bench to remember Walter Segal and Moran Scott, and the Segal method house that people built for themselves in the 1970s with the Lewisham Self Build Housing Association. They were pop-up timber houses. Pockets of land were found and people were empowered.
I know you are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. The planning system should not exclude the voices of our constituents, who will have to live with the consequences of any development. Development should be for the common good and for future generations, taking into account the climate crisis. I know that the ministerial team are up to the task.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The ability to have a home of their own has crept out of reach of a whole generation, while for others, decent emergency accommodation cannot be found; in the last five years, temporary accommodation was named as a contributing factor in the deaths of 58 children under one year old—babies. We urgently need to provide more homes that are genuinely affordable to local people.
That is why the Lib Dem council in Somerset is building hundreds of new council houses in parts of the county for the first time in a generation: 220 new council houses in north Taunton, in my constituency, and 100 additional council houses elsewhere, including zero-carbon council houses. Lib Dem councils in Kingston, Eastleigh, York, Portsmouth, Vale of White Horse, Westmorland and Furness, and Oadby and Wigston are building thousands more new homes.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As a fellow Somerset MP, my hon. Friend will be aware that Somerset has had 18,000 homes stuck in a planning moratorium for nearly five years. While some of those have been unlocked, many are still in limbo. The Bill is meant to fix that impasse, but does he share my concern that the measures in the Bill may actually fail to unlock that housing, unless Natural England is given the resources it needs to monitor and enforce the nature restoration fund?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right, and that is why the Liberal Democrats were the only party to put in our manifesto the funds needed for Natural England and the Environment Agency to address the challenges she rightly sets out.
Lib Dem councils are also granting planning permissions, thousands of them—in my county of Somerset alone, 13,000 homes have permission but remain unbuilt.
Luke Murphy
What impact does the hon. Gentleman think the 68% cut to the affordable housing budget under the coalition Government had on the delivery of affordable housing?
Gideon Amos
There was a significant increase in empty homes being brought back into use under the coalition policies promoted by the Liberal Democrat Ministers. If we look at the figures for the cuts the Government made between 2010 and 2024, we see that those cuts were far deeper after 2015, according to all Departments—the record will bear that out.
Luke Murphy
There was not a greater cut in the affordable homes budget at any point between 2010 and 2024; the largest cut—nearly 70%—was under the coalition Government.
Gideon Amos
I was referring to the departmental cuts. If we look at all Departments across Government, including Housing, Health and Education, the cuts were far deeper after 2015.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I hesitate to try to help the hon. Gentleman with his answer, but might it be that the coalition Government were having difficulty building affordable houses in that period because the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury had said there was no money left?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the letter left by the outgoing Labour Government for the incoming coalition.
We do need to tackle blockages in the system, and if those 13,000 homes in Somerset that have permission and are not being built were being built, we would already have eliminated the 10,000-plus housing waiting list in the county.
Luke Taylor
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He is talking about planning permission being granted, but the homes not being built. In Sutton in 2023, I was a member of the planning committee that gave permission for the Victoria House site, which has lain dormant ever since. Permission was given for 74 homes, but they are not being built. It is a frustration for me every time I cycle past to see that potential not being realised. Does he agree that giving councils the power to take over sites that have permission but are not being built would be a really important part of delivering the homes that we need?
Gideon Amos
It is almost as though my hon. Friend had read a further section of my speech. That is exactly what we need to do in this country to unlock some of those sites.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Gideon Amos
We shall put that to the test later.
We welcome the provisions that allow compulsory acquisition—where there is a compelling case in the public interest, such as to build social housing—to go ahead on the basis of existing use value, not what the owner hopes will be the value in the future, to the detriment of the public purse. That could make a big difference. It would allow councils to assemble land more affordably, and to deliver more social homes. However, councils need to be resourced to carry out such projects. To that end, I am delighted that the proposal to abolish the cap on planning application fees that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) brought forward in her Bill in 2023 is included in this Bill.
Chris Curtis
Would the hon. Member like to take this moment to congratulate the absolute heroes in his party who forced it to change its policy at conference last year in favour of building homes? Many of those who sit on the Benches alongside him were calling out the members of his party for trying to get it to do so, one of whom, a former leader, called them Thatcherite. Does he agree with me that building new homes is not Thatcherite, but is the pro-development future that this country needs and that this Chamber should be supporting?
Gideon Amos
If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in our debates, he should please come and join our next party conference. We would be delighted to debate whether our targets should be 150,000 social rent homes per year or 300,000 general needs homes per year. Of course, we need both, and that was the conclusion of our very thoughtful and timely conference debate.
I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Secretary of State—the Deputy Prime Minister—on lifting that cap, on bringing strategic planning into the Bill and on the changes to national policy statements. I also congratulate them on the new nature restoration fund, where it provides support in relation to issues such as nutrient neutrality. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), that is holding back thousands of homes in Somerset, and we welcome the change.
Friends of the Earth has welcomed the nature restoration fund, but points out that it is very unclear how the nature restoration levy will work alongside other regimes. In that respect and many others, the Bill is short on the key principles. It is big on powers for the Secretary of State, but short on how those powers will be exercised. The Bill does not just lack details; it lacks some really big and important principles, including how that will work with other regimes. The funding of the nature restoration levy needs to be up front, so that nature restoration work begins straightaway.
We ask the Minister and the Government to enshrine in the Bill the principle that, on each site, development should first no do harm. That principle needs to be guaranteed its place at the top of the hierarchy of mitigation when it comes to protecting our environment.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
On the point about not doing any harm to nature, would the hon. Member’s party support the water companies becoming statutory consultees so that we can ensure that, with any new housing, not a litre of extra sewage goes into our rivers?
Gideon Amos
We would support that, as we did in a Westminster Hall debate very recently. We should be hearing such voices in the planning system, not shutting them out of the planning system.
On energy infrastructure, we welcome support for battery storage and improving access to the grid. Transmission connections are a huge source of delay—one of the biggest bottlenecks for renewable energy. But if we are to unblock that infrastructure, we need to go much further. All large-scale infrastructure projects, not just electricity transmission, should give people direct community benefit. Whether wind farm, solar farm, battery array or gas-fired power station, those living nearby should benefit through local investment or lower bills.
We also support the ambition to streamline planning for major projects, with exceptions on taking category 3 people out of compulsory purchase consultations. Let us note again who the real blockers were on these really big projects. They were not the people. It was nothing to do with local communities or the planning profession—I declare an interest as a member of the planning profession—and it was not councils. It was Ministers who left decisions lying on their desks, wrecking the timescales scrupulously followed by other parties in the process, so let us not blame people for politicians’ failures.
There are things to welcome in the Bill, but it hits the wrong target in many important areas, and this is where I must raise some more serious concerns. The detail provided in the changes to national infrastructure projects is good, but it is in real contrast to other areas of the Bill. There are many Henry VIII clauses that give sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and a democratic deficit is becoming a serious concern. For all that we welcome the aim to deliver homes, the Bill takes aim at communities, when we should be encouraging and empowering them to deliver and create the homes and places we want to see. I say again that racking up permissions—we already have a staggering 1.5 million homes without permission—will not ensure a single one gets built. We need to tackle the failure to build out of permissions granted by taking back the land or further limiting the lifetime of permissions. “Use it or lose it” needs to be the message.
Unless we deal with the supply chain issues and the lack of skills, we will have even more blockers on development.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
How does the hon. Gentleman square his support for getting more homes built and helping children who are living in temporary accommodation with his opposition to 250 new homes in his constituency, which he announced online just this month?
Gideon Amos
I am absolutely delighted to be supporting thousands of new homes across my constituency. The population of my constituency has gone up almost 10% over the past 10 years and I have supported thousands of those new homes, as have my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the planning committee who voted through all those permissions. If occasionally a smaller development in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is not right, I would expect him to oppose it, just as I would in my constituency. I believe Members across the House have done so.
By giving more powers to communities, a community-led approach could actually increase supply. It is time, for example, to give councils the power to end Right to Buy in their areas. They cannot fill the bath, in terms of providing council houses and social homes, if the plug is taken out and they are forced to sell them off as they have done over the preceding decades. Through proper planning, we also want communities in control of how many holiday lets are allowed in their area, so that homes are not swallowed up that could otherwise increase the supply of affordable housing. That is not in the Bill and should be.
Mandating renewable energy such as solar panels on roofs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) articulately argued for, would put people and local communities in control of the bills coming from their pockets.
Growing our economy, sustaining nature and building new homes are not mutually exclusive. They can work together. There are so many examples of how they can work together. For example, decent gardens have more biodiversity than many rural areas. Community-led decisions very often bring the best results, with residents’ infrastructure needs addressed and development shaped around green spaces and sustainability. To unblock homes, the Government need to do two key things instead of taking aim at ordinary people: first, unlock the infrastructure we need, including GPs, transport, green spaces, green infrastructure and water connections; and, secondly, fund the social homes that have been so sorely lacking. Since social housing disappeared as a meaningful proportion of housing supply and social housing targets fell away, this country has never been able to keep pace with demand. Our target is 150,000 per year. I hope the Government will provide a target of their own for social homes; so far, nothing has been said on that either. Invest in those two things, as history has taught us, and the number of homes we could provide would be almost unlimited.
Meanwhile, in communities like my own—where the 2,000-home Orchard Grove development in the west of Taunton, which I support, is taking shape—the reality is that while many people want to see new GP surgeries, developments are held back by the fact that we often cannot get GPs to staff the surgeries where they are being built.
We want to see a Bill about communities leading in planning and development. Instead, the Bill is part of a growing trend that is taking powers away from local communities. It takes a big step in that direction by allowing the Secretary of State to override planning committees and enabling national schemes of delegation that allow Whitehall to dictate who makes decisions on a local council—another Henry VIII clause, giving Whitehall unlimited power to rewrite the standing orders and constitutions of councils up and down the country. That cannot possibly sit right with anybody who values our proud tradition of local government that is independent of central Government. Consultation is sidelined elsewhere, too. Sport England will no longer have a voice to protect playing fields, and people subject to compulsory purchase orders will no longer have the voice they had before.
If the Government believe that local is the problem and that planning committees are the blocker, let us take a quick look at the actual figures. Councils approve more than 85% of planning applications, with some studies putting that figure even higher—closer to 90%. Councillors of all parties are not blocking development; they are enabling 90% of permissions to go through.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the emphasis in the Bill on removing the powers of planning committees will, by default, lead the public to believe that planning committees throughout the years have actually been the problem? In reality, many planning committees have done their mandatory training and made the right decisions, and those decisions have been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate time and again. It should be put on the record for the public that planning committees, as a whole, are not the problem. There is a huge range of issues that we might need to deal with, but that is not one.
Gideon Amos
I come back to what the LGA said: the role councillors play in the planning system is the backbone of that system. That is the way it should remain. Taking decisions out of councillors’ hands is taking decisions out of the hands of local people.
Developing and shaping towns or neighbourhoods without the input of the councillors who have that level of trust and local knowledge will make those neighbourhoods and developments poorer and even more likely to fail. Frankly, removing people and their councillors from the system does not mean faster planning, but less democratic planning. It will mean that people are shut out and make them lose faith in the system even more; it will mean more legal challenges and more people who feel shut out from the system. The Bill risks making development not only slower, but worse.
There is, of course, another way. Instead of a Bill that shuts people out and shuts them up, silencing voices and failing people on the basic services and infrastructure their communities need, we should look to the great community-led developments of the past, and more recently, from Letchworth and Welwyn Garden Cities and Hampstead Garden Suburb, to local authority-led new towns such as Milton Keynes, right up to the award-winning schemes often built in partnership with the public and private sector up and down the country right now—developments where nature, people and the economy grow together, not in opposition to each other, as we see in the best places that we all know and enjoy visiting.
If we build with the economy and with those who want growth, and for nature by developing with nature and for people by developing with people, we will build the homes, jobs and services that our communities want to see, that our country deserves and that our environment and our planet so desperately need.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The origin of Britain’s planning system is as deeply rooted in the legacy of the post-war Labour Government as that of the national health service and the welfare state. Like those great Labour institutions, it has faced relentless underfunding, attacks and dismantling from the Conservatives, who prioritise the rights of wealthy landowners over the entitlement of working people to affordable housing and quality infrastructure.
I commend the Government for bringing forward a Bill that offers the opportunity to at last get to grips with the appalling mess made of the planning system by the parties opposite; after all, it was they who allowed more than 14,000 hectares of our best farmland to be lost to development since 2010. The reality is that while we now have substantially more homes per capita than 50 years ago—a surplus that has grown rapidly in recent years—house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878% since 1971. Whatever may be said by their lobbyists, the housing crisis is not a straightforward issue of supply, and it will not be solved by simply putting more powers in the hands of profiteering developers. Waiting for a market solution to this societal emergency would be an exercise in utterly extravagant futility.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
For the past 30 years, successive Governments have attempted to deliver affordable housing through the private sector, and they have failed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for a publicly funded council house building programme?
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree.
The Government need to deliver a coherent vision for development in this country that matches the clarity and boldness of Labour’s 1947 vision, putting democratic control and social justice back at the heart of the planning system.
First, we must contend with the fact that more than 1.2 million homes that were granted planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Rather than waiting for developers to drip feed land into the system at their convenience, keeping prices high and profits maximised, we must introduce firm financial penalties for land banking to spur on construction and dampen price inflation.
Secondly, in towns like Buntingford and Royston, although thousands of houses have been built in recent years, local people remain stuck on sky-high waiting lists, with enormous knock-on costs for those families and our wider communities. We must therefore address not just the aggregate quantity of building but the types of homes we are providing with a new era of council housing, especially in our small towns and villages.
The housing crisis is also about the concentration of land ownership in the hands of the super-rich. Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. Between 1995 and 2022, land values rose by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, now representing more than 60% of the UK’s total net worth. I welcome the Bill’s expansion of powers for local authorities to prevent developers cashing in on inflated land prices at the cost of the taxpayer. We must maximise the public capture of land value uplifts to provide the necessary funding for genuinely affordable homes that are linked to local incomes and based in well-designed communities that benefit from easy access to all the facilities we need in our daily lives.
Simultaneously, the Government must also grasp this opportunity to reshape how councils develop local plans. Empowered councils with well-resourced planning departments should be able to take an active role to assess the needs of local families, identify appropriate sites and proactively use compulsory purchase orders for genuinely strategic land assembly to meet the needs of their communities.
Finally, given the collapse of nature in our country, we must use this legislation to recognise the very real environmental limits on growth. It is high time our planning system ensured that a presumption in favour of sustainable development ceases to act as a presumption in favour of any development whatsoever.
I look forward to working with Ministers to advance this legislation and secure the strongest possible Bill, which restores our role as custodians of the countryside, compels the private sector to deliver and places the power to meet our housing and infrastructure needs firmly back in democratic hands.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
South Leicestershire is a mid-sized constituency measuring 15 miles by 10 miles, and it already has some of the largest-scale developments in any part of our country. We have the second of the new Titan prisons, which was recently completed; one of the largest holes in the UK at Croft quarry; Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, which currently houses one of the largest UK car auction sites, with 25,000 cars coming in and out at any point; the 4,000-home development at New Lubbesthorpe; and the prospect of a new garden village at Whetstone Pastures. We are surrounded by logistics parks; in fact, we are home to one of Europe’s largest logistics parks—currently doubling in size—Magna Park. At what point can we say that we are doing a reasonable fair share for our county, region and country?
There are no nimbys in South Leicestershire; we generally support appropriate development. I generally support the objectives in the Bill, but there are one or two areas I would like to raise, one being the highly controversial proposed development known as Lutterworth East. I know that the Secretary of State and her team cannot refer to specific cases and that this matter is currently the subject of a call-in, but she and her team rightly say that new housing developments, particularly large ones, must have appropriate numbers of social housing and affordable housing.
The local plan approved by Harborough district council and the Planning Inspectorate made clear that 40% of the homes in large-scale housing developments in my constituency must be affordable. In addition, the Lutterworth East proposal promised the people of Lutterworth that there would be no expansion of strategic warehousing as part of Lutterworth East on the basis that Magna Park—one of Europe’s largest logistics parks—is currently doubling in size.
The problem that we have is not nimbys or a lack of building. It is that the local plan for South Leicestershire and Harborough is being completely ignored by developers. In this case, the oddity is that the developer is Leicestershire county council. Only last December it disgracefully applied to substantially vary the planning permission it was given in 2020 for Lutterworth East. It was granted a reduction from 40% affordable housing in Lutterworth East to 10%. That cannot be in line with the comments the new Government have stated many times about the need for social housing and affordable housing. It flies in the face of everything that the Secretary of State and her team are saying, including what has been said today at the Dispatch Box.
I do not expect a response from the Secretary of State today, but I put on record my request that, if she is serious about wanting more affordable housing in large-scale housing projects, the call-in should be granted. If the call-in is granted, Lutterworth East will be restored to an appropriate housing development of just under 3,000 homes, of which 40% will be affordable. If the Secretary of State does not agree with the call-in, I am afraid she cannot stand at that Dispatch Box and claim that the new Government want to see higher levels of affordable housing, because what the developer is doing in this case is saying no to affordable housing.
I conclude by stating my general support for the Secretary of State and her team’s objective of more homes. South Leicestershire is doing its part, but I put on record again that if she is serious about the numbers of social housing and affordable homes that need to be built, that call-in must be granted.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill. When I studied for my planning diploma, I learned that since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the power of national strategic policy versus the challenge of local politics in planning approvals has waxed and waned. It felt under the previous Government as though national powers over significant development decisions almost disappeared, and MPs of the Government party effectively pressured the then Secretary of State to refuse much-needed infrastructure developments that included new housing developments, prisons and more. There has to be a balance. The national Government have to be able to deliver on their national strategies. This is what the Bill does.
I particularly welcome specific parts of the Bill. It fosters more certainty for critical national infrastructure such as electricity—that is so important, as we heard earlier in the Heathrow statement—clean energy, roads, public transport, water and sewerage. I welcome the certainty of decision making for planning applications, more effective land assembly through improving the compulsory purchase orders process and bringing back development corporations, and the return of effective spatial development strategies. The Bill will enable the Government to reform the planning system to deliver on growth, new housing, cutting carbon emissions and climate change resilience—all of which the UK badly needs.
As an MP in London where buying a home or even renting is out of reach to most young people, I welcome the Government’s focus on delivering the 1.5 million new homes that are needed. The Bill and the excellent national planning policy framework enable new housing developments to no longer be designed with entrenched car dependence. The Bill is an excellent opportunity to ensure that new housing and other developments can be concentrated in locations with good public transport, so that schools, shops, health centres, parks and open spaces are easily reachable without the need to drive. This ensures access for all, not only those who have a car. It ensures access to jobs, education, training and shops—all essential building blocks for growth across the country.
Munira Wilson
My constituency neighbour is making a strong speech. I agree with her about building homes in areas that are accessible by public transport. Does she agree that the Government should be encouraged to ensure that where the public sector is selling off land and buildings—disused police stations, fire stations or other public sector buildings—it should be allowed to sell below market value, and should be encouraged to do so to enable more affordable housing and social housing in constituencies like mine and hers, where there just is not the land to build on?
Ruth Cadbury
My constituency neighbour makes a good point, but she must remember that due to 15 years of austerity, many of those sales were the only way that public sector institutions could deliver the new services that were so badly needed.
The Mayor of London and councils such as Hounslow are working with the Labour Government on several key transport links, including the west London orbital, which will unlock thousands of new homes. However, the Bill alone will not unlock the housing and infrastructure projects that the country so urgently needs, so I ask the Secretary of State—or the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is still present—to address the other causes of delay and uncertainty that we are seeing in the system. The community infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements on, say, new bus routes, must be adequate, timely and sustainable, so that people are not moving into estates to then become dependent on having a car. Providing two buses a day for a couple of years, some time after tens or even hundreds of homes have been occupied, is not building in sustainable transport.
My second point is about new joint public-private developments. The hybrid Bill process, as was used for High Speed 2, took years and still did not deliver detailed plans for the routes. It then got mired in lengthy legal processes over the details. The chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission told our Transport Committee how France and Spain delivered new high-speed rail in a fraction of the time, without it being mired in public opposition and legal challenges. It has taken far too long to deliver even half of the original HS2 project. I therefore hope that the Government will come up with a more streamlined process for such major national projects.
Thirdly, I hope that the Secretary of State will work with the Chancellor on different public-private funding mechanisms that other equivalent economies have long used to develop transport infrastructure, social and affordable housing and other public services, so that they are no longer held back due to historic Treasury orthodoxies on capital expenditure.
Fourthly, the Housing Minister will be aware of the additional delays faced by developers of tall blocks of flats. They have planning permission but are being delayed in gateways 2 and 3 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The legislation itself may not be the problem, but the building safety regulator processes certainly are. A development of more than 400 homes in my constituency has been stuck for over a year, with no certainty about if and when they will go ahead. Obviously, my last three points are not within the scope of the Bill, but they are relevant to the aspirations of this Labour Government to get Britain building, which the Bill will deliver.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
There is no doubt that we need new homes, but it is abundantly clear from my casework and from doorstep conversations in North East Hampshire—and I am sure in many other places—that the effects of a warming planet and many years of neglected infrastructure are wreaking havoc on our communities. In order to stop the damage, we must look after nature as we build, and ensure a well-thought-out approach to our public services, to integrate new homes and their local environments effectively.
It is frustrating to say the least to see Labour removing the space for local decision making and consent. Local people know their area. In North East Hampshire, chalk streams are close to our hearts but far too close to our sewage outlets. There are only around 200 chalk streams left in the world, and two of them are in my constituency. These remarkable, irreplaceable habitats are home to iconic species including otter, kingfisher and salmon. Despite that, they have not been protected—last year alone, chalk streams endured 14,000 hours of sewage discharges. Chalk streams are under threat not just from sewage but from irresponsible developments that promise protection and abandon those promises after planning permission is granted.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying, and any specific protection for chalk streams. Does she feel that the Bill goes far enough on that, or is specific legislation needed to preserve these beautiful, almost unique things that we have in this country?
Alex Brewer
The right hon. Member has anticipated my next point. To ensure that development is approached effectively and sustainably, there must be legislation to protect chalk streams. The Government should use the Bill to expand the list of irreplaceable habitats that are severely threatened and include chalk streams in it. Mitigation schemes will not help these unique habitats. They need protection. Unbelievably, this is the second Bill in six months that the Government could have used to protect our precious chalk streams, as the Water (Special Measures) Bill also failed to mention them specifically.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend, I have two chalk streams in my constituency. Does she agree that making water companies statutory consultees in any future developments will ensure provision of the infrastructure that is required, so that no more pollution goes into our chalk streams?
Alex Brewer
I completely agree. The Government should be more ambitious in the Bill to ensure that building regulations mandate nature-friendly developments to provide sustainable and healthy housing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I agree that Britain is among the most nature-depleted countries in all of Europe. Does the hon. Member agree with Greenpeace, the Green Alliance and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that if development is done hand in hand with nature, both can thrive, and that the Bill achieves that?
Alex Brewer
I agree that nature and building should go hand in hand, and I hope that the Bill will start to achieve that. Good green and sustainable design works for everyone concerned. Sufficient insulation in homes prevents heat loss and reduces bills and carbon emissions. Solar energy production and proper flood protections are other obvious examples where investment up front pays dividends down the line. A great example in North East Hampshire is Hart district council offices. Since the installation of solar panels on the roof, a phenomenal 57,000 kWh of electricity has been generated each year. Imagine if we put solar panels on every new house that was built.
Major issues such as flooding and drainage plague many areas up and down the country. In my constituency, Hartley Wintney high street, Hook and the surrounding areas are frequently flooded because of blocked drains, as surface water cannot drain away effectively after heavy rainfall. Hartley Wintney fire station even had to raise all its electrical sockets higher up the wall because the flooding has been so frequent. Our local businesses are struggling to get sufficient insurance. The Bill should include a binding commitment to the land use framework, which would help to determine where more permanent land use change can occur, to find the optimum balance between food production and ecosystem services such as flood risk management, climate mitigation and biodiversity.
I come again to the question of new houses. We need them and we need them fast, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that our new homes are properly fit for the future. They must be built in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with proper consideration for our food security, biodiversity and carbon footprint. Communities do not mind new homes, but people also want GP appointments, NHS dentists, rural bus services and to be able to drive down roads with no potholes. There is an opportunity to be ambitious here, and it is being missed. I urge the Government to be bolder and to strive for planning that is as committed to the environment, to integrated infrastructure and to our local communities as it is to housing.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I thank the people across Government and from the Department who have worked so hard to pull this Bill together quite quickly. I also thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for the first shout out to Milton Keynes in the debate. Hon. Members may be about to hear many more.
In politics we all like to talk about our own stories and how they have impacted us. I have sat on these Benches and heard the Education Secretary talk about how her education has helped her in life, and the Health Secretary talk about how his interactions with the NHS during his cancer diagnosis drive him to fix our health service. What is important to my life—I believe this is true of most young people’s lives—is having a decent home surrounded by a decent community.
Milton Keynes, my home town, was founded the last time an Act of Parliament was passed to make this country build 300,000 homes a year. Its pioneers pushed hard to get the place built, which meant that my parents were able to bring up my brother and me in a spacious home with our own back garden, giving us the security and stability needed for the best start in life. It meant that I could play safely in green spaces, I had access to excellent local amenities and my family could live affordably with a good quality of life. That is the kind of opportunity that every child in Britain deserves, so it is great to see legislation that will finally begin to remove the barriers to building the new homes that this country so desperately needs.
With the changes to development corporations and CPOs, we may also see the new towns that this country so desperately needs. The proposals for planning committees will play a key role in ensuring that much-needed developments do not get stuck in unnecessary bureaucracy and political gridlock.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that local people will still have a role in developing local plans and in many of the more complicated planning applications? Some of what we have heard today around local input has been scaremongering.
Chris Curtis
That is true. Certainty is incredibly important to enable the housing sector to invest in the skills, development and modern methods of construction that will enable us to alleviate the country’s housing crisis.
Beyond housing, we must recognise that our failure to build vital infrastructure in Britain is leaving our country vulnerable. Our energy security—the foundation of our national security—depends on having infrastructure to support a modern, productive economy. We have failed to build the transport links that are needed to get goods and people moving efficiently. We have failed to build the energy infrastructure that is needed to reduce our dependence on volatile foreign oil and gas, and we have not built a single reservoir in decades, meaning that we lack the water security that is required in the face of climate change.
Paul Holmes
Labour Members keep using the suggestion that reservoirs have not been built in recent times as an example of why the Government are proceeding with the Bill. However, under current guidelines and legislation, a reservoir is being built down the road in my constituency, so it is not a great example to use, is it?
Chris Curtis
I note the length of time that that reservoir has taken to be built. It would be nice if someone on the Conservative Benches started by acknowledging their Government’s lack of ability to build the infrastructure that this country so desperately needed for decades. The barriers that they constantly put in the way of building it are one reason why we are in this situation.
Our national security is only ever as strong as our economic security. Sure, we should be investing in defence, but we can do so only if we have a strong economy. One of the biggest reasons why we have not had a growing economy or economic security is because it has become too difficult to build in Britain. I am proud to support a Bill that will get Britain building again.
I will talk briefly about the nature restoration fund, which in principle is a policy masterstroke. What is most shameful about our current nature legislation set-up, including the habitats regulations, is not just that it stops us from building the homes and infrastructure that our country needs and that it damages our economy in the meantime, but that it does not even work on its own terms. As was mentioned earlier, Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world; I am told that it is second only to Singapore. Why is that? Because the money that we force builders to pay for nature projects is not being spent in the most efficient way.
Take for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) pointed out, the infamous bat tunnel, which cost us more than £120 million to protect a tiny proportion of bats, all while critical infrastructure projects were delayed or cancelled. Imagine what we could have done for nature not just with that money, but with the extra money that would have been provided to our economy by not stalling that project for so long. Although the nature restoration fund is a welcome step forward, we must ensure that it works. It is heavily reliant on Natural England bringing forward workable delivery plans in a timely fashion.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that open green spaces are not always the most biodiverse, and that we need a more joined-up approach to providing investment in those spaces?
Chris Curtis
I agree, and I hope that the nature restoration fund can be an opportunity to make those spaces more biodiverse. I am trying to support a wetlands art project in my constituency that would use such money to improve biodiversity. I hope that all the organisations that, like me, care about nature recovery will do the right thing and support these changes—they will be the best thing for nature in decades—rather than trying to defend an indefensible status quo.
Finally, as somebody who owes much of my fantastic upbringing to a development corporation, I turn to the crucial issue of how we will fund development corporations when we start building the new towns. Although the changes introduced by the Bill are promising, at some point we will need to think about that financing. For every pound that was invested in Milton Keynes, many more were given back to the Treasury—somebody said the ratio was 14:1, but I have not found a source for that. Currently, any debt issues by development corporations to private capital must be added to the Government’s balance sheet. However, a simple change to Treasury accounting, to count those corporations in the same way as the banks that fell into public ownership after the financial crash, could unlock huge sums of international private capital to fund these vital homes and projects. That approach is consistent with those taken by many European counterparts, and we should actively explore it as a priority.
I will support the Bill today, but I urge Ministers to be honest that this is not a moment for self-congratulation. We need to continue to go further and faster to build the homes and the infrastructure that this country so desperately needs.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
To pick up the comments made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on reservoirs, I also have a reservoir proposed for my constituency. I noted that the Secretary of State refused to be drawn on specific schemes, including when challenged by her own Front Bench. Perhaps the Minister can tell us in winding up how much more quickly a typical reservoir will be constructed as a result of this Bill and what the percentage of savings will be from that. That sort of detail is currently lacking from claims such as those made by the hon. Member. [Interruption.] I note the Minister’s wry smile.
Let me start by picking up what the Government said last week and what they are saying this week. Last week, they said that they were scrapping a big quango, NHS England, because they wanted to ensure more democratic oversight, yet this week they are giving huge new powers to another quango, Natural England, so that they can seize land at below market value with little democratic oversight. Indeed, the hon. Member just mentioned the bat tunnel. It is a strange paradox to criticise that while supporting giving Natural England more powers to make similar decisions.
There is not just a lack of consistency, but a lack of co-ordination across Government. The Government are currently consulting on the land use framework—the consultation is open and does not close until 25 April—but Ministers seem to be ignoring that. The Secretary of State talked in her opening remarks about the Bill unlocking land for nature and energy schemes, so we have one part of the Government consulting on the land use strategy while another part is legislating to seize land that is in the scope of that ongoing consultation to use for its schemes. It would be helpful if the Minister told us why he is ignoring the consultation that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is conducting. Perhaps we will just have a slew of Government amendments.
If the new powers for Natural England are indeed necessary, that suggests that a significant amount of land will be taken for nature restoration schemes. We know from the land use strategy that about 12,000 farms will be lost over a generation. Either the power is needed—in that case, what is the impact of clause 72 on farmland and farm security?—or not much land will be taken as a result, in which case why do we need this power now?
In the shadow Secretary of State’s opening remarks, he pointed to the number of Cabinet Ministers who have objected to development schemes in their own constituencies. That is a challenge that we all face, as Members of Parliament, when constituents raise concerns. Certainly, my experience of dealing with Natural England —not least as Secretary of State for DEFRA—was that once things were in primary legislation, it would often take a gold-plated interpretation. It may just be that Ministers are being bold, but it would be helpful to understand why they think that granting further powers to seize land will not weaken democratic control. When the Secretary of State was challenged on that, she said that the democratic controls were being maintained but streamlined. I do not think that is how Natural England will interpret it.
Let me give the House a practical example. In the David Fursdon review of Dartmoor, there was conflict in interpretation regarding sites of special scientific interest between Natural England and farmers who had farmed the common for many years. There was huge tension, which David Fursdon skilfully managed to resolve, but that will not happen if the powers in the Bill are enacted.
Finally, there is a paradox. The people we need on side to support nature restoration are the farmers, who are the ones who care most about nature. The Bill is a missed opportunity on things like incinerators, as it will make it easier to get planning permission to burn plastic, which is damaging for the environment and damaging for nature. And yet the farmers, who are the people we need on side, will have their land confiscated by an undemocratic quango that is being given more control, and there is nothing in the Bill to address that. Given the shortage of time, it would be helpful if, in closing, the Minister could clarify some of those points.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the Bill because we must do everything we can to deliver the building of more housing in this country. As the Member for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis. Every week, I meet constituents who share their personal and desperate housing stories. To fix the housing crisis, we require political will alongside national initiatives and investment from the Government, but we must also change the policy foundations, because the national planning system is not fit for purpose.
As a former London council leader who delivered a local plan that designated land for 30,000 new homes, I know only too well that the existing planning frameworks frustrate house building and that the voices of those opposing new homes—often individuals who already own their own home—are prioritised. The truth is that our planning system relies too much on the political bravery of local councillors. Local plans for new homes are stopped by a vocal minority in too many cases. This creates a national patchwork of house building, and the planning systems are used to slow down decision making in the hope that the applicant will eventually just give up.
I welcome the fact that, through the Bill, the Government will create a national scheme of delegation. This will allow planning professionals to work more effectively, ensuring consistency across the country. Allowing planning authorities the flexibility to set their own fees and recover costs is an important step, but given that there is a £360 million deficit nationally, will the Minister reassure us all that the councils will be held responsible for ringfencing that income in their planning departments so that local authorities can improve their performance?
Transport and infrastructure form a crucial component in unlocking the potential for house building, because both private and public sector developments need clear business cases to build. Strong business cases rely on land value, which is boosted by infrastructure, including but not exclusively transport connectivity. The measures in the Bill to streamline the process for agreeing nationally important infrastructure are therefore welcome, but I would like the Government to consider whether the Bill goes far enough.
The HS2 bat tunnels are frequently mentioned in this Chamber, but there are other examples, including the Lower Thames crossing, which has been delayed for over three decades. It has become the UK’s biggest ever planning application, with over 2,000 pages and costing £800 million in planning costs. Taking applications through the national significant infrastructure projects process—a mouthful to say—is too costly and takes far too long. A large part of the problem are the statutory pre-application consultation requirements. This means that all the parties involved operate in a hyper-risk-averse manner, focusing on endless negotiations. That serves the taxpayer and our communities in no way, so I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to look again specifically at reforming the pre-application process to reduce delays and get essential infrastructure consented faster.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady rightly talks about ambition and ensuring that we get planning applications delivered quickly. Does she think that the 56% reduction and the 1,694 fewer homes that her local Labour council will have to deliver will speed up the length of time it will take for them to get through?
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to highlight the fact that my local authority has been building homes far faster than most local authorities across the country. The general slowing in the delivery of housing over the past two years is absolutely to do with the fact that the previous Government crashed the economy and that interest rates and inflation went through the roof. I have yet to come across a developer or local authority that does not say that all its pipeline was impacted by the economic crisis.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is correct to say that there were some issues with housing supply during the last economic crisis, but the numbers that I am asking her about relate to her Government’s proposals under the new scheme. Will she tell her constituents or her Labour councillors—who she does not think should make planning decisions locally—whether she supports the 1,694 fewer houses that her Government are requiring her council to deliver?
Nesil Caliskan
My local authority has committed to building homes and it has a good record. One barrier to being able to deliver homes at speed is the fact that we see infrastructure delayed year after year. With the Bill’s proposals to allow CPOs and land assemblies to happen far quicker, we will see homes built at pace in a way that we have not seen in a generation in this country.
I take this opportunity to thank the Ministers and their teams for their work. The Bill provides a generational opportunity for us to get house building back on track in this country. It is a welcome shake-up to the planning system. It will help to deliver the homes and infrastructure that are so desperately needed in this country. It is the first step of many that will allow us to tackle the housing crisis that my constituents in Barking and Dagenham are so badly impacted by every single day.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) in what is a critical and important debate that will affect my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire very deeply. Back Benchers on both sides of the House have made some sensible suggestions in this debate. I particularly support the points made on the protection of chalk streams, which is important to my constituency as well. But I have deep concerns about the tone of the Bill and some of the rhetoric underneath its defence. I would categorise it as a Bill that does things to communities, particularly rural communities, as opposed to with them.
The Minister can probably predict some of the things I am about to say, as we sat on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee in the last Parliament together over very many weeks and with many, many housing Ministers over that period. I will not apologise, however, for representing my constituents who, time after time, are fed up to the back teeth of losing our rural identity and our rural character due to the constant flow of housing and infrastructure projects that devastate our countryside and the rural identity of Buckinghamshire.
Greg Smith
Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I just want to say that we in Buckinghamshire feel that we have probably already done our bit with a new town, as it is now a 250,000-population city called Milton Keynes. With that, I will give way to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis).
Chris Curtis
I recently visited my 93-year-old grandmother, who was a constituent living in rural Buckinghamshire back in the 1960s. At that time, she expressed many of the concerns that he has just expressed about a city being built around her rural community, but if you ask her now, she will tell you about the fantastic opportunities that Milton Keynes gave to her children and grandchildren, to the point where one of them is now sitting on these Benches able to make speeches and interventions. Sometimes we need to have change and development, and sometimes we need to support it.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Milton Keynes is very close to me. I visit Milton Keynes all the time. I have many friends in Milton Keynes. It is a great city. However, a line in the sand has to be drawn as to the amount of our countryside, our farmland and our food-producing land that we allow to be lost to development of whatever kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), in his speech earlier, reeled off a list of things that were already happening in his constituency, where they are already playing their part. In my own constituency, while we have had concerns about a lot of it, there has been an enormous list of things. The amount of house building in Buckinghamshire has been extraordinary. The village of Haddenham is unrecognisable from what it was because of the sheer volume of new house building that has gone on there. There are also incinerators, and we are about to get a new prison. Despite our objections, HS2 has ravaged the middle of the constituency. It is not as though Buckinghamshire has not done anything.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have given way to infrastructure, including HS2, motorways and data centres across the entire green belt with very little community consent, and now, with this new Bill, all community consent seems to be going out the window. How can we protect the vital green space in my constituency, which provides the lungs of London and which will be destroyed because everyone will want a piece of the small bits of green belt we still have left?
Greg Smith
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The point she makes is absolutely right and it applies equally to my constituency as to hers. In my constituency, the backbone of our economy is agriculture and food production. The Labour party used to say in its manifesto that
“food security is national security”
yet this Bill seeks to build all over the very land that our farmers in Buckinghamshire and across the country use to produce the very food that gives us national security.
I want to focus on the infrastructure implications from the energy sector. I entirely approve of transitioning to cleaner forms of energy production, but it is a point I have made in this House time and again, and I will never get bored of saying it, that it takes 2,000 acres of ground-mounted solar panels to produce enough electricity for 50,000 homes on current usage. That is before everyone has two Teslas—which is perhaps not the brand that people would choose now—on the drive. However, a small modular reactor needs just two football pitches to deliver enough electricity on current usage for 1 million homes. Why on earth in this country are we messing around with solar, destroying thousands of acres of food-producing land, when other clean technologies are out there that can clean up our energy and electricity production in a way that is kinder and gentler on our national fabric and rural communities?
When I hear the Secretary of State talk about, as she did in her opening address, protecting high-grade agricultural land, I take that with a large pinch of salt. That is because, in my constituency in Buckinghamshire, we have caught those paid exorbitant amounts of money to come and grade the land prior to a planning application deliberately testing the land in the headland of the field—the bit not used to grow crops or grass or to graze animals. Of course, they will always get a lower land grade by testing the headland. If the Government are serious about wanting to protect high-grade agricultural land, I would urge the Minister to look at measures he could take to ensure that the fertile part of the field is tested, not the headland.
Matthew Pennycook
Does the hon. Member accept that we have to keep the matter in perspective? Even under the most ambitious scenarios, solar farms would occupy less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land. That is why the National Farmers Union president Tom Bradshaw stated in relation to the impact of solar projects on food security that it is important not to be “sensationalist”.
Greg Smith
The point the Minister makes is one that certainly in Buckinghamshire I would challenge. I do not think any Labour Members were there, but there was a good cross-party meeting a couple of weeks ago on the scale of solar projects coming into this country. That disproportionately affects rural communities, and this Bill seems to take against them in favour of the UK’s towns and cities.
On top of the stats I gave earlier on the efficiency of solar, we have had scientists—not just campaigners—come here to give clear evidence that, of all the countries in the world, only one is less suitable for solar than ours, and that is Iceland. The Government are not even making the case for a technology that is particularly suited to the United Kingdom, yet the Bill would just make it easier, and those who object to or challenge it on any level will just to have to go away, suck it up and take those projects in their backyard.
This Bill takes away local control, and for me, local control will always be the most important part of the planning process. Unlike those doing the desktop exercise from afar, the community know the fields that flood every single year, know the local factors that would impact a planning application, understand the local roads that would have to take the construction traffic and that get churned up every time a development comes along, and know how unsuitable they are. Local control is critical, and I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to go back and think about whether what he wants to do is simply ride roughshod over local opinion.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Despite the many fine contributions made by Members so far and no doubt many yet to come, planning is quite a dreary subject for many. Indeed, I heard some senior Members of this House privately describe it as such. I can well remember as a young Labour member sitting through constituency party meetings wondering why we were talking about planning for such a long time. Surely, I thought, we should want to focus on education, health and inequality. I am afraid that it took me a long time to realise—until I was one of those dreary people sitting at meetings saying these things—that planning is central not only to each of those issues, but to just about every aspect of Government policy and, indeed, to our daily lives.
Unfortunately, far too often the system and those we task with running it come under attack, including by those who should know better. Planning is attacked for delays, excessive red tape and perceptions of nimbyism. For every 10 planning applications submitted, nine are approved. That is hardly the sign of a system opposed to development. Where the system struggles is with capacity. The time it takes for a decision to be reached has increased significantly over the years, not just for the application but all the subsequent decisions required for development to commence.
Chris Curtis
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why we need significantly more planning officers in our local authorities to ensure that we can unlock a lot of that development?
Peter Lamb
My hon. Friend must be reading ahead. The impact on escalating costs and viability as a result of the delays is hard to overstate. The capacity issues do not stem from laziness or as a covert form of development suppression; they stem from one issue and one issue only: the absence of sufficient numbers of planners in the public sector. The rates of pay at local authorities are massively out of kilter with the private sector. The consequence is that an increasingly small number of extremely hard-working people are left trying to keep the system afloat principally out of their public spiritedness. Yet, instead of receiving the thanks they deserve, all too often they have to deal with public rhetoric that regularly denigrates them and the work they do. I hope that I am not the first or the last in this Chamber to thank those public servants for their efforts on behalf of our communities and country.
Much needs to be done to reverse the decline in public sector planner numbers. While the Bill sets out many positive steps forward, I remain of the belief that few areas in the public sector would be better suited to, or would generate better economic returns from, the introduction of AI than planning. It could use decades’ worth of computerised training data to deal with simple applications automatically, freeing up expert human planners to deal with the cases that would genuinely benefit from a human eye.
As a former council leader, I am defensive of the record of local government in planning. However, despite my initial scepticism, I found much that is good in the new national planning policy framework and in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, showing that this Government genuinely listen to voices across the sector.
Rebecca Smith
Given the hon. Member’s expertise as a former council leader, would he agree that the provision in the Bill that enables councils to set fees for planning could go further, particularly around the fees that could be charged for enforcement cases? He will know the amount of hours that planning officers spend tied up in their inboxes dealing with the enforcement of rogue individuals who seem to play cat and mouse with officials. Would he agree that a look at fees might be a sensible option?
Peter Lamb
I have learned over the years not to look a gift house in the mouth. This is a positive step forward. No doubt other steps could be taken in future, but this is significant in enabling the system to be far more sustainable than it has been of late.
There must always be a role for local expertise and knowledge in planning decisions and democratic oversight, but that does not mean that the way we have always done things in the past needs to be the way we do it in the future. Indeed, it does not mean a better or fairer outcome, and a longer process is not always a better one. I am sure that we all have experience of planning decisions, both nationally and locally, that have taken a long time to produce the decision we all knew would be the final decision from day one, and that in no way meet the needs of residents or our community. Planners tell me that planning is a matter of balance, and in this Bill, the Government balance all the relevant considerations well.
Another example of delivering balance is in dealing with nature. Crawley has the second worst housing crisis in the country, and during my time as leader of the council, I delivered over four times the number of units as our centrally assessed Government housing target. I point out that targets are a floor not a ceiling—they in no way restrict future development.
That came to an end when Natural England unilaterally imposed water neutrality restrictions on all development in north Sussex—an area that, according to the figures, has a larger economy than most of our core cities—on the basis that it had concerns about the wellbeing of the little whirlpool ramshorn snail. As a result, since that time, housing delivery in my area has ground to a halt and economic development has been hampered, and Members would not believe the level of debate taking place on Facebook about whether Taco Bell will ever open. All the while, we are waiting for our local water company to build the water infrastructure that has been desperately needed for some time.
I have nothing against little snails, but the consequence of that decision is that, until Natural England feels that its needs have been satisfied, almost 2% of my community is trapped in temporary housing at huge cost to the public sector—not to mention the enormous human cost to those families. The ability to improve our natural environment alongside development is a vital part of being able to avoid forcing a conflict between human and environmental need. The offsetting process that the Bill delivers is exactly the change that we require.
I am also pleased to see in the Bill the development of spatial development strategies, which are a vital part of ensuring that housing needs are addressed beyond the limitations of any single authority. Anyone who has dealt with the current duty to co-operate system will recognise that it is largely a paper exercise that in no way actually delivers the housing required across sub-regions. Spatial development strategies overcome that in a coherent and planned-out way, and at a level far closer and more democratically accountable to residents than the old regional spatial strategies—a significant improvement.
This Government are finally giving the planning system the modernisation that it needs, and I very much hope that they do not stop now. With that in mind, I will end on a topic of great concern to me: affordable housing. The NPPF is right not to set out strict affordability requirements for local plans, given the differences in local viability, in addition to setting out a 15% additional requirement for greenfield land. New towns will no doubt have a significant role to play in delivering new affordable housing, as will the relatively small amount of funding allocated so far, but I believe that much more needs to be done to deliver the number of affordable homes that are needed. Although I could bore the Minister with many suggestions, I will focus on sub-regional planning through the new spatial development strategies.
Housing is not merely a numbers game. Other factors matter, not least the size and cost of housing. Although there are mechanisms for delivering overall housing numbers, in areas such as my own, where the duty to co-operate is facilitated, meeting those numbers very often delivers housing that is neither affordable nor the right type and for which there are no allocation rights. I very hope that the Government will correct those issues in their work.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
There are so many points to address in the Bill, but I will keep my remarks to just a few. I have grave concerns that the Government’s agreeable aim of freeing up our planning system will be dragged further by this Bill into the bog of planning delay and indecision.
There has been a lot of talk about whether the Bill will afford special protections for peatland on sites of special scientific interest, but I have looked at the detail and have concerns that, rather than leading to better protections for peatland areas, the Bill does the opposite. I will start my contribution by explaining why that is such a huge issue.
Take Walshaw moor, which borders my constituency, just next to the Worth valley in my beautiful part of West Yorkshire. Most importantly, it is an irreplaceable blanket bog peatland and carries protected status. It is a site of heavily protected bird species and ground-nesting birds. Recently, it has become the proposed site for what would be England’s largest onshore wind farm.
I am firmly opposed to that development. The disruption that a new wind farm would cause, through the constructions of 65 turbines—each taller than Blackpool tower—would be devasting to the blanket bog peatland. In fact, peat bogs across the UK store many times more carbon than our forests. Disturbing that peatland by constructing a wind farm on top of it could release many tonnes of carbon back into the atmosphere, directly contradicting the aim of the whole development—namely, to reduce carbon emissions. It is simply nonsensical to use Walshaw moor when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has shown that the Government could achieve their targets for wind power without building on a single acre of protected peatland.
Let me come to the substance of the Bill as it relates to that development. The introduction of environmental development plans seems like a good idea: why shouldn’t developers pay some form of compensation for the environmental damage that their developments cause? As is always the case, however, things begin to unravel when we delve into the detail. What this change effectively amounts to is a mercenary approach to environmental protection that gives developers a much freer hand to negotiate their commitments. Indeed, local planning authorities will be given a much freer hand to take a looser approach in ensuring that developers do their fair bit for any environmental mitigation measures, particularly on protected sites, with the emphasis on a financial contribution.
Funding for restoration, either on site or indeed mitigated elsewhere, does not undo the damage caused by the development—be it to assets of scientific, natural or cultural value. In the case of a protected peatland such as Walshaw moor, that is exactly why the current proposed development is completely the wrong approach. The bogs themselves take millennia to reform, and sphagnum moss breaks down so slowly—by just 1 mm a year—to form peat. That is why the removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farms, which will allow more protected peatland to be built on, is the wrong approach from the Government. I cannot stress that enough. The Bill moves us from a dynamic in which we proactively protect what we value to one in which we barter what we can price up and pretend that value and price are the same.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many aspects of the Bill will affect Scotland and make things much more difficult for local residents to oppose certain types of application, including those in my constituency who are fighting hard against a 94 km pylon route and battery storage plants. For me, democratic accountability should be at the heart of the planning process, but we seem to be moving towards a planning system that China would be proud of. Does he agree?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. It is why the Government should be honest with the public that, far from strengthening environmental protections, the Bill creates a direct avenue for developers to pay to do environmental damage and get around otherwise more stringent protection laws.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman was here in the last Parliament. Does he remember that, in their attempt to undo the problem of nutrient neutrality, the previous Government sought to disapply the habitats regulations entirely? Is that the approach that he would prefer we take?
Robbie Moore
The Minister gets to the nub of the issue in that the nutrient neutrality issue caused an absolute stagnation in housing development. Indeed, the Government want to give Natural England even more powers, which will lead not only to increased stagnation in development but to frustration for those who want development to take place. Many Members from across the House have referred to the £100 million bat tunnel and the development of HS2. Natural England raised that issue, yet the Government want to give that very organisation even more powers, which will lead to increased stagnation in development.
The Government may bring forward a Bill to create an avenue for more development, but this Bill will not achieve that given the environmental protection measures. In the light of the Government’s removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farm development, coupled with the provisions in the Bill, I fear for our protected peatlands, not only in the beautiful uplands of West Yorkshire but right across the county.
Secondly, I fear that the Bill will not create the speedy planning system that the Government hope it will. By placing the design and formulation of environmental development plans in the hands of Natural England, the Government have ceded much of their control over them. As a single-issue public body, Natural England operates with a very different interpretation of “reasonable mitigations” than the rest of the public when it comes to preserving nature—I have already referred to the £100 million HS2bat tunnel.
As developers, Natural England and environmental campaigners barter over the details of environmental development plans and lodge legal challenges against them, how will the Secretary of State speed up our planning system, as she is forced to sit on the sidelines of those negotiations and watch Natural England take a lead? She has created a Bill that hands more power to Natural England, not less, and removes her ability to ensure that infrastructure can be delivered at speed. The Government must be honest and up front about what they value.
Finally, I would like to raise another issue in the Bill which, in my view, moves from naivety to the realm of malice. Compulsory purchase orders are highly controversial at the best of times, but in another blow to our rural communities the Government have decided that landowners should not be paid the value of their land in full.
Chris Curtis
I have an essay in front of me, in which it is argued that when the Government pay for new infrastructure, new roads or new developments in order to unlock new housing, the landowner
“has only to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes manifold, without either effort or contribution on his part.”
The argument is that the landowner should not get that profit with no effort. That is not from Trotsky; that is from Winston Churchill—
Robbie Moore
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not fair at all for the state, be it national Government or our local authorities, to step in and not pay a landowner the market value they deserve. It is absolutely outrageous that this Government are introducing legislation, and changing section 12 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 on that basis. I do not think that that will create any efficiency within the planning system, and neither—dare I say it?—will it create any better means of money being spent by local authorities to deliver public services.
Joy Morrissey
We have seen with HS2 an example of planning authorities being taken over in a way that was not the traditional compulsory purchase process. HS2 has been allowed to take over properties, and not pay market value or even take possession. People are still waiting for compensation—their homes devastated, losing everything because of HS2’s ability to take over.
Robbie Moore
Let me get to the point—I know time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Government’s approach in the Bill will not deliver planning done at speed, and it will not give the environmental protections that the Government are indicating to the wider public. It is not a good Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Mike Reader.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Bill represents the most substantial reform to our planning system in a generation, and one that is critical to my constituents back home in Northampton South. For too long our planning system has functioned as a brake on growth, rather than an accelerator, and when the public think about planning, they picture an antiquated, costly and labyrinthine system. While many Members of the House were probably glued to their TV screens last May, when a soggy Prime Minister stood in front of No. 10, I was at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum discussing this very topic. One stat stuck in my head: only 17% of people believe that the planning system works in their favour. It is clear that reform is needed.
The Bill introduces vital changes to our planning frameworks, including improvements to how we deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects, reforms to compulsory purchase orders, and measures to boost local planning. I wish to respond to the Bill through the lens of how it benefits strategic regional placemaking, and how it could massively improve the delivery of major infrastructure. The introduction of spatial development strategies, and the Bill’s approach to strategic planning, are significant steps forward. Combined with the forthcoming English devolution Bill, that will put more power, not less, into the hands of local people. For too long our planning system has lacked the regional co-ordination needed to deliver homes and infrastructure at scale. In my view, those reforms will help to ensure that local authorities work together effectively across boundaries and across political parties.
Some Members of the House will know that I worked in construction before I was elected, and for me a real frustration has been the lack of pace in delivering major programmes in the UK. Locally I saw first hand the delays that the development consent order process faces. Just down the road from me, the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge bypass was a real success story when it was finally delivered—it was delivered early and on budget—but it took three attempts to get through the DCO process. That meant years of congestion and pollution for local residents, and a direct, negative impact on the logistics and manufacturing businesses that I represent. More recently, my experience working with teams on the Lower Thames crossing, the A303 Stonehenge bypass, Heathrow and new nuclear, has showed me just how antiquated and cumbersome our process has become.
I therefore welcome the steps taken in the Bill to improve consenting processes, speed up decision making, and reduce the risk of erroneous judicial reviews for major programmes, as was highlighted in the Banner review. However, I think the Government could go further, and I wonder whether the Minister would consider, in this Bill or in future legislation, reforming the outdated requirements for pre-submission consultation in the Planning Act 2008. I am hugely supportive of the Bill’s direction, but we must all recognise that legislation alone cannot fix this problem. To pick up on a comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), we must look at the Building Safety Regulator and make sure that that does not become a new bottleneck. Recent data reveal a concerning backlog, showing that only two higher-risk schemes had been approved out of 130 applications since the new gateway process began in October 2023. The decision process is now taking months, not the eight to 12 weeks that we were expecting from the regulator.
Finally, I have concerns about bottlenecks, and about part 3 of the Bill and the environmental delivery plans and nature restoration fund. In principle that solution is practical and will unlock delivery, but I ask the Minister whether Natural England will be given the resources and funding it needs to ensure that it does not become a new bottleneck in the planning system. Overall I fully support the Bill, and look forward to its progressing through the House.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Bill is about speeding up planning processes, judicial reviews and the development of critical infrastructure. Although some elements of the Bill are positive, others risk undermining the long-term success of any development. The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to decide the consenting route for individual projects, bypassing local input and oversight. That is combined with the overall reduction in local democratic control by transferring significant powers from local councillors to planning officers.
Currently, planning committees are the place where elected officials can reflect local concerns and represent their communities in decision making. By shifting more power to unelected officers, we risk alienating the public and further eroding trust in local democracy. That is especially important given the shift towards creating larger unitary authorities. We see that already in Somerset, where my constituents have seen Sedgemoor district council, a small but effective planning authority, replaced by a larger but less effective unitary council. That may be connected with the fact that Somerset is run by the Liberal Democrats. If local decision making becomes more detached, how can we be sure that developments will reflect the needs and desires of the people who will live with them?
Gideon Amos
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Conservative leaders of the district council endorsed the unitary council, a poll was taken of the people of Somerset and they voted against it, but the Conservatives pushed it through?
Sir Ashley Fox
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the Liberal Democrats have been responsible since 2022 for the mess that has become Somerset. I am in favour in principle of building more houses, but it must be done in a way that brings local communities with us. We must ensure that new developments are accompanied by the right infrastructure —schools, health centres, roads, and a proper number of green spaces in between. When the Government announced their new housing targets, it became immediately apparent that the bulk of the increase would be in rural areas, so while Somerset as a whole has seen an increase of 41% in its housing target, the City of Bristol has seen its target reduced by 11%. Why is that? If it is related to the high number of Labour councillors in Bristol, and the very small number of Labour councillors in Somerset, we should be told.
The Bill also proposes a new nature restoration fund, which developers can pay into to offset environmental impacts, rather than conduct individual environmental assessments. Although I can see the logic of that move in some cases, I have concerns about the impact in Somerset. Given the network of waterways across the Somerset levels, the environmental impact of any individual site has the potential to spread to a much wider area than in much of the rest of the country. It is for such reasons that local accountability is so important, and by shifting the planning system to make it too top heavy, the Government risk unintended local consequences.
On compulsory purchase powers, the Government argue that streamlining the process will allow housing and infrastructure projects to progress more quickly. I am concerned about the abuse of power, particularly in relation to agricultural land and green spaces. By simplifying land acquisitions and reducing protections for affected landowners, the Bill could pave the way for large-scale developments that displace communities, damage the environment and undermine agricultural interests. The Government have already done great damage to the farming community in Somerset with their family farm tax and the closure, without notice, of the sustainable farming incentive. The proposal seems like another Government scheme to impoverish our farmers.
Although the Government’s aim to address the housing crisis and accelerate infrastructure development is important, the Bill raises significant concerns. It risks undermining local democracy, environmental protections and citizens’ ability to hold developers and the Government to account.
If we are to build a sustainable future that is responsive to the needs of our communities, we must approach this Bill with caution. That is why I shall seek to improve it before we give it a Third Reading.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I strongly support the Bill because at its heart is a vision for getting Britain building again—in the right way and for the right reasons. That is critical to overcoming many of the challenges we face as a country. It is central to the missions of change that the public have entrusted us with, and it is a call to action that we must answer.
The Bill sets out a bold plan to modernise our planning system. As someone who worked for decades with engineers, operational workers and planners, I can tell hon. Members that it is long overdue. It seeks to make the system more efficient and responsive to the demands of a 21st-century economy that is capable of supporting the ambitions that the Government have set forth: solving the housing crisis by delivering 1.5 million new homes; tackling the cost of living by reducing bills and putting more money back in people’s pockets; building a strong, growing economy; making Britain a global leader in green energy and technology; tackling the climate crisis, and creating thousands of high-skilled, well-paid jobs.
The housing crisis affects too many families across our country. For far too many, the dream of owning or renting a home in the areas where they live and work is slipping further out of reach. I was asked about that at the New College hustings by young adults who never thought they would get a foot on the housing ladder. I am proud that we are doing something about it. The Bill aims to tackle the challenge by streamlining the planning process, cutting delays and accelerating the delivery of new homes. It introduces provisions that will allow us to build where homes are most needed, while ensuring that development is sustainable and in harmony with the environment.
The Bill is about building not just new homes, but affordable homes. For years, waiting lists for social housing have stretched beyond acceptable limits, with families waiting years for a safe and affordable place to live. In my constituency, there is a mum with three children under five living in temporary accommodation because of section 21. She has no kitchen to make food and nowhere to wash her children’s clothes. Worst of all, she has no hope left. The Bill tackles that reality head-on and provides hope.
On Friday night, I slept out with 40 other individuals at Donny Rovers to raise awareness of homelessness, and took the time to discuss the housing crisis. That same night, 3,350 children were homeless in Yorkshire and the Humber. That is just wrong. It was wrong in the 1990s, when I became homeless with my mum and sister, and it is absolutely unacceptable in the 2020s.
The Bill will make a real difference to communities across the UK. It gives local councils the tools they need to meet housing demands, while ensuring that social housing is built in the right places and to the highest standards.
The Bill also recognises the need for infrastructure investment in driving growth and prosperity. From towns to cities, we must invest in transport, digital connectivity and energy systems. The Bill lays the groundwork for large-scale infrastructure projects, making it easier for local authorities and developers to bring forward critical projects, such as new roads, renewable energy solutions and expanded public transport networks. That is important for both rural and urban communities. The Bill is about ensuring that our infrastructure evolves alongside modern needs, enabling more efficient travel, supporting thriving businesses, and fostering growing communities.
The legislation is a vital step forward in addressing some of the most pressing issues in our country. I urge all my colleagues, on both sides of the House, to support the Bill. Let us unite in building a more prosperous, sustainable and secure future for the people we serve. No child should go to sleep tonight not knowing whether they will have a roof over their precious head tomorrow. We can solve that together.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to introduce powers to create a bill discount scheme to help households closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure. However, to be clear, the scheme is nowhere near enough. It falls short as both a meaningful community benefit and a measure to address local opposition to new infrastructure projects.
The proposed £250 annual discount for households within 500 metres of major transmission infrastructure equates to just 6.25% off bills in rural Britain each year. It does not even match the cancellation of the £300 winter fuel allowance. Even that modest £250 concession is limited to a decade. For families living beside towering pylons and substations, it is a poor trade-off for the lasting impact on their environment and quality of life.
More fundamentally, why are rural communities, which already pay the highest energy prices in the country, expected to accept such a meagre offer? In our cities and major towns, such as Ashton-under-Lyne, households with access to mains gas pay around 6p per kWh for their energy. In contrast, those in rural areas, who are far more likely to be affected by these infrastructure developments, pay 24p per kWh for their electricity. How is it right that the very communities that live alongside renewable energy generation and face some of the highest rates of fuel poverty are expected to pay four times as much as those on mains gas?
Renewable electricity is cheaper to produce, yet rural households are still being charged four times the price of largely imported carbon fuel mains gas. Where is the fairness in that? If the Government are serious about ensuring that communities benefit from new infrastructure, they must do better than the miserable £250 a year.
Beyond energy costs, the Minister will know that transmission companies, such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, anticipate being required to build temporary housing for their workers. They have offered to build legacy housing, which would remain for the rural communities, but the Bill does not cover that. Affordable housing is one of the greatest challenges facing rural Britain. Including legacy housing in the Bill could make a real difference to affordable housing in those areas. Will the Minister explain why such a provision has been omitted and commit to addressing the matter?
If the Government want communities to accept new infrastructure, they must offer something meaningful in return: real, lasting benefits that acknowledge the burden placed on those who live alongside the developments. The energy bill discount scheme in its current form is a long way from that.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I put on record my strong support for the Bill. I want to focus much of my contribution today on two aspects—nature recovery and electricity infrastructure. Net zero and nature are two sides of the same coin, and it would be a coin with no value if we had one without the other.
The proposed environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund are positive steps that could transform nature’s recovery. In Suffolk, we have seen how that idea can work well. The Wildlife Trusts’ biodiversity net gain service has helped to establish new nature reserves, such as Martlesham Wilds on the River Deben. However, more can be done to ensure that nature and development sit happily alongside each other.
First, we must make it explicit that there are firm timeframes for the delivery of conservation measures set out in an EDP. Secondly, we must have higher expectations of developers. Nature-rich open spaces, nature highways and solar panels on new builds are incredibly simple things to implement, but they will make a world of difference to our communities and to nature.
I turn to the electricity infrastructure aspects of the Bill and why they are so important in Suffolk Coastal, where we have four nationally significant energy infrastructure projects planned with Sizewell C, National Grid, National Grid Ventures and ScottishPower Renewables. It is often said that up to 25% of the UK’s energy will be either made in or transported through my constituency. We are home to some of the most important biodiverse sites in the UK, with 36 sites of special scientific interest in the constituency, and more than 50% of Suffolk Coastal is designated as a natural landscape.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is quite rightly outlining how the environment should be protected, which I believe is part of the aim of the Bill. How does she defend to her constituents the fact that under Ministers’ proposals, her housing targets will be uplifted by 82%?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman rolls out that line to every Member. I am actually talking about the SSSIs and the energy infrastructure, rather than housing. The sites that I speak of—the SSSIs and the natural landscapes—are not only recognised by but critical for this Government if we are to deliver on our ambitions to improve biodiversity.
There has been much talk in the press of late about nimbyism, but I ask the Minister: are people nimbys if they ask why nature-rich marshlands and the RSPB’s nature reserves are picked as the best place for National Grid’s energy infrastructure to make landfall? Are people nimbys if they question why the four projects I have mentioned are being brought forward in isolation from each other and with no co-ordination? Are people nimbys if they fully support our country’s push to net zero, but they ask if they can do more to protect nature? If we listened more to some of those fair and valid questions, we could do more to protect nature and progress with net zero.
The previous Government totally vacated the space of leadership in our country’s energy and biodiversity planning. That void was filled by energy developers, which were left to take the lead and bring forward proposals that were totally unsuitable in our landscapes, all because it was cheaper than taking projects to brownfield sites. We have been left with a series of unco-ordinated, whack-a-mole projects on the east coast of England. The much-welcomed land use framework should be extended to create a land and sea use framework to allow for better leadership and co-ordination of energy infrastructure projects. First and foremost, it is critical we ensure that energy developers that are working in the same area work with communities to plan for the cumulative impact of these vast projects.
The community often has the answers to problems that the developers do not. For instance, farmers have told me that it should be a requirement to bury network cables to a minimum of 1.8 metres on arable farming land. That is the minimum legal standard required for arable farmers to continue to use their land for farming. It seems common sense to make that a requirement.
I do not have time today to go into detail on the need for community benefits to deliver for communities who host infrastructure, but while I welcome the Government’s recent announcements, which mean that communities such as mine that may be set to host substations should benefit, we can be far more ambitious. We can and should expect more from private firms that profit so vastly from the great green energy revolution. I urge the Government to consider those aspects of the Bill.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
As a central Bedfordshire councillor, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There is much to welcome in this Bill, particularly its ambition to get nationally significant infrastructure built to support our country. While I disagree with the Government’s allocation of housing targets that favour building over our countryside, rather than the densification of our cities, where building homes would alleviate the worst of the acute housing crisis, I recognise the Government’s mandate to build 1.5 million homes and the need for ambitious planning reform. What are the Government doing to ensure that the 1.6 million homes with existing planning approval are built? I see nothing in this Bill.
Mid Bedfordshire has done more than its fair share in recent years to accommodate new housing, with the boroughs of central Bedfordshire and Bedford growing by 16% and 18% respectively over 10 years. We are not anti-development, but some development has changed the character of our historical market towns and quiet rural villages forever. Development is increasing the flooding risk in Maulden in my constituency, where compounded up-slope development has exacerbated the impact of pluvial flooding. We have development that has not delivered long-promised infrastructure, such as in Wixams in my constituency—a development where shovels first went into the ground nearly two decades ago but residents are yet to see the delivery of a new GP surgery. It is because of such issues that communities have become hardened to the prospect of yet more building.
This Government have a real opportunity, with thought and consideration, to create a planning system that people can have confidence in. Instead, people have been dismissed simply as blockers. The pensioners who fear a flood every time it rains—blockers. The young parents who cannot get to their GP because a surgery has not been built in their town—blockers. People with real, genuine concerns whom we in this House were elected to stand up for are not blockers, and this Bill could do much more for them.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the “blockers”. These are people who live on floodplains, who have been waiting years for a GP surgery and who have never had any of the key infrastructure that they asked for delivered. They cannot have property built in certain places because of floodplains. That is not acknowledged in this Bill, which makes no provision for those residents.
Blake Stephenson
Absolutely. Since Bedfordshire was flooded in September, Ministers will know that I have been vocal about improving resilience, and the Government can do that in this Bill. New houses mean nothing if residents find themselves ankle-deep in water in their living rooms, as they did across the country last year.
I want the measures on nature recovery to be strengthened to include explicit plans to deliver nature-based solutions to flooding. I want schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be brought into force to ensure that communities have the right protections from flooding. I want this Bill to give internal drainage boards more powers to take over the maintenance of infrastructure to protect people from flooding. If it does not, local authorities should have the enforcement powers to ensure that sustainable drainage is maintained.
I also want to see more robust measures in this Bill ruling out development on floodplains, which goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). The Bill could make a real difference to our resilience to flooding, and I urge the Government not to miss this opportunity. Despite protections in the NPPF, we still see development in functional floodplains. Rivers were here before us; they do not know and they do not care that we are here. As the Dutch have done successfully, we need to make room for our rivers. We must get out of their way, with stronger protections against development in floodplains.
I turn briefly to new towns, which are provided for in this legislation through development corporations. It will be important to ensure that those corporations have the power to deliver real places and communities, not just the cookie-cutter dormitory-on-trainline that developers might like to churn out for the highest possible profit margins. New towns should capture the essence and spirit of the communities into which they are sown, and they need to be beautiful, as the Deputy Prime Minister reflected on in her opening remarks. The Government should also address important questions that they are currently dodging on how these new towns will interplay with wider local development strategies. I am disappointed not to see some of that detail ironed out in this Bill.
New towns will result in a double whammy of housing development for some communities, but we do not yet know exactly how damaging that might be. The Government are also yet to confirm whether the housing provided by new towns will count towards a five-year land supply, meaning that our communities could be forced to take far more housing than they need, without the right infrastructure, unless this Bill is strengthened.
This Government talk about being on the side of the builders, not the blockers, but without improvements, I am afraid that the Bill is almost guaranteed to create a new generation of so-called blockers. Homes are needed so that young people who aspire to own their own home can do so. Most of the blockers, as this Government like to call them, are not standing in the way of progress: they are standing up for their communities against bad development.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), on bringing this Bill before the House, not least because I really believe it is potentially the most important Bill to be brought forward in this Parliament. As a country, we have not been building enough homes or infrastructure, and our planning system does not deliver for nature. This is about more than just homes, infrastructure and nature: this is one of the root causes of our falling productivity. It has been undermining growth and jobs.
However, this is also about the home and the roof over people’s heads: it is fundamentally about people. My parents grew up in council housing. My grandparents spent most of their lives living in council housing—in fact, my nan and grandad on my dad’s side were low-wage cleaners, with my nan working into her 70s and living in a council flat in Battersea for the best part of 50 years. That council flat offered my grandparents the foundation to be able to bring up my dad—the same was true on my mum’s side—and, later on, to provide security and a better life for me and my sister. Too many people in low-wage jobs, wherever they are in the country, can no longer afford to buy or rent a home. That is fundamentally what this Bill is about.
To say that we would not start from here is an understatement. In 2010, the then Housing Minister boldly claimed that the Conservative Government would radically improve housing affordability. In my constituency, affordability has massively decreased; when the previous Government came to power, the median house prices to earnings ratio was 6.8, but it was 8.8 by the end of that Government. George Osborne promised a major change in how we build infrastructure in this country. What he failed to mention was that the average consent time for nationally significant infrastructure projects would nearly double.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have hundreds of acres of land that is perfect for new nuclear power to be built. As a country, we have not completed a nuclear power station in over 30 years, and part of the reason for that is the state of our planning system. Does my hon. Friend agree that by making the changes in this Bill, we will be able to unlock vital national infrastructure such as new nuclear?
Luke Murphy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention —it is no surprise that he is raising the issue of nuclear, for which he is a doughty champion in this Chamber. I very much agree with him about the need to build new nuclear, and I recognise the previous Government’s failure to do so.
Fundamentally, this Bill is about building more homes, building infrastructure and protecting nature. My constituency of Basingstoke is a growing town—no change there. We have been a growing town for many years, since the 1960s, as a London overspill town. We have grown significantly, but I want this Bill to bring about a different approach: one that builds the homes that are so desperately needed, but also ensures that they are more affordable, builds the necessary infrastructure alongside them, and protects nature. The previous Government did none of those things.
I will mention a few measures in the Bill that I particularly welcome. First, the commitment to cut the timeline for nationally significant infrastructure projects by 50% is incredibly welcome—internationally, this country has become a laughing stock when it comes to our ability to deliver significant infrastructure. The measures to overhaul connections to the grid for the electricity network are also incredibly welcome; in a poll by Cornwall Insight, 75% of those involved in clean power said that the grid connection issue was the biggest barrier to us delivering on our clean power ambitions. The Bill also streamlines and improves our processes for transport infrastructure, as well as improving the roll-out of electric vehicle chargers, a technology that Conservative Members now apparently oppose.
I really welcome the changes to planning fees—not just the changes in this Bill, but those announced previously by the Government. One of the key reasons why developments have been gummed up in the planning system is the lack of capacity within that system to deliver on them. The Bill should restore the role of the planner, not just as a tick-box exercise but to genuinely plan the places in which people live. As someone who was a political adviser to the Labour Opposition between 2010 and 2015, I also highly endorse the proposals on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Contrary to what has been said by Conservative Members, CPO reform is essential to delivering the housing that we need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) highlighted, it was backed by Winston Churchill, who recognised that hope value did not belong to the landowner but was the result of Government investment in infrastructure. That was also recognised by known left wingers such as Adam Smith.
To go back to where I started, this Bill is fundamentally about delivering affordable homes for people who badly need them, wherever they live. I want to be able to look my constituents in the eyes and say that they are going to have access to an affordable home, just like my grandparents did so many years ago.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
First, I wholly respect the intention behind the Bill; it is a serious attempt to solve a serious problem. I also recognise that what was happening under the Conservatives did not work, and never could have worked even if we had given it 1,000 years. All it achieved was to fuel house price inflation, which has now created a destructive division into a nation of haves and have-nots. But I judge this new Planning and Infrastructure Bill through the lens of my own constituency—will it work for Horsham? Will it deliver affordable homes in the right places and with the right environmental standards? I think the answer is no.
The main reason is that the Bill is based on the same mistaken premise as the previous system. The problem lies with how housing targets are worked out—not the national target, which gets all the publicity, but local targets. Why are targets so hard to meet? The reason is that the Conservatives invented a catastrophically bad formula for calculating housing need, which is called the standard method. It measures the ratio of local house prices to local wages, and the bigger the gap, the higher the target goes. The idea is that communities just keep building houses until the price comes down. The only problem is that it does not work. It turns out that in Horsham—as in many places—the average price of a new house is higher than the price of the existing stock, so the more we build, the worse the ratio gets and the higher the target goes. That is the exact opposite of what the theory says should happen.
Unfortunately, this new Labour Bill takes the same flawed Tory standard method and pours rocket fuel over it. Targets control planning permissions, but that is not the same thing as actual houses; Horsham already has 13,500 unbuilt permissions, including the emerging local plan. That total could double under Labour’s new targets. Does that mean that we are actually going to build tens of thousands more homes? No, it does not. We could cover every inch of Horsham district in permissions, but it is not the lack of permissions that is holding back the market. Houses do not get built faster, because developers cannot sell them any faster. Some 80% of what we build today is aimed at the top 20% of the market—all of this was described very well in Sir Oliver Letwin’s analysis back in 2017. The housing market does not behave as one market; it is like six parallel markets, and the houses we are building are largely serving the top two.
I am desperate to build more affordable homes in Horsham, but clogging up the system with unbuildable permissions is not the way to do it. The best way to build more homes is to build more consent. I said that I would judge this legislation on whether it would work for Horsham, and the answer is that it will not.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Imagine an English village, if you still can—old houses around a village green, with a little school, a pub or two, a post office, a row of shops, and an ancient church with a creaking gate and some crooked headstones with fading bouquets shaded by ancient oaks. It may be a place where old maids hike to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn morning.
That sort of village is disappearing. Anyone who visits now will find the pub shut for want of drinkers, the shops empty, and the vicar gone—only the fading bouquets remain. There is no doctor’s surgery and no bus route. It has isolated, elderly residents; not a child in sight, as if the Pied Piper had been to visit, and ageing parents with none of their family nearby to help. Like so many problems in this country, housing lies at the centre. The houses in this sort of village are occupied by commuters with big cars lurking in the driveway, or by retired folk whose children have long since moved away. For the lowest-paid people, housing is more expensive in the countryside than in every urban area except London, with the cheapest housing costing nine times the average income of the lowest-paid quartile.
Therefore, as the Government construct 1.5 million houses, let us think long and hard about where we will put them. This Bill, together with the changes that the Government have made to the national planning policy framework, will do much to loosen restrictions on house building. The designation of land as grey belt is good for those in suburban green belts, but more can be done to earmark land for housing deep in the countryside.
We ought to encourage more house building at small scale on the edge of villages. For hundreds of years, that was the model of expansion across all of England. It has produced our prettiest villages, where progressively newer buildings radiate outwards from a historical core. That is the sort of development that preserves the character of a village. It is the most popular form of development in the countryside, and the Campaign to Protect Rural England has put its name to a call for small-scale affordable housing on the edge of villages.
We already have places set aside on the peripheries of towns and villages across the country for delivering such community-scale housing. They are called small rural exception sites. Currently, they allow affordable housing to be granted for local development on small sites not usually granted planning permission. Although those are intended to promote the construction of affordable homes, most of the plots are undeveloped. Minor changes to the national planning guidance are needed to allow for proper development. That will help us to get a lot more use out of such sites, spurring reasonably sized considerate development and ending the pattern of relocation that causes family ties to fragment. Construction will energise a village’s economy, giving work to local firms that are well placed to deliver housing quickly and efficiently. This Government can regenerate rural England. This is surely our generation’s chance, so let us grasp it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
First, as I think the whole House has suggested in the speeches we have heard, our country does need more homes, particularly for young people. The most obvious stake that a young person can have in society is ownership of their own property that they live in with their family, but it is important that Government get their approach right. There is much to commend in the Government’s Bill, but there are also a few points I would like the Minister to focus on.
First, the rural-urban divide has become apparent. In my constituency, Bromsgrove and the villages is 89% green-belt. It is to the south of Birmingham and in the north of Worcestershire. In many ways, it is a rural idyll, yet Bromsgrove is seeing the housing target set by Government increase by 85% at a time when adjacent Birmingham’s housing target is decreasing by more than 20%.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, because the same thing is true in London. We have seen London housing targets decline for the Mayor of London, who has not met any of his housing targets, and all those extra housing numbers have been forced on to the outer counties surrounding London. I am not sure that is fair or will produce the housing that people need.
Bradley Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a great point. In fact, she leads me to a point I want to stress to the Minister, which is about intensive urban densification. Our country faces a real opportunity if we focus on increasing the number of properties, particularly in larger urban areas, including London and Birmingham. It is also a great opportunity to regenerate some of the larger towns across many of our constituencies.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is making an interesting and powerful point. As a fellow west midlands MP, I see that opportunity in my constituency. Does he agree that if we can genuinely regenerate our high streets and our town centres, that is the way to revitalise them? It takes the pressure off the peripheral areas and protects us against being subsumed into the cities and urban areas.
Bradley Thomas
I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. She makes an important and pertinent point. If we get urban densification right, it is a catalyst for the economic and social renewal of town centres, which is desperately needed.
Bradley Thomas
I will make a little progress, and then I will give way. Linked to urban densification is a pertinent importance to focus on the quality and aesthetic of the development that is taking place. I have long been a fervent advocate for design codes and the role that locally led placemaking principles can play in determining the quality of an area and its attractiveness for future inward investment.
I believe instinctively that residents across the country are not nimby, but I fear that successive Governments, including the previous Conservative one and the Labour one before that, have allowed mediocrity to reign. There is a lack of local distinctiveness in development, which causes an entrenched perception of nimbyism running throughout the country. I implore the Government to consider reinstating the Office for Place, which was disbanded back in July, and to think about the importance of those aesthetically-based placemaking principles and the role they can play in promoting the positive impacts of development. Linked to that, we have an acute need and opportunity to promote smaller, more artisanal developers, particularly those focused on developing the vocational skills needed to generate the incoming pipeline of talent to support the house building industry.
I will make a couple of points that relate to my constituency, but they probably apply to many others across the country. One is on the protection of the green belt. Green belt is a technical designation, but to the public at large, it is often considered to be lush open fields and meadows. My constituency has this large buffer between Bromsgrove and Birmingham. It is not the case that residents of Bromsgrove are nimby—I do not believe they are—but they do not want the identity of Bromsgrove to be eroded and, by virtue of that, it to become some kind of extension of Birmingham.
For me, and for many of my constituents, that word “identity” underpins the fundamentals we should be talking about. It is about sense of place and a lifestyle that people identify with. When I think about constituents from my area, they have probably grown up in Birmingham and moved into north Worcestershire. In many cases, they have done that because there is an aspirational element to moving into the countryside, and they want to benefit from the countryside that Worcestershire offers, while being in close proximity to Birmingham and all the services it offers.
I will wrap up my comments with four quick points that I would like the Government to focus on. They should consider intensive urban densification and the positive role that can play in delivering housing where it is needed and where young people live, and in regenerating town centres undergoing a lot of change.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It strikes me that the hon. Member is speaking a lot about building where young people live. One thing that concerns me as a fellow rural MP is that young people are increasingly forced out of our rural communities. Does he not recognise that we need to look at intelligent, targeted, moderate house building within those communities to preserve them for the future and preserve their demographic future?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Member makes a very good point, with which I do not disagree. We have to strike a better balance—that is the point I am making. That leads me to my second point, which is around infrastructure. Bromsgrove has suffered from a lot of development in recent years, and it has not had the infrastructure to go with it. If we want to strike the right balance and enable young people to stay in the communities where they grew up, particularly rural ones, we need to have the housing there, but we also need to recognise that rural areas cannot do all the heavy lifting.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
For 14 long years, growth in the United Kingdom stagnated with houses that were not built, roads that were not constructed, train lines promised and not delivered, energy and digital infrastructure not fit for current demands and a plodding planning system that has not kept pace with the needs of local communities. I welcome this Bill, as we can now see a pathway to a country where every family can access affordable housing, where businesses thrive with top-tier digital connectivity, and where transport networks support growth, rather than hinder it.
The introduction of a national scheme of administration will empower local planning officers to decide applications more quickly to support local communities and businesses, but at the same time, it is critical that the democratic process remains strong and that the voices of residents and local councillors are heard, if costly delays and appeals are to be avoided. I very much welcome the reassurances given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on that point earlier today.
In Scotland, unfortunately, we have all too often had a different story, with local, democratically made planning decisions routinely overturned by the Scottish Government reporters, leaving communities such as East Whitburn and Bathgate feeling ignored, with developments earmarked in areas rich with flora and fauna and where local road infrastructure is already creaking at the seams.
Another long-standing issue is the shortage of planning officers, with three out of 10 planning departments short-staffed and a national shortage of about 2,200 planners. This is a problem that both the SNP and Tory Governments have failed to tackle; indeed, they have exacerbated it through the hollowing out of local government. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that local authorities have the skilled planning officers we need, with the right level of trust and empowerment to decide applications more quickly.
However, we must also consider the severe skills shortages across several sectors over which both Tory and SNP Governments have presided, from planning to construction. We cannot deliver physical and digital infrastructure without the people to produce it. On Friday I visited Sibbald Training in Blackridge, in my constituency, which specialises in construction and plant courses. It was clear from our discussion that there is huge concern in the business community about the possibility that if the skill shortages are not addressed, contracts will be lost, jobs will be lost, and opportunities for young people will go elsewhere. I was therefore delighted to hear yesterday that this Government will train up to 60,000 more construction workers, giving industry certainty that we are committed to investing in construction and infrastructure.
Our communities and industries have long waited for a Government who will take the challenges of energy, planning and development seriously. The Bill is ambitious in its goals, but, more than that, it is ambitious for communities and businesses across the United Kingdom, and it will get Britain building again.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My constituents and I know how lucky we are to live in such a beautiful part of the United Kingdom. We need to see growth so that our young people can stay in their local communities, buy homes in the areas in which they have grown up, and continue to contribute to the local economy and keep Chichester thriving for generations to come; but the reality is that the planning system in my little patch of the country is not fit for purpose.
With the district council’s footprint covering 70% of national park and 5% of national landscape, the ambitious total for housing allocation in our area is confined to just 25% of the available land in a ribbon that is causing coastal squeeze. This has led to high-density developments built without adequate infrastructure, leaving my residents facing daily challenges navigating the horrendous congestion on the A27, finding local school places for their children, or simply obtaining an appointment with a GP. The current system has left my communities frustrated, my local businesses unable to grow, and local councils tied up in red tape, unable to plan.
Housing developers have a duty to create communities, not just buildings, but the very nature of the current planning system means that developers are putting forward proposals that look only at the patches that they are trying to develop rather than the wider picture surrounding it, and the councillors who are elected to represent their areas are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs. In both Chichester and Arun district councils, an application may be refused by the planning committees—perhaps owing to flooding risks, loss of grade 1 agricultural land or inadequate infrastructure in the area—only for that to be overturned at appeal, which is a costly, time-consuming process, taking planners out of the departments where they are trying to plan.
The previous administration in Chichester district council allowed the local plan to expire, which left developers riding roughshod over areas on the Manhood peninsula, a low-lying coastal plain that is susceptible to extreme flooding which seems to be getting worse and worse. The new administration in 2023 focused on producing a robust local plan, which has now been through inspection—to the relief of communities across Chichester—and protects areas such as the Manhood peninsula while prioritising brownfield development, which all of us, on both sides of the House, agree should be the priority for planning. However, the Government’s ambitious new housing target could force the council back to square one and put all the power back into the hands of developers, because we are being asked to increase our housing target by nearly 100%.
We do not have a planning crisis; we have a building crisis. Developers are land-banking consents rather than getting on with delivering the homes that we need, because demand drives up prices. Since 2007, more than 1.4 million homes given fully consented permissions have not been built. The Bill does not tackle the workforce issues or the supply chain issues, and it also does not acknowledge that water companies, which are responsible for vital infrastructure to ensure that that their reliance on storm overflows can reduce over time, are not consulted over individual planning applications because they are not statutory consultees. As the Minister knows, I have called for such consultation in other debates.
Finally, there is no target for social homes in the Bill. Registered providers in Chichester are currently refusing to take on the social homes on smaller mixed-use sites, favouring the larger developments and prioritising upgrading their existing housing stock, which is putting the viability of social homes in my area at serious risk—and they are homes that we are desperately crying out for.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I spent the last seven years of my career working in the social housing sector, so I should like to think that I have some understanding of the scale of the housing challenge, the mistakes made by previous Administrations, and why now is the time to be bold. We need this planning Bill to be bold, because at present we are witnessing a housing crisis in three acts.
First, according to the latest available figures, private renters across the country spend nearly a third of their household income on housing costs. Private renters in all income quintiles—compared with people living in homes of any other tenure—spend the highest proportion of their household income on rent, and we know that the problem is especially acute in our cities and in the south of England. The affordability challenge is not just a problem for the individual, but a problem for society. Money that would otherwise be spent in the everyday economy is going to private landlords.
That is linked with the second point. The vast majority of private renters aspire to home ownership, but as private rents increase and house prices stay stubbornly high, the dream of home ownership looks ever more distant for those who are not lucky enough to rely on the bank of mum and dad. In my constituency the median house price of £435,000 is nearly 11 times the median income of £40,000.
Thirdly, there is the crisis in social housing. Since the right to buy took effect in 1981, we have seen a net loss of social homes in almost every year. That brings me to an earlier exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). This problem was at its worst at the time of the coalition Government. As my hon. Friend said, there was a dramatic cut in the grant for social and affordable housing under that Government, and there was a double whammy because during the same Parliament, the Conservative Prime Minister increased the discounts for Help to Buy. Let me say to the Liberal Democrats that their former leader made a video apologising for university fees, and they may want to consider one apologising for their record on social housing.
To meet this crisis, we need to use all the levers at our disposal to build the homes and communities that the country needs. In the time that I have left, I want to focus briefly on two points. The first concerns clause 46—which has attracted some interest during the debate—and the provision to streamline planning decisions on smaller sites. It is vital that local accountability remains in the planning system, and that is protected through the need to have local plans in every community, all of which will require democratic consent. However, it is equally important that we speed things up so that we do not lose months or years endlessly discussing smaller sites that have already been debated and allocated in a local plan. Aspiring homeowners, hard-up renters and those in urgent need of social housing do not have time for that.
I am very invested in clause 91, which introduces long-overdue changes to the compulsory purchase order process and the removal of hope value. For far too long the losers in our system have been the prospective homeowners, the private renters and the social housing residents, while the winners have been the landowners. As it stands, many local authorities have to pay unrealistic premiums for land based on an estimate of its potential value, or hope value, which has too often made it unviable for councils to build much-needed social housing and infrastructure. That has to change, and the Bill will ensure that it does.
As we have heard in the House today, there are Members who want to find new and creative ways to argue against the need for new housing, but that has failed. The status quo has failed us. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need serious reform. The Bill will deliver it, and can be the catalyst for change.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register of interests.
At his first Prime Minister’s Question Time in July last year, I asked the Prime Minister to reassure my constituents that they would have a meaningful say over the new development in the green belt in their area. He said that the Government “will work with communities”—but this Bill could not be further from that promise. We are seeing housing targets go through the roof in rural areas, as green-belt protections are removed. In my local councils of East Herts and Broxbourne, the targets are going up by more than 20% and within Broxbourne district specifically they are almost doubling. The loss of protections for unrestricted sprawl around the villages I represent is extremely worrying for my constituents who live in those villages of Brickenden, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, Stanstead Abbotts and St Margarets, as their unique character and historical charm could be lost forever.
At the same time, targets are going down in London, where there is the infrastructure to cope. The plans do not add up. There is something in this Bill on which I can agree with the Government: the explanatory notes state that limited infrastructure delivery is a real cost on the lives of working people. I completely agree. It is far too common for new housing to be built without the increase in public service capacity to match.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on key infrastructure. Not only are we waiting for GP surgeries in my constituency, but we need a sewerage upgrade across my patch. We cannot even have new homes put in, because they cannot be attached to the sewerage system in its existing state. His point is valid: until infrastructure is put in place we cannot put homes in these new areas.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and she is right that infrastructure must come first. I will come on later in my speech to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill to make developers put that infrastructure in first.
In Broxbourne, we have already had more than our fair share of development. Thousands of new homes have been built in the past few years, but new or expanded infrastructure to take the strain off our already overstretched services is nowhere to be seen, and it is having a serious impact on my constituents. A Health Minister has admitted to me that patients trying to see their local GP in my constituency are more likely than the national average to wait two weeks. Drivers are forced to sit in traffic as roads clog up, and I hear time and again that parents are unable to get their child into the local school that they want.
The Bill before us seeks to make it easier to build major infrastructure. Of course I support building roads, airports and runways more quickly, but what the Government define as major infrastructure is way too narrow. Major infrastructure, to my constituents, is whether they can get a GP appointment or a school place. I see no mention of that in this Bill. There is nothing about providing new powers for local councils to ensure that that kind of infrastructure is in place before new housing is built.
I had to fight extremely hard to get the NHS round the table to say that we desperately need a new surgery to meet the demand from existing residents, but it would not listen to me—and now the Government are forcing us to build even more houses. In December, the Housing Minister said he was
“considering what more we can do to ensure that we get infrastructure for developments up front”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1068.]
But where is that within the Bill? That is how to get existing residents on side and get people behind the new development that we desperately need in the right location. Local councillors are in fact having more of their powers over and responsibility for planning taken away, which dilutes local accountability and removes the voice of residents in deciding what is built in the local area. That is an attack on local democracy.
The Minister should be taking on developers, not local communities and councils. I have sat on a planning committee, and the reason the process is sometimes so long and—developers would argue—so onerous on the developers is that they try to build utter rubbish. Some of the stuff they put forward is utterly disgraceful. I would not want to live on some of the developments that they bring forward and try to get councillors to approve.
Of course we must have a robust process, because we need to focus more on urban design. Simply making it easier for developers to get through the planning system is putting way too much trust in developers to build appropriate communities, with all the infrastructure that our residents need.
Bradley Thomas
Does my hon. Friend agree that with regard to good-quality design, not only society but particularly the Government in their relationship with developers have to shift their mindset away from seeing design as a cost to instead seeing it as an investment that will reap benefits in the form of better-quality placemaking and better quality of life for residents?
Lewis Cocking
I know my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for urban design, and he makes an important point. Of course we must invest in urban design, because it is the council—and MPs through our casework—that picks up the pieces. If a development is not planned correctly, with the right number of car spaces, for example, there are issues when people try to park their cars. Our inboxes get clogged up with all of those issues and the council is put under extra pressure with antisocial behaviour and so on.
We really have to think about planning the communities, rather than just saying, “Oh, we will give in to the developers—they say it takes too long, so we’ll make it quicker and just rely on them to create places that people want to live.” As I said, I have sat on a planning committee, and I have seen developments come forward that are utter rubbish. We need to change the mindset of developers, and we must ensure that we have good design. The Government are not seeking to change that; they are embracing it by committing to a target that can only be achieved by rushing the construction of low-quality homes with no plans for those who will live there. The Government need to focus more on the communities that we are trying to build within this country, rather than specific targets and house building across the country.
This Bill reveals that the Labour Government have their priorities wrong. Local people should have the largest influence over where new housing development goes and when it happens in their communities, not Ministers in Whitehall.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) trashing hard-working local builders in his constituency and calling the homes that his constituents live in dreadful trashy houses. Before I came to this place—
Rachel Taylor
I am not going to give way; you have had your time. Before I came to this place—[Interruption.]
Lewis Cocking
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to seek your advice. I have just been cited as saying something in my speech that I did not say. I was merely talking about developers and my time on the planning committee, when developers would come forward and propose utter rubbish. I did not say the houses my residents live in are rubbish.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has made his point. It is a matter of debate, but his point is now on the record.
Rachel Taylor
Before I came to this place, I was a property solicitor, and I cannot say how many times I had developers in my office, swearing and cursing at yet another of their projects having been put on hold because of an arcane planning system. Bat tunnels are only the half of it.
I will never forget the day a developer told me that Warwickshire county council had asked him to build a pavement outside his new development but had then refused to let him put up traffic lights to enable the works because there was a vaccination centre a mile up the road. After months of legal wrangling, which delayed the home buyers moving in, the county council eventually gave in, but not before wasting everyone’s time and resources.
There are already half a million fewer young homeowners since 2010, and millions are stuck in expensive, poor-quality and insecure rented housing. Despite that, planning permissions dropped to their lowest number on record under the last Government, because the planning system is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. I want my constituency to be a place where young people feel they can put down roots, whether in our towns or our villages, and I want to ensure that there is the necessary infrastructure for them and their young families to create a life in our towns and villages.
I welcome this Bill to fix our broken planning system and get Britain building again. As a solicitor, on many occasions I saw unacceptable delays in determining planning applications, which cost developers money. There were insufficient resources to deal with complex legal agreements or to consult in a meaningful way about necessary infrastructure. All too often, developers then bypassed the correct processes, only to end up with whole estates being built without key approvals, which have sat empty for more than 12 months because access on to the road has not yet been sorted. This Bill will properly fund planning departments, and I hope that that will extend to the associated legal work. It is rare that developers even go down the route of getting new roads adopted, because for them the delays that that causes are financial risks they cannot take, but that leads to more and more residents paying freehold management charges, which new homeowners can ill afford.
I am glad that the National Infrastructure Commission has welcomed the provisions in this Bill, calling them a
“bold and broad-ranging package of measures”.
After years of the Conservative party letting the planning system crumble, a bold approach is exactly what is needed. Just last week, I met those from National Grid in my constituency. They welcomed the Bill and said that this sort of sensible approach could not come soon enough.
Of course, it is crucial for us to get the balance right. Most people I have spoken to understand that if they want their kids to be able to afford a home and live nearby, we need to build more houses. I agree with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which has said that the Bill
“provides a necessary balance between the need to boost building developments, whilst protecting the natural world through a nature restoration fund, driving green initiatives.”
It is vital we get this balance right. Every person should have access to an affordable home, and green and natural spaces they can use and enjoy.
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate being able to make this point of order. I would like to seek your guidance on the speech from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), in which she defended developers and also solicitors. Did she have to declare her interest as a practising solicitor, for which privilege she was paid £7,500 this quarter?
Rachel Taylor
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I no longer have a practising certificate as a solicitor, and I gave up practising as soon as I came into this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I thank the hon. Lady for putting her clarification on the record.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I speak as a former unitary authority councillor for over 17 years. In that time, I spoke many times on behalf of the local community at planning committee meetings, so I understand the importance of including communities in decisions. Shutting them out of the process breeds resentment about new developments, and this is the chance to take advantage of local knowledge to make sure those developments are of good quality.
I am proud that the council administration I led reversed the previous Conservative changes that gave one councillor the power to block applications heard by the planning committee, giving local people back their voice. I am therefore dismayed that this Government want to give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to enable planning decisions to bypass planning committees, and I urge them to look elsewhere to speed up delivery.
It is vital that infrastructure is provided ahead of development, and I would like to highlight a potentially more fruitful avenue for a Government who say that they want to tackle “blockers”. Not only can organisations such as National Highways be slow to respond to planning consultations, on both individual applications and strategic plans, but when they do respond, the answer can be a simple no. Instead, we need all such bodies to see their role as one of working with local planning authorities to overcome the barriers and be enablers of growth. Junctions 16 and 17 of the M5 in my constituency are good examples of where joint working could deliver the infrastructure improvements we desperately need, for which residents in villages such as Easter Compton are crying out. That could also unlock growth.
On the subject of infrastructure, my constituency has great potential for national energy infrastructure, whether that is new small modular reactors at Oldbury or tidal lagoons. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) referred to the community benefit available from proposed transmission infrastructure, albeit he referred to its derisory levels. However, I would like to see this benefit extended to other energy infrastructure.
As a former council leader, I understand the pressure on budgets. I know that, under the current fees regime, council tax payers are paying significant amounts of money towards the planning determination process, rather than the cost falling on the applicants. I therefore welcome the provisions in the Bill to allow local planning authorities to set their own planning fees. However, I would highlight the fact that there is room to help local authorities reduce costs. For example, local newspapers, with their dwindling circulations, are costly and ineffective routes for publicising applications, yet clause 84 only tweaks what needs to be published in those newspapers. I urge the Government to consider other ways to raise awareness, such as councils consulting local groups.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The hon. Member has mentioned local newspapers. That money is a lifeline to local papers, and many people cherish their local paper as a way of finding out what is going on. I hear what she is saying, but let us not play too fast and loose with the money used to keep that lifeline going in many communities.
Claire Young
If the hon. Member would like his Government to support the future of local newspapers in that way, I hope they will look again at how they are supporting councils to fund local planning departments.
To conclude, I urge the Government to think again, tackle the real barriers to delivery and put local communities at the heart of the planning process.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Like so much of the midlands, Erewash as we know and understand it today was born of the industrial revolution. Ilkeston was transformed from a historic market town to a place of hard, serious industry, and Long Eaton was scarcely a village before the coming of the canals and the railways. While the economy has changed, this Erewash of good jobs, thriving town centres and proper communities is still very much in living memory. At the heart of the east midlands—halfway between Derby and Nottingham—Erewash is now a place of immense potential. With this Bill, I believe we can unlock that potential, unleash prosperity, spur economic growth and help to deliver national renewal, creating the jobs and building the new homes that my constituents and this country need.
In Ilkeston, the old Stanton ironworks was a British industrial giant, employing nearly 10,000 people. Now, 20 years on from its closure, on the largest brownfield site in Derbyshire, New Stanton Park rises from the rubble. Every time I drive past, new work has been done on the park, and new jobs are already being created, but this restoration has taken too long. The planning process, with the immense costs, time and insecurity involved, has a serious, direct and negative impact on businesses’ ability to grow.
Erewash has not met its housing targets since they were introduced in 2011—not once in the last 15 years. This problem is part of a decades-long national failure to build enough new homes, which has resulted in a housing crisis named by some as the worst in the developed world. As a result, the cost of buying a home has risen exponentially, rents are ever increasing and the average age of first-time buyers is rising consistently. From the peak, where homeowners represented more than 70% of the population just over 20 years ago, home ownership has fallen by nearly 10%.
Most disturbingly for me, Erewash borough council has a social housing waiting list of more than 5,000 people, or about 2,400 households. This is a staggering failure of the state. Recently, I had the pleasure of showing my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury around 50 new social homes built on a brownfield site in Long Eaton. While this site represents excellent work by my council colleagues, it is not enough. Fifty new social homes is a droplet in the ocean when we have 2,000 families waiting to move in.
For too long, politicians locally and nationally have clung to stopgap measures, trying to treat the symptoms but falling short of a cure. Nobody is denying that people may not like it and that this is really difficult, but the solution is simple: we have to build more new homes. For the young families wanting to settle down, the renters tired of having so much of their hard-earned income paying their landlord’s mortgage, and the 1.3 million households—not people, but households—on social waiting lists in England alone, we have a moral duty to build new homes.
This Bill is at the very heart of this Government’s decade of national renewal. If we are going to make Britain a green energy superpower, we need to build the vital infrastructure that is required. If we want to take back our streets, break down the barriers to opportunity and build a national health service fit for the future, we need to unlock economic growth, so the Government have the money to properly invest in and restore public services. If we are going to put money back in people’s pockets, we need to make it cheaper to buy a home, and if we are going to create the good jobs that people want and need, Britain needs to be a more attractive place to invest, grow and do business. To do all of that, we need to make it cheaper, faster and easier to build a better Britain.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always like to start by emphasising where there is common ground and agreement, so that we can start off on a positive foot. I do agree that there is a housing crisis. I do agree that we need to build more homes. We need to tackle the outrageous inequality in the housing market and the fact that there are nearly 1 million empty homes, as well as 1.5 million for which there is planning permission but that are, as yet, unbuilt. We need to build more homes—the right home in the right place at the right price, though—and I am not sure the Bill goes far enough to address those concerns.
There are more areas of agreement. I agree we need to reform planning. I agree we need a strategic approach. I agree we need to tackle the issues of hope value, community benefit from energy infrastructure, and planning fees—so many areas of agreement. [Interruption.] I can see the Minister is smiling. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to stop there; sorry!
However, there are a number of areas of missed opportunity, as well as fairly deep concern. Currently, the Bill has no content on a range of important planning aspects. It does not contain any measures to secure affordable, healthy homes, or to ensure that the planning system is fully joined up with our climate and nature obligations. There is not even a statement of a positive visionary purpose for the planning system, and it is so important to provide the framework for what we are doing here. We need clarification that development should be sustainable, benefiting future generations as well as meeting today’s needs.
We need joined-up policy: a new climate and nature duty on all planning authorities to ensure that all policies tackle our Climate Change Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021 obligations. Planning is crucial for tackling the climate crisis and reducing the environmental impact of new development. We need solar panels on roofs and high levels of insulation. There is nothing here on zero-carbon heating or embodied carbon. There is also nothing on climate adaptation. I find it quite extraordinary that in 160 pages there is not a single mention of the words flood or flooding, yet they are crucial to planning and infrastructure. We need to ensure that the Bill plans for active and public transport. Let us see a “no net new traffic growth” test applied to all developments, so we incentivise the shift to active and public transport.
The Bill should include a nature duty. It provides a great opportunity to specify wildlife-friendly design, swift bricks—I have talked about them previously—hedgehog highways and green roofs. Let us have a new chapter of the building regulations specifically on biodiversity.
I recognise that environmental delivery plans could be useful in some cases, but I worry that they may be a bit too much of a blanket approach. What is suitable for newts is not necessarily suitable for all aspects of wildlife and landscape. I have a little concern that we are effectively outsourcing the environmental obligations of developers to Natural England, without requiring sufficient attention to be paid to those issues. For example, the removal of site-specific survey requirements means we will effectively be shooting in the dark when we specify what remedies need to be taken.
We need to legally guarantee that nature benefits will significantly outweigh any harm. We need to follow the mitigation hierarchy, strengthen protection for irreplaceable habitats such as the ancient woodlands and chalk streams that have been mentioned, and remove the viability test for the nature restoration levy. Otherwise, there is a real risk that developers will altogether escape paying for the nature restoration that they should do.
We need to ensure accessibility standards and affordability standards—
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Nothing symbolises the drift and decline of the past 14 years more than the appalling state of planning and infrastructure in Britain: a housing crisis that has forced children to live in overcrowded and unsafe homes; an energy crisis that has left us dangerously exposed to shocks in the global energy market; and a litany of infrastructure failures. It is not just the reservoirs or the £120 million spent on the Tory bat tunnel for HS2, but the promised 40 new hospitals by 2030—a claim now exposed as fiction with funds not allocated, many schemes not new hospitals, and a tiny fraction due to complete on time. I can see in my constituency the direct impact that that failure, especially on housing, has on my residents. I admire the commitment of the shadow Minister, who has just left his place, to the spreadsheet that he has been quoting from throughout the debate. He seems to have missed the line in the spreadsheet that states the number of times the previous Government hit their housing target—precisely zero.
There are nearly 3,000 people on the waiting list for social housing in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and more than 2,000 in temporary accommodation. Behind those numbers are stories of daily struggle, like Sansha and her five children who live next to Grenfell Tower. Her son is in a wheelchair and awaiting open-heart surgery for his life-limiting condition. They live on the top floor, and the lift frequently breaks. There is no heating, no reliable hot water and just one working bathroom. They have been waiting more than three years for a move to a suitable property.
Then there is Lacey, whose six-year-old daughter has autism—and has tried to jump out of a window twice. Despite repeated safeguarding warnings, the family remains in overcrowded and unsafe housing. Then there is another resident I met recently who spent more than 15 years out of the borough with her children before moving back. There are more than 164,000 children living in temporary accommodation in England, the highest number on record. Instead of tackling the root causes, as the Bill seeks to do, we poured money into managing the problem.
Joy Morrissey
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about temporary accommodation and the lack of housing availability. But why have the housing targets for London, which has some of the highest levels of unmet social housing accommodation need, not been raised to deal with overcrowding?
Joe Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The housing target for London is 88,000. She will know well that the previous target was never remotely close to being hit under the previous Government. With targets not being hit, we are interested in net new dwellings: affordable and social housing for the people I am most concerned about in my constituency. That is what the Bill will help to achieve.
I am delighted that we finally have a Government who have the ambition to tackle the problem. On energy, I am pleased that the Bill will deliver faster and more certain planning consent for critical infrastructure, including upgrading our electricity networks and maximising new clean energy sources. The Bill will move us on decisively from the era of the onshore wind ban, plummeting investment, and reliance on Putin and his fossil fuel oligarchs. If we are serious about speeding up delivery, however, we must address the capacity crisis in planning departments, so it is welcome that the Government have committed to 300 new planners. What assessment has been made of the total need for planners across the country to get to the level of approvals we need to meet our housing targets? Can the planning fee reform in the Bill support that recruitment through full cost recovery? We know that planning reform must be matched by the people and resources needed to make it work.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and for highlighting the gaps that exist in local government. I am sure he will recognise that, as the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation have said, only 80% of local authorities have the capacity at the moment—in fact, it could be far less. Does he agree that that is a real concern?
Joe Powell
I could not agree more. That is why the devolution of fee setting is so important. It should enable an improvement in the capacity of planning departments and the training for councillors on planning committees to make those decisions effectively.
I also thank all the resident associations in my constituency who put time and effort into engaging in the planning system and who are passionate about making it work for our community. Their role will continue in the local plan and in applications that rise to the planning committee, contrary to some of the scaremongering we have heard in the debate.
The Bill sits alongside other crucial housing measures that the Government are taking, including the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a generation, leasehold reform, stronger protection for renters, a new decent homes standard and the implementation of Awaab’s law. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, this ambition must also be reflected in the comprehensive spending review—this is not just day-to-day spending, but long-term public investment. That is exactly why the Chancellor took the bold decisions in the Budget to increase the capital available for investment and reverse more than a decade of under-investment and short-termism. I would therefore welcome any clarification from the Minister on the total investment in the CSR needed to meet our housing targets, in particular on the affordable and social component.
Advancing the Bill alongside new investment in the CSR could be transformative. We owe it to the constituents I mentioned earlier—to Sansha, Lacey and the thousands of children trapped in unsuitable and unsafe housing—to get this right. It will be a landmark legacy of this Labour Government to finally get Britain building again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am going to try to get everybody in. If interventions are taken, some people are going to lose out on being called to speak. Please keep that in mind.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The aspect of the Bill I would like to focus on is the nationally significant infrastructure project reform. This Labour Government claim that their reforms will make
“targeted and impactful interventions to the consenting system,”
but that will come as scant consolation to the local residents on the receiving end of the projects being foisted upon them. Having fought for my constituents against a solar NSIP, I know how difficult it will be to navigate for the average person, and the Government appear determined to make it even harder
The Government are moving the goalposts to reach their ideological aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation as a result—no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills, with the Government only assessing zonal pricing, and no firm commitment to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities.
This Labour Government have already forced through six solar NSIPs since July, compared with just three under the previous Government. The largest of the three approved by the Conservatives was 1,200 acres; the smallest solar farm approved by this Government is 1,300 acres, while the largest, so far, is 2,800 acres. The current threshold for solar development to qualify as an NSIP is only 50 MW, which has been the case since 2008. While the Government have legislated to raise the existing solar threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW, it is still a laughably low bar. Point 2.10.17 of national policy statement EN-3 clearly states that
“a solar farm requires between 2 to 4 acres for each MW of output.”
Such a low threshold will potentially allow hundreds of acres of good-quality farmland to be brought into scope.
Cambridgeshire is seen as a target-rich environment by the Government. We have already seen the Sunnica energy farm approved in the east of the county, and now East Park solar farm has been proposed in my constituency on an excessive scale—it is bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres and spanning six miles. Nearly 75% of the site is graded as best and most versatile land.
In answer to a written question about how many consented nationally significant infrastructure projects use greater than 50% best and most versatile land. I was told by the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is in his place, that
“no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land.”
Last week, when I challenged the Secretary of State on the same point, quoting point 5.11.34 of the national policy statement—that he should
“ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification”—
he suggested that
“the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 164.]
But will they?
The Government have pledged to achieve a target. They have moved the goalposts to make that target easier to achieve and stacked the deck in their favour at the expense of local residents, suggesting that achieving the goal
“is going to require our NSIP system to be firing on all cylinders.”
The Government will remove the requirement to consult category 3 people, who would be able to make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, while maintaining the requirement for notification at the acceptance stage. The first that residents will know about land being taken from them is after an application has already been accepted.
The illusion of statutory consultation appears to be nothing more than lip service. For all the questions I have asked—written questions, oral questions—I have not once heard a response from the Government that the views of local people will be taken into account nor explaining how the highest-graded land will be protected from development. I note that in her opening speech, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Government would be protecting agricultural land, but gave no detail on that. I would be interested to hear what the Government are going to do.
It is particularly telling that the forthcoming solar road map will not break cover until after the Bill has progressed. Yet again, it appears that this Government will do anything to achieve their plan for change without any thought to the consequences of said change.
The Bill requires the national policy statements to be updated every five years, but those providing policy guidance on energy infrastructure were last published in January 2024. Although that should mean they will not be updated again until 2029, the Bill proposes that Parliament can make changes to the NPSs outside the rhythm of those updates. Given the clear desire of the Government to force through NSIPs wherever possible, my concern is that they are being given a window of opportunity to implement rolling tweaks in order to manipulate the NSIP process to better suit their own agenda.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I rise to speak about how the Bill will allow us to invest in our communities, benefiting every part of the country and not just London.
I have spent my entire adult life in a no-growth economy where costs rose because we did not build enough. The rent we pay, our rail fares and our energy bills have all soared because we could not build the homes, rail or wind farms we need—higher costs caused by a planning system whose default answer is no. The Bill changes that answer to yes.
The Bill targets constraints that have stopped us from growing. Prices are information. Where prices are high, we can see that we desperately need more supply. Rents as a share of income are up by 20% since 2020. Our transport costs are 26% higher than in peer nations. When Putin invaded Ukraine, we had the highest electricity bills in the G7. What do these prices tell us? Not enough homes, not enough rail, and not enough clean energy.
Infrastructure is being held back by our broken planning system. Our infrastructure projects are among the most expensive and slow to build of high-income nations. The Bill lifts the constraints and helps get us building, but it can go further. The NIC states that the largest increase to planning timetables is at pre-application stage, adding over two years on average. It is delaying critical infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will address this in his remarks.
We must also ensure that the benefits of the Bill are felt across our nation. My constituency is in the east midlands, where transport spending is the lowest in the country, private rents are rising faster than anywhere else, and productivity is the lowest in England. That is why it is harder to get a good job. For too long, investment has flowed to London and the south-east. That is because the benefit-cost ratio in the Green Book has a hardwired London bias. Wages are higher in London, so the estimated benefits of spending are also larger in the capital. With more projects built here in London, the logic becomes self-fulfilling. That London bias is why the gap between London and the rest of the UK is larger than the gap between west and east Germany. The Treasury, to its credit, does understand the problem, but the tyranny of the benefit-cost ratio is sadly still with us. We must end this bias and build prosperity in the places that need it most.
The Opposition spoke about levelling up but did nothing to deliver it. The Leeds tram, upgrading the line from Cardiff to Swansea, electrifying the midland main line—all were rejected by the last Government, who put London first and everywhere else last. They spoke of levelling up, but as my dad likes to say, talk is cheap. Now is the time to stop talking and start building. That means fixing the planning system so that we can build the homes, wind farms and, yes, pylons that we need. If we change our approach to infrastructure projects, we can also build the roads and rail we need outside of London, making it easier to transport goods and for my constituents in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages to get around.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I am pleased that the great majority of the Bill will not affect me or my constituents, but I will speak briefly to the areas that do, beginning with clauses 9 to 13 on electricity network connection reform. I acknowledge that the first come, first served debacle has served the development and drawdown of these schemes very poorly, but I simply ask the Minister: when will the regime materially change such that properly consented, properly financed projects, which are behind projects that are not either of those things, can get their connections approved?
In clause 14 on consents for generating stations and overhead lines, the amendment to the Electricity Act 1989 makes it clear that consenting to electricity infrastructure in Scotland is carried out by Scottish Ministers, not the Secretary of State. That is all well and good, but under clause 16 appeals would need to be made within six weeks of a decision being published, with challenges made to the inner house of the Court of Session in Edinburgh—that is all fine—but with a route to appeal to the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that the final arbiter of any disputes over consents for generating stations and overhead lines will be here in London?
Clause 21 addresses the cap and floor mechanism, which I have mentioned to the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who I am touched to see has come in for my contribution. The cap and floor mechanism for long-duration electricity storage is vital for Drax’s plans for Cruachan and SSE’s plans for Coire Glas in Scotland. That they are track 2 and track 3 projects gives me some concern. Can we have some reassurance that the 2030 deliverable projects will be facilitated without delay by the ambition of those clauses?
Clause 22 on benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects is bordering on insulting. If the utility and value of someone’s home and area have been significantly impinged by the erection of a pylon nearby, £20.83 a month off their electricity bill will not ameliorate that. It is referred to as a financial support scheme—the implication being that people need financial support. They do not need it. Ministers should call it what it is: compensation for the imposition of electrical infrastructure. In all reality, a community has very little say over whether that happens at all.
That £20.83 a month off their electricity bill will be precious little compensation for people who have been mired in the planning process of a pylon or any other generating infrastructure, who have not been able to sell their property for the last two years and will not be able to sell it for the coming two years either. I am not saying that this infrastructure should not be built, but the Government should not insult people’s intelligence with vastly less money than they took off them when they ended the winter fuel payment.
John Lamont
The hon. Member is making an excellent point—it is a rare moment of unity between him and me. I agree that the compensation is not enough. Does he agree that part of the problem is that the developer—in our case, Scottish Power Energy Networks, which is building the pylons across my constituency—assumes that it will get consent and approval, so it pushes ahead and the compensation does not really matter?
Dave Doogan
I agree that the compensation is risible. Many people in the hon. Member’s constituency and mine who are subject to these installations are pretty much resigned, because no matter what they do or say, it will happen. Will the Minister confirm that where constituents are subject to multiple developments, that £250 a year will be cumulative per imposition on their property? Why is it limited to 10 years? Will the developers come and take the pylons away in 10 years?
In the ambitions that are represented by clause 22, people will see the very minimum that the Government can do while acknowledging that this infrastructure is an imposition. It is not reasonable that people should have a 10-year miserly compensation for a lifetime’s imposition on their home. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will grant you 30 seconds for somebody else.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, which reflects the priorities of a responsible Government committed to tackling the housing crisis and driving regeneration, jobs, apprenticeships and investment while protecting our precious green spaces and green belt. The Bill will usher in a new era of house building—a long-standing issue that successive Governments failed to address, but that this Labour Government will tackle head-on with exciting projects in my constituency.
Constituents in Wolverhampton North East know the importance of building more homes. It is the No. 1 emergency in my inbox. Nearly 8,000 residents are on Wolverhampton council’s housing waiting list, with only 260 properties becoming available each month. Nearly 20% of 25 to 34-year-olds in the UK are living with their parents, making it harder for young people to find the right time to start their own family. Every day I hear from families who are struggling to find a place to call home, renters stuck in poor conditions and young people wondering if they will ever have the chance to own their own home. The status quo is failing, and it is clear that we need change, but let me be equally clear that my constituents know that these must be the right homes in the right places. That means genuinely affordable housing alongside the infrastructure to support it. New homes must also mean new GP surgeries, school places and transport infrastructure. Communities cannot and should not be left to cope without the services they rely on.
In Wolverhampton North East, we are seeing great examples of just that. Canalside South is set to regenerate 17.5 acres of former industrial wasteland near Wolverhampton city centre. Having lain derelict for over 15 years, this brownfield site will be transformed into 530 energy-efficient homes. The new Park Village redevelopment is replacing 205 outdated, poor-quality maisonettes with modern two, three and four-bedroom homes, transforming the project for our community.
The Bill is a bold and necessary step towards addressing the housing crisis, supporting economic growth and investing in our communities. It strikes the right balance, delivering affordable, high-quality homes where they are needed most while protecting our green spaces and ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with development. This is the action of a responsible Government delivering on their promises for the people we serve. I support the Bill, knowing that it will provide security and hope to countless families in my constituency and across the country.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Housing and homes matter, but so too do democracy, accountability and, really importantly, local communities and the local environment, yet the Bill scales back the ability of every planning committee in the country and reduces council involvement in decision making in its local authorities and wards. It creates a major democratic deficit, with councillors unable to have a voice or a say when deciding on a development. This is classic top-down socialism from a Secretary of State who has herself protested to local councillors in her constituency to oppose developments.
From the outset, the Bill aims to expedite development, but we must not allow that to come at the expense of our green belt and the wildlife that it protects, because, once lost, those spaces will be gone forever. There is growing discussion and concern about the so-called grey belt—the piecemeal erosion of our green belt—which risks setting a dangerous precedent. Surely the focus should be on a genuine brownfield-first strategy, unlocking underutilised urban land before reaching for our green spaces. I urge the Government to strengthen the Bill by putting green belt protection and nature at the heart of planning and ensuring that the pursuit of growth never comes at the cost of our environment and communities.
The top-down approach to housing targets, which has been embodied by the Government, is a disgrace, and it places additional pressure on boroughs like Walsall, which is being asked to do the heavy lifting for areas such as Birmingham. The Government have insisted that housing targets for Walsall rise by an eye-watering additional 27%, while housing targets in Birmingham are reduced by nearly half. I could say that that may be because of the trash currently in Labour-led Birmingham and mention the squeaky blinders, but I will avoid doing so today.
The Bill does little to prioritise the regeneration of our town centres and our high streets. There is no clear strategy to unlock urban brownfield sites at scale. There are pub sites crying out for development. Nor is there the necessary investment to make high street renewal a reality. Let us be clear: a brownfield-first strategy requires more than warm words; it needs real funding and a clear plan. The Bill lacks both. Brownfield sites often require remediation, yet there is no meaningful financial support to bring them back into use. We have seen it work in the west midlands at the Caparo site in Walsall under the work of our previous mayor, Andy Street.
Another area that the Bill fails to address is the 1 million planning consents for new homes in this country. Not one of those proposed new build properties will ever get built if the Bill simply makes it easier for developers to drive a coach and horses through our green belt. Placemaking must go hand in hand with infrastructure—
Robbie Moore
Does my right hon. Friend not realise that, in addition to placemaking, this is about making sure that infrastructure is at the heart of any new development, so that those who move into new places have GP practices, doctors surgeries and other facilities available to them?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Placemaking has to go hand in hand with infrastructure to make sure that there are additional school places and doctors surgeries to support the new homes. Employment and transport also matter. Otherwise, all we are doing is clogging up our transport systems and roads, and frustrating our local communities.
What is the Bill actually doing to address the need to create and foster new communities? That is what it should be doing, but I think it is really missing an opportunity. Few in this House would say that we do not need homes. Homes need to be part of communities, but in its current format, I fear that the Bill is a developer’s dream. It is also a neighbourhood nightmare, because it does nothing to create resilient and sustainable communities where individuals where families can grow up and thrive. That is what we should be seeking to address through big pieces of legislation like this. In short, there are some good things in the Bill, but it is a missed opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The speaking limit is now three minutes. I call Amanda Martin.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
On behalf of so many of my constituents, builders and construction companies in Portsmouth North who are desperately waiting for the chance to have a home and build those homes, I rise today to express my wholehearted support for this Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is both timely and essential for providing the affordable housing so desperately needed in Portsmouth. The Bill represents a decisive step forward, unlocking our planning system and propelling Britain into a new era of construction and development alongside nature recovery.
The housing crisis has been a persistent challenge, with many families struggling to find affordable homes in my city for far too long. The Bill aims to facilitate the construction of 1.5 million new homes by 2030, streamlining decision-making processes and ensuring that development moves swiftly. Under the last Government, we lost far too much time and wasted far too much money. By granting councils and Mayors greater authority to seize land for affordable homes, we are removing the bureaucratic burdens that have long impeded progress and stopped the building of much-needed homes.
While I commend the Government’s commitment to infrastructure development, it is imperative that we scrutinise the projects that receive national significant infrastructure project status. A case in point is the proposed Aquind interconnector project, which would, if approved, run through my constituency of Portsmouth North. The project faces huge opposition for several reasons, including environmental concerns and years of mass disruption, but this is not nimbyism. The project also faces opposition because of the national security risks identified by the Ministry of Defence due to the interconnector’s location near the Portsmouth naval base.
Another reason that this project’s proposal is difficult is the murky financials behind Aquind and the manner in which the national significant infrastructure project status was obtained. Aquind is owned by a former Russian oil boss who has faced allegations and accusations of corruption and misconduct, and the co-owners have also made many substantial donations to the Conservative party, raising questions around the impartiality of the approval process in 2018 under the last Government. As I have said, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a welcome and monumental stride towards resolving our housing crisis, but this Government must remain vigilant to ensure that the processes governing infrastructure projects are transparent, equitable and free from undue influence.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Our planning system is critical and should protect against inappropriate development, including on the green belt and flood plains. It needs to protect and enhance biodiversity, and it needs local democratic and community input. Rather than dictating to communities, the Government should work with them. We need not only houses but homes, and that means infrastructure, roads, schools, health services and sewers. Whether through “infrastructure first” or making them all statutory consultees, it has to work. Planning enforcement must also work, but it is an ongoing issue in my patch despite recent changes and improvements.
On the changes proposed to the NSIP system and development consent orders, I will speak about the experience in my constituency because we have had DCO complete, have one ongoing and hope to have one in the future. I will start with the one that has finished, which is the Esso pipeline project. It ended up blocking access to homes and ripping up green spaces, with poor communication and no compensation to the residents affected. When I asked for compensation, the answer was, “Well, it’s not in the DCO.” Reform must ensure greater protections for communities affected by a DCO project.
The M25/A3 DCO, which many Members will know about because of the M25 closures, one of which over the weekend, is a fantastic project that will improve local connectivity, but it has wreaked havoc through diversion routes and problems at the Painshill roundabout, which National Highways admitted was deprioritised in favour of the works. It has caused problems with kids getting to school and to their exams. When I tried to raise this to get enforcement, including through, among others, the Office of Rail and Road, no formal investigation was even opened, and it has been pretty much impossible to find a meaningful way to get enforcement when things go wrong.
We hope to have—we must have—a DCO in the future with the River Thames scheme, which will massively reduce my constituents’ flood risk and make it far less likely that we see a repeat of the impact of the 2014 floods. We have had countless rounds of consultation. I am concerned that, because of the current system, perfect has become the enemy of the good, and I am worried about the problems with local council reform and the impact they will have. Will the Minister in his wind-up explain and give advice to people putting together a DCO as to what they should do given the Bill’s impact when it gets Royal Assent?
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of this much-needed Bill to get Britain building infrastructure again. Dartford—the constituency I have the privilege to represent in this place—can serve as a poster child for the need for this Bill in its struggle to see the hugely needed lower Thames crossing built. Our community is regularly gridlocked by traffic because of the over-capacity Dartford crossing, creating near daily misery for residents. The unreliability at Dartford also acts as a significant blocker on UK growth, with huge costs through delays calculated at £200 million each and every year.
The commentator Tom Whipple recently highlighted in The Times:
“Some 36 years ago—or to put it another way, 22 transport secretaries ago—the words ‘Lower Thames Crossing’ first appear in the parliamentary record.”
It has been eight years since the former Transport Secretary, who is now in the other place, confirmed the route. Since April 2017, National Highways has run eight separate consultations, consulting for more than 400 days. The planning application eventually ballooned to 400,000 pages. Many years on, we look forward to a positive decision from the Department for Transport in May—a Labour Government finally delivering on a much-needed infrastructure project for the people of Dartford.
We cannot continue to face crucial national infrastructure taking this long to reach a decision. It is essential that we can deliver new infrastructure if we are to modernise our country, deliver services and unlock growth. We need a clearer system that has a degree of predictability for all participants, and that can move at pace while providing the right opportunities for local people to influence plans for the neighbourhoods in which they live. Part of the reason that so many consultations were needed for the proposed lower Thames crossing was the number of opportunities for judicial review. I warmly welcome the measures in the Bill to reduce such opportunities, which will ensure that cases totally without merit do not proceed.
Before I end my remarks, let me welcome the measures on nationally significant infrastructure projects. Big-ticket items are delayed again and again, leaving our constituents paying the price in higher energy bills, and in the case of the lower Thames crossing, leaving my constituents paying the price in congested roads. I encourage Ministers to think about—and perhaps to address in the wind-up—whether the Bill can be strengthened even further to speed up and streamline the process of getting critical infrastructure projects built faster, for all our sakes.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I have reservations about whether the Bill will achieve its aims. Somerset faces a significant need for more homes, particularly social and affordable housing, especially in rural areas. It is crucial that local communities such as those in Glastonbury and Somerton have a strong voice and a real stake in the process of shaping the places where they live, so I share my Liberal Democrat colleagues’ concerns that the Government’s overly centralised, developer-led approach will not mandate the nature-friendly planning considerations needed to protect our environment or deliver sustainable development, infrastructure and housing in a way that meets the needs of local communities. It will exclude them from decisions that they should be involved in.
The Bill looks to introduce the nature restoration levy requiring developers to meet environmental obligations related to protected sites and species, but I fear that Natural England, which is mandated with overseeing that, might lack the resource, expertise and budget to properly monitor and enforce the nature recovery fund. In addition, those new measures must not place additional unfunded burdens on councils. Local authorities must be fully involved in their implementation to ensure that they deliver meaningful outcomes for communities and for the environment. We must ensure that homes do not come at the expense of nature.
I am worried that the legislation fails to do enough to protect rare species such as the great crested newt, which can be found in Glastonbury and Somerton at Lytes Cary Manor and at the aptly named “The Newt” in Castle Cary. The Government’s manifesto pledged to make changes to the planning system to create places that increased climate resilience and promote nature recovery, but the Bill lacks the detail needed to really protect and support nature. Instead, requirements are supplanted by undefined improvement assessments. Planning should support integration between nature, new homes, agriculture and environment, including by achieving nature recovery and biodiversity by design.
The Bill also lacks a binding commitment to the land use framework to determine the balance between food production and infrastructure creation. That is a missed opportunity to ensure that farmers can improve food security and biodiversity, and climate change mitigation is protected. The family farm tax and the decision to close the sustainable farming incentive without notice will threaten the viability of farms in Glastonbury and Somerton and up and down the country. Farmers will play a key role in achieving many of the Bill’s ambitions, and it could have supported the long-term sustainability of their businesses to allow them to optimise their land for multiple purposes and to improve profitability, but sadly that is not the case.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Every week in my constituency surgery, families turn up with shocking stories of living in overcrowded rented homes. They show me photos of mould covering the walls, of four bunk beds crammed into one tiny room for the whole family, of the space on the kitchen floor where the parents sleep so the kids can have the sofa.
In Southall and West Ealing, I see people sleeping rough in all weathers. That is the human cost of 14 years of the Conservative Government’s ideological decision to halt Labour’s affordable homes programme and to push people into the more expensive and largely unregulated private rented sector. The Conservatives left over 100,000 families in temporary accommodation—the highest figure since records began.
The previous Government have a lot to answer for—I will not go through it all now—but we need to start working on solutions. The solution to the housing crisis is simple: we need to build more homes and the energy, transport and public services infrastructure to support them. This Bill will put an end to the previous Government’s dither and delay, and will start to get shovels in the ground and children in Ealing Southall off the living room floor. Labour-run Ealing council already has one of the most ambitious affordable housing programmes in the country, but with more than 5,000 families on the waiting list for a home, it needs more help to make schemes add up financially. I hope that the Minister will consider the specific barriers to building affordable homes in London, and how councils can be supported in that.
There is much that can be learned from London, where 98% of planning decisions are already delegated to expert officers. Ealing has one of the best planning teams in the country, which was awarded platinum by Planning magazine. It is the top London borough for on-time decisions on major applications, and has the lowest percentage overturned at appeal, showing that it is getting decisions right. Ealing also has a local plan, based on comprehensive local consultation, which is used to guide good quality planning applications. The Bill will help to spread good practice from places such as Ealing, and ensure that councils across the country can take a more consistent streamlined approach to planning applications and bring back strategic planning as there is in London.
I welcome mandatory training for members of the planning committees. We will have to look at that in London, so that it is regionally tailored for the London plan. Ensuring that councils can charge the full cost of planning decisions is welcome—let us have developers paying that, not council tax payers. Finally, the new nature restoration levy will allow for bigger and more effective environmental improvements, such as Ealing’s new regional park.
The Conservative party did not believe in affordable homes, but this Bill will back the builders, not the blockers, and again allow us to start building the homes and local services that people need.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I appreciate the Government’s intention to speed up the planning and development process to build the clean infrastructure that we need, but we should not be rushing through such a huge Bill, given its impact on our communities. Currently, under the Planning Act 2008, applications for development consent orders on nationally significant infrastructure projects must include a consultation report that sets out requirements to ensure that that has been carried out robustly. However, clause 4 weakens those requirements, and under the changes, the report will need only to summarise relevant responses and outline any changes made as a result. Summarising is a dangerous game, and I do not believe that summaries have any place in decisions of national significance. I am particularly concerned about the impact that that measure could have on Welsh language considerations, environmental concerns and the voice of local people.
When it comes to the Welsh language, there is already a lack of consistency in assessing the impact of developments. The Bill may exacerbate that problem and weaken protections for the language. Concerns raised by communities about environmental impacts could be reduced to a handful of bullet points in a summary. I welcome the Government’s recognition that households living near new transmission developments are affected negatively, but that should go much further than the current proposals.
Why is that principle not extended to large-scale energy developments? For example, the proposed Maen Hir project on Ynys Môn will cover over 3,000 acres of the island’s land. Large solar farms are built on agricultural land and frequently sold to communities with the promise of economic benefit. However, replacing agricultural industry with huge solar farms will negatively impact the local economy. I recognise the need to improve our energy security, and to do that the Government should be focusing on innovative solutions to roll out new infrastructure such as undergrounding cables, and promoting rooftop solar.
In conclusion, I urge the Government not to rush the Bill, because it must give confidence to businesses and local communities, and it must also lay the ground for a more coherent and strategic approach to ensure that developments are fit for future generations.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for recognising the urgent need for the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, and I welcome the plan for 1.5 million new safe and decent homes by the end of this Parliament. My constituency is in desperate need of affordable homes to rent, and of one day people being able to own their own home.
Planning should be a powerful lever to tackle nature loss and climate change, as well as meeting housing and low-carbon infrastructure needs. For the Government to meet their nature and climate targets, the planning system needs to integrate nature recovery alongside development. A new nature and climate duty on all planning authorities should require planning policy decisions to contribute to meeting our climate and nature targets.
We cannot let developers avoid responsibility for biodiversity net gain simply by paying into the nature restoration fund, banking money that may never be spent on nature. We cannot let them see it as just the cost of doing business.
The fund offers no guarantee that the populations of protected species will be replaced. According to an analysis by NatureSpace, protected species have limited impact on development. More importantly, existing schemes, such as district licensing, already accelerate development by shaving months from planning applications. We need to promote existing schemes better. We should acknowledge that the nature restoration fund and environment delivery plans will take years to set up. It is within the Bill’s scope to give the Forestry Commission a nature duty. With a nature remit, the Forestry Commission could give greater weight to habitat recovery in the woodlands it manages. The Bill offers a prime legislative opportunity to introduce promised reforms to national parks and landscapes. It should introduce a nature recovery purpose for protected landscapes and institute the promised governance reforms.
In my constituency in Leeds, we are doing our fair share. Leeds city centre is planned to grow by 50,000 homes in the next decade. However, we are at crisis point with 27,000 on the council and housing association waiting lists, and 7,000 in the highest priority banding. They are now waiting for three years to get a home.
As it stands, funding for local authorities is not fluid enough and settlements are not long enough. Councils need to be self-sufficient if rents are to cover maintenance and replenishment of stock. A big part of the solution is to re-implement grant funding targeted at property additionality, with a long-term approach to funding to unlock additional opportunities. Housing investment should be reclassified as infrastructure to support not only the efficient and effective use of funding, but in recognition of a decent home being the foundation of lives and productivity for an individual and the wider economy.
I am asking us to marry the understanding that, when listening to community and ecological experts, environmental law need not be a blocker of development, but an enabler of nature restoration, sustainable development and everyone’s access to green space, with the understanding that housing and social housing are infrastructure for our local authorities to build and structure our communities for the future. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that, as he kindly did about the Renters (Reform) Bill?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
House building is essential to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning, and it is therefore welcome that the Government are giving time and attention to those topics.
My constituency and the areas surrounding it have seen 35% population growth in 20 years, yet the housing that has been built meets only some needs. South Oxfordshire housing association analysis highlights a serious shortage of social and affordable housing, particularly for one or two-person people households.
I have personally experienced the challenge of finding suitable and/or affordable housing, with very little to rent that is furnished. I appreciate that very few small violins will be played, but even as an MP on my salary, the place I have recently bought is wildly expensive, at nearly £300,000 for a small, two-bedroomed terraced house. In my case, building new housing has freed up an older house for me to buy, but the current market is not delivering for people on lower incomes.
Between 2012 and 2021, the Vale of White Horse local authority had the third highest net increase in dwellings as a proportion of their starting stock. I am proud that Liberal Democrat-led Vale and South Oxfordshire district councils have been proactive in developing a joint local plan, which has successfully combined meeting housing targets and five-year land supply requirements with gaining significant stakeholder support, for example from the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
The councils’ innovative and inclusive approach to consultation with the public meant that they were shortlisted for three national awards. They ran three stages of consultation to encourage as much engagement as possible. More than 5,000 responses were received from residents, parish councils and local businesses.
A key concern for my constituency is how any further increase in housing can be accommodated, given the dominance of lack of investment in infrastructure in recent years, leading to local concern about further housing. We need targets and measures for infrastructure, as well as housing, particularly given that local authorities do not have the powers or funding to deliver health and major transport schemes. The Bill does not remedy that.
Luke Taylor
My hon. Friend mentioned the capex costs of the infrastructure. Is it not also important that local councils and NHS integrated care boards are given increased budgets to maintain staffing for those facilities? There is no point in building a GP surgery if it cannot be staffed.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend is right. Buildings need to be staffed, otherwise we will end up like the episode of “Yes Minister” with an empty building.
Key infrastructure needs and asks for my constituency include the Didcot-Culham relief road, with better walking and cycling provision than in the current plan. It is a controversial scheme, but I have given it my backing. They also include walking and cycling investment in new and existing areas of the towns; a new railway station at Grove; Didcot to Oxford line electrification; and health capacity to keep up with our growing population, particularly a GP surgery at Great Western Park in Didcot. That is why it is so critical that we link housing targets to targets and measures for wider infrastructure. Communities need housing, but they also need all the accompanying public and private amenities and services that are essential for happy and well-functioning communities.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many colleagues in the House will know that I love talking about education, but this Bill gives me the opportunity to talk about something even closer to my heart than that. No, it is not “Neighbours”; it is my home of Harlow.
Harlow is a post-war new town. It may not have been the first or the most successful—certainly not at football—but I argue that it is the one with the most heart. The principles that underpinned Harlow were about community and a collective identity. Despite its challenges, I believe that that sense of community shines through today. I welcome the Bill’s recognition of the importance of development corporations, and I urge the Minister to look at the not-so-new towns of Stevenage and Harlow—the one I have the honour to call my home and to represent in this place.
If we speak to some residents of Harlow—the more experienced residents, let us say —they will talk with great fondness about the Harlow development corporation. I will take a moment to recognise those new-town pioneers: they were people who made sure that they got things done. I also pay tribute to one of my predecessors in this place, Leah Manning, for her vision of what Harlow could be. We still have the Leah Manning centre, which cares for some of those more experienced residents.
I welcome the commitment to strengthen the link between the development corporations and local transport authorities, as that connectivity is vital. However, I also draw the Minister’s attention to Harlow’s neighbourhood centres, such as Bush Fair and the Stow. Before the idea of the 15-minute city was mooted—and, I believe, misunderstood by some people—Sir Frederick Gibberd recognised the need for every neighbourhood to have a sense of identity, a shopping centre, a central point to meet, a work of art or two, a park and our infamous green wedges, which mean that people can get from one end of Harlow to the other without ever needing to go on a road.
No one will know better about the issue of land banking than the people of Harlow. Huge swathes of our town centre are no-go zones, left in a state of decay. Abandoned buildings have been left to rot or to become a refuge for those outside the law. That needs to change, and I believe that this legislation will help with that. Contrary to misleading reports, this Bill is not about targeting landowners. Nothing in the Bill changes the core principle of compulsory purchase, but it must be used only when negotiations have not succeeded and where there is a compelling case in the public interest.
I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to build the homes we need. As someone who has worked in the charity sector for a homelessness charity, I know as much as anyone how much they are needed. For every resident who complains about a new housing development, I speak to five other residents who live in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation or face the risk of homelessness.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister has arrived in time to hear my speech. I do not question her sincerity and intention, or that of the Planning Minister, regarding the legislation or the planning changes introduced in the revised national planning policy framework. My concern is whether they will actually deliver the 1.5 million target, and I sincerely doubt that they will. As with previous Governments—this is not unique to the present Government—the methodology of the housing targets is based on a delusion that private developers will collude with the Government to drive down the price of their finished product.
The constituency I represent is in Cornwall, and I worked in this sector during my nine-year sabbatical from this place. In places such as Cornwall, we have met targets—indeed, we have exceeded them. We have more than trebled the housing supply, yet local people’s housing problems have got significantly worse. There has been an increase in the number of second homes. The previous Government have handed out £500 million of taxpayers’ money to holiday homeowners in the last 10 years, when only half that amount has been put into first homes for local people.
We need targets that are based on delivering what communities need. The problem is that our targets are a means to an end, and building homes does not necessarily mean that we meet the need. If those targets were the end, rather than the means—in other words, if we were setting targets that were about reducing need, rather than simply filling developers’ pockets—those of us in Cornwall, and no doubt in the rest of the country, would be in a far better place. I hope that Ministers will look at this issue again and allow areas that have struggled in the past to set targets that address need, rather than developers’ greed. These are not nimby territories; they want to meet that need.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) mentioned the rural exceptions policy, which is a very good policy that could be developed further. Rather than being the exception, it should be a planning norm in many rural areas in order to deliver their need. Compensation for nature loss, which is dealt with in clause 55, needs to be strengthened—a lot of nature charities are very worried about that. Finally, part 5 of the Bill, which deals with compulsory purchase, needs to be built up to stand behind this. I would like the Government to develop that part of the Bill further.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Britain finds itself in a chokehold, with bottlenecks leaving it unable to update its infrastructure to a modern standard. Part of the story behind that is the last Government’s inertia and infighting, which came at the expense of the national interest. [Interruption.] I hear that I have some musical accompaniment. The time that it takes to secure planning permission for major infrastructure has almost doubled over the past decade. That has real-world consequences, including higher bills, longer commutes, increased water shortages and flooding—I could go on.
It is essential that we recapture the Victorian and post-war sense of purpose that symbolised progress and possibility, and ultimately delivered improvements to people’s everyday lives. It was that kind of get up and go that made the Derwent valley the home of the industrial revolution, using the power of rivers to drive the mills in places such as Belper and Milford—cheap renewable energy, almost two centuries before it was fashionable. If we want this country to continue to punch above its weight, we must resolve the delay and frustration I have referred to. Failure to do so will literally mean that we cannot keep the lights on. Bearing that in mind, in the short time that I have, I will focus my contribution on the bits of the Bill that relate to energy.
Measures in the Bill will bring a much-welcomed boost to EV charging infrastructure. Drivers of electric vehicles know all too well the frustration of being unable to undertake long journeys, given the lack of adequate chargers in many areas—particularly the east midlands, which has one of the lowest proportions of electric chargers per 100,000 people anywhere in the UK. That investment will be welcome news to companies such as Trentbarton, a bus operator serving my constituency. It wants to transition to a greener fleet of electric buses, but it has been hampered by insufficient public infrastructure, including the high cost of connecting to the grid and a lack of availability of adequate charging facilities locally. This legislation must be a springboard for embracing not only the infrastructure we need today, but the infrastructure we will need tomorrow. In that light, I want to see work done on hydrogen infrastructure.
I also want to speak about people who feel anxious about change. This is nothing new; it is as old as time itself. People in my constituency have some concerns about National Grid’s proposed pylon upgrade between Chesterfield and Willington. I ask the Government to please ensure that National Grid listens to people in Morley, Stanley, Ockbrook and Borrowash and makes changes where it is right to do so, so that it can deliver projects with respect for communities. Communities’ concerns cannot be dismissed, and while we must upgrade our electricity infrastructure to help us transition to net zero, deliver cheaper bills and achieve energy independence, my role in this place is to speak up for people in Mid Derbyshire and ensure they are heard and respected. However, although opposing all new infrastructure without collaborating to improve it might feel like a victory in the short term, the costs of failing to step up will be borne by all of us, especially the next generation.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As a Glasgow MP, I emphasise how important this Bill is for Scotland and Scotland’s economy. We have huge opportunities in the form of offshore wind and floating wind, but those opportunities depend on the development of transmission infrastructure in England. This Bill will help to reduce bills in Scotland by getting us away from expensive gas and on to cheaper fixed-price wind. Delays in England cost my poor constituents a lot of money.
The Bill does much more than that. It modernises the regime for connections to the electricity transmission and distribution system, speeding up the connection of vital energy projects for energy security. The UK Government have worked closely with the Scottish Government—delivering on their promise to put country first and Scotland first, and party second—to modernise the regime for consenting overhead power lines and generating stations in Scotland.
The Bill also makes provision for long-duration energy storage. The House may wonder what that is. There is all sorts of exciting new technology in this area, but I commend to everyone a visit to Cruachan power station to see the hollow mountain in the glens of Scotland. They will see how important it is and what great opportunities it provides for British engineering, and for the children in our schools to pursue careers in engineering. There are also other reforms that are important to the electricity sector in Scotland.
This may be a historic moment of some agreement between the SNP and the Labour party in this Chamber, but I would not want to be too gentle on the SNP Scottish Government, which takes far too long to consent projects in Scotland. Far too many projects sit on Ministers’ desks for far too long, and that is holding back investment. The same applies with the SNP council in Glasgow. We need to get going on some of these consents, and the SNP in Glasgow and Edinburgh need to get a move on with consenting projects that will create jobs and assist my constituents.
This is a great Bill. It looks to the future. It will create opportunities for Britain. It is a bill of aspiration and ambition for our country. For too long, we have kept on saying no to great developments that create jobs and create wealth. This Bill says, “Let’s go for it. Let’s create jobs. Let’s create investment.” I support it fully.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front Benchers for the wind-ups.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
There have been many eloquent and thoughtful contributions to the debate today, and I would like to build on and respond to some of the comments that have been made. Great speeches have been made by hon. Friends and Members from all parts of the House. In particular, may I mention my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay)? Like me, he has some concerns about the Bill, despite knowing the Government’s genuine intentions. It comes with some serious questions, particularly about giving power to Natural England—a quango—while removing and cutting other quangos; and about the future resourcing of Natural England, with those extra responsibilities. I hope the Minister for Housing and Planning will be able to answer some of those concerns in his wind-up.
The Deputy Prime Minister has maintained that democracy will still be there for local people who want to have their say over planning applications, but the simple fact is that the Bill will cut the rights of planning committees and local authorities to make decisions for their local areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) mentioned that house building was up in rural areas versus urban areas, and I will come on to that point later. He was absolutely right to outline the challenges he has in Mid Buckinghamshire and in the wider county. He was also right to focus on the infrastructure and how it is wrong just to focus on renewables. Thousands of acres will be used up for solar power across the country, and the Conservatives believe that we should be looking at alternative options for energy.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) says that he is a planning bore, and that he became one during his time listening to various members of the Labour party. When we were both in opposing student political parties at the University of Southampton in 2000—not so long ago, I will say—he was not a bore then, and I do not expect that he will be in the speeches he makes during his career in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is a strong advocate for his constituency. He is right to say that the introduction of EDPs is a good idea, but as cases show—I will develop some of the thinking behind this later on—there is a mercenary approach that does not provide local habitat protection, and just tries to move the issues somewhere else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) mentioned local planning and removing powers. He said that the use of the compulsory purchase order is anti-democratic when it comes to agricultural land, and he is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) recognises, as we do, the Government’s mandate to try to build the 1.5 million homes required under their legislation. However, I have to say to the House that nobody believes they will be able to achieve it, including the Minister for Housing and Planning—[Interruption.] It is on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned the “rural versus urban” competition that the Government have created, and the 80% uplift in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) said that targets had doubled in his constituency while they were down in London. I failed to persuade a single Labour Member to admit that the Mayor of London is not capable of delivering the numbers, although the Government have reduced them by a record amount. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said that there were no details of community improvement funds, and that the threshold for solar developments was still too low and needed to be raised. We look forward to discussing that in Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned the green belt and nature being at the heart of planning, and the top-down application in the Bill. I completely agree with her. Last but by no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that development consent orders should be accountable and better suited for local people, and we entirely agree.
We on this side of the House have always had concerns about the Government’s centralising zeal when it comes to planning. When they first introduced the Bill to the House, it cemented many of our fears about the traditional centralising mission that Ministers in this Administration have shown a taste for in various areas of government since taking office. Let us face it: that is the Labour party’s way. While we all recognise that there is a need for tangible changes to deliver suitable and relevant infrastructure, they should not be to the detriment of the rights and responsibilities of locally elected representatives and planning committees or those who now face having their land taken away by this Government’s unfair compulsory purchase order changes; but that is what the Bill does. The Deputy Prime Minister said that she wanted to streamline decision making, but we all know that the Bill takes those local powers away.
I once said during a Westminster Hall debate that it was fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes to the national planning policy framework before legislating for an overarching change in planning infrastructure policy. It leads to confusion on the ground and delays in good planning, and rushed enforced devolution and local government reorganisation will further delay and complicate the intended consequences of the Bill. Let us also not forget that the Government have now introduced new housing targets that will reclassify land from grey belt, and will see areas green-lighted for development over the objections of local people and local authorities. This Bill will do that on a strategic scale that we have never seen before. Instead of delivering an algorithm that would fairly distribute building targets, the Government have introduced a politically motivated, unfair housing target regime that has opposition councils in its crosshairs, tripling the building burden in some cases, while rewarding Labour councils for their failure to deliver in their own authorities. This reeks of political gerrymandering, and the Government must think again.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that she wanted the homes that she will be delivering to be affordable. May I remind Labour Members that it was her Government, when she came in, who scrapped Help to Buy, scrapped shared ownership, and scrapped mechanisms that allowed the people in this country to get on to the housing ladder?
There are three areas of concern in the Bill. First, it threatens to remove local councillors’ ability to have their say by setting up a national scheme of delegation that will specify which types of application will be determined by council officers and which should go to planning committees—rules all made from the desks of Ministers in Whitehall—but not planning applications that can be decided in the committee rooms of town halls across the United Kingdom. The Local Government Association agrees, and has commented:
“there remain concerns around how it will ensure that councils—who know their areas best and what they need—remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English”
—and British—
“planning system, and this should not be diminished.”
We agree; the Government do not.
These changes will require rural county areas to develop 56% more housing than the last Government’s standard method. That is more than any other local authority type and equates to over 180,000 homes needing to be delivered in counties per year, compared with just over 115,000 under the previous method. On average, that is a rural uplift of 115%, while urban areas with major conurbations—mostly Labour authorities—are only up by 17%.
Joe Morris
The hon. Gentleman and I both represent rural constituencies, and we both know there is a demographic crisis in those areas. Does he agree that young people in rural areas need homes to live in and homes to work from? What do he and his party have against young people in rural areas?
Paul Holmes
I do not have anything against young people in rural areas at all, but surely the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will not see it as fair that his Government have reduced targets on their own authorities in urban centres, where there is already the infrastructure, where generally housing supply is better and where it is easier to get that infrastructure through, but are punishing rural areas across the country.
It is not a sensible or feasible solution to a very clear problem; it will drastically increase pressure on existing rural infrastructure and override the democratically elected local leaders who have a stake in, and should have a say in, the development of their local areas. It also raises the question of how this legislation is deliverable when local government reorganisation will change the spatial development strategies of local authorities. It is further concerning that the chief executive of Homes England has cast doubt on whether the Government can realistically meet their goal of 1.5 million homes, and so did the Housing Minister, in a Select Committee hearing last year. Council leaders, developers and even the Government’s own experts are warning that these targets are unachievable.
Wendy Morton
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that one way of helping to deliver homes would be to ensure that those that have planning permission are built out first, thus saving the green belt and some of our suburban areas and rural areas, sooner rather than later? [Interruption.]
Paul Holmes
Labour Members shout from a sedentary position to ask why we never did it. This is one of the largest planning Bills to come before the House in a number of years, and nowhere have the Government mentioned that they would force developers to build houses that have already been given planning permission. We have a Government who have reduced housing targets in urban areas, where it is easier to build due to existing infrastructure, population density and the availability of brownfield sites.
Instead, Labour’s reforms to the NPPF and their proposals in this Bill have resulted in top-down targets that will silence local voices. The Government have chosen to prioritise building in rural areas and on the green belt rather than focusing where the demand for housing is greatest, in our cities and urban centres. By only allowing councillors to debate and discuss the proposals that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government define as large development, local people’s voices within the planning system will be eroded, taking away the discretion that planning committees can use to resolve small applications that come down to very nuanced decisions.
The principle of environmental delivery plans is certainly welcome, and we know they have been looked on favourably by proponents of sustainable development. It is vital that nature recovery is incorporated into building plans. It is concerning, however, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, that Natural England will have its workload dramatically increased, amid uncertainty about whether it has the budget and authority and whether it can bear the burden of those additional responsibilities. Can the Minister outline any assessment his Department has done on the budgetary increases that would be required for Natural England to take on the additional responsibilities envisaged in the Bill?
Furthermore, and most concerning, the Government seek to overhaul the compulsory purchase process, allowing land to be acquired for projects deemed to be in the public interest, and will change the process to allow faster land acquisition. Farmers may be forced to sell the land for its current value, rather than its potential worth if developed, but farmers deserve a fair price if they choose to sell their land, rather than below market price. They are already being hammered over inheritance tax and the suspension of the sustainable farming incentive; the proposed changes to CPOs will introduce a further power imbalance that threatens to override their legitimate right to a fair deal.
The Countryside Alliance warns that
“giving councils more power to reduce the value of land is a step too far, especially in the context of such a challenging outlook for farmers and the inheritance tax fiasco. This is not about people blocking development, it’s about the state paying the market price for land. We need more houses and more economic development, but not at the cost of basic principles.”
Although it is true that tenant farmers will get an increase on any CPO purchases, landowning farmers who already face unsustainable pressure will once again be short-changed by this Government’s plans.
While the Government say that they want to deliver more homes, increase affordability, streamline the system and deliver the homes we need, nobody accepts that they can do it. They give with one hand, but have overwhelmingly taken away with the other, through destroying this country’s economy, the ability of developers and people to build the housing we need. As we have outlined, their plans, as with any rushed piece of work, threaten to overwhelm the system, in some cases threaten to erode the safeguards in place to encourage sustainable and vital development, and remove local voices from local people. I look forward to Labour MPs explaining to the Labour leaders of their councils why their Labour Deputy Prime Minister took away their local rights as councillors to represent their local communities.
We will always stand up against excessive Government centralisation, and in favour of local representatives who know their communities best. We have a duty to do so. We have a duty to defend farmers who, as stewards of the land, must have their land rights respected; to defend local democracy and the role of local councils, which disagree with their power being taken away; and to defend the people out there who want new housing, but want local choices for local people. It is clear that the Government cannot deliver on that challenge. We will amend and improve the Bill to ensure that it delivers for local councillors and local people; the Government simply have not done so.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Government, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have participated in it. Not unexpectedly, it has been a debate of contrasts. On the one hand, we have had the privilege of listening to a large number of well-informed and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members who agree with the main principles of the Bill. In a crowded field, I commend in particular the excellent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). Set against those, we were subjected to a series of contributions from hon. and right hon. Members who, while professing support in principle for the intentions of the Bill, nevertheless alighted on a range of flawed and in some cases spurious reasons why they oppose it.
I am saddened to say that among the most glaring examples of that approach was the speech made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), whose party’s reasoned amendment was not selected. While I appreciate fully his need to manage the discordant voices on his own Benches when it comes to housing and major infrastructure, the arguments he made were both confused and disingenuous. This Government wholly reject his claim that the Bill will not result in the ambitious delivery of the infrastructure and housing the country needs. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that a party that declared in its manifesto only last year that it was committed to
“Increasing building of new homes to 380,000 a year”
should be getting behind this legislation, not seeking to block it. I sincerely hope that, even at this late stage, the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their position.
Gideon Amos
Does the Minister accept that it would be easier to support this Bill if it did not include clauses that provide the Secretary of State with the power not just to take some decisions away from planning committees, but to take all decisions away from planning committees, because that provision is completely unlimited in its scope?
Matthew Pennycook
That is not the case, and there has been a huge amount of scaremongering when it comes to the provisions in the Bill that relate to planning committees. I will deal with that particular point in due course.
Among hon. Members who do support the main principles of the Bill, there were of course understandable differences of opinion. Some expressed their unequivocal support for each and every one of its provisions, others conveyed their broad support while arguing for specific changes to be made or further measures to be added, but all were in agreement that this legislation must progress if we are to streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, as the House as a whole ostensibly asserts that we must. Therein lies the crux of the issue and the reason, I must say candidly, for the cant at the heart of some of the speeches that we have heard.
We can all profess in principle our support for the ends—doing so is, after all, risk free—but what matters is whether we are prepared in practice to also will the means. When it came to housing and infrastructure, the previous Government were not willing to do so, hence the dissonance in their final years between their stated commitment to building more homes and their decision in practice to recklessly abolish mandatory housing targets and thereby torpedo housing supply in a forlorn attempt to appease a disgruntled group of their anti-housing Back Benchers. Thankfully, this Labour Government are prepared to do what it takes to deliver the homes and the infrastructure our country needs. The Bill is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country. In so doing, it will help us to tackle the housing crisis, raise living standards in every part of the country and deliver on our plan for change.
During the five hours we have debated the Bill, an extremely wide range of issues has been raised. I have heard all of them and I will seek to respond to as many in the time available to me, but I will not be able to cover all of them. I will therefore deal with the main themes and issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. I will begin, if I may, with the various points made in relation to nationally significant infrastructure.
Members made a variety of points covering issues such as national policy statements and judicial review, but most of the contributions focused in on the changes the Bill will make to consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects. As the House will be aware, the NSIP planning regime was established through the Planning Act 2008 to provide more certainty on the need for nationally significant projects. In its early years, the system worked well. However, its performance has sharply deteriorated in recent years, at a time when the need for it has increased dramatically.
In 2021, it took, on average, 4.2 years for a project to secure development consent, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. The documentation, as has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, underpinning consents has been getting longer and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Alongside an increase in legal challenges, uncertainty about meeting statutory requirements has led to greater risk aversion and gold plating throughout the whole process. The costs of delays obviously increase the costs of projects, and those costs are ultimately passed on to taxpayers for public infrastructure and bill payers or customers for private infrastructure.
The measures in the Bill will provide for a faster and more certain consenting process, stripping away unnecessary consultation requirements that do nothing to improve applications or meaningfully engage communities. They will, to use the phrase used by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders. I want to make it clear that the measures in the Bill are not the limit of our ambitions on streamlining the NSIP regime. In particular, I noted the calls from several hon. Members to consider addressing the significant elongation of pre-application periods resulting from the way in which statutory procedures are now being applied. This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought, and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those hon. Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.
Many hon. Members touched on the nature restoration fund. We are fully committed to making sure development contributes to nature’s recovery, delivering a win-win for nature and the economy. We will be taking three steps to deliver on our new approach. First, responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts will be moved away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. Secondly, more responsibility for planning and implementing strategic actions will be moved on to the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature. Thirdly, we will allow impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.
To those hon. Members who raised concerns that the provisions will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law, I assure them that that is not the case, something attested to by the section 20 statement on the face of the Bill in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. Our reforms are built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species, and are the result of significant engagement across the development sector, environmental groups and nature service providers. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, we saw a range of voices welcoming the new approach it brings to unlocking a win-win for development and nature.
The shadow Secretary of State raised concerns about how quickly we will be able to implement environmental delivery plans. We are confident we can get EDPs in place fast. That is why we have been clear that we want to see the first EDPs prepared alongside the Bill and operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent. We are also looking for opportunities to provide up-front funding so that we can kick off action in advance of need, with costs recovered as development comes forward, which will allow us to get shovels in the ground and unlock homes and infrastructure more quickly.
Lastly, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the CPO powers given to Natural England. If we are going to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it is vital that Natural England has sufficient powers to deliver the conservation measures required. Compulsory purchase is just one tool, and we would expect Natural England to consider using such powers as a last resort, subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including ultimate authorisation by the Secretary of State.
More broadly, the nature restoration fund will provide opportunities for landowners to work with Natural England to drive nature recovery, improving our green spaces for generations to come. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a radical change. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, including local authorities and—as he of all people should be aware—health service bodies, as well as some executive agencies, such as Homes England.
I want to touch on planning committees before concluding. Several hon. Members raised concerns over our plan to modernise them; indeed, some suggested that our reforms are tantamount to removing democratic control from local people. That is simply not the case. The shadow Secretary of State asserted that residents would lose the opportunity to object to a planning application, which is incorrect. People will still be able to object to individual applications in the way they can now.
Kevin Hollinrake
How is what the Minister is saying consistent with what he said on the Floor of the House on 9 December, when he said:
“the changes are designed to… focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications”—[Official Report, 9 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 673.]—
which he is going to dictate? Will he, at the very least, publish his draft regulations on what he intends through clause 46 alongside the passage of the Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
I will address that specific point in due course. The proposals are entirely consistent; we do want to make changes to where planning committees can determine decisions, but local residents will be able to object to applications in every instance, as they can now.
Planning is principally a local activity, and this Government have made clear at every available opportunity that the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of the planning system. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need.
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
We want more people involved in the development of local plans. The measures on planning decisions will simply ensure that the process of determining applications at a local level is more streamlined and efficient.
I have been a local councillor, and I have sat on planning committees, as I know many hon. Members have. We all know that there is significant room for improvement in how such committees operate. It is, therefore, disappointing to hear hon. Members portray what are sensible proposals for modernising the local planning system as a fundamental attack on local democracy when they are anything but.
Decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Local democratic oversight of planning decisions is essential, but it is also vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. Planning committees need to be focused on key applications for larger developments, not small-scale projects or niche technical details. The Bill will ensure they can play a proper role in scrutinising development without obstructing it, while maximising the use of experienced professional planners.
Wendy Morton
I would like to seek some clarity from the Minister on that: he says that local councillors will be able to scrutinise, but not actually stop—this is the point I want to probe—a large-scale planning application.
Matthew Pennycook
No; the right hon. Lady has misunderstood me. Planning committees will be able to scrutinise and make decisions on a series of applications. On a point raised by the shadow Secretary of State, the House should also be aware that we intend to formally consult on these measures in the coming weeks. Hon. Members will therefore be able to engage with the detail and precisely the type of question that the right hon. Lady raises, rightly, alongside consideration of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way; I am going to make some progress.
I will briefly address CPO powers before I conclude, as a number of hon. Members raised concerns about our changes to the process. Let me be clear: these reforms are not about targeting farmers or any specific types of land or landowners. We want to reform the compulsory purchase process and land compensation rules to speed up and lower the costs of the delivery of housing and infrastructure in the public interest.
We have already taken action, fully implementing direction powers that provide for the removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation for certain types of CPOs, such as those facilitating affordable housing —provisions, I might say, introduced by the previous Government in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. We have published updated and more detailed guidance on the process to help local authorities.
This Bill will now go further, ensuring that the process for acquiring land with a direction is more efficient and that administrative costs are reduced, and we are expanding the power to remove hope value by directions to parish and town councils. We want to see these powers used and will work closely with local authorities to ensure that they have the support to take advantage of the reforms.
To conclude, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members across the House as the Bill progresses. A wide range of views have been expressed over the course of the debate, but there is clearly a broad consensus that when it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister says no, so perhaps he does not agree, but the status quo is failing the country and more importantly those who last year sent us to this place to do better.
The process of securing consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects is demonstrably too slow and uncertain and is constraining economic growth and undermining our energy security. The current approach to development and the environment too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. In exercising essential local democratic oversight, planning committees clearly do not operate as effectively as they could, and local planning authorities do not have adequate funding to deliver their services.
The compulsory purchase order process is patently too slow and cumbersome, and development corporations are not equipped to operate in the way we will need them to in the years ahead. It is abundantly clear that the lack of effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning mean that we cannot address development and infrastructure needs across sub-regions as well as we otherwise might.
We can and must do things differently. That means being prepared to will the means as well as the ends. Fourteen years of failure have left the country with a belief that nothing works, that nothing gets built, and that Britain can no longer do big things. This Government refuse to accept the stagnation and decline we were bequeathed. We were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 24th April 2025
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 April 2025 - (24 Apr 2025)
The Chair
The Committee is now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed. Date Time Witness Thursday 24 April Until no later than 12.05pm National Infrastructure Planning Association; Sir John Armitt CBE, former Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission Thursday 24 April Until no later than 12.45pm Energy UK; National Grid; Ofgem; Scottish & Southern Electricity Network Transmission Thursday 24 April Until no later than 1.00pm Natural England Thursday 24 April Until no later than 2.35pm Royal Town Planning Institute; Town and Country Planning Association; Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Thursday 24 April Until no later than 3.00pm Public First; Britain Remade Thursday 24 April Until no later than 3.25pm NFU; CPRE Thursday 24 April Until no later than 4.00pm Local Government Association; County Councils Network; District Councils Network Thursday 24 April Until no later than 4.15pm Herbert Smith Freehills Thursday 24 April Until no later than 4.40pm Wildlife and Countryside Link; Forestry England Thursday 24 April Until no later than 5.05pm Home Builders Federation; National Housing Federation Thursday 24 April Until no later than 5.25pm Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally without debate. The programme motion was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee of the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 24 April) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 April;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 April;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 14 May;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 May;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 May;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table;
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 19; Schedule 1; Clauses 20 to 37; Schedule 2; Clauses 38 to 47; Schedule 3; Clauses 48 to 61; Schedule 4; Clauses 62 to 72; Schedule 5; Clauses 73 to 76; Schedule 6; Clauses 77 to 93; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 94 to 97; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 22 May.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence will be made available on the desk in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I am a Hertfordshire county councillor until 1 May.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I was a planning consultant until the general election, but not any more. I am a chartered town planner member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and a chartered architect member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am a vice president of the Town and Country Planning Association, but that is an honorary position, so I have no pecuniary interest.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Until the election I was a commercial property solicitor acting for a number of residential and commercial property developers. I was also a North Warwickshire borough councillor until I resigned a couple of months ago.
Gideon Amos
I am also a member of the National Infrastructure Planning Association.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I was a local councillor until I resigned last May, but I am not sure whether I need to declare that. I am a vice president of the Local Government Association, which will be relevant for the panel this afternoon.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Until the general election I, too, was a solicitor and I had a practice for many years in the energy sector.
The Chair
I thank all Members for declaring their interests, which have been noted.
Examination of Witnesses
Robbie Owen and Sir John Armitt gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Robbie Owen, board secretary and director at the National Infrastructure Planning Association and head of infrastructure planning at Pinsent Masons LLP, and Sir John Armitt CBE, former chair of the National Infrastructure Commission. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed for this panel. We have until 12.05 pm. I call the Opposition spokesperson.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Q
We remain consistent in our concern about democratic accountability and processes, and about the balance between speeding up planning delivery and retaining the power of local people to make differences and have their say on nationally important critical infrastructure. First, do you think that these proposals strike the right balance between speeding up the delivery of national infrastructure projects and public accountability? Do you think that democratic and public accountability will remain at the heart of the delivery of that national infrastructure under the Bill’s proposals?
Sir John Armitt: Yes. I think this is a reasonable attempt to address the fundamental question of getting the balance right between taking forward the critical national infrastructure that the country needs and local interest. Consultation has always been an essential part of that, and the ability of people to express their views is important. Having said that, it is and will continue to be a very complex area. People on the receiving end of new infrastructure will naturally seek every mechanism in their legal right to challenge where they feel that they will be adversely affected. The Bill seeks to set out a number of remedies for that, and I think one could reasonably expect to see some acceleration, but just how much acceleration there will be in the process only time will tell.
Robbie Owen: I broadly agree with that; I think the Bill largely strikes the right balance. Let us not forget that even in the light of the amendments tabled by the Minister yesterday in relation to consultation, there will still be an extensive amount of consultation required—justifiably so—in relation to these projects, involving, among others, the local community. The examination of applications for consent takes place over a maximum of six months, which is a very long time, within which the local community can express their views. The Government are retaining the ability for local impact reports to be produced, which I think is important. I have no fundamental concern that democratic and public accountability will be lost by these changes. I actually think they do not quite go far enough in some respects, but we may come on to that later.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Q
Sir John Armitt: The Bill seeks, to a large extent, to provide a regime of compensation to offset where people are going to be affected. That, in a sense, is no different from what we have seen in the housing sector in section 106, for example, for a very long time. The real challenge here is the ability of the process to actually slow things down. We know that judicial review is one of the big difficulties in this area. You could argue that the recent recommendations made for judicial review do not go that far. The only way in which it can be held back is where the court decides that the issue being raised is, perhaps not frivolous, but immaterial. But I would imagine that the nature of the legal system is such that people will find ways around that.
Judicial review constantly acts as a brake, and influences those who are developing projects to try to cross that bridge before they get there: you put in more mitigation than ideally you would wish, which raises the cost, and you potentially finish up with a more expensive project than ideally you would have had. That is the nature of people trying to second-guess what is going to be raised and how the judicial review will be handled.
I am not sure that the recommendations will go far enough to have a serious impact on that aspect, which is one of the central aspects of what has been holding up these schemes quite significantly. Each year of judicial review is likely to potentially add a year to the process, and that is why it is difficult to see that these changes will benefit the overall process by more than six to 12 months, at the end of the day. Robbie and I were talking about this before we came in; he is more of an expert in it, so I will turn to him for any other observations.
Robbie Owen: Minister, I absolutely support what is already in the Bill. I think that every provision on national infrastructure planning is appropriate, including what I hope will be added to the Bill through the amendments that you tabled yesterday, in relation to pre-application consultation and some other measures. As you say, those are all good measures that have followed extensive consultation and engagement.
There are two areas where I believe the Bill needs to go further, be bolder and be strengthened. The first relates to the further streamlining of the development consent order process. That should focus on allowing the standard process to be varied, on a case-by-case basis, where there is justification for doing so. That was trailed in your planning working paper in January; I encourage you and your officials to have another look at that, because there is a justification for giving some degree of flexibility to reflect the nature and requirements of individual projects and how the standard process might need to be adapted to them.
Secondly, we need to look again at the ability of the DCO process to be a one-stop shop for all the consents you need for construction of these big projects—that was the original intention back in 2008. All the discussions around that have yet to fully come to a conclusion. I note the review by Dan Corry, published a couple of weeks ago, but I do not think that it provides a full answer to allowing development consent orders to do more than they have been doing in practice, in terms of all these subsidiary consents, which, beyond the development consent order itself, are quite important for some of these big projects.
The other area where the Bill should and could go further relates to the whole area of judicial review. The changes that were announced in January, following the call for evidence off the back of the Banner review, are not particularly significant. They are really quite modest, and relate largely to the permission stage of judicial review. Approximately 70% of judicial review applications get permission and go forward, therefore we need to focus beyond the permission stage.
There are two other areas where the Bill could make some worthwhile changes. The first relates to the interaction between judicial review and national policy statements. As you will know, national policy statements are approved by Parliament, and the Bill contains some proposals to change that process. It has always struck me as strange that national policy statements can nevertheless still be, and are, judicially reviewed.
The final point on judicial review is that Parliament should be able, if it wishes, to use a simple one-clause Bill to confirm decisions to give development consent for projects of a critical national priority. This used to be the case: we used to have lots of provisional order confirmation Bills. I think that is a very good way for Parliament, where it wishes, to express its support for a big, critical project. That could easily be done through some amendments to the Bill.
The Chair
I remind everybody that we only have another 15 minutes for this panel, so please be as succinct as possible.
Gideon Amos
Q
Sir John Armitt: I would argue that local planning committees are not really professionally equipped to deal with NSIPs. As I said at the beginning, these are very significant projects. They are likely to be in the interests of a much broader area than that which any single planning committee is going to be taking an opinion from. The planning committee inevitably finishes up looking at things through a local lens, and I would argue that that is not really appropriate for projects of national significance. Clearly, their views can be taken, but one should recognise that local interest when doing so, and that should be set alongside the much broader considerations, recommendations and advice that could sometimes be received from much larger statutory bodies that clearly have a much more national interest.
Robbie Owen: Certainly, I do not see local planning committees as being particularly problematic so far as responding to proposals for national infrastructure projects is concerned. That is a segue into a broader point: improved guidance could be given by Ministers, not just to applicants about how they should go about their pre-application consultation and engagement, but to local authorities and other public bodies about how they should respond to proposals for national infrastructure.
Response performances, if I can put it that way, from local authorities differ markedly across the country. More uniform guidance would be really helpful there. The changes that the Government heralded yesterday in terms of pre-application consultation pave the way for a new set of guidance dealing with the pre-application period, because that is where most of the delay rests at the moment. As the Government said, and I agree with them, yesterday’s changes should really help to about halve the pre-application period, and that would be very welcome.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Q
Sir John Armitt: There are two things there: what should the target be, and will the Bill deliver it? I think the target clearly should be to try to get back to what we were handling and seeing back in 2010 to 2012. That was just over a two-year period. These projects are getting more complex and getting a lot larger—there are some very big ones coming down the line in the next 10 years—but if we could get back to that sort of level, clearly that would be welcome. Would the Bill deliver that degree of improvement? Frankly, I would be surprised.
Robbie Owen: We should not forget the role of national policy statements. They became rapidly yellowed at the edges in the late 2010s, which led to a dramatic increase in judicial review of decisions. The Bill does include a number of valuable proposals to improve how national policy statements are kept up to date. It is really important that they are, because they are the basis for decisions that are then taken on individual projects.
As a rule of thumb, we should really, at the very least, be aiming to be getting back to the performance levels in about 2015, which were approximately 12 to 18 months for pre-application and then around 15 to 18 months from application to decision. Obviously, if we could improve on that a little bit, that would be ideal, but if we could get back to that, that would be my rule of thumb.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
My question is for you both. One challenge for the planning system element of this Bill is that the local authority has a quasi-judicial role in administering planning law, and then statutory consultees and other organisations might be required to give consent for something, so the local authority has consented but Natural England, the Environment Agency or someone else needs to sign off. First, does the Bill strike the right balance in streamlining the different parts of that process, so that nationally significant infrastructure can make its way through quickly and efficiently?
Secondly, as well as judicial review, I am always conscious that a local authority may be subject to a maladministration complaint if it fails to take into account the legal obligations that Parliament has placed upon it. While the system may seem bureaucratic, the bottom line is that Parliament requires councils to go through that process when considering planning applications. Do you think there is a need to remove not so much the ability of others to challenge, but some of the requirements we place on local authorities, so that there are fewer loopholes and less complexity in administering that quasi-judicial role?
Sir John Armitt: That is a very complex question. I shall pass to my legal friend.
Robbie Owen: It is a complex question. On the balance and restricting this to national infrastructure, where the role of local authorities is among the role of many public bodies, as I touched on earlier, I do not think that we have yet got to a balance where the development consent order contains the principal consents and leaves subsidiary ones to be dealt with later.
I would like to see the Bill repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 so that decisions can be taken on a case-by-case basis by the deciding Secretary of State on what they consider to be appropriate to put into the development consent order by way of other consents. I do not think it is appropriate for that decision to be subject to the veto of the relevant regulatory bodies, which it is at the moment. That is inappropriate.
If I understood the question on maladministration correctly, I am not sure that is a particularly relevant process for national infrastructure. My own experience is that it is quite ineffective generally. In terms of the role of local authorities in downstream supervision of the implementation of these projects, the answer is to make sure that the development consent order is very clear on the requirements and the conditions to the consent, which the local authority then needs to police and give approvals under. I think that is the way forward.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Q
Robbie Owen: I would say two things. First, any right-minded applicant for a development consent order is clearly going to continue to consult formally and then engage informally with local communities, even with the changes that the Minister tabled yesterday. The role of the new guidance heralded by yesterday’s written statement is going to be critical in setting very clear guidelines in terms of what the Government think is appropriate by way of consultation and engagement. It is critical, though, that the guidance is not so specific that it almost undermines the effect of removing the provisions from the Act, as the amendments would do.
The second way in which the local community is involved is the public examination of proposals for up to six months—it normally is six months—once the application has been made and accepted. Compare that with the process for major planning applications, where communities may be given three minutes to address a planning committee: it is a much more inclusive process for local communities to take part in. Work is always ongoing to try to improve the usability and experience of the examination process, and hearings within that, and I support ongoing refinement there. But, fundamentally, those elements will completely remain—there is nothing in the Bill to remove them—and that is quite right.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Sir John Armitt: It is worth saying first that the Government have announced that they intend to publish a 10-year infrastructure strategy later this year. That will be the first since 2020. We are working with Government Departments on that at the moment, but it is vital that there is a clear, long-term infrastructure strategy. As Robbie said, the other key ingredients to implement that strategy are the national policy statements related to the different sectors, and the regular updating of them.
We recently went almost 10 years without an update on the energy strategy. In rewriting that strategy, the challenge is that you start with a large strategic ambition that can be contained in half a page and, if you are not careful, you finish with 25 pages that follow on and set out all the ways in which that ambition must be satisfied while dealing with environmental, community or any other concerns. The challenge will remain that we are trying to do two or three things at once here: we are trying to deliver major economic growth and infrastructure that will enable us to be resilient, to deal with climate change, to reduce the impacts of carbon and so on, while also recognising that local people will always have concerns about the impact of that infrastructure on their lives, and the—in a sense—compensation that they may face from that.
We have a live debate at the moment about whether we should all pay a different rate for our electricity according to whether we are close to the generating infrastructure or not. There are many ways these issues could be addressed, and they will not be simple. We should not kid ourselves that we are going to wave a magic wand and all of a sudden everything will change. We are a very democratic society; we are not like others who can steamroller these things through. That is the major challenge, and I argue that that challenge sits, in the first place, with the promoter.
The promoter has to get out there and be willing to be open and frank about what they see as the opportunities, broad advantages and local challenges, and demonstrate a willingness to enter into relevant consultation with local people. At the end of the day, there will be people who do not change their minds. Noting some of the remarks that Robbie made, you will always need the Minister to have the ability to step in when appropriate and make the appropriate decision, given the scale of the challenge.
The Chair
Order. We are nearing the end of the time allotted for this panel. These shall be the last questions.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
Sir John Armitt: In the circumstances, the Bill is a good first attempt to deal with those issues. As I have said, it is very complex—you are trying to trade off very different interests. That will not disappear overnight, and even with the new Bill people will seek to challenge its workings, but this is a good first attempt and, as we have both said, more needs to be done.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Dhara Vyas, Charlotte Mitchell, Beatrice Filkin and Christianna Logan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dhara Vyas, the chief executive officer at Energy UK; Charlotte Mitchell, the chief planning officer at the National Grid; Beatrice Filkin, the director for major projects and infrastructure at Ofgem; and Christianna Logan, the director of customers and stakeholders at Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission. I call the shadow Minister.
Paul Holmes
Q
Charlotte Mitchell: The set of connection reforms underpinned by the Bill are really welcome. They will move us from a “first come, first served” system to a “first ready, first needed, first connected” approach. Under the “first come, first served” system, we have seen a proliferation of projects in the queue. To bring that to life, there are about 450 GW of capacity in the queue at the moment, and that is about three times what we would need to achieve net zero. It is fair to say that not all of those projects will come forward, and they certainly will not come forward at the pace at which we originally envisaged when they found their spot in the queue. That ultimately means that it is taking a really long time to connect the grid to new projects coming forward, and promoters of those projects are quoted decade-long connection timeframes.
We welcome the reforms; we have been part of the discussions and have had a seat at the table, with the National Energy System Operator leading the approach to the reforms. For us, it is really important that the legislation comes forward quickly enough that we can move across to that new system and refocus our resources and priorities on connecting those projects that are ready and have the highest need to be connected to the grid.
Paul Holmes
Q
Do you have any concern, or do you think that that is the result of the industry not doing enough to consult local people when infrastructure was delivered previously? Will an unintended consequence of direct payments to consumers be to undermine your members’ emphasis on making sure that community benefit and community consultation are done adequately?
Dhara Vyas: Thank you for the question. I do not think it is a failure of the industry. I think it is a series of consecutive failures of regulation and policy over the past decade, if not longer, that goes beyond the energy industry.
It is really welcome to have this unified vision in the energy space for infrastructure build-out, and that goes across the Department, the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem. It is critical that we use all the levers we have to engage with people. The reality is that transmission network operations is a very specific piece in the Bill, and that is the large stuff—the bigger stuff—but it has to be part of the broader conversation that we need to have with people about the placement of assets. Infrastructure is part of that, with substations and of course generation assets. It is about the changes we are going to be making to homes and businesses across the country, and it is also about the difference that investing in this will make for future generations.
So, to answer your question about whether it is specifically a failure of industry, I do not think so. It is a failure, and I think we share the blame, but I am really positive about the steps set out, both in this Bill and more broadly, for the energy policy space.
It is worth being really clear about the context, which is that we need twice as much transmission network build-out as we have had in the last 10 years. That is a huge scale of work, and we need speed in doing it. The reality is that different communities will have different priorities. For some communities, investment in community spaces might be the right conversation to have; for others it will be about direct payments, or investing in community ownership of assets. It is really about tailoring.
Last, and you will all know this far better than I do, while having a significant conversation about how you balance national equity and local diversity is not unusual, it is a newer conversation for the energy industry. As we navigate this, we and all my members intend to work very closely with partners, including Natural England and other environmental groups, as well as local and regional government. It is important that we are honest and open about this shift in the way of working and not fall into the trap of assuming that one size fits all.
Christianna Logan: Our research has shown that, in areas where we have previously developed projects, perceptions of the benefits of projects are much stronger and more positive. The big challenge for us now as an industry is the scale—the magnitude—of what we have to deliver, when in many cases, the local communities likely to be impacted have not seen this scale of infrastructure before.
We have developed a package of local benefits that come with these projects, whether that is local jobs, contracts for local supply chains or, in fact, new permanent homes that will initially be used to house workers on the project, but then used by communities for their own needs after the projects are completed. Community benefits are an important part of that package, but so too is the very real engagement that we do with local communities. We have made changes around things such as substation locations and overhead line routes as a direct result of that engagement. That is what is building trust around these projects.
As Dhara said, we all need to work together to increase understanding of the benefits that the projects bring. Our recently produced national campaign, on which we collaborated across the sector, will help with that. Our own media campaign in the north of Scotland has resulted in a double-digit shift from neutral to positive around these projects among those who have seen the campaign. We cannot achieve this on our own, as transmission owners; we need to work cross-party, cross-Government and cross-sector to be able to help people to understand the real imperative and benefit of undertaking these projects.
Paul Holmes
Q
Christianna Logan: Genuine community benefits are the most important part of these projects. I think it would be risky to see direct payments as a silver bullet to reduce objection to projects. When you are delivering new infrastructure across hundreds of miles in these types of areas, there will be objections. In this endeavour, we all have to show courage to take forward well-designed projects that have been developed with local communities in mind, taking on board their challenges where we can, while recognising that that will require trade-offs and that we will not be able to appease all objections.
Paul Holmes
Just for the record, that is not my view. There are some concerns. I was not castigating you.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Q
Beatrice Filkin: As you said yourself, Minister, we have not seen any large scale, long-duration energy storage built in this country for decades now. We know that the market is not willing to take on those risks at the moment and it is absolutely right that the Government are instructing us through this Bill to expand the regimes and protections.
We support the proposed introduction of a cap and floor regime for long-duration storage. We have seen NESO’s advice to you as part of the development of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan—that increasing the amount of flexible storage on the system is critical to getting through your clean power targets. We are very keen to be part of supporting that. We think the cap and floor regime has proved its worth over the last decade or so through interconnectors, and obviously, we are adjusting it now with input from a wide range of stakeholders to make it appropriate for the long-duration storage schemes.
Michael Shanks
Q
Christianna Logan: We really welcome the powers in the Bill that create that framework to increase the timeliness and effectiveness of consenting in Scotland, particularly around introducing timescales for determinations and replacing automatic trigger of public local inquiries with a reporter-led process.
Public inquiries are one of the main causes of delay to consent decisions in Scotland, with the impact and cost of that borne ultimately by bill payers and local communities through local authority investment. We believe that to make the powers in this Bill effective in practice, the secondary legislation will be critical. We ask that the secondary legislation providing the details of implementation is delivered in parallel with the Bill, so that it can be laid as soon as decisions are made, and that within determination, timelines are set at 12 months to make sure that we can get timely delivery.
We welcome all the joint working between this Government and the Scottish Government, and we would like to see that continue for that secondary legislation. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to a 12-month determination for projects, but we are not yet seeing that in practice. For example, our Sky project, which is both an energy security and decarbonisation project, is still awaiting determination more than two and a half years on. That is why the ask is so important.
Michael Shanks
Finally, Dhara, picking up on the questions on connections reform and the wider push in the Bill on how we build network infrastructure more quickly and the ambition of that, how critical is it to the broader energy space—particularly on the questions of energy security, bringing down bills and the wider space on our energy mix going forward—that we build more network infrastructure and get the grid working? How critical is that aspect to delivering in the 2020s, and in the 2030s in particular, to meet the demand that we are going to see, and the Government’s other objective of bringing down bills?
Dhara Vyas: That is absolutely the right question to be asking, because we will not achieve any of it unless we unblock the issues we are seeing within the infrastructure space. The reality is that with these so-called zombie projects, at least half of them are ready to move on to the next stage. In large part, that is down to the work that has been happening as part of the connections reform project. It is really important that we keep on moving with the momentum we have right now, because gaining planning permission and making progress through the new milestones that the National Energy System Operator has set out is the next big challenge for us.
We are in a really difficult position right now. Bills and debt owed by customers to energy suppliers are at a record high. We are still really feeling and living in the long shadow of the cost of living crisis, which was partly down to the energy security crisis following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Investing in an abundance of clean power will be completely pointless unless we have the infrastructure to move it around the country, and unless we invest in clean power, we will not ultimately bring down bills to the extent that we need to. The other part of that is demand. We will see demand increase by at least sixfold. We are going to have electrification of our homes and our transport, which brings us back full circle to the need to be able to move the electricity around.
John Grady
Q
Christianna Logan: Our programme of projects to deliver for 2030 is a £22 billion investment. It is the biggest investment that we have seen in the north of Scotland probably since the second world war, so it is really significantyou’re your constituents. Our colleagues in ScottishPower have their investments in your area as well. Alongside that, there is a significant number of jobs—we expect around 6,000 jobs enabled through our investments in Scotland specifically. Just this year, we will be recruiting another 600 people into SSEN transmission to help with this transformation of our grid network.
All of that, as you say, is dependent on us getting consent to progress all these projects and the necessary regulatory approvals for the investments. We have been working very closely with Government and Ofgem on the reforms, and we believe that the proposals put forward in the Bill will take us forward in that regard. As I said earlier, the secondary legislation and the work with the Scottish Government will be critical to capturing those benefits.
John Grady
Q
Charlotte Mitchell: Yes, more jobs and more activity. Picking up on the point about consenting, we have similar yet different challenges in England and Wales. As you note, the Bill looks to streamline the NSIP regime. That is incredibly important for us at National Grid. We are very supportive of the measures in the Bill, and there are three in particular that I would like to namecheck as helping us to accelerate the projects that we need to move that power around, as we have been discussing.
The first one is the commitment to refresh the national policy statements every five years, or more frequently. We really welcome that, because it is incredibly important that we have policy stability for our projects. I would just caution that we do not update them so frequently that the policy landscape moves, but five years feels like the right cadence for refreshing those.
Another measure in the Bill that will help is the ability to opt out of the NSIP regime, where that is more appropriate for particular projects. At National Grid, for example, sometimes when we are upgrading a substation we need to move some overhead lines around. You can trip that threshold and end up in the NSIP regime, where really that does not feel like the spirit of the regime—that is not what it was set up to do. The ability to write to the Secretary of State and explain why it is not the most appropriate regime is really helpful for us, and we really welcome that measure.
The third one was spoken about by the previous panel: yesterday’s announcement of looking again at the consultation requirements and moving to a non-statutory footing for consultation on NSIP projects. Again, that will help us to engage in a more targeted, effective and proportionate way, so that we can bring projects forward while continuing to engage communities. That will help us to ensure that we have the right projects in the right places.
Gideon Amos
Q
Dhara Vyas: It is a fair question, but I would reiterate the point made in response to the earlier question about ensuring that community benefits are tailored to the community around the infrastructure. Different communities will want different things. In some of the conversations and in the guidance, there are explicit examples of proximity and the amount that would be paid out. The reality is that this is not a one-size-fits-all conversation, and nor should it be. We would be doing the country, and people across the country, a disservice if we took a one-size-fits-all approach to this.
It is right to have guardrails and guidance, but responding to what people need and want, and what is lacking in a community that the industry could potentially support and provide, will be the best route to bringing people with us on this fairly significant journey. In my view, it is important that there are parameters. We need the guidance from Government, and we certainly cannot do this alone—this is definitely something that we need to do in partnership—but to fully respond to and get holistic, close working with the communities that will be hosting infrastructure, we need to have that conversation. Having that conversation takes more effort from the industry, but it is the right approach.
Gideon Amos
Q
Dhara Vyas: You are absolutely right, and I think that is where the guidance from the Department has been really welcome.
Rachel Taylor
Q
Beatrice Filkin: I am very happy to take that question. We have had an ongoing process of reform to the approach to the connections queue with NESO and Government for quite a while now. We reached our conclusions last week and made a decision on how the reordering of the queue should work. As part of that, as Charlotte mentioned, we have been looking at how we move away from the idea that we had previously—a first come, first served application process—to looking at what we need as a country and which projects are most ready.
The decision we have taken on how that process will work now needs to be implemented by NESO. It will be implemented very rapidly over the next year, with the network operators, to give industry confidence and security that it can continue to invest to deliver clean power targets, as well as all the growth targets that we want.
One point that we did not touch on previously was that the demand connections are really important for the growth story. The queue connections reform deems all the connections that are already in the queue as needed, so they pass the first test. That is very important in making sure that we are prioritising access to our network, and that will enable growth in the country.
Charlotte Mitchell: Bringing forward the legislation at pace will enable us to move to the new system. It is important that measures in the Bill are brought forward quickly, so that we can move towards the new reordering and prioritisation.
Rachel Taylor
Q
Beatrice Filkin: One of the purposes of the queue reform is to make sure that the projects that we need and are ready earliest get earlier access to the network. At the moment, we have a lot of projects in the queue that are at an early stage of development, and are not so critically needed by the strategic plans that we are setting out. Projects such as connections for demand or for factories are already in the queue and are deemed as needed. They will therefore be prioritised for the queue, and we expect their connection dates to improve as a result of the connections reform process.
Luke Murphy
Q
Dhara Vyas: I think that the Bill is going to be crucial. It was as true for the previous Government as it is for this Government that clean energy and investment in clean power is seen as the safest and surest way to ensure the UK’s energy security. There is a programme of work for investing in clean power, but there is absolutely nothing to be gained from all of that net investment unless we can move it around the country. That is why this part of the energy industry is so crucial.
In terms of the impact on bills, the reality is that, at one point, energy bills were four times what they were in 2019. We are now seeing bill debt of £3.8 billion and growing. It is also important to note, generally speaking, that households are under more pressure now than they have been for well over a decade. I think more than half of households who go to Citizens Advice have a negative budget. Households are really feeling the pressure, and the conversation about energy bills has not really been off the front pages for the last four years.
As for being able to expedite the investments in clean power and make sure we are reducing the amount we are spending on curtailment costs, that should mean that in the future, if we experience an energy shock again, we will not spend the £40 billion that was spent in 2022-23 to support people. That is why this is so important.
Luke Murphy
Q
Dhara Vyas: I think it links neatly to the last question around demand. The reality is that we need to decarbonise business in a significant way. Right now, what businesses in this country are paying is among the highest of OECD countries, if not the first or second highest in that group. This is a big part of the discussion with the Department for Business and Trade around the industrial strategy.
Energy and the price of energy is hugely significant to business users, as well as to households. So while we need to be having conversations about linkage with Europe, we also need to be having significant conversations here about how we can speed up demand and connections for demand—and have that conversation for both homes and businesses. More broadly, we also need to be having a conversation about how we support businesses to consider how they can move off their dependence on gas.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Beatrice Filkin: What has happened to date is that NESO has done some preparatory work assessing options. We have made a decision about how they should go about reordering the queue based on need and readiness —that is the decision we made last week. NESO now needs to implement that decision, which is what they will be doing rapidly over this year to make those choices.
For the reordering of the queue, it will prioritise the projects that were due to connect in the next year or two, first of all, and then the completion of all the projects that are needed for clean power by the beginning of 2026. That is the process. We are not walking away from that. We are regulating NESO, but also working with them on this process. We see this as a very critical enabler of clean power. Working through this year of that process, we will be a partner alongside them. That is also why we very much welcome the provisions in the Bill to provide the legislative security of what they are looking to do.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Beatrice Filkin: We have made a decision about the way in which NESO now prioritises the queue. They are doing that going forward. Our decision-making process was finished last week. That is the process by which they make those decisions. They are now going to implement that decision and do that re-ordering decision—individual decisions—over the year.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Beatrice Filkin: We have set out in our decision the way in which NESO should assess the queue. They will use the information that we set out last week—that guidance—to implement and take each individual project, weigh it up against the criteria, decide whether they meet the need and the readiness requirements and use that to sort through the queue. That is a process. They will operationalise our decision of last week.
Christianna Logan: On the practicalities of how that will be approached, NESO’s proposal is that the customers with connections contracts will provide evidence of their readiness to meet the criteria, in terms of things like submission of planning consents and land rights—ways that they can evidence they are progressing their projects at the pace necessary to achieve the 2030 goals and, as Beatrice said, against the strategic alignment of different technology types with the needs of the clean power plan. Customers will put forward their evidence that their projects are best placed. NESO will use that to assess which ones should go forward. Within that, there is some protection for projects that are already well progressed, so that we do not impact investments that are ready to be deployed to hit those targets.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Beatrice Filkin: What we set out in the decision last week sets off the piece of work that NESO are doing over this year. That helps projects, because as we have talked about, there are a number of projects in the queue that are either nowhere near ready or are not deemed needed for the overall strategic plan. So the process of sorting through the queue will speed up that very constrained access to the network to enable those projects that are needed and ready to join and connect to the network earlier.
John Grady
Q
Beatrice Filkin: Are you asking whether it provides an opportunity to local communities?
John Grady
Yes.
Beatrice Filkin: Absolutely. We see this in terms of not only the build process, but the operations of these pieces of infrastructure.
John Grady
Q
Beatrice Filkin: Yes.
Christianna Logan: Investment in things like ports infrastructure comes directly as a result of the investment in these projects, and that investment is not secured until we achieve consents, whether that is networks or offshore wind as our customer. So absolutely there is a benefit. There is also the community benefit that will come as a result of these projects.
Beatrice Filkin: There are also the wider supply chain opportunities. Obviously, we want to see the international and UK supply chain relocating here and providing degrees of the supply chain directly for these projects from our home communities.
Amanda Martin
Q
Dhara Vyas: Yes, because access to clean power should eventually result in lower bills. In making progress in this space, you ultimately unlock economic opportunities and growth and increase productivity. The dividends of this investment are felt right across the country.
The Chair
That brings our second panel to a close. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Marian Spain gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Marian Spain, chief executive of Natural England. We have until 1 o’clock for this session. I call the shadow Minister.
Paul Holmes
Q
In particular, the Royal Town Planning Institute has said that it is concerned about whether you will be adequately resourced. The Institution of Civil Engineers is worried about a two-tier system and stakeholders and organisations being resourced adequately. The County Councils Network has also said that it remains concerned over the resourcing of Natural England. Do you believe that Natural England is adequately resourced and has the management structures and systems in place to cope with the extra responsibilities that it will take on?
Marian Spain: Yes. We very much welcome this Bill. We think this Bill is absolutely the right thing to give us the growth the nation needs, while not just protecting nature but giving the opportunity to restore nature. My answers will be in that context. This is a Bill we very much welcome, and it is something we have worked very closely with Government on.
In terms of resourcing, in principle, yes, the resourcing should be adequate. We have £40 million in this financial year to begin the preparatory work for the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. That will enable us to start on the first of those EDPs, and I can say a bit more about what we think those will be, if that is helpful. In future, the levy arrangement should allow us to fully recover our costs. It should allow us to recover the costs of doing the work on the ground and also the overheads that we will need to incur to work with developers to do the monitoring, reporting and so on.
I think the risk is in the early years of the scheme, when the levy is not yet flowing, but we need to get up front and do those delivery plans so that they are ready when the developers are ready to contribute. We are working with our parent Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on a bid for next year’s spending review. The limiting factor will be whether Government are able to put in initial preparatory money. For the district level licensing scheme, we had effectively a rolling fund—Government put money in up front that we then rolled over as the levy came in to fill the gap behind it.
Paul Holmes
Q
Marian Spain: To reiterate, the unknown that I cannot answer is the outcome of the spending review and how much the Government as a whole choose to invest in the next financial year. The other thing that this Bill and the other associated planning reforms coming forward will do is to allow Natural England to relieve some of its existing resources from lower impact work and move them into this. It is not all just about new resources.
I am confident that we can make that change. I am confident that this will be one of the most important things that Natural England does for the next five years or so. You had another question that I have forgotten.
Paul Holmes
Q
Marian Spain: Work is under way now. As I mentioned earlier, we are doing two main things. We are thinking about the first two environmental delivery plans. This is an opportunity to mention that they are almost certain to be improving the existing nutrient mitigation scheme and turning that into a full-blown EDP and NRF system, and also consolidating the district level licensing scheme—the scheme for great crested newts that we set up five or six years ago. Those can be relatively quick wins, done within this calendar year we believe.
We are then looking at what the next EDPs are likely to be. That conversation is live at the moment with our colleagues. We are looking at three issues. We are looking at where development will most need it. Where are the development pressures? That might be major infrastructure or the new towns. Where are the places that are going to most need it? Where is it going to be most feasible—where do we believe we have sufficient evidence to have robust plans that will work and where is the meeting of those two points? That thinking about the EDPs is under way.
We are also using this year’s Government investment to set up the systems and the digital systems we will need. The systems developers will need to test their impact and decide if they want to participate. That is the systems we will use to handle the money and to do the essential transparency reporting and monitoring. That will be in place this financial year.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Can I get you on the record in terms of the objectives of part 3 of the Bill? Is Natural England confident that the nature restoration fund will deliver better outcomes for the environment than the status quo? Specifically on the powers that will be available to Natural England in bringing forth EDPs, do you think the Bill gives you enough flexibility to consider a wide enough range of conservation measures to deliver those plans?
Marian Spain: We are confident that this will be an improvement on the current system. We have already run versions of the nature recovery fund for recreational impact, for great crested newts and for nutrient mitigation, so we have seen enough that these schemes can work. We are confident that they will work.
We are also clear that it is an improvement because at the moment the current arrangements are sub-optimal for developers and for nature. We see that developers are investing disproportionate amounts of time on data gathering that could be better done once and centrally. We see that investment in mitigation and compensation in the sequential scheme slows things down and does not always create the biggest impact. We also see that there is less transparency than the public and indeed developers themselves sometimes want about how the money is being spent. We are confident this will be an improvement.
The other important point to note is that many of the pressures nature is facing now, particularly water quality, air quality and recreation, are diffuse. They are not specific. They are widespread. They are cumulative. It is impossible for an individual developer to adequately consider, mitigate and compensate. We need to do that at much more of a scale. We think the measures in the Bill and the associated measures of having more robust spatial development strategies that look at nature and development together, and of having the plan up front that tells us what the impact will be and how to mitigate it, and then the fund to allow that discharge, is a major step forward.
It is unknown—well, it is not unknown, forgive me. It is a risk, of course, and people will be concerned that it will not be regressive and that it will not be a step back, but we think there are enough measures in the Bill that are clear that this is about improvements to nature—maintaining the current protections, but also allowing development to make its adequate contribution to restoration of nature.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Marian Spain: I cannot yet give you specifics. This is thinking that is happening now. We have not yet made any decisions. I have mentioned that we are looking at feasibility, demand, and ability to deliver. I think that where we will look next, the areas that are at the top of our minds in our conversations with fellow officials, will be air quality; the impact of nitrogen deposition on nature, which we see as a major risk; water quality; water quantity —the availability of water for both nature and development is high on the list; and a certain number of protected species. The commoner species of bats are likely to be able to benefit from the measures—similar measures as for newts. It is not yet all protected species, and we do not yet know which, so I cannot give you a definitive answer. I think it will be the next financial year when we start to roll out those further plans.
It is also quite hard for me to give you any certainty about exactly how long the plans will take, because they will vary, of course. Some of them will be geographically defined; some will be subject defined; and some might be species defined. They will be varied and mixed. But we are conscious that we need to move quickly on this, because we need to give developers a better solution than they currently have.
Olly Glover
Q
Marian Spain: I suppose there are two parts to that answer. One is the success we have seen of the similar schemes already running; I could expand on that if you wanted any specifics. Also, the Bill contains a number of safeguards. I think the first thing that the Bill does is that it effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy, because the best way to protect nature is to avoid damaging it in the first place. The obligations on developers and the legal protection for sites and species remain. The Bill does not remove those. The Bill maintains that obligation, but makes it easier and simpler for developers to discharge, and the fact that a developer will have to pay a levy will in itself make them think, “Am I better off avoiding this and therefore the cost, and building somewhere else?” There is a safeguard there.
The other really important safeguard is that the Secretary of State is the ultimate arbiter of whether an EDP will be adequate and will produce the net overall improvement. That is the other reason why it is hard to be very specific about EDPs—because until we start to develop them in earnest, it is hard to see. There will need to be a fairly robust evidence base for the Secretary of State to be confident that the measures will have a positive impact and we will have a net overall improvement.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Q
Marian Spain: Nearly all our work is done in partnership anyway. Perhaps I will just expand on what I think the crucial partnerships are for the Bill to succeed. Actually, before I do, I will say one other thing. The Bill will require us to not produce the EDPs in isolation. They will require us to do public consultation. They will require us to work with others. We will need to work with the local planners. We are also highly likely to need to work with those who already have the data. That might be the voluntary sector; it might be the professional ecology sector that we rely on heavily to provide us with the data to have the confidence to recommend a robust plan to the Secretary of State.
The other part very much on my mind at the moment is that one of our jobs will be to give confidence to everybody who needs to be involved in making this work that the plans are robust and adequate and will have the impact intended. One thing that developers say to me is that they want confidence that if they are going to pay money, it will be well spent. A developer said to me the other day that the thing he finds most frustrating is that he puts money into the community infrastructure levy and he never sees what it is spent on, so I think there is something about giving developers confidence that if they participate, they can see they have done some good. Planners will need a fair degree of confidence that they are giving planning permission that is within the overall planning laws still.
We need our wildlife groups to work with us on this. We need to give them confidence, because they will own a lot of the land on which we will make the improvement. But as important—a group that we have not often talked about in these conversations—are the private landowners, who we will also need to have confidence that they are participating in a fair market where they will be adequately rewarded, should they choose to put their land in, and that they will also see that they are doing something for the public benefit.
The final group, if I dare say it, will be parliamentarians, who need to have confidence that these measures will contribute to the statutory climate and nature targets. It is all about how we work with all those groups to show that this is better.
Lee Pitcher
Q
Marian Spain: We are already having those conversations as part of the preparatory work.
Ellie Chowns
Q
“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”
You have spoken about how you think that there will be improvements. Are you absolutely confident that that holds, and that there is no way in which the Bill could result in a reduction in environmental protection—for example, in relation to irreplaceable habitats?
Marian Spain: I am trying awfully hard not to say that that is something for Parliament to be keeping a close eye on as the Bill goes through. There are risks. This is a very different system, and it will be embedded in legislation—theoretically, in perpetuity.
Again with our colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we are watching issues that are being raised by others, including by parliamentarians and the third sector. We are conscious that the Bill needs to have those robust safeguards, and there may be drafting amendments that make those even more robust. The basic premise of the Bill is clear, as I have said already—that basic idea that the plans can be approved by the Secretary of State only if he or she is satisfied.
The bit that we want to keep an open mind on, however, is the fact that we need to have a system that is robust enough and has those safeguards, but that also allows flexibility in how we operate it for years to come. Nature is changing in the way it responds to climate change. Society is recognising that it needs different things from nature, with nature-based solutions to climate change and more nature for health and wellbeing, as well as just the protection of rare species. There is something about getting that balance right to have a system that is workable in a place, and that is adaptable to what a community needs and to a particular development, but that maintains that overall aim to make nature better.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Q
Marian Spain: We are confident that the model works. The detail will come as we work through which topics and which situations we actually apply the environmental delivery plans to. It is perhaps also a version of the answer to a previous question; the plans themselves can rule things in and out. We may decide, for example, that a piece of ancient woodland cannot be replaced and would therefore not be subject to these measures, so that is another safeguard.
David Simmonds
Q
Marian Spain: I cannot tell you about modelling that we are doing for the future—that work has only just started—but I can refer back to what we have already. For example, with district level licensing, the formula is quite simple: how much does it cost to build a pond and how much does it cost either Natural England or, in that scheme, a third party, including private businesses, to deliver that? That is what drives the levy and that is what developers pay. They pay the cost of administration and the cost of delivery, and that is the model we will use for this. Those costs will, of course, vary—there will not be a single cost—because it will depend on the complexity of the issue and possibly even the geography, land price and so on.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Marian Spain for her evidence, and I thank all our other witnesses so far today for theirs.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 24th April 2025
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 April 2025 - (24 Apr 2025)
The Chair
We are about to have a vote, so we are going to be interrupted very shortly, but let us crack on as quickly as we can. We will now hear evidence from Victoria Hills, the chief executive officer of the Royal Town Planning Institute; Hugh Ellis, the director of policy at the Town and Country Planning Association; and Faraz Baber of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. For this panel, we have until 2.35 pm, unless of course we have a vote, as we are expecting, which will change the timing. I call the Opposition spokesperson to start the questions. If Members could indicate to me early that they want to ask a question, that would be helpful to me and the Clerk.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Q
I want to ask a question of the Town and Country Planning Association about the level of public trust in the planning system. The Opposition consistently outlined on Second Reading that we are concerned about democratic oversight and the right of the public and local planning committees to have a decent and worthwhile say on the way in which developments are allowed to go ahead in their own remits and jurisdictions. I notice that your written evidence states of public trust:
“If the planning system is to be democratic it is essential that the public has a voice during the examination of plans. This includes for the new, and powerful, spatial development strategies”.
Could you elaborate on that view and outline to the Committee what amendments you would like to see, or what emphasis you would like changed, to address your concerns in this area?
Hugh Ellis: Certainly. There are two aspects to it. One is that public trust is at a very low level. There has not been a full examination of public participation in planning since the late 1960s. Wherever we go, we find people who are struggling to understand the system, very often struggling with the asymmetry when they come up against the development industry, and struggling with the very limited opportunities that communities have to participate. Those opportunities are described in statute both for national infrastructure and for local planning applications; people are given three weeks.
The most important thing to stress is that people are not a source of delay; their voice in planning is due process. Taking out democratic opportunities in the cause of speeding up the process is utterly counter- productive, because where communities resist, they create delay anyway—outside the system. For us, there needs to be a respectful conversation. Of course, we are not arguing for a veto; we are arguing for meaningful opportunities for communities to be involved. That leads to better development, more accepted development and better placemaking.
Our concerns about the Bill relate particularly to the scheme of delegation and the shortened consultation periods for national infrastructure. To put that right, we are suggesting that things like the scheme of delegation are not really necessary. Certainly, if you are going to do it, you have to preserve local democratic oversight of major decisions at the local level. To give one final quick example, if you have a scheme of delegation that takes out local demographic oversight of decisions, you also take out the community’s only right in development management to be heard as a planning committee. The point I want to stress is that, at the moment, communities are the people largely excluded from decision making, and we want to give them a powerful voice. That is not anti-development; it is about building legitimacy, consent and certainty for development.
Paul Holmes
Q
Continuing with this line of questioning on local planning authorities and their powers with democratic oversight, one of your interesting proposals, Victoria, is an amendment that would allow for a statutory chief planning officer per local planning authority. I find that particularly interesting because I can see the argument that you would have increased legitimacy with one planning officer per local planning authority, despite the fact that we already have those, as there would be one person within each authority who is vested with the power to make those decisions. Can you outline how you see that working with the political structures that are in place in local authorities, bearing in mind what we would argue are the legislative aims of the Bill in removing some of those powers from locally elected councillors and politicians?
Victoria Hills: You are absolutely right; one of our core asks, which we believe would be a pillar of the quite systemic change being introduced by the Bill, is to have a statutory chief planning officer in every local authority. If you want to drive innovation, change, and the delivery of a new planning system, with the Bill setting an ambitious drumbeat for how planning will be done going forward, then to mobilise that delivery, you need to ensure that you have the appropriate seniority, experience and professional competency of a senior executive leader, rather than an elected leader. They can work with the elected politicians locally to drive forward delivery of the planning reform that is before this Committee.
We feel that many of the changes proposed in the Bill, some of which are quite structural about the way that planning will be done differently in the future, require not only strong elected leadership but strong executive leadership. [Interruption.]
Paul Holmes
Q
Victoria Hills: Thank you very much. I was making the point that, if you want to mobilise delivery quickly, and if you have gone to the effort of producing a new Bill and getting all the bits and pieces in place that you need to deliver the growth that we know the Government have committed to deliver, it makes sense to have someone with the appropriate level of seniority, experience and competency within local government who can drive forward that delivery.
There are a number of changes proposed in the Bill to do planning slightly differently, and within that context, you absolutely need a statutory chief planning officer working with the local politicians to deliver what the communities want to see locally. There is a golden opportunity in the Bill to ensure that we put that role in place in statute so that communities can be assured that, as these changes go through, they have the right level of seniority and competency working with the elected politicians to deliver the changes that they would like to see locally.
We support much of what is in the Bill, but we feel that it would be a missed opportunity not to introduce a provision for a statutory chief planning officer. You mentioned that these people exist, but they exist at different levels in different shades in different authorities. Very much along the lines of the conformity that I believe the Bill is trying to bring in for planning committees, if you are going to bring in a new national scheme of delegation for planning committees, you really need a statutory chief planning officer who can deliver that scheme locally, working hand in hand with the politicians to do so.
Paul Holmes
Q
I do not want to put words into the chief executive’s mouth, because she is not here now, but she told the Committee that there was some concern with the new systems over potential shortfalls in funding because of the spending review, which has not yet allocated money in the short term to Natural England, compared with the extra responsibilities that Natural England will have to undertake on habitat and nature. Can you outline your individual organisations’ views on whether Natural England is adequately resourced at the moment to undertake those extra duties? Under its current guise and funding, do you think that it is in a fit state to deliver on those extra responsibilities?
Victoria Hills: We have been very clear in our position: we support Natural England taking forward some of these new powers and responsibilities, provided that it is adequately resourced to do so. I do not have a detailed diagnostic of its resourcing and capability plans, but we have been assured, working with the Department, that the resources will be there. That is something that we will be keeping a very close eye on.
We support the principle of coming up with strategic solutions to some of the approaches to the environment, which can be delivered at a strategic level. As you know, we are a strong supporter of strategic planning and we believe that some of the biodiversity and nature aspects of planning do not stop at district council boundaries, or even county council boundaries. It makes perfect sense to look at these things at a strategic level; we support that and we support the ambition of Natural England to do it. However, we will caveat that by saying that it must be adequately resourced to do so, and that is a point that we will continue to make.
Faraz Baber: I work as a practitioner for a planning, environment and design company called Lanpro, which operates across the country. With that lens, I would say that the provisions on what it is expected that Natural England will deliver are right. It is good that the Government are moving towards the delivery of environmental delivery plans and all the things that sit around them.
I thought that the challenge to Natural England earlier was interesting. The chief executive was challenged as to whether, given what is in the Bill, there could be a cast-iron guarantee of the environmental credentials that we need to see come through. I have to say that I was surprised at the response, because you cannot: we have to see how it works in practice. For Natural England to deliver that, it will need to significantly recruit dedicated teams to operate a number of the provisions that are set out in the Bill, the EDPs being a good example. It is right that there will be concern about the comprehensive spending review and whether Natural England will have the resources and function to deliver. In principle, the Government are right in their direction of travel on this, but they will need to commit to the resources and funding to deliver on their promise.
Hugh Ellis: To add to that, rather than repeat it, there are concerns about the scheme design. We at the TCPA are also concerned about the philosophy that lies behind it—that it may lead to an offsetting process. To be clear, the foundation of planning is that nature and development can be easily managed together to enhance both. That is our tradition, and it has always been the planning tradition, from Morris onwards. The philosophy of planning should always be that I can build a development for you that will enhance nature and provide housing. The setting up of the two ideas in opposition is destructive and distracting.
We need to focus on design quality in new housing, and principally that means allowing people to have access to nature immediately. They need that for their mental health and physical wellbeing. That is a crucial saving to the NHS and social care budget in the long run. We want high-quality design first, and offsetting and large-scale habitat creation elsewhere—as a second resort, but not as the first, principal test.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Hugh Ellis: Since 1947, the greatest absence in all planning reform measures has been that we do not know what the system is for. The current round of reforms raises that question profoundly. The purpose should be sustainable development. We are signatories to the UN charter, and key concepts around sustainable development do not feature in the national planning policy framework. Those are really crucial ones about social justice, inclusion, environmental limits and precautionary principles. Those are all key to giving the planning system a purpose. That purpose is crucial pragmatically, because across the sector we need to know what the system is for, so that we can have confidence in it.
It is also crucial to understand that the system has long-term goals, future generations being one of them, and addressing the climate crisis being another. Within three to five years, the repeated impacts from climate change will be the dominant political issue we confront, and we need a system that works for that, as well as for housing growth.
Faraz Baber: Whether it should be in the Bill or in an NPPF-style document is more about whether people are able to know what planning is and how that is communicated. I do not necessarily believe that that has to be enshrined in the Bill, but it certainly should be clear, whether it is in the national planning policy framework, a local plan or a spatial development strategy, so that people—by which I mean all those who interact with the planning system—can know what planning is about and what it means for them. I feel that a Bill, and ultimately an Act, is the wrong place for it to be enshrined.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Faraz Baber: Planning is there to help, for want of a better phrase, with the placemaking and the delivery, and to ensure that there are guidelines for how plan making should take place. It is there to ensure that the various levers associated with the plan-making process and the development process are understood. Planning is the guardian that ensures that sustainable development can come forward.
Victoria Hills: One of the most important questions that anybody—elected leaders or executive leaders—can ask is “Why?” Why are we doing it? What is it all about? What is the purpose of this Bill? What is the purpose of planning? That is why we think it is essential, within the realms of this Bill, that a public purpose of planning is stated up front. You do not have to take our word for it. Our research published yesterday shows that the vast majority of the public do not have a clue what planning is. They do not know what it is for, and if you are going to drive through a major reform programme for planning, the likes of which we have not seen for 15 years, it might be a good idea if we are very clear on what the purpose of planning is.
For us, the purpose is really clear; at a strategic level, it is about the long-term public interest, the common good and the future wellbeing of communities. You need to be open and honest with the public up front that all this change that is coming in planning and infrastructure is actually for the long-term common good. Some of it people may not like in the short term, but we are talking about the long-term common good— delivering on climate, delivering on sustainable development goals and delivering for communities. We think it is really important that the opportunity is not missed, not only to help inform the public and everybody else who needs to know what the purpose of planning is but to provide that north star, that guiding star, as to the why. Why are we doing this? What purpose does it have?
Thank you for your question. We are absolutely clear that having a public purpose of planning is really important for this legislation, and we will continue to make that case.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Q
Hugh—the Bill provides a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for the operation of development corporations. You know that it is clearly our view that they have to do a lot of work in the coming years to drive the kind of delivery we need and the types of development we want to see come forward. What is your assessment of how effective those development corporation powers are to support development and regeneration?
Victoria Hills: One thing we know about from our members, but also from those people who are actually in the business of building things—of course, that is really what is important if you want to see some growth coming—is consistency. You asked about the variation. Some councils have fantastic schemes of delegation and it is very clear what is and is not going to committee, but other councils have a slightly more grey scheme of delegation—let’s call it that—whereby things can pop up in committee on the basis of an individual issue or individual councillor.
The opportunity afforded to us by the Bill is for some consistency through a national scheme of delegation. We have in place some very robust processes that look at the business of development, through the local plan process. It goes to not one but two public inquiries, through the Government’s inspectorate, and then back to the community. What we recognise is that if you have had some very robust considerations of the principles of development and you have good development prescribed by, for example, a design code that says, “This is what good development looks like here”—so we have worked out what we want, where it is going and what it looks like—it is perfectly possible that suitably qualified chief planning officers can work out whether something is in conformity with a plan. We therefore welcome the opportunity to clarify that through a national scheme of delegation.
This is not to take away anybody’s democratic mandate to have their say. Of course, there are all sorts of opportunities to have that say in the local plan process, but if we are to move to a national scheme of delegation, we would want a statutory chief planning officer who has that statutory wraparound and has the appropriate level of competency and gravitas to be able to drive forward that change, because it will be a change for some authorities. For some, it will not be a change at all, but taking forward that innovation via a national scheme of delegation will require that statutory post, so that those decisions cannot be challenged, because they will be made in a professionally competent way.
Hugh Ellis: I think development corporations are essential if we are going to achieve this mission. You would expect the TCPA to say that, because we are inheritors of the new towns programme. The interesting thing about them is that, for the first time, they bolt together strategy and delivery. The existing town and country planning system is often blamed for not delivering homes, but it has no power to build them.
The development corporation solves that problem by creating a delivery arm that can effectively deliver homes, as we saw with the new towns programme, which housed 2.8 million people in 32 places in less than 20 years of designation, and it also paid for itself—it is an extraordinary model. The measures in the Bill to modernise overall duties on development corporations are really welcome. I assume you do not want me to talk about compulsory purchase orders right now, but hope value and CPOs are critical accompanying ideas in the reform package that go with that. In the long run, I think that they will become critical.
Obviously, the new towns taskforce has to decide what it wants on policy. The challenge that we face with them is legitimacy, and there is still work to do in making sure that there is a Rolls-Royce process of getting public consent for this new generation of places. However, the outcome is such an opportunity to generate places that genuinely enhance people’s health, deal with the climate crisis and provide high levels of affordability. What a contrast that is with what we have delivered through town and country planning at local plan level, which is a lot of the bolt-on, car-dependent development. Frankly, as a planner, I find that shameful. The opportunity with development corporations is there and I hope that the Government seize it.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Q
Hugh Ellis: I will be honest: as a planner, I am really worried about it. The one difficult thing is that you cannot build without consent, and I think governance in planning is really important. Environmental governance in general is important. I am sceptical about the degree to which this is a really big problem. I can see evidence coming through to suggest that delegation rates for normal applications that you can decide locally are very high already.
I made this point earlier on, but what worries me more than anything else is that if you sideline the opportunity that the public currently have to be represented at committee, the appearance—if not the intent—is that you are excluding people. In periods of change, you have to lean into consultation, participation and democratic accountability. You must accept that while it is not a veto, because you as parliamentarians may wish to decide that the development proceeds, it is either democracy or it is not.
For us, the idea of democratic planning is so central, and it was so important in 1947. That Government had a choice: it had proposed a Land Board, which could have made all the planning decisions centrally, but it gave those decisions to local government on the basis that people locally understand decision making best. My own experience is that people are a solution, not a problem. Wherever I go, I find people who know detail about development and can improve it, particularly on flood risk, and they want to contribute.
I do not accept that there is an anti-development lobby everywhere, and there certainly is not in my community. Instead, there are people concerned about quality, affordability and service provision, and their voice should be heard. The Bill could create the impression, even if it is not the intent, that there is a non-respectful conversation going on. Finally, as a planner, I would never want to be in the firing line for taking a decision on a major housing scheme that is ultimately a matter of politics, and should always be so.
Paul Holmes
Quite right!
Faraz Baber: If I may respond on that, there is real merit in the delegation scheme being proposed, within the confines of ensuring that the plan-making process is robust, and that there is engagement by community representatives through the EIP process, as well as other avenues that can help the plan-making take place.
I have created neighbourhood plans as much as I have worked on regional spatial strategies and the London plan. I know that if you get those processes to a place where, from the outset, everyone has engaged with the plan, and communities buy in from that point, you see the follow-through in the consistency of the delivery of the plan. Actually, it is not then a brave decision for a planning officer to make because they are following the lines of what the community has charged them to go and deliver for them. We must remind ourselves that it is about cases that are devoid of those policies and try to do something else, which is where it then needs further democratic overview. In the broadest sense, if we are looking at the growth that this country needs, at the delivery this country needs and at the pace at which that needs to come, we do need to think in a more dynamic fashion, and I think the delegation scheme does have merit.
I take the point that Victoria made about the chief officer. That seniority does provide good cover in a council, and it will enable them to provide that oversight and ensure that things that are required for the community are also delivered. Working in tandem provides a real opportunity for a good national delegation scheme to come forward.
Victoria Hills: To add to that, a professionally competent chartered town planner is very capable at ensuring that all the community interests are represented and balanced. That drives really excellent outcomes, and certainly that is the business that our members are in: delivering great places.
The Chair
We have less than 10 minutes, and seven Members, at the last count, wanted to ask questions. Please be very quick with your questions or we are not going to get everyone in.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Q
Victoria Hills: Very briefly, capacity and capability have been a hindrance in local authorities for a number of years. We have lost 25% of local authority planners alone in the last seven years, and that cannot continue. We are working with the Department and many partners; Public Practice and Pathways to Planning are both really important at this moment in time. The chief planner is there to advocate for those resources at the top table of local government and to ensure that they have a statutory basis on which to retain the budget.
Despite everything that everybody is doing to bring in more planners—with private sector money as well; we are working with the British Chambers of Commerce on a new planning scholarship, using private sector money to solve the crisis of lack of capacity—our biggest burning platform at the moment is the uncertainty regarding the level 7 apprenticeship. Some 60% of apprentices in local government come from under-represented groups within the profession. Unless we have urgent clarity soon as to whether or not our chartered town planner apprenticeship can continue, we are seriously worried about the pipeline of planners going into local government. It would be remiss of me not to mention that in the context of your capacity question.
On local plans, of course it is not good enough that only 40% of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan. That is an urgent priority. Of the 25% of local authority planners who have left local government in the last seven years, we suspect the lion’s share were in those local planning teams, and we need to work urgently to put that capacity back in. The apprenticeship will go some way, as will Pathways to Planning and the planning scholarship, but there is no time to waste in ensuring that we put that capacity back in. We think that the statutory chief planning role will not only have the right level of seniority to advocate for it, but they will actually help restore planning departments as a real career choice for graduates coming out of planning schools now.
The Chair
Order. Please remember to keep it short, because other colleagues want to come in.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Faraz Baber: The outline, as you say, is an outline, but the reality is that any full application that comes forward should be aligned with the agreement on social infrastructure and all the other elements that are required, whether that is the affordable housing, social infrastructure, civil payments or whatever. There was an earlier question: what is planning for? Well, planning is for that—to ensure that those community benefits are derived from development and to ensure that it is inclusive, not just for new residents but for existing residents as well.
I think that is a guardianship point, where the planning team or the local authority have to ensure that what they said they wanted to see from the plan is ultimately delivered. People will go into viability discussions and say, “I can’t afford that and I can’t afford this.” That is a judgment that has to be made about what can be delivered in the public interest. In answer to your question, that is very much where planning sits at the fore, to ensure that the right development with the right social infrastructure comes forward, and that it is fitting for the place it is sitting in.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Q
Victoria Hills: We have been advocating for the ringfencing of fees since time began. It is absolutely essential, and—I am sure that Faraz will pick this point up in a moment for his clients—I have not met a single developer that is not willing to pay for more for a service. The problem is that they are paying more but not getting the service. In some places, they are, but not in others. The opportunity, through this Bill, to strengthen the ringfencing and ensure that the money stays within the planning team to deliver the service cannot come soon enough to help to reduce some of those delays.
Having the opportunity for local areas to work out what good looks like for them is absolutely a sensible way forward within that. Again, we do feel that having the right level of seniority within the department to ensure that the money stays there is going to be a key part of it.
Faraz Baber: Moving towards this ringfencing idea within the planning service is hugely positive, although when I say the planning service, it may extend slightly to the legal side as well, because you have to get those section 106 agreements signed off to make things happen. The key, though, is that it has to stay ringfenced for that resource to happen. We often see that PPAs—planning performance agreements—are paid up front for meetings, and that there is a very uneven balance in how well those deliver, in terms of the service that the clients receive when they pay those large chunks of change for that service. So, developers are right—applicants are right—to get frustrated when they think they are getting a premier service to help facilitate the bringing forward of an application, then find that it does not move the dial one iota.
I think the very basic premise is that instead of the chief executive or the finance director of the council saying, “I’ll take that because I need to put it into social care or into education,” the money actually stays there. Remember, if we keep that money inside the planning service, it will drive the growth that the Government have said that they want to achieve. The devil is in the detail, and we need to see that more, but it is the right direction to take.
Hugh Ellis: I would say that it would stabilise issues for development management, but, for the policy officers who we work with, it would not necessarily support their work.
Also, a piece of heresy, if it is okay: the private sector complains a lot about delays, despite getting 86% of all its applications approved, but I think that there needs to be more debate about competence in the private sector. When a private sector developer applies for a category 3a floodplain development and then complains that the Environment Agency wants it to go through a flood risk assessment process, my blood boils. Planners are doing life-and-death stuff. For example, no house built after 2009 is part of the insurance compact, so if we get this wrong, negative equity will look like a picnic. Planning is trying to do really complicated stuff and it needs time to do that. Statutory consultees are also crucial to that, and they need to be resourced properly to play that role as well.
The Chair
We are coming to the last few seconds so I am going to call an end to the session. Sorry that we did not get everybody in. As it is the end of the time allocated to the Committee to ask questions, on behalf of the Committee I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Jack Airey and Sam Richards gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Jack Airey, director of housing and infrastructure for Public First, and from Sam Richards, chief executive officer of Britain Remade. This session will run to 3.25 pm.
Paul Holmes
Q
As you know, the Opposition were consistently concerned throughout the Second Reading debate—we asked previous witnesses questions on this—about the perceived democratic deficit in the future planning system should some of the measures go through, particularly those on national schemes of delegation and on statutory consultees and changes to the consultation process. Mr Airey, do you think this legislation will remove local people’s right to make representations and make an impact, to the extent that they currently can, on local planning decisions?
Jack Airey: First, we start from a very low base of democratic engagement in the planning system. Very few people engage in planning applications or the planning process, and often the people who do are not representative of their local area. The No. 1 thing we could do is to increase that participation and get a much wider range of people involved in having a say in planning. That is my primary concern.
On a national scheme of delegation, it all depends on the detail that the Government provide later and how it is implemented through regulations. In the context that I set out, I am not too worried about a perceived loss of democratic oversight, because I feel like it is so low. It would be remiss of me not to note that councillors who are on planning committees are often elected with very small mandates, given the very low turnouts in local elections, so in my view we start from a very low position in respect of people having the right say in what they should be doing.
It would be no bad thing if the intent of the reform that comes forward is to reduce the number of schemes that planning committees reject for nakedly political reasons. It is no way to regulate a major part of our economy—the construction industry. It creates lots of uncertainty for developers and for communities, and ultimately it means fewer things get built and much less growth happens than should.
Often, councils lose millions of pounds having to fight appeals that a developer is bound to win because it has put forward a scheme that is compliant with a local plan but has been rejected for reasons that are, in my view, quite odd a lot of the time. If the reform that the Government eventually bring forward begins to deal with that, it will be very worth while, but the threshold for delegation will have to be set in a way that removes as much ambiguity as possible so that planning officers do not always feel the need to direct every single application to a committee, because every application will be controversial to someone.
Paul Holmes
Q
I have a further question about the role of planning committees. What do you think of the proposal by the Royal Town Planning Institute for a chief planning officer to strengthen officer accountability, in order to tackle some of your perceived drawbacks in the system, such as the number of applications referred to committee and the number that are challenged unfairly? Do you see any advantages in that?
Jack Airey: There is certainly a capacity problem in planning committees. Every part of the system is saying that, so it must be true. Does that proposal deal with that directly? I am not sure. Another question was whether we need different layers of planning officers, or whether we need a chief statutory planning officer. I do not know. I think that that is the No. 1 issue. I am being quite neutral on the proposal, because I am not sure that it solves that issue, but there is definitely a capacity issue. Would their being statutory mean that they got more funding in the council? I do not know. I think councils are a bit more complicated than that sometimes.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Q
Sam Richards: For those of you who do not know, Britain Remade is a campaign, and 35,000 people across the country support us building the homes, energy and transport infrastructure that we need. It is worth briefly stepping back and remembering why we desperately need to streamline the planning system. I am going to give you four quick examples.
First, the planning application for the lower Thames crossing—I see the relevant Member here—has cost more than £250 million. That is more than it cost Norway to actually build the world’s longest tunnel. That has been all in planning. That is all paperwork—not a single spade in the ground.
Secondly, High Speed 2 is the world’s most expensive railway line, in no small part because we are doing things like building a £121 million bat tunnel to protect 300 Bechstein’s bats that live in a nearby wood—not actually the wood that the line goes through, but a nearby wood. I think most people would agree that that is a disproportionate response.
Thirdly, we are currently building the world’s most expensive nuclear power plant, at Hinkley. It is the most expensive nuclear power plant ever constructed in the history of the human race. Why is it so expensive? We used to build them more cheaply: 20 years ago, they were half the price; when we built the fleets in the ’50s and ’60s, they were a quarter of the cost of the ones that we are building now. Why is it costing so much more? In no small part, it is to do with the environmental rules that mean that EDF is currently wrangling with regulators, and has been for eight years, about installing an underwater fish disco—an acoustic deterrent to stop the fish from swimming into the exhaust pipes of the power plant. Millions of pounds are currently being spent on that.
Fourthly, the planning application for a 3.3-mile railway line between Bristol and Portishead—reopening an existing line that was cut in the Beeching cuts—is 80,000 pages long, with more than 1,000 pages dedicated to bats, on what is an existing line.
It is important to make those points, because the ambition of the Bill is absolutely right: we need to make it much easier to build the homes, energy and transport links that we need. In many ways, the Government are delivering on what they are setting out to do, but there is one crucial area where they are going to need to go further, and that is on the changes to the application of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
It is worth saying that while we are failing to build, we are failing to protect nature; all our key biodiversity indicators are in decline. The shift to a strategic approach to environmental protections is absolutely the right one: getting away from this site-by-site approach, which has led to the bat tunnels and the fish discos, is absolutely right. We need to do that both to help us build the stuff quicker and to help us better protect nature. My fear with the way the Bill is currently written and how the environmental delivery plans will be implemented is that, because the habitats rules remain untouched and sit underneath them, if EDPs are not brought in, the habitats rules kick in as they do currently. It relies on Natural England bringing out all these EDPs and, indeed, those EDPs working for species.
It is easy to see how they will apply in the case of, say, nutrient neutrality. We have basically already started doing that with the nutrient mitigation schemes that started two years ago. That is all to the good, and that should unlock lots of house building in the south of England. That is brilliant, but I fear that as things stand, the Government have not solved the bat tunnel issue, and they will need to come back to that.
Jack Airey: Whether it delivers more homes and infrastructure is almost an unfair question, because legislative reforms to the planning system take so long to have an effect. While a lot of the things in the Bill are very positive and will improve the structure of the planning system, it will take a long time for them to have an effect and for the various bits of regulation to be laid. I worked on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. So much of that has not been implemented and probably will not ever be implemented, and I fear we will be in that situation with this Bill, too.
The reforms the Government have brought forward in the national planning policy framework are much more radical and impactful, certainly in the short to medium term; ditto forthcoming reforms to the national development management policies, if they are done the right way. Policy changes by the Department have a quicker effect, and I would be looking to that in the short term.
In terms of where I would go further, I agree with Sam on that part of the Bill. If I were a Government who wanted to deliver a lot of homes very quickly, I am not sure this is the reform I would have brought forward. I would have looked again at the reform that was put forward by the previous Government, which would have totally disapplied habitats regulations when they related to nutrient neutrality requirements, so there would be no need to produce an EDP or for the developer to pay a levy. That would have been the quickest way to unblock the homes that are currently stalled by this issue.
Gideon Amos
Q
Sam Richards: As I said, that is where I think the big gap in the Bill is. There is a range of things. There are the rounds and rounds of consultation, which the Government have made some good progress on just this week by announcing that they will reduce the pre-application consultation stages. That is to be welcomed. It is the rounds and rounds of judicial reviews and the fact that the vast majority of major infrastructure projects in this country are brought to the courts. That has been the case multiple times for Hinkley and will be the case for Sizewell. Again, what the Government have done there is welcome, by reducing the opportunity for vexatious judicial reviews and reducing the number of opportunities from three to one and a half. That is to be welcomed, but it is also the additional environmental mitigations that have to be brought and the disproportionate responses that add costs and delay to building major infrastructure.
Gideon Amos
Q
Sam Richards: The key point is not just whether a particular species matters but the mitigation measures that developers are able and allowed to take under the current framework. I am not here to represent EDF, but it proposed that you could basically pay a fishing vessel to not fish a similar species in a similar area, which would then allow the replenishment of an equivalent amount of stocks. Under the current rules, you are not able to do that strategic-level mitigation.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
Jack Airey: The existing framework for doing that is the section 106 system and the community infrastructure levy system. I am not sure whether the CIL applies in Dartford, but in my mind that provides a fairly effective method of doing this in a way that does not make development totally unviable, while extracting enough value to provide some contribution to the community. I do not think there is anything in the Bill that really focuses on this—I could be proven wrong—but I think the existing system works okay.
It is really difficult to do this and it does not always work. Rightly, communities always want the right amount of infrastructure. This might relate to other comments I might make: we rely on the planning system to do so much heavy lifting to deliver all sorts of things that everyone wants, and we try to prioritise everything and end up prioritising nothing. We could have a system where we extracted more from developer contributions and that went to community infrastructure, but that would come with a trade-off, probably around provision of affordable housing and things like that. That would be a sensible debate to have if that is what your constituents want, but it is also quite difficult politically.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
Some of the large energy infrastructure projects have described having large pipelines of potential projects, some of which were very speculative and others of which were quite close to the spades in the ground stage. How can we ensure that what emerges from the Bill guarantees meaningful and proper consultation, so that the receiving community really understands what the impact will be and, where there may be local objections, people have a really detailed understanding of what the benefits will be in order to persuade them to be more supportive of the proposals?
Jack Airey: Is your question specific to nationally significant infrastructure projects, or does it relate to the TCPA as well?
David Simmonds
I think it covers both, but each of those things is addressed separately in the Bill.
Jack Airey: It goes back to my initial point that community participation in the planning process is so low, and you often only hear about the negative parts. If we could boost that a bit—in truth, I am not sure how you do that in a way that is not totally burdensome on local authorities, because often people have better things to do than go to a town hall on a Tuesday evening. Raising that is a difficult but necessary thing to do. That is how you begin to spell out not just the negatives but the benefits of development on the local planning system side.
On the NSIP reforms, I know you will hear later from Catherine Howard, who is much more of an expert on this than I am. It looks like a wholly positive thing to me. The Government press release talked about saving around 12 months off an NSIP development consent order process, which is a hugely positive thing.
Sam Richards: I agree with Jack. Dare I say it, I think there is a role here for elected representatives in making the case when we need to build things. I know it is hard, not least when development is poorly planned or ugly, and of course when there is local opposition it is often tempting to row in on the side of those who are opposing development, but there is a job to do here. Fundamentally, we have not built sufficient infrastructure for decades and, as a result, we have the highest industrial energy costs in the world. London has the most expensive housing in Europe. We have not built the infrastructure we need for decades. It is incumbent on all of us, including our elected representatives, to make the case for the building that we need.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Q
Jack Airey: I think what I said is that the system for securing and spending developer contributions is okay. I do not think the wider planning system is okay. In terms of how you can improve it, a lot of the measures in the Bill are very worth while, and a lot of the changes in the NPPF are incredibly worth while. There are many more things that the Government can do, especially on the national development management policies.
Sam Richards: The system is fundamentally broken. I am sure your constituents are furious that their energy bills are through the roof and they cannot afford the rent, and they are right to be so.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Jack Airey: At Public First we do lots of opinion research. We do public polling, focus groups and something we call immersives. We go and speak to people and ask what they think about things. In some polling we have asked, “Have you engaged in planning applications? Do you get involved in the local plan?” and it is minuscule proportions of people. We go and speak to people about developments that are happening.
There is definitely opposition to development and it is often very intense. Often, if you listen to debates in the building across the road or you look online, it looks like it is totally representative of a local community, but often, if you speak to people on the ground, most do not care about it. They might even support it. While there is some opposition—I am sure you hear it a lot in your constituencies when you go doorstep to doorstep —it is much smaller than it seems. That is the message I was trying to give. It is about engaging those people who need to be housed, if we are talking about housing, just as much as the people who oppose development. We should talk to them a bit more.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Q
Jack Airey: Do you mean geographically?
Lee Pitcher
No—where within the planning process?
Jack Airey: The Bill puts much greater emphasis on local plan making. In my view, that is a really good thing. We need plans that really stand up to scrutiny, and we need promised homes to be actually delivered. The Planning Inspectorate has a big role there, and I think that is where most engagement should happen. At the moment various people have many bites of the cherry to give their view on development. Often it is a negative thing; sometimes it is a positive thing. That could be concentrated a bit more on the plan-making process. Once a site is allocated in a local plan, it should be much harder for that thing not to happen.
Sam Richards: I agree with Jack.
The Chair
Rachel Taylor, you have about a minute and a half; maybe you will get a quick answer.
Rachel Taylor
Q
The Chair
You have less than a minute.
Sam Richards: This has been more Jack’s point than mine, so I will let him come back to it, but I think it is reasonable that that is handled through the local plan.
Jack Airey: Sorry, another controversial opinion: I do not think development necessarily has to have consent. Lots of development happens that does not have consent—for example, things that go through the permitted development rights regime. I lived in a home that was built through the PDR regime, and it was perfectly nice—it was really nice. You see lots of homes that are built that way. There is no democratic engagement because MPs grant national planning permission for that through the general permitted development order. I get what people are saying and I am not trying to question it entirely, but you can have nice homes that are delivered outside that system.
To answer your second question on whether consultation should be done through representatives, the most important thing is that you go and ask people what they think.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for Members to ask questions. I thank the witnesses for their time.
Examination of Witnesses
Rachel Hallos and Paul Miner gave evidence.
The Chair
This panel will run until 3.50 pm. We will hear evidence from Rachel Hallos, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, and Paul Miner, head of policy at CPRE. We will start with questions from the Opposition spokesperson.
Paul Holmes
Q
In that vein, may I ask you about a relatively controversial part of the legislation—the Government’s proposals to reform some of the compulsory purchase order powers? Of course, the Opposition will table amendments throughout the process. I know that other Members want to come in, so I will ask you both all my questions and then I will shut up, much to the pleasure of others. What would be the cumulative impact of the proposals on top of some of the other proposals brought in by the Government, particularly in the autumn Budget? Can you outline some of the representations that you have had from your members about what the detailed reforms would mean for the level of payment to people, whether they are tenant farmers or landowning farmers, in relation to CPOs under the Bill?
I have another question for you, Mr Miner. In terms of the nature restoration fund, even though the Government claim that there will be no net loss to environmental outcomes as a result of the Bill, is your organisation concerned that it would unintentionally create a patchwork quilt effect, where some areas would essentially have a deterioration in their environmental outcomes compared with other areas in the country? Could you give us a general view of your organisation’s opinion on the nature restoration fund in particular? I will go to the NFU first.
Rachel Hallos: Thank you for your question; it is a big one and a very big concern among our members. First, as an organisation, we absolutely welcome measures to modernise the planning system. We all know that it needs to happen. We all know that we need to build and grow, and that our industry also needs to grow. I just want to make it very clear to the Committee that we are in no way saying that this is a bad idea.
We see parts of the Bill that we like and parts of it that we dislike, and it will not come as a surprise to any of you that the compulsory purchase element has raised the most concern among our members. Last week, when we brought together our council members, who represent the 44,000 people we have across England and Wales, this was the element that really had them concerned. I completely understand why when we see what has happened in the past, and what is still ongoing with matters such as High Speed 2 and other things around the country.
We can break down the compulsory purchase order element into two different things. The first is hope value, which is of real concern to our members. Again, they completely understand that we need to build and grow, and that we need infrastructure in place, because we are woefully behind with it. When you go to somebody’s home or business and lay down the order that you are going to compulsorily purchase it, there has to be fair reward to that person to enable them to rebuild their business or home elsewhere. There is not a lot we can do about it. This is something that can happen to them that is completely out of their control.
My members and I genuinely believe that if somebody is going to make commercial gain from the compulsory purchase of that land, or potentially purchases some of it, making the rest of the business unviable, the person having the purchase order served on them should also be commercially rewarded so that they can continue and rebuild their life or business in another place. It is really important that we have that fairness with compulsory purchase orders.
The second element, which is the one that really sent shivers, is giving Natural England the power to compulsorily purchase land. I have been sitting at the back and have already heard bats mentioned. We really do not believe that the Committee should vote for this clause to be part of the Bill when the Government have provided so little explanation for why it should be there. We are very concerned about giving Natural England compulsory purchase responsibilities and an ability to do that.
It is not just because of bat tunnels—another layer sits behind that. This is about putting environmental goods on hold over here while you build something, but you recreate it over there. Wildlife biodiversity does not have borders or boundaries. It is among us. It might seem strange to you for a farming representative to talk like that, but we genuinely believe that we can deliver food security—you know that good old line, “Food security is national security”—at the same time as enhancing or protecting the environment, or whatever you want to call it.
We need to be really, really careful that we ensure that whoever has the powers to compulsorily purchase land—if that is really the route you want to go down—has the capabilities and capacity to do it in the right manner so that there are not losses. That is where our members are. I fully support their stance on that and we feel very, very strongly about it.
Paul Holmes
Q
Paul Miner: We had concerns about biodiversity net gain when it was introduced because we felt that it would not lever in as many resources for nature conservation as some of its proponents claimed, and that it would not necessarily deliver strategic benefits. On that basis, we support the principle of a nature restoration fund as something that has the potential for taking a more strategic approach. From our perspective, it is particularly important that the nature restoration fund links well with the Government’s proposed land use framework, which we also support and which we urge the Government to bring in as soon as possible after the consultation finishes. There should also be strong links between the nature restoration fund and the local priorities that are identified in local nature recovery strategies.
We have concerns about the detail proposed in the Bill, and in particular about the potential compromising of the well-established mitigation hierarchy: the principle that you should avoid environmental damage before seeking to compensate for or mitigate it. We are also members of Wildlife and Countryside Link, which you will hear from later. We support what it has been saying about the nature restoration fund.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Rachel Hallos: No.
Olly Glover
Please expand.
Rachel Hallos: I am not convinced that there is clarity on the balance and calculations. If you take such land out of production, what imbalance does that create with production elsewhere? If you move environmental goods from one area of land on to another, what imbalance is being created there? If we are going to go down an accounting route, what is the cost-benefit of doing it—whether it is food production, homes or environment? I am not sure that is in the Bill, and I think it needs to be to make sure that the right decisions are being taken in the right places.
As an organisation representing farmers, and as a farmer myself, I know that what we do on our land is a long process, whether it is producing food or managing the land for environmental goods. This is not a quick fix; we cannot move a dial and have something change overnight. We need to make sure that the right decisions are being taken in the right places, and we also need to recompense the people who are taken along with it as they go.
Paul Miner: We broadly agree with Rachel. Overall, the Bill needs to strike a better balance between the various objectives that the planning system seeks to fulfil. It is not just about facilitating development but about mitigating and adapting to climate change, as well as helping to secure nature recovery. We think that the Bill can do more to give the wider public and ourselves confidence that, in future, we will get better plans and decisions that will look to achieve a vision for getting more sustainable development, as well as meeting our climate change targets and our very ambitious nature conservation targets.
One element that has not come up in questioning so far, which we are particularly keen to raise, is clause 22 on householder payments for electricity transmission lines. We do not think that making payments to householders is the way to go. Instead, we should really focus on building on the good practice that we already have for onshore wind farms, where we consult and involve communities in community benefit schemes, and also look to achieve community benefit schemes that help communities, in turn, address climate change, get more rooftop solar on people’s homes in rural areas and improve the energy efficiency of rural housing. It seems to us that giving payments to householders completely goes against working in any kind of public interest, and we urge parliamentarians to look at that clause of the Bill again.
David Simmonds
Q
I am interested in your view on whether the Bill sufficiently addresses the balance between green belt and agricultural use. What improvements would you want to see on compulsory purchase processes to ensure that landowners in those locations have appropriate recourse? Also, where it is clear that the land in question provides a broader public benefit, as opposed to simply being a business standing on its own, how can we ensure that the broader public benefit can be accounted for in the reckoning up of the value of that land?
Rachel Hallos: It is almost like having ransom strips next to urban conurbations. That green belt gets sucked into that urban conurbation and, all of a sudden, it becomes a brown belt—I think “grey belt” was also considered at one stage. The reality is, when you are in that situation—I can completely understand, although some of my members would not; that is the leadership role that we have to take—that that land is of national benefit through development. That is because it increases the size of the town, the infrastructure—the whole thing. On what the Bill needs to do, again it goes back to doing the number crunching. What is the long-term benefit of this?
We also have to remember that when we compulsorily purchase land from a farmer who is running their business and living there, they have every right to make a decision to restart their business elsewhere. What if the land value goes up and they are being paid just the flat agricultural rate? Everybody wants that land, because guess what? Everybody wants land right now. Everybody wants land for everything, so land prices are creeping up anyway. There is then artificial inflation of the land price in that area because everybody is after it.
That bit also needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to recompensing anybody who has land taken away from them. It is a complicated formula, but the Bill really does need to look at that if we are to go anywhere near rebuilding confidence and trust between the agricultural community and Government. Especially if we put it in the package of everything else that is going on, we are very much in danger of having it go “bang” again. This has to stop. We all have to get on with life. We all have to get on with what we do—produce food, infrastructure or growth for the country.
Paul Miner: Green belt is a planning policy, but as you have rightly pointed out, green-belt land often has a wide range of public benefits and meanings for people who live in the towns and cities that the green belts surround. We strongly support the Bill’s provision for spatial development strategies, because you need effective strategic planning in order for green-belt policy to work effectively.
Also, from our perspective, we should not just be looking at how the planning policy should work. If we accept that the vast majority of green-belt land will not become grey belt in the future but will remain designated green belts, we need to think about how we can better manage that land. That is why it is really important that in spatial development strategies and in the Government’s land use framework, we have policies for improving the management of green-belt land. Until now, green-belt land has been relatively poorly served by successive Governments’ environmental land management schemes. There is relatively low take-up in green-belt areas. We urge the Government, as part of the land use framework but also with spatial development strategies, to seek to improve the quality of green belts for nature and for climate.
Rachel Hallos: May I add one last thing to that? Sorry to be rude. When it comes to the spatial development strategies, LNRSs and all the different things that are going on and are being consulted on at the moment, there is no legal requirement to consult the land manager. That worries me. It is just wrong.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Rachel Hallos: It is bigger than just this Bill on CPOs. There is a mistrust. There is a concern that people are not taking food production or agriculture seriously. This is what it is encapsulated in, but the CPO element for me is that people have felt the pain of badly delivered CPOs, through High Speed 2 in particular; other things have gone on in this country. That has lingered really heavily, so when you start mentioning compulsory purchase to any land manager or landowner, it sends shivers down their spine.
We are concerned that disregarding a hope value puts landowners and farmers in that tailspin again, so where do we go from here? How do we deal with this? We have found that especially with our members and HS2—I will keep referring to HS2 because it has been an absolute nightmare, and it is still a nightmare. They are still waiting for the final, agreed payment in many cases, so that they can start getting on with their life. That is the concern when it comes to the hope value.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Rachel Hallos: It is the fact that there is potential they will not get paid the true value of that land or that farm—that is the concern.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Rachel Hallos: Ultimately, it is a person’s life and livelihood. They are going to get paid only the basic agricultural value, out of no fault of their own, and they have to start up elsewhere. This is not going to happen just once or twice; if we follow the huge infrastructure plans that we all know the country needs—we accept as a union that we need to grow—this will inflate land prices elsewhere, as people choose to continue their livelihoods elsewhere and go looking for that land. That is the difference.
Paul Holmes
I will come back again, although I know you are under the cosh at the moment.
Rachel Hallos: It’s fine; that is why I am here.
Paul Holmes
By the way, don’t apologise. You are perfectly entitled, as every other witness is, to give your view on this piece of legislation. I would say, however, that the Minister is absolutely correct that there were some hope value reforms under the last Government, and I was not here—
Rachel Hallos: I accept that.
Paul Holmes
Q
Rachel Hallos: I am a tenant farmer; my landlord can do as they wish. In reality, I have few rights, so I understand what it is like to be a tenant farmer. If this will change the relationship between a landlord and a tenant, you have a very difficult situation. Of course, the tenant will have only a certain pool of money to take with them elsewhere to go and rent another farm. As we all know, there is not a lot of them there—that will be the difference.
It is the practical differences that I am looking at here. I am putting my farmer hat on, which says, “If that happened to us on our farm, where would we go and what would we go with?” We would be in a competitive market trying to get that farm to continue what we do, which is produce food. As many of you may know, not all farms are the same. That is the farmer answer for you, putting myself in those shoes.
The Chair
We have just over a minute and a half. With a quick question from Luke Murphy, and a quick answer, we might just get something in.
Luke Murphy
Q
Rachel Hallos: I think there is merit to reforming it, but it is about making sure that the reforms are done in the right way and are fair to everybody. I think I have already said it, but I have this line: if somebody is going to benefit commercially from that compulsory purchase, the person from whom it is being purchased should also benefit, and it should enable them to have adequate funding to go and continue elsewhere.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the panel for their answers to the questions.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Adam Hug, Councillor Richard Clewer and Councillor Richard Wright gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Councillor Adam Hug, chair of the Local Government Association’s local infrastructure and net zero board, and leader of Westminster city council; Councillor Richard Clewer, leader of Wiltshire council and housing and planning spokesperson for the County Councils Network; and Councillor Richard Wright, leader of North Kesteven district council, and planning lead for the District Councils’ Network. We have until 4.25 pm for this session.
Paul Holmes
Thank you, Councillors, for being here. I put on record that many Committee members are former or still serving councillors.
Paul Holmes
Q
I will ask two mainstream questions: first, around some of the Government’s wider reforms, which in some cases the Opposition welcome, particularly around local government reform and the advent of new mayoralties—combined authority mayoralties. Do you think that undertaking a huge amount of work in terms of planning reform should come before we have seen the advancement of the reforms under local government reorganisation and mayoralties? In any area in the legislation, are you concerned that some of the intended consequences of the planning reforms will not be able to be delivered as they should, because we do not have the reforms to local government, which will fundamentally impact outcomes in the longer term?
Councillor Hug: Obviously, the Government are trying to do multiple things at once—that is the case for all Governments at all times on all things; the world does not stand still. The challenge for this piece of legislation, and everything else, is to try to build in the scope to evolve once the overall picture of local government reform is complete. There is quite some way to go on that in different parts of the country. I am speaking from a part of the country that is not currently in that round of discussions yet.
At the heart of it, the local plan has an important role, which we want to make sure is there in any new strategic set-up that is created, and that local councillors have a say. We want to make sure that, whatever core tier there is of local government, it has the ability to work with the new strategic mayoral authority in a collaborative and productive way so that both tiers are working in a partnership, which clearly recognises that the new role has been brought in by the Government and the importance of local councillors and local communities, which understand how to meet some of those strategic objectives in an effective way at a local level. It is about making sure that we are looking to build a partnership approach through any local government reform, and looking at how that then impacts on the planning agenda.
Paul Holmes
Q
Councillor Wright: Yes, completely. You always live in hope. I have sat on planning for 18 years, before any Committee members want to have a go at planning.
Paul Holmes
It is your fault then.
Councillor Wright: I have lived in hope that we get clarity on purpose and policy. At the moment, we have far too many policies all coming through at the same time. For instance, the conflict between LGR spatial development plans—it is chicken and egg, and seems to have come at the wrong time.
I have spent the last few months explaining to residents that, because of the huge conflagration of policies at the moment, we have policies that we do not think will achieve what they should. For instance, I refer to the 1.5 million permissions that will be put in place because there is not a single tool in anything we have seen so far that will compel builders to build. We have that on one side, and now we are having to explain to people that, alongside that, they will no longer have a voice in the planning system if some of these policies go through.
This has all been swallowed up. Perhaps the attention of some people in the local authority could rightly be on local government reform and devolution when, really, we need to see this in the round. There are so many policies coming through—conflicting policies and policies that we think are only part-finished. Some of them could achieve a lot of what we want to see and do, and what our residents want to see, but at the moment it is such a hodgepodge that it is very difficult to follow and to see where the concentration needs to be.
Councillor Clewer: From the county’s point of view, I think you are raising some valid points. Having been through unitarisation, it is extremely disruptive. You are placing an awful lot on districts and counties that are going through that and creating new authorities to then make them look at planning reform of this level of significance. Planning was one of the hardest areas to get into the new unitaries. We still struggle with it 16 years on. It has proved really challenging because of the local, granular impact that planning has.
If you then want to look at the issue around the spatial plans, when some of us do not have mayors, or even mayoral geographies, I have no idea how we are meant to be talking with equal voices to create spatial delivery plans when we have that hodgepodge. At the very least, we have to know our mayoral geographies to be able to make any headway in coming up with a meaningful plan. Honestly, without the mayors, and the authority, funding and the voice to central Government that comes with them, it will put everyone else at risk. That really concerns me. It creates the ability for mayors, perhaps in metropolitan areas, to push development into more rural areas when the rural areas do not have the voice and the same ability to express their challenges and concerns. You need the granularity to understand the impact of planning on the local level.
Paul Holmes
Q
“Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements”—
could you each, within the remits that you have, outline your concerns around removing some of the pre-application requirements, and what the impact might be on your workforce, which is trying to determine what is and is not right for your areas? Do you accept the premise of removing certain pre-application requirements to speed up planning processes?
Councillor Hug: Are you referring to new clause 44, not clause 44?
Matthew Pennycook
Nationally significant infrastructure projects, which I do not think you have chosen to talk about.
Councillor Hug: No—they are coming through very quickly. From a local authority perspective, I think the point is making sure that, if they are not formal consultees, there is some other mechanism for local authorities and others to feed into the process in a structured way to make sure that their voices are heard, even if formal statutory consultees are being reformed.
Paul Holmes
We are removing statutory consultees.
Councillor Hug: There is significant concern about that removal. That process is how you identify some of the specific issues on the ground that need significant further investigation. I do not think you will save any time by removing that, because the investigation will turn up at the planning stage. You will just delay planning, because these will be areas around statutory consultees. What it will do is give the public the impression that things are just being rubber stamped and railroaded through. That will be catastrophic. NSIPs are such contested spaces already. We have to give people the chance to raise concerns to identify issues on the ground at local level that need further work and further attention. If we do not do that, people will lose all faith in that process, and they are already sceptical enough.
Councillor Clewer: I have the same concerns. NSIPs are decided by the Secretary of State. I have five in my district at the moment, including battery farms, solar farms and a reservoir. It is not about objection—consultation can bring forth some really good ideas, some solutions and some changes. It is massively important. For instance, even if there will be an impact on your community, the community benefit could be discussed right at the start. All sorts of improvements could be put in place through consultation before it gets to the formal stage. It is also about the appearance of removing that consultation. At a time when LGR devolution is meant to be bringing decentralisation, to just say that this is all going to be decided centrally is not a good picture.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Wright: For a start, the vast majority of planning permissions or planning applications are already decided by officers anyway in many councils—something like 97% in my authority were decided—so what exactly do you think we are now going to pass when under more pressure?
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Wright: With regard to a national scheme, if it was advisory not mandatory—if there was some general advice out there that could be given as guidance —that would be better than mandating. What could be mandated for one area, when you look at super-urban areas compared with rural areas, might not be exactly the same sort of decision making that you are looking for.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Hug: I think there should be a common core. I am not quite sure how the mayoralties and others will feed into responding to particular issues around the urban and rural geographies. I think there should be a basic common core to this. Looking at how it might operate, again, I am coming from an authority that has only 3% going to committees—all told, it is about 1.4%, if you include all the advertising and listed building concerns that get through. A very small amount go through, so there is a lot of good practice happening already.
In terms of how that works, one of the things that we want to ensure that we do not lose is the ability, for example if a scheme is likely to be rejected by officers, to put that to a committee that might come to a more pragmatic decision than just a rigid response based on policy. There are some other things, such as we want to ensure that there are opportunities for councils to go beyond the scheme of delegations; if there was a nationally set thing, you want to make sure that it is not just a cap on what is delegated.
I think that some flexibility around urban and rural, and working with local authorities about the design of the specific scheme, would be good. It is clear that they will want as much guidance as possible about the types of things that the Government are wanting to see happen. Obviously, from our perspective we understand the point about the centrality of getting the local plans and making them as robust as possible to give people clarity about what goes on in future.
The challenge comes when quite a lot of schemes come forward that are not in full compliance with policy, because the real world is messy and things have to be traded off against each other. The question is basically to what extent can those trade-offs be dealt with at office level versus at committee. That is why we want to get into the details of that with you, to make it work effectively.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Clewer: I have a couple of points to add. There are elements in what you are proposing that I would welcome. On mandatory training, goodness knows why we do not have that already—it is desperately needed. I am not sure that Richard would entirely agree, but when it comes to local plan allocated sites, I struggle with the idea that they could come to committee to then be refused. I think there is a benefit in committees or someone looking at elements of design and whether 106s are being carried out appropriately, but once something has gone through a local plan, I think we have to be careful about where committees step in.
To give an example of where I think you have to be incredibly careful with this, I took a planning application to committee last week for a listed building where someone wanted to cut and raise a beam by 10 inches. They had had a stroke, and they were in a position where they were literally having to live in a conservatory. Officers had said no. I got that application to a committee so that the beam could be raised to allow a stairlift to go in—when the person leaves the beam could be lowered—and the committee almost unanimously approved it.
We had the ability at an incredibly basic level to give someone the dignity of being able to get to their bathroom through a planning system where the harm was conceived by everyone as minimal. We cannot lose that ability to resolve those local and micro issues in a really local way. Finding the balance there is going to be challenging. Too much permitted development, too many automatics, will prevent us from being able to do that. I am sure we could all give further examples of where we have needed to use that ability to deal with things, very often with refusals, to enable them to be granted.
On the flipside, sometimes it is fair to say that members will get something that is recommended for approval and call to committee because they do not like it. I think we have to be able to justify on good planning grounds why on earth we are calling something to committee. If we do not have them I have no problem with officers turning round and saying, “I am sorry; you haven’t got planning grounds,” but it is about finding the right balance.
Councillor Wright: With regard to local plans and to what Richard has just referred to there, we have already instigated that in our authority you have to give planning reasons for bringing something to the planning committee. You might consider that you could just delegate a decision on a local plan allocated piece of land, but some of those could be of considerable size; they could be for a sustainable urban extension, for instance, so you cannot just act on the principle that because it is in the plan it does not need to be at committee.
We are makers of place: we build homes, not houses. We do not want to see officers suddenly having to make a delegated decision on how many houses go on a piece of land based on how the developer wants to bring it forward. The master planning, the design coding and all those issues need to be taken into consideration. It should not be left to officers who will end up getting the same grief that members get, but as unelected officers.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Clewer: No.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Councillor Hug: No. We had a thing where someone in a public report was saying we had only built x number of houses, but the reality was that far more homes had gone through under delegated authority than had actually gone to committee, so we were being wronged by the fact we had done that process.
Councillor Clewer: But there may be some specific circumstance that creates a nuanced judgment where it absolutely should go to committee. And please do not just talk about the big projects; it is those small ones that are deeply personal to people where national policy says no, but circumstance actually says that you can get round national policy.
Matthew Pennycook
I take the point about the nuance. That is helpful—thank you.
Gideon Amos
Q
Councillor Hug: As the Minister pointed out, the consultation is going on in parallel with the Bill. Hopefully we can make this national scheme of delegation work, provided that there is a degree of flexibility built into it. I hope that working between local government and national Government can help to resolve some of those issues at pace. Obviously some things may need to be specified, but we are hopeful that that kind of engagement can help to resolve some of the issues.
Councillor Clewer: If in the scheme of delegation we see guidelines around how a scheme of delegation should work, I am not sure that that would concern me hugely. If they are prescriptive rather than guidelines, we will fall into the problem that you will create cases where you need to get round them but you cannot.
This is a simplistic example—I will get into trouble now with the New Forest national park authority—but we allow parish councils there to call things into committee. I think that that is crazy. It ends up with all sorts of things coming to committee that should never go near them. I would love a delegation that said that they cannot do that, on a personal level. There are elements where I think Government guidance would be really helpful.
Gideon Amos
Guidance?
Councillor Clewer: Yes. Pretty firm guidance, but still guidance, with the ability where you really have the nuance to be able to work around it.
Councillor Hug: It goes to the point about having a common core of things, with certain things that apply in certain areas but then a space for guidance on top of that.
Councillor Wright: I agree that it should be guidance, not mandatory. We always seem to see policy brought forward on the basis that there is a problem. Perhaps for once we could go out to where planning is actually done well—where authorities have gone through modernisation and done things in the way you would expect them to be done—and work with those authorities, instead of assuming that there is a problem in the planning system.
Also, how far will this delegation go? If it turns into nothing more than delegation that is almost similar to permitted development rights, if people think that that is not dangerous, they should look at a picture of Terminus House in Harlow. They would see somewhere where they would not want to live. Members were nowhere near that.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Q
Councillor Clewer: I agree that there are areas at the moment where planning simply delays or blocks infrastructure provision. That needs changing; I absolutely agree with that. I suspect people will judge the extent to which it needs changing based on where they live and the specific infrastructure that they are facing, but I think that that needs unblocking.
You need to be very careful with the assumption that the Bill will build more houses. It will not build more houses. The Bill, and the reforms that we have seen to the NPPF, will see more planning permissions. I have 18,837 extant planning permissions in Wiltshire at the moment. Developers told me that they could build only about 6,000 the last time I asked them, which strangely enough was just under the four-year housing land supply under the last Government. I am sure that if I asked them today, they would say that they could build just about 8,000.
I have 2,400 houses south of Trowbridge that have been stuck, failing to get the section 106 agreement signed, for something like 14 years. There has to be something in the Bill that forces building. If we are to issue planning, it has to come with the actual development. We have to compel. If developers have signed a commitment that they will complete houses on whatever basis and have fallen behind, they need to start paying the council tax on them or something. At the moment, the Bill is not going to do that, I am afraid. I do not see anything in it that will actually achieve that.
Councillor Hug: I support Richard’s point about working for more “use it or lose it” powers to ensure that planning permission does not just go on the books to raise land value and not do much else, although I note the points about hope value and everything. We recognise that there is a whole heap of challenges to delivery that sit outside the scope of the Bill.
On the Bill, we support the Government’s general principles about clarification and simplification. We recognise that the strong national growth and infrastructure demands open up some of the opportunities for green energy and all sorts of other things that we are calling for in local government.
I want to draw attention to the work being done on planning fees. Ensuring that local authorities have the best possible remuneration for the work to make sure they are covering their costs fully is key to making the system work well to deliver the outcomes that you are looking for. But we recognise that that alone will not deal with it, so we have to look at how we can further strengthen the planning workforce. Again, that is about making sure that the language does not say that the planning system or the planners are the problem. We want people to go into the industry and we want them to do it, but the planning fee stuff is helpful in supporting that.
We support the principles, but the key thing is to ensure that the local authorities retain a voice in what goes forward and work with the Government on some of the practical things such as the scheme of delegations.
Councillor Wright: I think we have got close to it. As we said, we have nothing against the professional training of planning committees so that the industry knows what it is dealing with and so that the idea that we do not know what we are doing on planning committees cannot be used to beat us over the head all the time. In my district, similarly to Richard’s, 11,500 permissions were put in place between 2016 and 2024 and 5,500 were built out. There is no excuse for the rest not to be built.
Unfortunately, the proposals that have been put forward do not include anything at all to mandate that builders will build. There is a proposal over CPO powers, and the missing thing that we would like to see is “build it or lose it”. If there is an allocated site and they have permissions, but they simply do not build on it, give us the CPO powers so we can CPO that. That would help to build houses, because we could then start to control the destiny of those sites. At the moment, there are some really useful things that could have been in the Bill that are missing.
Councillor Clewer: But CPO it at agricultural value.
Councillor Wright: Yes: agricultural value, not hope value.
Councillor Hug: I very much support the planning training. The LGA supports the approach to hope value that the Government are taking. The CPO power is particularly being deployed in urban settings around land assembly, which is the intent behind the Bill.
David Simmonds
Q
Secondly, coming back to the point about strategic infrastructure projects, one of the issues is that local authorities have a lot of obligations, particularly under environmental law, whereby they have a specific legal duty around issues like air quality. Effectively excluding them from the decision-making process or even a failure to intervene in the process would leave them open to legal challenge. Air quality is a good example: I know from my experience at Heathrow airport that there was a local authority fine of £300 million per annum for the level of air quality breaches caused by Heathrow airport, through which we would have been judicially reviewed by ClientEarth had we not judicially reviewed central Government over their proposals to expand that.
Can you think of some other areas, around either environmental or other legal obligations, that are imposed on local authorities where the role you play in either the development and consent order process or those national strategic infrastructure projects is arising not simply out of local politics but because of legal obligations to your residents that you have to fulfil?
Councillor Wright: With regard to nationally significant infrastructure projects, for instance, I was thinking about the fact that we are responsible for the environmental impact assessments. I worry at times that we do not have enough weight with those when it comes to the actual decision making.
One example, which we are testing at the moment, relates to battery storage—a new thing that is exciting lots of people—and whether we can predict not just the here and now, but what would happen in the event of a problem. If we are going to have a huge array of batteries on what was good agricultural land suddenly blighting the landscape, we could ensure that the industry is not allowed to use a type of battery that is more prone to cause huge environmental issues if it catches fire, when there are already good batteries that could be used. But it comes down to a financial decision. In some places, we would actually like more weight to be given to the powers that we already have, but quite often, as you say, we find ourselves guarding the place but not being able to make the decisions that would avoid the need for guards in the first place.
Councillor Hug: My concern is not about gold plating. It is about the question whether local authorities across the country have the capacity on their planning teams to deal with the range and breadth of the requirements that are placed on them. That is one reason why local government reform is in the air, but I would also welcome some movement on fees. We have to make sure that planning is seen as a field that people want to go into, to help unlock these things, rather than these people being seen purely as the blockers. Ultimately, part of the blockage is that the system is not working effectively. The question is how we can work with local authorities to deliver not only training to communities, but greater support to the officer core so that they can move stuff through as quickly as possible.
Councillor Clewer: I do not think we gold plate our local plans. There are many councils that want to go beyond existing guidance, particularly on net zero, for example. That is mostly to stop expensive retrofitting in future and make people’s bills cheaper. There are areas where councils will want to go beyond existing national policy, but every example I can think of was done for a very good reason and will end up with broad public support.
On the bigger issue of legislation, yes, there are some real challenges. Some environmental legislation can be significantly challenging when you want to see building or when you are looking to find a way to mitigate or even unlock. For example, I have a brownfield site in Trowbridge where they need to leave a bat corridor by a train line. How on earth that makes sense I honestly do not know, but it is making the viability of the site really challenging. Some sort of off-site provision would be far more appropriate: it would be far better for the bats and would help to unlock development.
There are also problems around highways issues, for example. Whether it be for economic development or building land, there is an inability for us to work properly with National Highways to deal with motorway junctions, or the A36 in my case. The constraints that that places on us can be real blockers to our desire to build in areas that would be sensible, as opposed to in areas where developers are putting forward planning permissions.
Lastly, it would be really nice if we could tell developers where they should be building, rather than developers saying, “This bit of land? We can’t build on it yet,” when we know full well that we will get a speculative application the moment the local plan is through for that bit of land as well, having just fought the contentious bit of land.
Amanda Martin
Q
Councillor Hug: The LGA broadly supports the new powers. Obviously we are looking to find ways to ensure that local authorities can take advantage of those new powers when they come in. That goes back to helping councils to be more entrepreneurial about unlocking land and giving them the support that they need to do that. Whether it is in Portsmouth—a place I know well; I was born there—or to a certain extent in parts of my patch, these are important tools in the arsenal, but it is also about unlocking those conversations. Having that on the books should hopefully enable those conversations to happen, because ultimately you want to come to an agreement with a partner to avoid having to use legal powers. It will help to unlock those conversations. It is still not going to be a magic wand, and I am not going to be able to walk down my high street and say, “That, that and that,” and suddenly unlock all these things. There are processes in place to prevent this being misused. We strongly welcome the intention to go into this space and the proposals in front of us.
Councillor Clewer: If you look at the points about London and land assembly, they make a great deal of sense to me. Please be careful, however, with the assumption that brownfield land will be made viable simply through compulsory purchase. The problem with most brownfield development is a viability one. By the time you have demolished what is on it and then remediated the land, the net value of that land is negative.
There is no point in a council compulsorily purchasing something that then has negative value for the council. That will just bankrupt councils. If we are going to unlock brownfield, something more significant has to be done, either to use some sort of brownfield development fund—that feels a bit wrong, but it is a way you could look at it—or to compel developers to deal with brownfield before they are allowed to build on greenfield. We would suddenly see town centres all over the country being redeveloped if developers were not allowed to build on the greenfield until they had built on the brownfield.
Councillor Wright: I will not repeat any points. Brownfield, for instance, in a rural area could be something that had glass houses on it. It could be a site that has no connectivity whatever to any settlement and has no services, and still be brownfield land. It would potentially come under CPO. At DCN, we think that there should be a subsection to CPO, and not just concentrating on land. If we want to look at regeneration and the issues in town centres, where there are vacant properties and areas blighted by crime or that just need added value, at the moment the CPO process is still a little too legal-heavy. The route to appeal, which a lot of it will go through, takes far too long. Perhaps there is a role going forward with mayoral authorities for that to be the appeal route. If we could see a system that shortens the CPO process for regen of property in town centres, different from land assembly, that would be useful.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the allocated time for questions. I thank the panel for answering the questions and for their time.
Examination of Witness
Catherine Howard gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Catherine Howard, partner and head of planning at Herbert Smith Freehills. For this session we have until 4.40 pm.
Paul Holmes
Q
Catherine Howard: Yes.
Paul Holmes
Q
Could you also outline how you think the proposal could help the speediness of planning applications, but also have a greater impact on local government’s workforce challenges in recruiting and holding on to planning experts? Do you think the legislation will allow local authorities to have enough funding to keep town planners in local authority town halls and not going off to private companies?
Catherine Howard: The way the legislation is drafted, it looks to me like it is highly prescriptive and will be very effective at ringfencing. It talks about the need to secure that the income from the fees or charges is applied towards the carrying out of the functions that are listed. Those are functions such as dealing with planning applications, certificates of lawfulness, tree applications and listed buildings. There are things it does not deal with—that is presumably deliberate—such as general enforcement and plan making. It seems to me that, the way it is drafted, you could not use the money from all of those developer application fees and just apply it to plan making and those kind of functions. If that is the intention, that is what it appears to achieve.
Regarding recruitment, I know that fee recovery has been put into law in a number of different planning regimes. I am more of a specialist in the national infrastructure regime, where those provisions have been added quite liberally. It will be interesting to see how effective a pay-as-you-go system is. My concern still, in terms of how effective that will be at recruitment and retention, is that I do not know how much flexibility statutory authorities will have to set public pay scales. I would have thought—I am not an expert in this area—that if you want to attract and keep people who are otherwise tempted to go off to the private sector where pay seems to be higher, particularly with supply and demand the way that it is, you will need to make the applicable pay scales higher.
I am not sure that the fees that are attracted by a developer can just be used to give people bonuses or higher salaries within the private sector. That is my concern. If the fees can somehow be used to recruit and retain more people within planning authorities, that must be a good thing. It seems to me that there has been more of a drain of talent out of the local authorities and all of the public sector authorities and regulators post Covid in particular, now that people can work from home. Some of the benefits of working with slightly more flexibility, which the public sector was always better at than the private sector, have slightly gone. I imagine there is more of an inducement for people to move across if they are being offered more money, so I recognise the problem.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Secondly, on the broad ambition to provide for a faster and more certain consenting NSIP process, do you think there is anything that we are missing here that we should still look at?
Catherine Howard: I hugely welcome the change that was made yesterday, in terms of speeding up and cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy that helped no one, except for helping professionals like me to spend more time and gain more fees out of our clients. There is, as we just talked about, a lack of enough professionals in the whole industry to staff the system. The Government’s ambition is to triple the rate of DCO consenting to get 150 DCOs through in this Parliament. We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.
I have seen it in my career, having consented a number of projects since 2008, when the regime came in. Without the law changing at all, custom and practice has built up gold plating and precedent to slow the system down hugely. That is particularly true for the pre-app process, which I think the Government’s stats say has gone from an average of 14 months in 2008 to 27 months a few years ago—I suspect it is even longer now. I have seen more and more rounds of consultation on small changes. I have seen developers not putting through other changes that would be really beneficial and that communities or statutory consultees want, because they would have to have a three, four or six-month delay to do more consultation on the change.
I think the cart is before the horse. It has become a very clunky and bureaucratic legalistic process, rather than what planning should be and is in all other regimes—town and country planning, and even hybrid bills—where you have more latitude to change your mind, do some lighter-touch consultation if appropriate and do some focused consultation with the key statutory consultees on the key issues, rather than producing these huge preliminary environmental information reports, which are incredibly daunting and time-consuming for everyone to read. The public sector, local authorities, regulators and the public are feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information that is put out there, which is ultimately just a form of legal box-ticking without the laser focus that you really need on key issues, so I hugely welcome the change.
I was with an international investor yesterday who is interested in investing in a big portfolio of solar projects in the UK that have not yet been consented, and I was asked to explain the regime. The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be, but it was great yesterday. They really welcome this change. I can see it being highly beneficial for investors who can shop around Europe and elsewhere, in terms of bringing development here.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Catherine Howard: Perhaps some guidance to the Planning Inspectorate about how to run the examinations with slightly more focus than we have seen. There has been a drift towards more questions and more rabbit holes, and we do not have time for this or enough professionals in the industry. That does not seem to benefit the consenting system, which has also slowed down, become a bit less focused and become more bureaucratic. I would welcome anything that we can do to encourage the examination process to be more focused—possibly shorter, but certainly less labour-intensive, unless there is a purpose to it.
Gideon Amos
Q
Catherine Howard: There should be some education on judicial review for inspectors. As a lawyer, I can tell you that people do not bring judicial reviews because not enough questions were asked or the environmental statement was not long enough; you will never pick the one thing that someone brings a judicial review on. Most of them are not successful, and they are very niche.
That probably is one of inspectors’ fears, but I also think that they want to be seen to be hearing all the issues, even if they know that those are not going to be material to the determination. That was not really the purpose of the regime; it was supposed to be mostly written reps and so on. We could do some education for the inspectorate about the things that do and do not lead to judicial reviews. Inspectors actually have a lot of latitude about what it is rational for them to consider a material planning consideration and what it is not, and so the depth at which they need to look into things. I think they sometimes go slightly overboard.
Gideon Amos
Q
Catherine Howard: That side of the planning regime is not my specialism, but hope value is part of the value of the land, as far as the ordinary person sees it, so they will not be delighted if they are not going to get paid what they see as part of the value of the land. It is a wider public interest test, is it not? I am not saying that it is the wrong thing to do, but I imagine that if people know that they are not going to get the market value, they will object to compulsory purchase orders perhaps a bit more than they otherwise would have.
Of course, if the compulsory purchase order is made, people might try to bring more judicial reviews. However, I think that it would be quite hard for them to bring a judicial review on the basis of the test, which is quite wide in terms of the purposes for which hope value can be disapplied. As long as the acquiring local authority is within those tests, I think it would be hard to JR on that basis, but people might find other grounds, such as procedural grounds, on which to have a go.
The Chair
We have just over a minute, John Grady, so it will have to be a very quick question and answer.
John Grady
Q
Catherine Howard: It definitely makes us more attractive to international investors on the nationally significant infrastructure side. I also like the fact that we can now opt out of the DCO regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, because sometimes it is lighter touch and more helpful to go local. That is helpful as well. As I say, the pre-app stuff is incredibly helpful, and the national policy stuff. The EDP stuff is helpful, and the nature recovery matters in relation to housing. I will flag, however, that I will be making a submission about how I think the Bill could go a bit further on habitats regulation matters with regard to nationally significant infrastructure, because the nature recovery plans are slightly harder to apply—
The Chair
Order. We have run out of the available time for questions in this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your evidence.
Examination of witnesses
Richard Benwell, Mike Seddon and Carol Hawkey gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now take evidence from Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link; Mike Seddon, chief executive of Forestry England; and Carol Hawkey, director of estates at Forestry England. For this panel, we have until 5.5 pm.
Paul Holmes
Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for your time this afternoon. I only have one question—I mean no detriment to you guys, but we have recycled some of the themes and I know that Back-Bench Members want to ask questions, too, so I will be quick. We have had a lot of conversation and heard a lot of evidence about the nature restoration fund element of the legislation, as well as some concerns—for example, in my constituency from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and other organisations—about the nature restoration fund, and about other elements such as EDPs and Natural England’s ability to manage them. Are you confident that, under the Bill as drafted, nowhere in the country that is affected by the NRF or an EDP will see a reduction in environmental standards? Will this Bill in fact do what it attempts to outline, which is to increase environmental standards across the United Kingdom?
Richard Benwell: Thank you for having me. Quickly, to deal first with the question of whether nature is a blocker—that has come up a lot today—it is an absurd notion to suggest that it is the fault of nature or environmental regulations that we are not getting the infrastructure development that the Government want or the renewables infrastructure development that we want.
It is worth noting that Natural England reckons that 99% of the housing applications that it is consulted on go through perfectly properly; only 1% receive objections on the basis of environmental concerns. It is also worth noting that what you heard earlier—that the vast majority of major infrastructure projects are JR-ed because of environmental concerns—is both misrepresentation and factually inaccurate. There has been a recent spike, yes, but the long-term trend is that only 10% of major infrastructure projects are challenged. Lots of them go through the paper permission stage and have been found to have merits. It is important not to get drawn into that sense that nature and development are at odds; they can proceed perfectly well together. The question is how to do that.
We think that the Government are genuinely on to something—that there are ways to speed up development and allow developers to meet their environmental obligations more quickly and more simply, at the same time as helping to restore nature. We know that the planning system needs to do more to restore nature, so that aspiration for a win-win is a good one. To return to your question, however, we think that at the moment, as the Bill is drafted, that is not what will be on the page of the law—what is here now would represent a regression in the strength of environmental law. The situation at the moment is a high degree of certainty about the environmental results that are supposed to result from environmental law. That is being swapped, frankly, for a lot of wishful thinking in the way that the Bill is framed.
The Bill would allow developers to pay a levy to discharge their environmental responsibilities, and then, through legislative sleight of hand and some magical legal jiggery-pokery, that would be replaced with a lot of subjective opinion in how results are judged. The mitigation hierarchy would be lost, so the expectation to avoid harm would be short-circuited. We would be in a situation where damage could happen now in return for promises of future environmental improvements that are very loosely measured under the Bill. At the moment, developers are expected to pay fully for environmental results, but the Bill sets out a situation where developers may pay only part of the costs of remediation, and that is subject to a viability test.
In the Bill, the Government are putting a lot of reliance on the idea of an overall improvement test, whereby the Secretary of State is allowed to bring in an environmental delivery plan if it is likely to lead to measures that will outweigh the harm to nature. That “likely to” test is a much lower legal bar of certainty than the one we have at the moment, where you need a high degree of scientific certainty that the environmental measures will actually lead to results. It is worth emphasising that I understand why a lot of people want to immediately pause part 3 of the Bill. We are in an ecological crisis, with 19% of species abundance lost since 1970 in the UK—32% in England—and one in six species at risk of extinction. To mess with our most important nature laws is a really risky thing to do.
What I would much rather see is the law being amended in Committee and through this process, so that the win-win the Government have rightly identified—that, actually, we can better spend some of the developer money to lead to bigger, better projects for nature restoration, at the same time as speeding up development—can be achieved. We have some proposals for how the Bill could be amended in some quite simple but important ways to bring that mitigation hierarchy back in, to achieve surety of results and to make sure that polluters really do pay for harm. I would love to talk through those with the Committee.
Paul Holmes
Q
Mike Seddon: indicated dissent.
Carol Hawkey: indicated dissent.
Paul Holmes
Q
Given your previous role within the Department, working with a Secretary of State, and given your expertise from your current role, do you think that in its current guise Natural England is capable of undertaking the responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Are you worried about the resourcing of that organisation going forward, considering that it will have quite new, detailed and complicated responsibilities?
Richard Benwell: There is no doubt that Natural England will need a significant uplift in resourcing to enable it to do this job properly. Natural England was subject to some pretty serious cuts over the last decade, and the last settlement was not very positive for Natural England either, with more job losses coming. When you look into the statistics of Natural England’s funding, some of the increases in recent years have been on capital fund rather than day-to-day spend on the kind of experts we need to do this work out on the ground. Part of the problem sometimes, with the risk aversion surrounding the current incarnation of the habitats regulations, is the lack of expertise from advisers, to give it the confidence to go out and suggest where strategic solutions can happen and to implement the law well.
Natural England will definitely need a boost. It is worth noting that it is not even able to fulfil all its current duties to the standard that we would expect. Only half of sites of special scientific interest have been visited in something like the last decade, and Natural England is already having to focus its work on statutory advice for planning applications. It will need more of that expertise, but we have confidence in the organisation and its leadership. We hope that the Government will properly resource Natural England and other agencies to help to make this work if it goes ahead, as amended.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Richard, you will know that we do not accept that development has to come at the expense of nature. We are very much targeting a win-win solution when it comes to development and the environment. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I have had a huge amount of engagement with you and others in the sector to try to develop a solution that achieves that. I therefore want to drill into some of the concerns you have outlined, in two ways.
First, on the introduction, you welcomed the
“legal guarantee that the Nature Restoration Fund must not only compensate for damage but actually benefit protected wildlife.”
But the claim today is that the Bill leaves us open to regression. Could you elaborate on how those two square together?
Secondly, you have just said that you have confidence in Natural England and its leadership. Marian Spain, the chief executive officer, gave evidence earlier today. She said that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but you have just said that the Bill undermines the mitigation hierarchy. Can you clarify why you have a difference of opinion with Marian on that particular issue?
Richard Benwell: Of course. On the first question, we were grateful for engagement ahead of the Bill’s publication, and we were really pleased to hear your aspirations to achieve a win-win. The question is whether the overall improvement test in clause 55(4) does what it is meant to do.
The legal drafting suggests that a Secretary of State can agree an environmental delivery plan only if he is satisfied that the benefits for a protected feature “are likely” to outweigh the harm to that protected feature. That comes some way short of the high bar of legal certainty that is expected in the current habitats regulations.
If you dig further into the Bill, you find that once an environmental delivery plan is in place, if there is evidence that it is not meeting the standards expected, it is up to the Secretary of State whether to withdraw the EDP and then only to take measures that he considers appropriate to remediate for any shortfall in environmental benefits that are supposed to be derived from the measures in the Bill.
Both of those points leave far more leeway for a Secretary of State to undercut nature restoration compared with the current situation, especially when it can happen up to 10 years after the initial harm to nature. We have all heard of circumstances where promised offsets for supposed harm to nature never materialise or die a couple of years down the line.
We think this can be fixed. We think that if you were to strengthen that requirement so that it matches the kind of legal certainty that we see in the habitats regulations, you would be in a much better position. On the positive side of the scale, if that promise to outweigh harm were a more substantive requirement to go beyond just about offsetting into real nature restoration, you start to get to the territory where this really could be a win-win.
We know you will be advised by Government lawyers to minimise risk. That is what always happens, which is why Governments like to have these subjective tests. But as it stands, the level of certainty of environmental benefit that is required of an EDP up front, and that is then required of proof of delivery along the way, is less than under the current law.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a very clear elaboration. On the Natural England point—on the mitigation hierarchy?
Richard Benwell: As it stands, before a development that would have adverse effects on a protected site can go ahead, it is necessary, first, to try to avoid those harms, then to reduce those harms and only then, once all those steps have been gone through, if a project is of overriding public interest, can it go ahead with compensation in place. The Bill essentially short-circuits that process.
In clause 50, there is a provision that makes it explicit that the compensatory measures set out in an EDP do not need to apply to the particular features and the particular site that is affected by a development. Once a developer has paid their levy, they can essentially disregard the provisions that are in the habitats regulations at the moment, and go straight to development. Of course, that is something we could also fix in the Bill by requiring Natural England to have confidence that development applications have sought to avoid harm before they go ahead. I think there would still be substantial and material benefits for developers from the simplicity of the process and their legal confidence, even if that requirement to avoid harm were put back in.
We know there would need to be flexibility, such as on the phasing of benefits versus time, but you could still have this important principle that you should not go straight to squishing the ancient woodland, or make it easy to splat the species. You need to make sure that you try to avoid that harm first, before the development goes ahead.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Richard Benwell: Yes, certainly at the project level. There is more of a requirement for Natural England to consider some of those circumstances at the EDP level. When it comes to specific projects, where it is all-important for the particular site or species, we think it is short-circuited. We will check in with Marian on that afterwards.
The Chair
We can possibly get two more colleagues in, so let’s be succinct with our questions and answers.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Richard Benwell: Let me see whether I can winkle out my clause numbers. Clause 62 requires the EDP levies to be set at a level that takes into account the viability test, and we all know how often viability gives wriggle room for developers. Our view is that the level of levy payments should be enough to secure the compensatory measures needed to go further than remediating the damage caused to nature.
Again, when you look further, you will find the provisions say that the levy needs to cover “wholly or partly” the amount needed to remediate that damage. That could lead to dangerous situations where you are cross-subsidising developers for harm to nature from other pots of money, such as farming funds. It would make far more sense to have a straight-up “polluter pays” principle, where developers pay for the cost of remediating the harm they cause to nature.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Richard Benwell: We have a “polluters possibly pay” principle here, a “maybe prevent” principle with the mitigation hierarchy, and the overall improvement test is a “possibly improve” test. All the way around, those fundamental principles are brought into doubt by the ways in which the Bill is drafted, particularly for species protection, where these are least appropriate.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Richard Benwell: They can be fixed, but we know it will take bravery and leadership from the Government. We hope that Ministers will go for it and the House will unite behind those changes.
Luke Murphy
Q
As someone who has worked on both housing and protecting the environment for the last 10 years, I support this approach because the current system is not delivering. Do you agree that the current system is not delivering for either nature or development? Notwithstanding the flaws—I think there can be some honest disagreement on what the outcomes might be—do you welcome the fact that a new approach is being proposed, given that the current system is not delivering for either development or nature?
Richard Benwell: There is good scientific evidence that the habitats regulations are the most effective site and species protections in the world, but we definitely still need to go further. Some of those strategic solutions, particularly for landscape issues like water pollution, air pollution and water availability, can be improved.
You are right. There are loads of places where we could go further. We would love to see things like building regulations for biodiversity in the Bill, to help get nature built into the fabric of development as we go. To suggest that the habitats regulations are not working is wrong, but their implementation can definitely be improved and more use can be made of this kind of strategic approach if it is done well.
Olly Glover
Q
We have had a lot of discussion about what Natural England’s chief executive said earlier. In her testimony, she was very clear that she feels that the provisions in the Bill do not have the effect of reducing current levels of environmental protection. What do you feel about that? Linked to that, do you feel that the Bill strikes the right balance between agriculture, environmental protection, housing and all the other things on which the planning system is here to deliver?
Mike Seddon: Thank you for the question and for inviting us. I will give you a perspective from a land manager. Forestry England is the largest land manager in England, and we are responsible for the public forest. I am not an expert on the development Bill, but from our perspective, the idea that environmental delivery plans can secure an improvement is correct, and it is particularly appealing if they can do that at a strategic scale. Anything that starts to join up nature across the country, which provisions of the Bill will enable us to do, would be a good thing.
Lee Pitcher
Q
We are in a bad place, and there is a lot to be done, but that is with the existing stuff that precedes this measure. That is the position we are in, so I cannot understand why a change will not better facilitate an improvement in nature as well as planning. That leads to growth, which can then put money back into the system to improve it further.
Richard Benwell: It is because the proposed change will weaken that level of protection and make unsustainable—
Lee Pitcher
Q
Richard Benwell: Yes, but it could make it better if you do it well. At the moment, it is worse because it allows developers to short-circuit the mitigation hierarchy and go straight to damage. It is worse because the level of certainty of environmental benefits is lower than currently required by the law. It is worse because it allows damage up front in return for promises of remediation up to 10 years down the line. And it is worse in terms of the scientific evidence that will be needed to apply to new sites or species. But the kind of approach that the Government are talking about could work if some of those problems were fixed.
It is worth saying that if you really wanted a planning Bill to turn around the problems you have described, this might help, but it is far more important to make sure that you meet the global commitment to allocating 30% of the land and sea for nature, that you turn to thinking about how to manage our land and sea better for farmers and fishers and you pay them properly for nature benefits, and that you turn to thinking about how we build nature into development.
Far more things could be in this Bill if the objective were to save nature. At the moment, the trade-off that we are being asked to make—weakening tried-and-tested, strong, effective environmental laws in return for a sliver of hope that the benefits might outweigh the harm—does not warrant the changes that are being made. But—I keep returning to this—it could, if part 3 of the Bill is improved during its parliamentary passage, and that is what we would really like to work with you to do.
The Chair
Order. That brings us almost within seconds of the allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
James Stevens and Kate Henderson gave evidence.
Paul Holmes
Q
It should come as no surprise that I want to ask about new towns. Mr Stevens, the Minister and the Secretary of State have been less than forthcoming about whether they think that new towns should be included within the housing targets across the UK. No answers have come forward. Do you think that new towns should be included, and should they contribute to local authorities’ housing targets?
James Stevens: I think that the Government are still thinking through the best way to deal with that. There are provisions in the Bill related to the definition of development management companies and such. As I said, I think the Government are still working it through.
On the work of the new towns commission and the identification of new towns, it is the HBF’s view that they should probably not contribute to local authority targets, but be treated as a contingency—a pool to ensure that the housing requirements under the mandatory standard method, which is a major step forward, can be achieved in the event that you get under-bounded cities unable to meet their needs in full. Even if the provisions relating to spatial development strategies come forward, it is still possible that some of them might not be successful in meeting the entirety of the standard method.
I think it is probably realistic and would be sensible, as the new Labour Administration did with eco-towns, that they should contribute to filling a national shortfall rather than contributing to local authority targets. That would be my recommendation. We have asked the Government, but as far as I understand, they have not reached a view on that yet.
Gideon Amos
Q
Kate Henderson: First, it is a pleasure to be before the Committee; thank you for inviting the National Housing Federation to give evidence. Just to be clear, I want to declare up front that I am a member of the Government’s new towns taskforce, working to advise Government on a new generation of new towns, so I will not be commenting on—
Paul Holmes
Forgive me; I should have asked you, Mrs Henderson.
Kate Henderson: No problem. I will not be commenting specifically on what is coming forward from that piece of work.
From a National Housing Association perspective, on the principle of new towns, it is worth recognising just how acute housing need is in this country. Right now, we have 160,000 children who are homeless. We have 310,000 children who had to share a bed with a family member last night. The need is acute and spread right across the country. The need for social housing is huge. The Government have set out a very ambitious target of a million and a half homes across the course of this Parliament. We think that about a third of those need to be affordable and social housing. Research that we have commissioned shows that we need around 90,000 social rented homes every year. That is not just in this Parliament but over the course of a decade, to meet the backlog of need.
We are a long way off that target, but an important part of it is to have reform, not just of the planning mechanisms and targets within the planning system—and the standard method is an important part of that—but of the resources within the social housing sector, local government and delivery partners to crank up the delivery. That is an important part of the piece, but we are also very much looking forward to the spending review to get a long-term housing strategy in place that also has measures to inject stability, certainty and confidence back into the social housing sector to crank up delivery.
James Stevens: I absolutely agree with Kate that it is very important that we do what we can to support affordable housing delivery. The Government’s proposals around spatial development strategies, which would allow those strategies to define policies on affordable housing, would be very beneficial. On the work looking at the section 106 model—which is a current barrier—as Kate said, the Government probably need to invest to ensure that the long-term rent settlement provides more assurance for housing associations in that regard. That is a major obstacle to housing delivery at the moment. In London, for example, that is resulting in a major shortfall in supply.
The spatial development strategies should be quite useful mechanisms, so long as they are not too prescriptive. The problem we have with London, as an example, is that it had a very prescriptive affordable housing policy, which did not really last through the economic cycles that we are experiencing at the moment. You need something that is looser fitting and that constituent local authorities can adapt to their own local circumstances.
Gideon Amos
Q
James Stevens: We think that affordable housing, as part of section 106, is probably one of the most important planning obligations, and our members generally support that, because they know how to build houses. Capturing an element of development gain is a real feeding frenzy, particularly among every public agency. They are all attempting to finance their policy objectives off the back of capturing an element of the developed land value. That can result in very difficult competing claims over viability. I have looked at viability plans supporting lots of spatial strategies and local plans up and down the country, and very often large elements of a local authority area are unviable because they just cannot afford the cumulative claims upon that development value. Greater scrutiny at the examination level, and perhaps a stronger steer from the Government that affordable housing and public contributions to public transport are the foremost claims upon development value, would be a major step forward.
Savills has identified that the viability system—section 106 and the community infrastructure levy—is fairly successful. It is pretty successful at capturing the majority of development value that is out there. The Government could go further by being very clear that these are the requirements in local plans, they are not negotiable and schemes are expected to be policy compliant, but that would need to be underpinned by a more rigorous system of assessing viability of the local plan stage. That would provide the Government with the certainty.
Rachel Taylor
Q
James Stevens: On the first element of that question, we really dispute the notion that house builders just bank land and are not interested in building out. Craig Bennett of the Wildlife Trusts cited a figure on Radio 4, I think, of 1.4 million homes that have granted permission but that have not been built out. We strongly contest that. A lot of those things are not counted as a completion until they are actually completed. A lot of those schemes have to work through very complicated discharge conditions. A lot of those permissions can just be outline planning permissions, and not the detailed planning permissions that you need to be an implementable consent. A lot of those figures are just poor figures that do not reflect the true numbers that have actually been built out.
Lastly on that, this accusation of land banking has often been levelled at the house building industry over the last 20 years. Consistently, independent studies, including one by the Competition and Markets Authority last year, have given us a clean bill of health on that. There is an issue about absorption rates—the ability of a local market to absorb certain sales—but house builders do not make their money from sitting on land. That costs them money. We make money from the sale of homes.
The issue of social housing—I will allow Kate to come in shortly—is very important. The problem is that we have a severe housing crisis. As Kate said, we have many thousands of children in temporary accommodation. Local authorities had to spend something like £2.3 billion last year on temporary accommodation; local authorities would go bankrupt there. Therefore, the tendency is to try to maximise social housing provision—social rented housing. We can understand why local authorities want to do that. However, to follow up on the point I made to Gideon Amos, the problem is that if local authority policies are too prescriptive on the tenure split, that can make it very difficult for house builders to contract with registered providers, to provide registered providers with the type of tenure mix that they need. We need to be a bit more realistic and flexible about that.
The key issue is to get houses built—to focus upon the quantity—in order to alleviate the affordability problems that make people so dependent upon social housing in the first place. But absolutely, social rented housing is very important. We are not trying to say that we do not want to build it.
Kate Henderson: Social housing is needed in every part of the country. What is really important is that we have objectively assessed needs and that those needs are then incorporated in local plans, and that we deliver mixed, sustainable communities that reflect the needs of those areas.
I will just dispute a little bit the point about the London situation and the London plan. London is the only part of the country where we have a strategic development strategy. The reason that we have a crash of supply in London is not because of strategic planning. It is because of a building safety crisis, hugely high inflation, huge land prices, an absolute crisis in temporary accommodation, and huge pressures that have happened across the social housing sector over the last 15 years in terms of cuts and caps to our income.
To get out of the situation in London and in the rest of the country, we need a comprehensive planning system that is based on objectively assessed need; a long-term housing strategy that looks at our existing homes as well as new homes; a rent settlement, including convergence, and funding that addresses building safety as well as new supply. Those are all things that the Government are looking at, which is welcome.
As for bringing forward those spatial development strategies in the rest of the country, it is really important that they have a focus on social and affordable housing, and that that should be mandated within them. The percentages will need to reflect the context of the areas and the need in those areas, so there will need to be a degree of flexibility in accordance with place, but it is vital that that is mandated as part of the remit of those strategies. We welcome their introduction.
Olly Glover
Q
James Stevens: I have been involved in commenting on, I think, all the last four iterations of the London plan, so I can see that it is a successful model, in that it does a lot of the heavy lifting for local authorities in terms of identifying broad locations of growth, but in particular setting out the housing requirement for all the constituent local authorities. Once that strategic plan is adopted, it becomes part of the legal development plan, and it means that whatever stage the local authority is at with developing its plan, at least the policies, including the policies for the number and distribution of housing set out in that spatial plan, become part of the development plan, so it does assist the Government in ensuring that their new mandatory standard method is embedded within the planning system as quickly as possible.
I have been involved also in all the spatial strategies produced by the mayoral combined authorities to a greater or lesser extent over the last six years. I think the Government’s measures to reform the governance so that with spatial development strategies, the Mayor only needs majority support rather than unanimity is a very important step forward.
Kate Henderson: Returning to a system of strategic spatial planning is really welcome. Trying to work out our housing need based on 300-plus local authorities does not get us up to the sum total of actually doing things comprehensively. In terms of addressing the housing crisis, economic growth and opportunity, nature recovery, landscapes, our utility provision and how we get to work, we need to work on a larger than local scale. The ability to co-ordinate all that infrastructure at a spatial scale where authorities are working together makes a lot of sense.
What is going to be a challenge is how we do this in a comprehensive way when there are huge capacity pressures on local authorities. There are some welcome measures in the Bill around ringfencing planning fees to give some additional capacity there and we support that, but how do you do the strategic planning function, in getting local authorities to have local plans in place and getting strategic plans in place at the same time, while also recognising that we are having local government reorganisation in the forthcoming English devolution Bill?
We would really like the long-term housing strategy, which is due to come forward this summer, to be the overarching framework for at least the next decade for how we transform the housing offer to people in this country. There is a question here about boosting capacity in the system. There is also about where levels of primacy are going to sit when it comes to decision making. There are lots of different things coming forward, so we need to be really clear, if there is a spatial development strategy coming forward and local plans coming forward, about how they will interact, how they will be democratically consulted on and agreed, and where the primacy of decision making is. That is what we expect more detail on in the secondary legislation and consultations to come.
James Stevens: There is a risk, though, that the prospect of a spatial development strategy will slow down local plan making. That is something we are quite anxious about. That is what we saw in Greater Manchester. The promise of a spatial strategy for Greater Manchester meant that for about 10 years, I think nine of the 10 constituent local authorities did not bother producing a local plan, so the Government need to be very clear. It is set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill, but the Government need to be very clear that local plan production must not stop under any circumstance.
Nesil Caliskan
Q
May I ask you about land value? I am a London Member of Parliament and an ex-council leader, and land value is by far the most cited reason—by local authorities or the private sector—for development not coming through the pipeline in the last couple of years. To what extent do you think the challenges around infrastructure are impacting land value, and so holding up development? Do you think that the Bill goes far enough to tackle the length of time and the current cost of developing infrastructure that could contribute to land value going up and ultimately deliver homes?
James Stevens: All infrastructure is critical, but by “infrastructure” are you referring to really critical infrastructure, such as utilities, energy and water?
Nesil Caliskan
Q
James Stevens: London’s public transport network is probably the densest anywhere in the country. I do not necessarily see transport infrastructure as the No. 1 barrier to housing delivery in London, but you probably have local experience of that. I live on the Old Kent Road. It has been promised the Bakerloo line extension for a couple of decades, but that has not stopped increasing investment in that “growth zone”, as it is defined by the Mayor of London.
Nesil Caliskan
Q
James Stevens: That is why the devolution White Paper would give the mayors enhanced powers to do things such as bus franchising, drawing in investment, taking over trains, and increasing passenger numbers. Development of public transport infrastructure is really critical, and the lack of it is holding back the growth of many of our major cities in the north. I go up to Sheffield, which is a city region that is underperforming against its potential because it does not have the public transport infrastructure.
Kate Henderson: We know that infrastructure provision, whether of new reservoirs, or of capacity on our roads or rail is the key to unlocking a lot of strategic sites. The Bill’s larger infrastructure regime, its speeding-up of processes and the ambitious target for 150 decisions on major infrastructure are all welcome, but we must look at the long-term housing strategy alongside our transport and industrial strategies, which are coming forward, and be able to co-ordinate them all.
You asked whether land value is a barrier. Let me touch on the clauses about compulsory purchase, particularly clause 91, about hope value. We strongly support the clause, which specifically provides for hope value to be disregarded for affordable and social housing where that is in the public interest. We want that to be embedded across the planning system, not only because of the children in temporary accommodation but for the ability to create fantastic, inclusive places that meet the needs of people throughout their lives, and of people on different incomes.
We should be clear that the act of granting planning permission is a public good. This issue is about fair and reasonable land prices, so we should compensate at a fair and reasonable level, ensure that the public can capture the uplift after planning permission has been granted, and ensure that that leads to more viable developments with a higher proportion of social and affordable housing.
I put on the record that we support the CPO powers. CPOs are rarely used, but stronger CPO powers for public authorities are a good thing to encourage land to come forward. Of course, to do that effectively we need legal expertise, capacity, and risk appetite in the local authority. That is a challenge, but it is welcome that the Bill gives the tools to do that. Some capacity building is needed in local government. I commend the Government for bringing forward the measures on hope value, because that is really important in how we meet the housing crisis.
The Chair
Order. We have come to the end of this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the panel for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Matthew Pennycook MP and Michael Shanks MP gave evidence.
The Chair
This session will run until 5.50 pm. The Ministers have been participating actively in the proceedings, but could you both formally introduce yourselves for the record, please?
Matthew Pennycook: I am Matthew Pennycook MP. I am the Minister of State for Housing and Planning.
Michael Shanks: I am Michael Shanks, the Minister for Energy.
Paul Holmes
Q
However, Minister Pennycook, I would like to ask you about a sustained line of questioning that I have taken today. You also participated in the questioning of other witnesses about Natural England, and I think that you and I have a differing opinion—perhaps we do not. Let us see whether we do; I will not do you a disservice. There has been a consistent response from interested stakeholders about the ability and the resourcing of Natural England. You outlined to the witness after the chief executive of Natural England whether that will mean a deterioration or an improvement of environmental factors.
I was quite concerned by the chief executive’s representations to the Committee this afternoon, not because of her capability—it is not a slight on her leading of her organisation at all—but because of the language that came back when asked whether her organisation will be able to cope with that. The language was, “we should”, “it might”, “we are not sure yet” and “we need to go through consultations with Government and the Treasury over funding in the spending review”. Some of the reasons outlined by the chief executive were around system changes and improvements that are needed, as well as investment in computer systems and, in the short term, a shortfall in some income because of the lack of certainty from Government. That is not a criticism—that is the natural spending review period. I get that.
Can you outline why you do not share the view of many stakeholders: that Natural England’s resourcing needs to be substantially increased, and that the Government need to invest a huge amount to try to get Natural England to a position where it will be able to take on the responsibilities that you are outlining?
The Chair
Order. Before the Minister answers, let me say that a significant number of Members have indicated that they wish to ask a question. We have very limited time—until 5.50 pm. Obviously, there is some scope for the Opposition spokesperson, but I ask that future questions be short and that answers be as concise as possible.
Matthew Pennycook: I will take heed and try to be as concise as possible. I would say three things. First, we recognise that we need to ensure that the system is equipped to deliver. You will have heard from the chief executive of Natural England how closely we are working with it on these reforms and ensuring they are operational in short order after Royal Assent. We have already secured £14 million to support the nature restoration fund. As the chief executive made clear, in some instances it may be necessary to provide up-front funding. We are looking at opportunities to do so, to kick off action in advance of need, with costs recovered as development comes forward.
The important thing in the long term is that, once fully established, the nature restoration fund will run on a full cost recovery basis, and we think that is a sustainable way for Natural England to deliver EDPs in the necessary places across England.
Paul Holmes
Q
Matthew Pennycook: I fully appreciate and have no issue with you trying, shadow Minister, but I am not going to make any comment on the ongoing spending review negotiations.
Luke Murphy
Q
Also, to what degree are the Government listening to nature organisations, some of which we heard from earlier, and their suggestions on strengthening the Bill? Lastly, Richard Benwell specifically raised clause 64 and the viability test. Do you share his concern that subjecting the levy to the viability test could mean that the amount of funds that come from it are not sufficient to at the very least mitigate if not improve? How can we ensure that is not the case, even if it is subject to the viability test?
The Chair
Can I remind you again to keep questions as short as possible? It is entirely up to you, but I am just advising so that as many Members get in as possible.
Matthew Pennycook: I will take both questions in turn. The first is really important, and I am glad to have the chance to say very clearly again—as I did to Mr Benwell—that we do not accept as a Government that development has to come at the expense of nature. We have put a huge amount of effort into engaging with Mr Benwell’s organisation and many others, as well as other Government Departments, to ensure that the clauses allow us to deliver that win-win for development and the environment.
We are confident that the Bill will not undermine or reduce environmental protections, which is why we confirmed that to be the case under section 20 of the previous Government’s Environment Act 2021. As you heard from the chief exec of Natural England, our reforms are very much built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species.
Specifically on the viability point, there are existing environmental obligations that developers have to pay to address. Moving to a more strategic scale and large geographies where we can get those better outcomes will allow us to drive down costs through strategic action through those economies of scale. We think that the approach will be beneficial overall, but viability has to be a consideration in the levy fee that we will eventually set.
Gideon Amos
Q
Michael Shanks: That is a really important question. Probably the single most important part of us being able to achieve our clean power mission will be the necessary grid upgrades, many of which should have been decades before. We now need to build out the grid, so we are looking at a range of options. I think that connections reform is important for making sure that we are only building the grid that we absolutely need to build. The bill discounts and the community benefits that go with that are all around trying to improve acceptability, but we will look at a range of other issues as well, including around permitted development rights.
What we are really clear on is that we have a clear indication of the projects necessary to hit clean power by 2030. We know where those need to be built and what the barriers are to doing that, and we want to move forward with those as quickly as possible. I think that the community acceptability point is key because, unlike some of the other parts of our electricity system, pylons and substations are probably the ones that communities have the biggest challenge with, particularly because they are going through multiple communities in the course of a line. We have evidenced that the bill-discount scheme will improve that acceptability to help build those much faster. Of course, that is the only way that we will achieve clean power—by getting the power to where it is needed most.
Amanda Martin
Q
Michael Shanks: It is a really good question. To Mr Amos’s question, I said that network was probably the single most important thing, but connections reform is probably the single most important lever in clearing out what is now 756 GW in a queue to connect, which is frankly an absurd amount. This is therefore really a fundamental shift to move from “first applied, first in the queue” to what is strategically important: is a project actually ready to be connected? As has been discussed, we have so many of these zombie projects that take up a space in the queue for years on end.
We have also been clear about prioritising what is strategically important to our energy mix, particularly on some of the questions around storage, to make sure we actually have the right capacity. Connecting is really important, so we want to bring that queue down as quickly as possible. That frees up the connections process for new generation to join far faster, but the other important side of it is that, for the projects in the queue on the demand side, it frees up capacity for those to connect much more quickly as well.
The estimates at the moment are probably conservative, based on how quickly the growth of AI, datacentres and things are taking hold, but the estimate is that, by 2050, the demand for electricity in this country will have doubled. This step—clearing out the queue now—is therefore really important, but so is putting in place a process that makes sure that the queue does not fill back up after we have done this particular clear-out. The Bill therefore details the process that will be taken, but also the role that the Government will have in setting strategic priorities for queue management for future connections.
The first stage of that will be the clean power action plan, but it will allow us in the future to look at some other aspects of the economy to ensure that we are prioritising the projects that get through. We have resisted the approach of prioritising demand projects, because obviously how you prioritise those becomes much more subjective, but if we clear out a lot of the 756 GW now, we can connect projects and get the economy growing as a result.
Amanda Martin
Q
Matthew Pennycook: There are a variety of ways in which the Bill will help SMEs. It is probably worth my saying, because we have had a variety of questions on issues that are not directly within the scope of the Bill—the new towns taskforce and programme, and build-out rates where the Government have taken action and are exploring what further steps we can take—that this is not the totality of the interventions that we are introducing to support SMEs.
However, to go back to Mr Murphy’s question, a good example would be the nature restoration fund. We know that nutrient neutrality and diffuse constraints of that kind are particularly affecting SME house builders in those sensitive river catchments, so there are a number of ways in which the provisions in the Bill will directly benefit small and medium house builders.
Olly Glover
Q
Matthew Pennycook: To correct you on a point made there, I think the figure of 18,000 that you referenced is solely what we think could be delivered through the £2 billion we secured recently and announced as a down payment on the future grant funding through the successor programme to the affordable homes programme. It is not 18,000 affordable homes as social out of 1.5 million—that would be completely unacceptable. We are trying to, through all of our reforms, deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
Olly Glover
Accepted.
Matthew Pennycook: In terms of the top-up, we have already allocated £800 million to the affordable homes programme since coming into office. We have also pulled forward £2 billion as a down payment. A significant proportion of the homes coming through those funding routes are social rented homes—almost half, but I am happy to provide the Committee with the specific figure. So we are getting a huge uplift coming through, and the successor grant programme will give particular priority to social rented homes coming through.
Where I think spatial development strategies can add to what we see coming through is that these will not be big local plans—let us be very clear. They need to be pretty high-level documents that make decisions about where housing growth and infrastructure provision is best sited and delivered on a sub-regional basis. That will allow groups of local authorities to take a far more sophisticated approach to, for example, bringing forward large-scale new communities in strategic locations that allow them to meet housing targets in a more sophisticated way. Through other measures that we are introducing—the CPO measures in the Bill are a good example—we will capture more land-value uplift and deliver more social and affordable homes.
Ellie Chowns
Q
Given that commitment from the Government, given Richard Benwell’s observation that there are risks that could be addressed through amendments and given Marian Spain’s comments—that the Bill needs robust safeguards and that drafting amendments may make it more robust—I return to the question that Mr Murphy asked. Can you confirm that you retain an open mind and that you may consider tabling further Government amendments in response to the concerns raised, so that the Bill does what you are saying it does on the tin?
Matthew Pennycook: I appreciate the question. To reiterate—and this is where I slightly disagree with Mr Benwell and others—we are very clear that the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protections, in terms of existing environmental law. We are very clear about that, and confident in the safeguards that exist in the Bill.
I am happy to look at any amendment, and we will in the normal course of the Bill Committee; we will debate each of them in turn and I will keep an open mind about any that we think is feasible, workable, aligns with the objectives of the Bill and delivers what we want to see—absolutely. We will debate all of those in due course. As you rightly made clear, we tabled a package of Government amendments yesterday.
To bring it back to the specific point, some of those amendments on removing the statutory requirement for pre-applications consultation in relation to national significant infrastructure projects were tabled partly because we were getting feedback through the working paper, and also because there were a number of calls on Second Reading for us to specifically look at that area of reform. As you would expect in the normal course of the Bill, we will respond to challenge, criticism, scrutiny and any amendments, which we will debate in due course.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank all our witnesses across the day for their evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 29th April 2025
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 April 2025 - (29 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. However, it is very hot this morning, so if you would like to remove your jackets, you are allowed to do so.
Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates; decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak to all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.
Clause 1
National policy statements: review
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) Any review of a national policy statement in relation to a nationally significant infrastructure project must include consideration of whether the project complies with the Land Use Framework.’”
This amendment would require national policy statements to be in accordance with the proposed Land Use Framework.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to move amendment 32, which stands in my name.
We are pleased that the Government have kept their manifesto commitment to publish the long-awaited consultation on the land use framework—something the Liberal Democrats had long called for. The consultation states:
“Optimising how we use England’s land will be essential to delivering the Government’s Growth mission and the Clean Energy Superpower mission”.
It rightly recognises that a
“strategic approach to land use strategy and planning”
is needed if we are
“to avoid siloed…decision-making and…unintended consequences or unanticipated costs.”
It says that that will also inform decisions
“to guarantee our long-term food security...support development...achieve our targets on nature and climate…and support economic growth.”
Those are good objectives. However, the Secretary of State has repeatedly emphasised that the land use framework is not about telling anyone how to use land; instead, it is about providing the principles, data and tools to empower decision makers. It is right that the land use framework should not become prescriptive, but there is a real chance that it will become an expensive waste of time if it is not bolted into the planning system. To succeed, we need an efficient legal link to planning and spending decisions; otherwise, the land use framework will likely only sit on a shelf.
Part 1 of the Bill rightly recognises the need for more efficient ways to keep national policy statements up to date. In the past, NPSs have fallen behind Government policy, which has led to delay. For example, as Justice Holgate noted in the Drax development consent order challenge, the energy NPS designated in 2011 left important questions about greenhouse gas emissions unanswered because it did not reflect Parliament’s net zero decisions.
To avoid that kind of disconnect and delay, NPSs should have a direct link to the land use framework, as proposed in the amendment. The amendment would help to ensure that the land use framework has a dynamic link to major infrastructure decisions, without becoming too prescriptive. That would help to protect the environment and agriculture by guiding projects away from the most damaging options early in the process. It would also help development by improving certainty up front, reducing the challenge of judicial review were the relationship between NPSs and the land use framework left to the courts to determine.
The land use framework must be aligned with national policy objectives to inform the policies needed to deliver those objectives. Failing to consider the land use framework when reviewing national policy statements would also perpetuate siloed decision making. It would leave the land use framework as toothless and without the necessary weight, undermining public confidence in land use decisions. The amendment would not bind decision makers or prescribe specific land uses but would meet the Government’s stated objective of better informing decisions and supporting the delivery of a shared vision for English land use that balances the need for housing, energy, infrastructure and food security with our statutory climate and nature targets.
In his remarks when he launched the land use framework, the Environment Secretary said that the framework
“will work hand in hand with”
the Government’s
“housing and energy plans…creating a coherent set of policies that work together, rather than against each other.”
Ensuring that national policy statements in these areas consider the land use framework is therefore essential to realising the Government’s objectives of joined-up decision making.
The House of Lords Land Use in England Committee highlighted the issue in its report, which found that the “overarching theme” from witnesses to the Committee was the “lack of integration” between nationally significant infrastructure projects, both
“with other NSIPs (including other projects within same policy area), and with the wider planning system.”
It recommended:
“Energy and other large-scale infrastructure projects should be incorporated into a land use framework.”
An obvious and effective way to do that would be to ensure that any review of the national policy statement complied with the land use framework. Without that, and without the amendment and the institutional and legal levers to create change on the ground, a land use framework would likely just be another strategy on the shelf.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Before I speak to clause 1 stand part and respond to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I put on the record my thanks to the large number of witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.
Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity that our country needs and the high living standards that working people deserve; that is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission. The failure to build enough critical infrastructure, from electricity networks and clean energy sources to public transport links and water supplies, has constrained economic growth and undermined our energy security. That is why the Government’s plan for change commits us to fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.
While nationally significant infrastructure project applications are already being processed 50 days quicker on average than in the last Parliament, achieving that milestone will require the planning regime for NSIPs to fire on all cylinders—yet we know that the system as it stands is too slow and that its performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years. The Government are determined to improve it and to deliver a faster and more consenting process for critical infrastructure that will drive down costs for industry, bill payers and taxpayers.
Key to an effective NSIP regime is ensuring that national policy statements are fit for purpose. To be clear, those statements are the primary policy framework within which the examining authority makes its recommendations to Ministers on individual development consent order applications and against which the relevant Secretary of State is required to determine an application. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just noted, despite their importance many national policy statements are outdated, with some having not been refreshed for over a decade.
Clause 1 addresses that problem by establishing, on enactment, a new requirement for every national policy statement to be subjected to a full review and updated at least every five years. NPSs can be reviewed at any point within that five-year timeframe, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Additionally, any statement that has currently not been updated for over five years must be brought up to date within two years of the clause’s enactment.
Having taken on board the views of consenting Departments, a wide range of industry stakeholders and the recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission, we believe that a five-year timeframe strikes the right balance between ensuring that statements are kept up to date, while avoiding rapid change and the consequential uncertainty for the infrastructure sectors that would be caused by a more rapid review timeframe.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister may come to this later, but he will also be aware that clause 1 will make provisions for the Secretary of State to update an NPS later than required when there are exceptional circumstances, including laying a statement to Parliament. We will discuss in relation to later clauses our concern about transparency and engagement with the House. Will he outline how the Secretary of State will be able to consult the House, once she has laid that statement, to help to form her view and the Government’s view going forward?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question, and I look forward to what I know will be constructive debates over the days and weeks to come. He makes a fair point, which I am just coming to, in relation to the clause also providing for the ability to delay a mandatory update when there are exceptional circumstances that the relevant Secretary of State considers make the delay unavoidable.
I stress to the hon. Gentleman that those circumstances must be exceptional. We have in mind an extremely high bar: for example, if Parliament was suspended and could not sit. He will know that in instances where a national policy statement, for example, does not need to undergo a material change, a rapid update can take place on that basis. It does not have to go through consultation or the necessary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. The vision is that this particular part of the clause will be used with an exceptionally high bar, in very limited circumstances. If he wishes, I am happy to provide the Committee with further examples, but I think they will be extremely limited.
In such circumstances, as the shadow Minister said, the Secretary of State must, before the five-year deadline expires, lay a statement before Parliament explaining the reasons for the sought-after extension and when they expect to update the national policy statement, with the delay lasting only as long as the exceptional circumstances exist.
In summary, the changes give Ministers the power to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date so that they can effectively support the delivery of the critical infrastructure that our country needs and the economic growth that its provision will deliver. I commend the clause to the Committee.
I turn to amendment 32, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, seeks to insert a requirement for the land use framework—on which the Government consulted between January and April this year—to be complied with whenever a national policy statement is reviewed. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is already obliged to take into account all relevant material considerations when reviewing national policy statements as a matter of law, under sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008.
If a future Secretary of State considers the final land use framework to be relevant in the circumstances of the specific national policy statement being reviewed, it must therefore be taken into account. The Secretary of State will, in those circumstances, give the land use framework the weight that they consider appropriate in their planning judgment, but their assessment of relevance cannot and should not be prejudged by writing such a requirement on to the face of the Bill.
The majority of national policy statements are not site or project-specific. For national policy statements that do identify locations as suitable or potentially suitable for a particular development, those locations will already have been the subject of strategic level environmental assessments and appraisals for inclusion in the national policy statement.
When deciding whether to grant development consent for a nationally significant infrastructure project, sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act require the Secretary of State to have regard to any matter that they think “both important and relevant” to the decision of whether to grant consent. Once published, the land use framework could be given such weight as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, where they consider it “both important and relevant” to the particular consenting decision that is in front of them.
For those reasons, the Government cannot accept amendment 32, which seeks to introduce an unnecessary layer of regulatory complexity, undermining our ambitions to streamline the NSIP planning system.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I agree very much with the Minister’s point about not introducing excessive complexity. A key issue, though, that this element of the Bill highlights is where there are complex interactions—with legal obligations that are placed on local authorities, for example. I think of my experience with Heathrow airport, where air quality duties are an absolute obligation on the local authority. Parliament can decide to derogate from that, but that does not remove the possibility of the local authority being judicially reviewed, having failed to oppose the Government’s position on a national planning policy statement.
When there are such obligations on other affected public bodies but the decision has been taken from them and is being made instead by Parliament, how will the Government ensure that those public bodies will not find themselves held liable and find that the whole process is effectively derailed—because although parliamentary decisions cannot be judicially reviewed, the involvement of that public body in decisions can be?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point but, if I have understood him, it is a slightly different issue from the one we are considering. I will give him some extra clarity about the land use framework and any other material consideration that would need to be assessed. When looking at a national policy statement, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to such material considerations, be they the land use framework or any others, for the decision to be legally sound.
The reason we cannot accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is that it is not necessary to specifically require that, as it would effectively repeat public law decision-making principles on the face of the Bill that would have to be taken into account anyway. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, so I hope he will withdraw it. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In our view, the land use framework is a really important document about the sustainability of the development of land in the UK, and simply referring to it as one of a number of documents that must be taken into account does not guarantee that it will be delivered on in the really important national policy statement framework. Our intention is that it should be a requirement that national policy statements are in accordance with the land use framework for those reasons; it should not simply be a background document.
I am bleary-eyed this morning, but I have spotted that there are more Members on the Government side than on the Opposition side, so we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
National policy statements: parliamentary requirements
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a response to a resolution made by either House or recommendations made by a committee of either House in relation to amendments to national policy statements. The requirement to do so is otherwise removed by 2(a).
Gideon Amos
The justification for the proposal in clause 2 to remove parliamentary requirements for scrutiny and the approval of amendments to national policy statements is that they reflect legislative changes. In our view, that justification is faulty in three respects.
First, it is claimed that since Parliament will have considered the changes, it does not need to scrutinise the resulting amendments to NPSs. However, it is far from certain that national policy statement amendments will reflect new or amended legislation. Let me give an example. In its 2023 review, the Transport Committee was very critical of the draft national networks national policy statement, and said that new planning policies for major road and rail schemes need clarifying against net zero laws. However, the Department for Transport not only failed to accept any of the MPs’ recommendations but put a climate test from the outdated 2015 policy back into the NPS it designated in 2024. Given that the reason for updating the NPS was to update the climate test, that completely compounded the original justification for carrying out the review. There is therefore no certainty that legal decisions will be reflected if my amendment is not accepted.
Secondly, the explanatory notes say that the change will “preserve parliamentary oversight” for amendments to NPSs, but in fact the purpose of the clause is to take away parliamentary oversight of changes to NPSs. It will mean that the Government are no longer required to respond to recommendations of the Select Committee or other MPs. As the Transport Action Network said,
“If we are serious about front-loading, in other words deciding key policies in advance rather than in individual infrastructure decisions, the Planning Act 2008’s failure to enable effective scrutiny of NPSs requires addressing, rather than being made worse.”
Thirdly, although it is suggested that the removal of parliamentary scrutiny is limited, subsection (3)(d) makes it clear than any change of Government policy can be effected by changing an NPS without the oversight of Parliament. The clause—and particularly subsection (3)(d)—destroys the distinction between national policy that has been debated and voted on in Parliament and the rest of Government policy. There is a clear distinction, which is really important, in the NPS regime.
In the case some time ago of Dinsdale Developments Ltd v. Secretary of State for the Environment in 1986, the court accepted an after-dinner speech from the Secretary of State as Government policy. Although I doubt that the Minister speaking over dinner in his family home would be captured and changed into a national policy statement, there is scope for speeches made by Ministers and Secretaries of State to become Government policy. They can be wafted into the national policy statement with no opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise or vote on it, which would undermine the strength of national policy statements.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, I remind Committee members to indicate if they want to speak. If you want only to intervene, you must keep your interventions short, so make a decision on whether you want to intervene or make a speech.
Paul Holmes
I will adhere to your guidance and orders on this Committee, Mrs Hobhouse. I intend to speak to clause 2 first, and then I will address amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. We welcome the premise of parliamentary scrutiny of the national policy statements, but we understand that although the usual steps for publishing and consulting on material changes—21 days under the legislation—still apply, the Secretary of State is no longer required to respond to feedback from Parliament or its Committees during that process.
That is a step back on the democratic checks and balances that the House has under current legislation. We are concerned about whether the Secretary of State will have increased power to make decisions without that scrutiny. All Ministers, including the two sitting opposite me, try to make good decisions and do their best by the country, but it is unacceptable that the legislation includes a retrograde step whereby Parliament is unable to feed back on changes proposed by the Secretary of State. We see that as a retrograde step for scrutiny.
We have seen in legislation for other Departments a centralising move into the hands of officials and Ministers. What is the benefit of this provision in the Bill? What is the benefit of taking away a very simple and usual step of Parliament being able to give its views on the Secretary of State’s movements and proposals? It does not make a tangible difference to the process. It just seems to be a power grab—that may be unfair on the Minister—or at least a movement of power away from the ability of Parliament to have traditional checks and balances.
Matthew Pennycook
In the interest of focusing the debate on the actual changes that we are making in the clause, when a national policy statement has been reviewed and is to be updated, and involves material changes, all the assessments and consultation that need to take place, including laying the NPS before the House of Commons, will remain in place. We are talking about a specific set of categories of reflective, small changes that, as I will make clear in my remarks later, have already been debated by Parliament in their own terms.
Paul Holmes
I understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State will no longer be required, under the Bill, to respond to feedback from Parliament. That is what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is trying to sort out with his amendment. We very much support that amendment, because it would require the Secretary of State to provide a response to the House on amendments to national policy statements.
I have no disagreement on the provision of NPSs and what we discussed in the debate on the last clause. What tangible difference does it make to the Bill if Parliament is taken note of by being able to respond, and the Secretary of State is required to respond to that feedback? The Select Committee has a right to issue its views. Why is the Secretary of State no longer required to respond to that feedback from Parliament? To us, it seems slightly undemocratic to remove transparency and the ability of elected Members of this House, of all parties, to be able to scrutinise the movements of the Secretary of State and Ministers in national policy statements. Perhaps the Minister can explain in his comments what tangible difference it makes to his life or that of his Department that the Secretary of State no longer has to respond to feedback from elected Members of this House.
As I said, we agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It would encourage greater accountability as part of the process outlined in the Bill and would enhance parliamentary scrutiny over crucial development policies that the Secretary of State has oversight of.
David Simmonds
I rise in support of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister to press the Government on this point. I think the key issue for all of us is what remedy is available where there are concerns about the impact of a decision taken using these new provisions.
In the evidence sessions, there was much mockery of a so-called fish disco at a new nuclear power station. However, the local constituency MP, the local authority or fishing and wildlife organisations would be very concerned about the impact of that development on wildlife, particularly at a location with significant numbers of protected species, some of which are unique in Europe. When the detail of a project emerges and an issue of that nature needs to be addressed, and there is feedback from Parliament, if we have inserted provisions that allow the Secretary of State to say, “I am going to ignore that now,” we lose the opportunity to ensure appropriate remedies and measures to address the impact of that detail, either in planning terms or on the local environment.
I recall a judicial review brought by the local authority where I served as a councillor in respect of a scheme that had been agreed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State had written to the local authority and said, “This is what it is going to be. This is the process that is going to be followed.” That Secretary of State was then replaced with another, who said, “I am not going to follow it. Although my predecessor wrote to you last year to tell you this is how it was going to be, I am not going to do it.” The local authority said that was clearly unsatisfactory, because of the impact at community level.
The test that was required to be met for a judicial review to succeed was that we had to be able to demonstrate that the Minister was—what the judge said has always stuck in my mind—“out of her mind” when she told Parliament at the Dispatch Box what she was going to do, on the basis that parliamentary sovereignty was so great. If Parliament had approved the Minister’s actions, regardless of whether they were a flagrant breach of an agreement previously entered into with another part of the public sector, provided they had said that at the Dispatch Box and unless we could prove that the Minister had actually been out of their mind at that point, the decision would stand and would not be subject to judicial review. It could not even be considered, because parliamentary sovereignty has such a high test.
I think the shadow Minister is right to raise the need to get this right. We are all talking about the importance of getting infrastructure and major developments through, and we can understand the desire to drive that forward, but we would not wish to find ourselves in a situation where a key point of detail, which has a significant community impact but which emerges only once some of those detailed elements of a major project are in the public domain, cannot be taken account of and is irrelevant or disregarded in the planning process. It is absolutely critical that we have that level of safeguard to ensure that constituents are assured that the concerns that they might perfectly reasonably have will be properly addressed.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw your attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I concur with my colleagues. I have concerns about removing the response from Ministers to Parliament. We are told that constituents and residents will be kept at the heart of such decisions—they will have some say in the national planning policy framework through consultation on national infrastructure projects when they are in their area. Indeed, I asked the Prime Minister a question on the topic at PMQs. I was not convinced by his answer.
How can the Government, on the one hand, say that we will keep local people at the heart of those decisions and allow local people to have a say on them, while on the other, in this part of the Bill, remove parliamentary scrutiny? That will fill the British people with dread, that they will not have such a say in some of those infrastructure projects in their area.
Matthew Pennycook
May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Local people in any part of the country affected by a development consent order will still be able to have their say on it. Nothing in the clause affects that arrangement.
Lewis Cocking
My point is, if we remove parliamentary scrutiny, the British people out there watching this will think, “Well, hang on a minute, the Government are saying on the one hand that we will still have a say and feed into that process, but on the other they are removing parliamentary scrutiny from the process, so how do we weigh that up?” When the Bill has been through the full process to Third Reading, how can we and the British people trust that they will still have a say over national infrastructure projects in their area if parliamentary scrutiny is being removed? That is taking with one hand and giving with the other, and it could be perceived that people will not have a say; they might not believe the Government saying that they will have a say. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me be clear. I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members have expressed. I hope that I can provide some reassurance, but I am more than happy to have further exchanges on this point, which is an important one.
The clause introduces a new streamlined procedure for making material policy amendments to national policy statements, where the proposed amendments fall into four categories of changes to be made since the NPPS was last reviewed: reflecting legislative changes or revocations that have already come into force; relevant court decisions that have already been issued; Government policy that has already been published; and changes to other documents referred to in the NPPS.
A good example is our recent changes to the national planning policy framework—consulted on publicly and subject to a significant amount of scrutiny in the House. If a relevant NPPS had to be updated to reflect some of those policy changes, which have already been subject to consultation and scrutiny on their own terms, as I said, that would be a good example of where this reflective procedure might be useful.
The primary aim of the clause is to expedite the Parliamentary process for updating national policy statements. By doing so, it ensures that amendments that have already undergone public and parliamentary scrutiny can be integrated more swiftly into the relevant NPPS. In enabling reflective amendments to be made, the new procedure will support the Government’s growth mission by ensuring that NPPSs are current and relevant, increasing certainty for developers and investors, and streamlining decision making for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Hon. Members should be assured that, where applicable, the statutory and regulatory prerequisites of an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulation assessment will continue to apply to amendments that fall within this definition, as will the existing publication and consultation requirements for material changes to a national policy statement. The clause does, however—this is the point of debate that we have just had—disapply the requirements for the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. We believe that change is necessary to enable reflective changes to be made to NPSs in a more timely and proportionate manner.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way in one second, if the hon. Member will allow me, because I think this is some useful context for some of the discussions that have taken place over recent months.
The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the relevant Select Committee Clerks for engaging with me and my officials on the implications of the new procedure. We have agreed on certain guarantees to ensure that there will still be adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.
As such, I am happy to restate today that, when the Government intend to use the reflective amendment route to update a national policy statement, we will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. We would hope in all instances that the Select Committee responds in a prompt and timely manner, allowing us to take on board its comments. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the Committee during that period, in so far as that is practical.
The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government in the usual fashion. Should a Select Committee publish a report within the relevant timeframes of the public consultation period—in a sense, that is one of the challenges we are trying to get at here: not all select Committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process by which the reflective amendment needs to take place—the Government will obviously take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before the House in the usual manner.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for reminding us that we are talking about a specific amendment to a specific clause about a specific thing. But the issue that is at stake here was communicated by his complaint that parliamentary process might slow things down. Surely, the whole point of Parliament is to make our laws. I am worried by the implication that Government see Parliament as a hindrance to getting things done, rather than as a crucial part of scrutiny and checks and balances. If the Minister has concerns about timescales, it is perfectly achievable to address those by setting timeframes. But the removal of the clause that requires the Government to pay attention to the views of cross-party Committees scrutinising particular statements is concerning.
Matthew Pennycook
I say gently to the hon. Lady that she has ignored everything I have said. Every one of the changes that will be able to be made through this process will have already been subject to relevant consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. There is the example of changes to the national planning policy framework, which underwent a huge amount of parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee and a statement on the Floor of the House. It is not particularly problematic that we should be able to quickly, in a timely manner—with Select Committee input if it is able to respond in the necessary timeframe—make that change to a national policy statement to ensure that it is up to date and effective.
It is worth considering what the current arrangements require. Currently, the consultation, publicity and parliamentary scrutiny appeal that the Government must follow when updating an NPS, even for a minor change of the kind I have spoken about, is exactly the same as designating an entirely new NPS. There is no ability at the moment for timely and often minor reflective updates that will only reflect policy changes that have already been made subject to scrutiny, and court decisions that have been issued—there is not process for that. We think the system would work far better in most cases if there were.
Although it is a matter for the House, we would hope that in nearly every instance the relevant Select Committee would be able to respond in time, and that those views would be taken into account to help the NPS be updated in a more proportionate and effective manner.
Paul Holmes
I apologise for interrupting the Minister mid-flow, but if the utopian vision that he has outlined is the case—if a Select Committee comes to them within the right amount of time they will listen to its views, but the timescales are currently too long—and the Minister genuinely wanted to allow parliamentary scrutiny and responses to be taken into account by his Department, he would have come to the Committee today outlining a number of steps contained in the legislation setting standard response times for Select Committees and the processes of this House, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said.
The Minister could have clearly outlined in the legislation an aspiration for the amount of time that he would want the changes to be worked through with Parliament. I understand that there are Standing Orders of the House, but I remind the Minister that the Leader of the House is currently a Minister under his Government, and he could have got a workaround instead of taking out the scrutiny powers of the House of Commons.
Matthew Pennycook
I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter for the House rather than the Government. On their own terms, we think the changes made through the clause are proportionate and will ensure that the system is more effective. Again, I make it clear that we are talking about reflective amendments to national policy statements in the four specific categories I have given.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way one last time, and then I will make some progress.
Lewis Cocking
If we are talking about small, minor changes, surely the consultation period does not need to be that long—it will not take Select Committees long to produce a report to feed into the process if these are only minor changes. I do not see the need for change that the Minister is setting out.
Matthew Pennycook
All I would say is that if the hon. Gentleman looked at the history of the response times on some of these matters he would see that in not every instance is there a timely response. It can delay the process quite significantly. We appreciate the concerns, but the procedure cannot and will not be used to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny.
Any court decision change being reflected in the NPS will have been scrutinised by the public and Parliament on its own terms. We are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements to update an NPS, so that it is more proportionate and enables those documents to be updated more quickly. The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government. The Secretary of State is required to lay a statement in Parliament announcing that a review of the NPS is taking place. The Government will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period, and Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical. Finally, the NPS as amended will still be laid in Parliament for 21 days and can be prayed against.
I turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington; we have covered many of the issues it raises. In seeking to remove clause 2(3)(a), it is a wrecking amendment, in our view. It would fatally and fundamentally undermine the introduction of a new streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements by requiring the Government to respond to a Select Committee inquiry before being able to lay a national policy statement before Parliament. We will therefore resist it. As I have set out, the new procedure introduced by clause 2 will help to unlock growth in our country by enabling policy to be updated more easily, providing certainty for applicants using the NSIP regime and for decision makers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I thank the hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for reminding me of the discussion about Hinkley, which is 13 miles from my home and is where a lot of my constituents work. In the evidence sessions, much was made of the fish disco. If memory serves, it is an AFD—not a political party in Germany, but an acoustic fish deterrent—which would cost a fair amount, but would stop about 3 million fish being killed every year in the 7-metre diameter cooling tunnels that suck seawater into Hinkley. Many of my constituents are concerned about species loss, habitat loss and the effect on the natural environment.
David Simmonds
Sucking fish into a nuclear reactor—what could possibly go wrong? That seems a good example of how, when the details of a project are analysed, there is a requirement for such measures. However, we have also looked at the issue of battery storage in connection with improving grid capacity, and the point has been made that ongoing appraisals of the nature of battery storage ensure that local authorities granting planning consent have fulfilled all their relevant environmental and health and safety duties when doing so.
It seems to me that, if a parliamentary Select Committee had looked at and taken into consideration such projects, it would be valuable for the Secretary of State to be required to respond, rather than being able to set that aside and having to seek to unpick the whole decision later as a result of judicial reviews brought because of the failure of a local authority to carry out its statutory obligations.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman raises another example of a failing that could have been addressed by parliamentary scrutiny.
Hon. Members may be wondering why I am referring to the acoustic fish deterrent, but the fact is that such concerns do matter to people, and people do care about species loss and habitat loss. A simple change in Government policy—for example, a ministerial speech changing Government guidance—could provide a pretext or a basis for a change to a national policy statement without any parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, if the NPS changed, EDF would be allowed to get rid of its acoustic fish deterrent, and there would be no further scrutiny on that basis, but that is not a good way to make policy.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people are also very concerned about the anaemic economic growth in the United Kingdom over the past 14 years, as well as the housing and energy crises, and that the Bill seeks to strike a balance between all these competing considerations? At the moment, we do not have a balance—the balance is against development—and we desperately need developments such as Hinkley that create brilliant, well-paid jobs, including for many young people in south-west England.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is right: many of my constituents appreciate the opportunities that the Hinkley development provides them. Perhaps he is right that the decision should be wafted into a quick policy statement and then whacked into the NPS, so EDF can get rid of its fish deterrent for the sake of economic growth and the jobs that he is talking about—but surely Parliament should have some say on these crucial questions of balance between economic objectives and objectives around the natural environment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am struggling to follow what the hon. Gentleman’s specific concern is. He keeps throwing out the after-dinner speech example; that would not meet the threshold for a reflective amendment through this route. If the Government have made a policy change that has been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House—
Matthew Pennycook
Well, it would have to have been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House in order to meet the criteria. We think that it is therefore reasonable to take it through in this manner. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is suggesting that there will be a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny, and in that way is misleading the Committee regarding the effect of the clause.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to be able to get back to the clause. Clause 2(3)(d) of the Bill is clear that any published Government policy can be the basis for a change through this expedited route, which does not involve parliamentary scrutiny. As I explained earlier, court cases have held that a speech can be admitted as Government policy. There is another danger with this approach. It may be said that there will be only occasional changes. Were the clause restricted to where there have been legal judgments or thorough parliamentary debate, those of us on this side of the Committee would be more relaxed about the changes, but it is not; it covers all published Government policy.
One of the other dangers, besides quick changes in Government policy that would help particular projects, is a potential cumulative danger. There could be numerous changes to national policy statements through this minor amendments route, and anyone who thinks that that is unrealistic needs only to look at the cavernous website of the national planning practice guidance, which is voluminous, ever expanding and always changing. One of my concerns is that this process, through gradual attrition and minor changes, will degrade the importance of a national policy statement as a single statement that has been voted on in Parliament, rather than a mass of amendments over many years, on an ever expanding website of guidance.
If the Minister suggests that there is a very high test, clause 2(3)(d) says that the only test is that it is “published Government policy”. That is not a very high test for what can go through this expedited process.
David Simmonds
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another risk? Ministers may set out that, in order for a particular project to be expedited, it needs to meet a series of tests. I think again of airport expansion; numerous Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box that a whole set of different tests on air quality and finance would need to be met before it could be approved. If we effectively set aside elements of parliamentary feedback, then Ministers, having announced that such tests would need to be met, could, in effect, retrospectively set aside that requirement in order to enable major infrastructure projects to go ahead, without having satisfied the kind of environmental and community concerns that the hon. Gentleman describes?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member accurately highlights the point that I was trying to make in relation to the acoustic fish deterrent, where particular changes could be made through this new route to facilitate projects—changes that would not have had proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister may say that the provision would apply only to proper Government policy—real Government policy—such as the national planning policy framework, which I fully accept has had parliamentary scrutiny, but look at case law, such as Mead Realisations Ltd v. the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the Court of Appeal last year, Sir Keith Lindblom said that
“the legal status of the government’s planning policies in the NPPF and its guidance in the PPG is basically the same. No legal distinction exists between them...Their status is equivalent in the sense that both of them are statements of national policy”.
Clearly, Ministers and Secretaries of State can make a range of policy changes that could feature in, and become changes to, national policy statements. Through a cumulative process, an NPS could become degraded by a morass of detailed changes, and no longer have the strength and integrity that it requires. Crucially, it will not have benefited from parliamentary scrutiny. We intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has already made it clear that he will press the amendment, but let me take one last opportunity to reassure Members on this point. We have to be clear what the current requirements entail: they do not require the Government to agree with a Select Committee report, if it is issued in a timely manner; they just require the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. Those resolutions can ultimately be set aside if the Government disagree.
As I said, we are not trying to remove wholesale parliamentary scrutiny or the ability of the public to engage and consult. All the changes that will come down this route, when it is appropriate and necessary to use, will have been scrutinised by Parliament and, in many cases, by public consultation on their own terms. However, we think that the removal of an aspect of parliamentary scrutiny is justified by the nature of changes that can be better reflected in policy within a national policy statement. We have had extensive engagement with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the relevant Select Committee Clerks on what guarantees we can provide, while removing this requirement, to ensure that there is still adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.
Finally, I want to bring home to Members what we think the change will allow. We estimate that, in many cases, the requirement to respond to resolutions, particularly in cases where a Select Committee’s response is not timely, adds at least three to six months to the process of updating a national policy statement. Given that we are talking about minor changes that are already policy and court decisions, we think that this is a necessary and proportionate means of ensuring that policy statements are up to date and that investors have confidence in the policy framework being applied. We therefore think that we can streamline the process, and will resist the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
The Planning Act 2008 provides a uniform approach to consenting, covering a wide range of sectors and types of development. However, this may not always be proportionate for specific developments. Clause 3 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to disapply the requirement for development consent for specified developments that would otherwise fall under the NSIP regime. The clause contains several conditions governing when a direction may or may not be given by the Secretary of State, such as when a request for direction is needed, who may submit such a request, and what such a request may contain.
The Secretary of State may give a direction only if they consider it appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply to a specific development. This would mean that a development consent order is no longer required and that the development in question could instead be considered by an alternative appropriate consenting authority, bringing greater flexibility to the system of planning consent by ensuring that the appropriate regime is used, based on the specific circumstances at hand rather than on strict statutory definitions and thresholds. This will help to reduce burdens on applicants that may otherwise be disproportionate, and to develop a more streamlined and responsive decision-making process.
Let me make it clear to hon. Members what the current arrangements provide for. Section 35 of the Planning Act allows the Secretary of State to bring into the NSIP regime specified developments that do not come within the statutory meaning of a nationally significant infrastructure project. Clause 3 will provide similar flexibility but in the other direction, enabling more proportionate and efficient consenting processes. I can provide several examples of where such flexibility may be beneficial. A railway development may be within the scope of the Planning Act, but its impacts and benefits may be more local, and it may not require the compulsory acquisition of land. It might be more appropriate for such cases to be considered under the Transport and Works Act 1992 regime.
Similarly, other large developments often include multiple elements that need to be considered under different consenting regimes, leading to disproportionate work and costs in preparing multiple applications. For example, an access road that is secondary to the main development may require consent under the NSIP regime, while other elements of the development, such as housing, may fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime. Clause 3 will allow for a direction to be provided by the Secretary of State to enable the applicant to include the access road in the planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act route.
There have also been cases where it has been argued that a development close to exiting statutory thresholds could be more appropriately considered through other, more proportionate regimes. We have all heard the examples—I have heard them in many debates secured by hon. Members—and they were highlighted again in our planning reform working paper. There are many examples of solar developments that have been deliberately kept just below the Planning Act threshold of 50 MW to avoid coming within the NSIP regime. We committed to increasing the statutory threshold for solar developments to 100 MW in December 2024, but as the technology continues to improve, similar issues may occur in the future, and other examples could emerge in other fields.
The current arrangement has resulted in the clustering of developments just below the NSIP threshold and less energy being generated overall, undermining our work to strengthen this country’s energy security. The clause provides far more flexibility at local level so that, even under the new arrangements, an applicant who wants to bring forward a 120 MW solar application need not be deterred by the nature of the present NSIP system being slow and uncertain, which we are taking steps to address. They will be able to divide their application into, say, four different applications within the TCPA regime if they have a constructive and pro-development council that they feel they can work with. That would be a faster route to getting a decision on their application, as the clause allows them to apply to the Secretary of State to make a redirection into an alternative consenting regime.
David Simmonds
How does the Minister propose that this measure will address boundary issues? It is not uncommon for a significant construction project to be located in one local authority while the access road, as he described, is in another local authority. Particularly where a section 106 benefit is derived from a development that is taking place, the consenting authority will undertake those negotiations, so clearly it will be necessary to have taken that into account. Can he indicate how such an approach will be built in, so that everyone has an assurance that that will be fully dealt with?
Matthew Pennycook
It will be for the Secretary of State to consider applicants’ requests when they are made. They will issue their policy on redirection decisions, and issue guidance for clarity about precisely how the process will operate in certain circumstances. The access road example that I gave the hon. Gentleman is a good one. In that type of scenario, there is a very strong case for an access road application not to go through the full NSIP regime, particularly if the applicant in question is dealing with a local authority that is well skilled and well resourced, and that they feel is able to better deal with the application in a more timely fashion. They can apply to the Secretary of State to make such a redirection, but we will issue guidance on specifically how the power could be used.
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little further on that? I am thinking of the Southall gasworks site, a very large housing development on a former gasworks site in London. The only possible access route to facilitate the development involved constructing a bridge from the London borough of Hillingdon, where none of that development took place, into the borough of Ealing.
Clearly, one of the issues there is that the large scale of housing being delivered is of benefit to Ealing, since it goes against its housing target. The section 106 yield also goes to Ealing as it is the consenting planning authority. However, the loss is that an access road has to be driven through a nature reserve and leisure facility in the neighbouring local authority.
I am just keen to understand how the clause will be used. When the decisions sit with two separate local authorities in normal due process, one of which has a lot more at stake and the other a lot more to lose, how will the Secretary of State be able to balance them so that local residents—constituents—can be assured that their concerns are taken into account?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I want to be very clear about the circumstances in which this measure can be used. As he will appreciate, I will not comment on a specific application, for reasons he will well understand, but, in such a scenario, I struggle to see how that application could feasibly come within the NSIP regime process at all. It sounds like a straight-down-the-line application that would be made by the applicant, across two local authorities, through the Town and Country Planning Act regime.
What the clause seeks to do is ensure that, in cases where, due to the nature of the development, the only route to go down is the NSIP regime via a development consent order, an applicant can apply to have that application determined in a different consenting order if it will lead to a faster, more proportionate and more effective decision-making process. As I say, it will therefore be for the Secretary of State to consider the unique circumstances and impacts of any specific development so that the consenting of certain developments can be undertaken by whatever body the applicant appealing to the Secretary of State says is the more appropriate route. In most instances, I would assume that that would be the local planning authority, but I gave the example of the Transport and Works Acts regime for roads.
We are trying to get at the type of examples where developments need limited consents or may not need compulsory acquisition—in a sense, when the one-stop-shop nature of the NSIP regime may not be the most proportionate means to take that through. The redirection under the clause will not be appropriate for all developments, and, for a direction to be given, the Secretary of State must consider that it is appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply rather than the Planning Act.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way. Has his Department done any analysis of how many requests the Government are likely to get under the clause, and how many applications will want to change how they are determined?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the thrust of the hon. Member’s question was about a numerical analysis. No, we cannot account for the behavioural change that would come if this clause is enacted. What we do know, from significant engagement with stakeholders in the infrastructure sector, is that lots of applicants would make use of the redirection route and are eager to do so.
The examples I have heard from particular major economic infrastructure providers are where, as I say, they have a constructive and healthy working relationship with a local authority that they are confident is resourced and able to take the decision to approve or reject an application in a timely manner and they do not want to have to take it through the NSIP regime, which is currently their only route.
As I said, section 35 already allows the Secretary of State to pull applications from other regimes into the NSIP regime. This will work the other way, and just provides a necessary flexibility. The point of clause 3, though, is to ensure that any given applicant can make a case to the Secretary of State to go into the regime that they feel is the most appropriate and proportionate for the application in question.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to press him a little more. He is saying that people can choose to go through the Town and Country Planning Act regime, but we were always told by this Government that that is a long, arduous process that developments take a really long time to go through. Why are they suggesting that they might want to put more development through that process if, as they are saying, it is not working?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government are agnostic on which route a developer will wish to go down. As I say, developers will have to apply to the Secretary of State and make a case that, in the specific circumstances in which they are operating, there should be an alternative consenting route. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are making significant efforts to speed up and streamline the town and country planning regime. From previous debates, I know that he takes issue with some of that, but if he has had a conversion, I would very much welcome it.
Paul Holmes
The Opposition generally support what the Minister said. We want to speed up of these applications and give people a better choice in securing the developments that we require. However, we have some concerns and questions, which I hope the Minister will take in the spirit in which they are intended; I am looking to support the clause, not looking to make hay or create issues for him—would you believe it?
The introduction of the idea that the Secretary of State may disapply the requirement for development consent raises some concerns about the potential diminishing of that planning process and the vesting of too much power in Government Ministers. The Minister will understand that the Opposition are concerned about the wording of the provision with regard to when the Secretary of State can use this power. That probably needs to be strengthened, or at least there needs to be a strengthening of the relevant frameworks and parameters.
Two possible cases in which the powers could be used have been outlined, and the Minister helpfully outlined some examples, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. We will not press the clause to a vote, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to the Committee about whether he and his officials would consider strengthening the parameters relating to where the power could be used. I hope that he does not think that too unreasonable.
Proposed new section 35D provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the timetable for deciding requests and about the provision of information to the Secretary of State. This may be my naivety or it may be that I have not read the right paragraph—I am perfectly willing to accept that I am not perfect, as many of my colleagues will say—but why are those provisions not on the face of the Bill? As the Committee continues this process over the next few weeks, will the Minister try to bring some clarity on that new section?
We do not disagree with the clause. We have some concerns about transparency, but generally we welcome the Minister’s aspirations to speed up these decisions and speed up the process that he has outlined.
Gideon Amos
Without wanting to shock the Minister too much, I rise to support the clause. The Liberal Democrats want measures that will help to facilitate net zero and other developments, and the clause will provide an opportunity for many decisions to go into the Town and Country Planning Act regime, which is local, is accountable and involves local planning committees. That shows that this does not necessarily need to be a slower process; it could at times be a quicker process with more local involvement. I have been involved in NSIP projects that could have gone through that process but in fact came through the Planning Act 2008 regime. Direction under the proposed new section could be very helpful in ensuring more local processing of planning applications.
Matthew Pennycook
I am slightly taken aback by the supportive comment from the hon. Gentleman, but I very much welcome it.
Before I make my main point, it may be helpful if I give hon. Members another example of the types of alternative consenting routes that may be considered more appropriate. We spoke about the Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act regimes. Offshore generating stations are another good example. If they are wholly offshore, responsibility for electricity consent functions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 may be more appropriately transferred to the Marine Management Organisation under section 12 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—again, rather than the NSIP regime. We will provide further detail, through guidance, about all the regimes that it will be considered appropriate to use in relation to this power.
I gave hon. Members assurances on the fact that we will work across Government to prepare and publish policy that will provide clarity about the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project. As I said, we will also issue guidance that makes the process clear. However, I am more than happy, in response to the shadow Minister’s point, to write to the Committee to set out in more detail how we think this process will work. That will include responding to his specific point on proposed new section 35D—
David Simmonds
It would be helpful if, when the Minister produces that response, he could also set out for the Committee how the processes in place will ensure consistency of decision making. As he described, some local authorities may be more pro in a particular area, or less so. There is a need to ensure transparency that a given nature of development and a given scale will be dealt with in a consistent manner.
Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to any time constraints? I am just mindful of the fact that one issue that certainly occurs in local authorities and potentially in central Government is that if the end of a Parliament, a general election, is coming up, there is a risk of developers thinking, “At this point, I’m more likely to get the Minister to sign things off if I go down this route or that route,” regardless of the merits, on a planning basis, of the individual projects that are being put forward. Can we be assured that that will be properly addressed so that we do not see development being constrained by an imminent election or, indeed, advanced without due process because of an imminent election?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that entirely reasonable question. It would certainly be our intention, in preparing and publishing policy, to provide clarity. As I said on the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project, we would hope that guidance absolutely provides certainty and clarity. It will not help the Government’s objectives through the Bill if applicants and investors are not clear about how this process works.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, about clarification of the timelines for how the process could be used, I recognise the concern, but I again remind him that it will be for the Secretary of State to make a decision only on whether an alternative consenting regime can be used. It will be through the normal processes of whatever consenting regime is used, if such a redirection is allowed, that a decision will be made on the material considerations at play in any given application; it will not be for the Secretary of State to decide. This is merely a power to allow, as I said, an applicant to redirect an application into an alternative consenting regime from the NSIP planning process through the Planning Act 2008. On that basis—
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little more on that point? I understand and thank him for the clarity that he has brought. As he set out, one purpose of the change is to ensure greater certainty for investors and applicants about the process. We are all very aware that planning issues can often become quite significant local political issues as well.
How will the regime avoid a situation where, with an election in the not-too-distant future, there is a political trade-off that involves a Government, a Minister or a candidate saying, “If we win the election, we are going to push it down this route” in order to try to produce outcome A, versus “We think we should push it down an alternative route” in order to produce a different outcome through the planning process? How can we make sure that it is sufficiently insulated from that political turmoil to ensure certainty?
The Chair
Order. I remind the Committee that we need to get through quite a lot of stuff. The Minister has already said that he will write to the Committee, so I urge Members to press on. I know that these are very important matters, but the Minister has already said that he is going to write.
Matthew Pennycook
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. Those of us on the Government Benches will certainly take that stricture into account and limit the length of our contributions. On the specific point, I must say, in all candour, that I struggle to foresee how the dynamics that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined will operate. It is not for the Government to make a judgment on any particular application that a developer may wish to make. It is not the Government’s position to take a view on which consenting regime would be most appropriate, other than on which will produce the most timely and proportionate determination of an application. It will be for the applicant to decide in writing to the Secretary of State, and to make a request to use an alternative consenting regime.
All the Secretary of State will do is decide whether the circumstances at play are such that there is a good case for an alternative to the NSIP regime to be used in a given scenario. As I say, we will set out in policy and guidance more detail about the regimes to which we think this alternative can apply and how we foresee the redirection power being used. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Applications for development consent: consultation
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 4, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 58.
Clause stand part.
Government motion to transfer clause 4.
Clause 5 stand part.
Government amendments 60 to 67.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government new clause 44—Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements.
Government new clause 45—Applications for development consent: changes related to section (Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements).
Matthew Pennycook
As hon. Members will be aware, last week the Government announced that we will reform the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure projects to remove the statutory requirement for applicants to consult. Although the Government are committed to consultation and the value that early and constructive engagement plays in developing high-quality infrastructure schemes, feedback on Second Reading and since the Bill’s introduction has shown that the status quo is not working. Evidence indicates that the statutory requirements, which are unique to the NSIP regime and not found in any other planning consenting regime, are now creating perverse incentives.
Rather than driving better outcomes and improving infrastructure applications, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk aversion and gold plating. The result is that communities suffer from consultation fatigue and confusion, with them having to cope with longer, ever-more technical and less accessible documentation. The arrangement also actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in the local community’s interests, because applicants worry that any change will require further repeat consultation and added delay to the process.
As the Deputy Prime Minister and I set out on Second Reading, we would not hesitate to act boldly if a compelling case for change was made, to ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders to deliver on our ambition for building the homes and infrastructure needed to grow our economy.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Does the Minister, like me, recall the evidence we heard last week from the chair of the National Infrastructure Commission? A report written by the organisation in 2023 said that one of the reasons for the extravagant delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects was “disproportionate consultation”. My constituents are acutely aware of that issue because they have had to wait more than 15 years for the lower Thames crossing to be consented, partly as a result of the very disproportionate consultation that Sir John Armitt referred to. Does the Minister agree that the clauses and amendments he is proposing will provide a significant change to the speed at which NSIPs take place, which will benefit those who are currently suffering as a result of the lack of infrastructure in their area?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I completely agree with him. The system was set up with very specific objectives in mind. It was created initially without a role for Ministers. That was addressed by the Localism Act 2011, but the statutory pre-consultation requirements were kept in place on the basis that they were helping to improve applications prior to submission. However, according to lots of the evidence we have received in response to our working paper on the subject, the feedback from external stakeholders and the calls on Second Reading for us to look again at this specific area, the statutory requirements are now driving perverse and often bad outcomes, including for the communities affected by them.
Last week, I made a written ministerial statement explaining the changes that the Government intend to make. We are tabling a clean package of amendments to implement these reforms through the Bill. The amendments fall into three broad categories.
First, new clause 44 will remove the relevant sections of the Planning Act to give this change effect. That includes removing the sections that require applicants to consult local authorities, landowners, statutory consultees and local communities before submitting applications for development consent. It will also remove from the Act definitions for those groups.
Gideon Amos
This set of amendments is, at first sight, very sweeping and broad, as it will remove large sections of the Planning Act 2008. However, we have some sympathy with the Government. Provisions were put into the Act to proscribe dangerous commissioners who might make decisions without proper scrutiny. Given that the decisions reverted to the Secretary of State in 2011, it seems that a number of them may not be needed.
None the less, it is important to ensure that consultation is meaningful and of high quality. In place of the Planning Act provisions, we want a consultation test on the face of the Bill; if the machinery of the Committee so allows, we would like to table an amendment along those lines. If there is no test at all for meaningful consultation in NSIPs, these amendments would simply remove a great number of requirements for consultation without putting anything in their place. We should be moving from a set of sections in the Act that are about the mechanics of consultation to a qualitative test: consultation should be meaningful, and people should have had the opportunity to be consulted.
We would like to see the key principles in the guidance on the face of the Bill. That is the spirit in which we will respond to the amendments. We hope to be able to bring forward proposals for the Committee to consider.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, as I should have said earlier. There are three reasons why I, too, have concerns about new clauses 44 and 45 and the removal of the requirement for pre-application consultation.
First, pre-application consultation is often a very useful process, as a way of highlighting and addressing issues between developers and other stakeholders before we get to the formal, structured, legalistic processes. There was a case in Suffolk in which engagement between the Wildlife Trust and National Grid resulted in the trust’s concerns being addressed in such a way that they did not have to be raised in a more legalistic way later in the process. Pre-application consultation is useful and productive for all parties. It is not for developers to decide whether pre-application consultation will be useful in a particular case, but there should be a statutory requirement for key stakeholders, such as local authorities, to be consulted in that way.
My second concern is that the replacement guidance requirements set out in new clause 45 do not provide sufficient clarity for developers, communities and other stakeholders, or for the Planning Inspectorate, on what pre-application engagement is required specifically, because the wording is too vague to provide sufficient clarity. “Have regard to” is a relatively weak duty, while
“what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take”
is very vague language. It would be open to interpretation and potentially to contestation, which could be unhelpful to speeding up the process in the way we seek.
My third concern, notwithstanding individual examples of processes that might have been held up, is that generally speaking pre-application consultation and public engagement is not the main constraint on the rapid processing of such applications. I understand that research conducted by Cavendish in 2024 looked at DCO consent times from 2011 to 2023. It found that for the first 70 projects going through the DCO process up until 2017, the response time was pretty reasonable. What changed in 2017? It was not the pre-application consultation requirements, which remained the same throughout the process.
Political chaos is what caused the change. Cavendish’s report identifies that it was political turmoil and manoeuvring that caused delays to happen once projects reached the Secretary of State’s desk—I see my Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, nodding. Who was in government at that time? We had the turnover of Prime Ministers, Ministers and so forth. Bearing all that in mind—the fact that pre-application consultation is a very useful way of deconflicting issues of contestation, the fact that the replacement guidance is so vague as to be unhelpful and itself probably subject to test, and the fact that this is the wrong solution to the problem of delays—I am concerned.
John Grady
I am grateful. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.
Is the hon. Member disagreeing with the evidence that we heard from Catherine Howard, one of the most eminent planning lawyers in the United Kingdom? Catherine Howard said:
“We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.”
She then went on to talk about the pre-app process, which has gone up from 14 months to 27 months:
“I suspect it is even longer now…The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2025; c. 67, Q86.]
She explained that investors welcome this change. The pre-application process, in the mind of investors who want to invest in clean energy projects that lower carbon emissions and other critical infrastructure, is a very material source of delays, according to that witness.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would observe that generally speaking the way oral evidence sessions work is that the Government decide who they want to come and give evidence to support the arguments that they wish to put forward in Committee, so I am not all that surprised that we might have heard that evidence. I am not discounting what the witness said, but I am suggesting that there are other ways to look at it. A blanket removal of the pre-app consultation process with stakeholders who have a huge stake in applications, such as local authorities, is an excessively blanket position to take.
Gideon Amos
Would the hon. Member support a test in the Bill of the quality of the consultation carried out, in place of the mechanistic requirements in the previous Act? They do not actually exist in the Town and Country Planning Act, for example, and normal planning processes.
Ellie Chowns
Indeed, and I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about bringing forward a proposal about meaningful consultation. I would very much welcome looking at that. I think that would help to address the concerns being raised here.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I note the hon. Member’s comments about how the Government arrange the witness sessions, but surely she would not dispute the point about the increasing delays in the pre-application process from 14 months to 27 months. That is a serious issue. The Fens reservoir spent more than 1,000 days in pre-application. The National Grid’s application for Bramford to Twinstead spent 717 days in pre-application for just an overhead line and underground cables covering less than 30 km. Hinkley Point C spent three years in pre-app. Sizewell C spent seven and a half years in pre-app. The hon. Member cannot possibly be suggesting that pre-application is not an issue.
Ellie Chowns
I addressed those points in my comments. I am not disputing the fact that there are individual cases in which huge amounts of time have been spent. In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I am not dismissing the evidence from the witness he referred to, but I have offered evidence from a report that looked at the whole spectrum of applications from 2011 onwards, which says that the representation of nature and community in pre-application requirements is not the underlying causal problem.
These issues are really complex. There is always a tendency to pick a particular example where the situation has clearly been problematic. I am not disputing the fact that some change may be needed. My argument is that it seems excessive to bring in a blanket policy and shift the pendulum too far away from the opportunity to use the pre-application consultation process to resolve issues that might clog up the process later on, because the requirement for meaningful consultation has been removed. Planning applications will always be contested, but these measures take it too far and sweep aside the rights of communities and organisations representing nature to have their voices heard, as well as the opportunity to resolve conflicts before they reach a legalistic stage.
Jim Dickson
Is the hon. Member aware that Cavendish, the organisation that produced the report, is a company that undertakes consultations? It might just be in its interest to make the case that consultation is not at fault for the delays. Does she agree that the five separate consultations over 15 years that were required—or not required, in my view—for the lower Thames crossing were excessive?
Ellie Chowns
I am aware that Cavendish is a consultancy company. It is perfectly reasonable to make that observation. Most people—I mean, pretty much anyone—who will ever give evidence or produce a report will have some sort of interest. We are not saying that anyone who works in the planning system in any way cannot have a viewpoint that is objective, evidence-based and so forth. There are clear examples of processes that have got stuck. I am concerned not only about unsticking the planning process, but about the proposal to let the pendulum swing too far away from the opportunity to have meaningful pre-application consultation that could be more effective than waiting until things bang up against each other further on in the process.
Ellie Chowns
I am happy to take as many interventions as hon. Members want to make, but I am concerned about the timing, Mrs Hobhouse.
Ellie Chowns
If Members feel that they have additional things to raise, they should feel free to speak.
Nesil Caliskan
I was rising to make my speech, Mrs Hobhouse, not to intervene; I apologise. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
A crucial component of the ability to deliver homes across the country will be to deliver transport and other infrastructure projects. The measures in the Bill go some way towards speeding up the statutory processes of consultation in the delivery of infrastructure projects. As I outlined in my speech on Second Reading, the pre-consultation period for infrastructure projects is a major cause of delay for infrastructure being delivered. To echo the Minister’s remarks, the status quo in this country is simply not working to speed up the process.
As matters stand, applicants operate in what I describe as a hyper-risk-averse context. Delays caused to pre-application contribute not only to the length of time that it takes for infrastructure to be delivered, but to the cost. Other Members rightly identified the lower Thames crossing, which impacts my constituency; 2,000 pages and £800 million spent are figures that have served absolutely no one, and certainly not the taxpayer.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Lady not agree that getting rid of the pre-planning application consultation completely will disenfranchise residents and constituents from engaging with the process? Sometimes that process can solve some of the issues down the line. I understand that it takes too long—I agree with and have strong sympathy for her points—but should we not be able to speed it up while allowing that engagement to take place?
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not think that the change would prevent applicants from continuing to engage with residents and elected Members. All it would do is avoid putting additional onus on a process that is costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money.
I will go further. Having spoken to members of our community, I have heard over and over again that there is consultation fatigue with the endless stream of negotiations. Before we even get to a statutory consultation period, we have had many years of something that has been proposed with no statutory framework. This proposal has the good intention of a material change that will shorten the consultation period.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way as she makes an interesting and good speech based on her expertise in local government. I pay tribute to her for that. She outlined how there can be delays in pre-application. Does she not accept that that very length of time shows that there are issues to be resolved? Does she understand why some people are concerned that the proposals to remove that pre-application process place the onus on applicants to conduct the consultation, and without any safeguards? Potentially, residents and residents groups, constituents and local organisations, such as wildlife trusts will go without their genuine concerns being met by a system that now puts an onus on the people who want planning applications to go ahead.
Nesil Caliskan
I do not accept that, because the statutory consultation period will still be in place and thresholds will still have to be met. The reality is that, as things stand, the pre-consultation period has become a beast in itself, which I do not believe is serving our communities. Years and years of endless consultations, including pre-consultations and pre-application consultations, is not true engagement with communities. That part of the process has become a period in which the applicants just try to derisk their approach to crucial infrastructure in this country, which will see land unlocked so that homes can be built.
Ellie Chowns
I do not think that anybody wants “years and years” of contest, but is it impossible to retain the requirement for a degree of pre-application consultation—perhaps within a shorter timescale or with a more tightly drawn set of consultees—so that issues can be dealt with informally and in advance, to prevent more problems arising further down the line? To sweep everything away seems excessive.
Nesil Caliskan
Manifestly, we do not want years of delay before the delivery of infrastructure, but the truth is that that is exactly what is happening in this country. There are years and years of delay, in part because of the pre-application consultation period.
There is nothing preventing applicants and local authorities, or communities and organisations, from working pre-application on the sort of engagement that the hon. Member is referring to, but including it in the proposals in this way would heighten the legal risk for applicants, making them very resistant to submitting their application formally before going through every single possible step. As hon. Members have highlighted, there is a very long list of examples where the status quo has created a huge burden, made the processes incredibly long and cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. I think I recall the Minister saying that the proposed amendment would save up to about 12 months and £1 billion, which could be the difference between an infrastructure project being viable or not being viable. Infrastructure projects being viable will mean the land value will increase, and the potential for land to be unlocked and millions of homes to be built across the country will be realised.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I am intervening on a different but still very much related point. What is also really important for me is that we remain attractive as a country to foreign investors and others who are looking to invest here, including in the infrastructure that enables our country to grow and creates jobs. It is important that investors want to come and invest here. The longer the process or the greater the burden, the less likely they are to invest here, and we will lose out to other places across the globe. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to tackle that issue?
Nesil Caliskan
I am so glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because that was precisely the point I was going to make and he has made it incredibly well. If we are serious about building homes across the country and about seeing the growth that investment in infrastructure, not least in transport infrastructure, will deliver, we absolutely have to give industry certainty. We have to be able to say to the public, “This will happen with speed.” The amendment seeks to deliver that and it is absolutely in line with the aspiration to speed up the planning process in this country, which at the moment is holding back investment, and to unlock land for development and infrastructure investment.
David Simmonds
I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for North Herefordshire. I appreciate that the clause was tabled quite late, and the evidence that we heard last week was mixed. The National Infrastructure Commission gave us its views on the impact of pre-application consultation, and local authority representatives who are responsible for that section of the planning system’s decision making said that they have quite significant concerns.
The Opposition have sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve, but it seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined, we need to look at alternatives. It may be that a regime of deemed consent is a mechanism we could use to speed up elements of the process, or perhaps altering how we set out the requirements of pre-app consultation.
I know that you have extensive experience in local government, Mrs Hobhouse, and you will be aware that, as a matter of law, Parliament has set numerous obligations on local authorities in respect of the quasi-judicial process that they follow in planning, and numerous other obligations in respect of what they do for their communities. The pre-application process is a means drawing out, before a major application is made, how the impacts may play out.
I can draw a good recent example from personal experience. The Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, said that Heathrow expansion, and airport expansion more generally, would be enabled because sustainable aviation fuel would reduce emissions. It is true that sustainable aviation fuel mandates reduce the overall lifetime emissions from a given quantity of aviation fuel, but they do not reduce the level of pollution at the tailpipe of the aircraft at all. So when we look at Heathrow airport, it does not matter whether the fuel burned there is sustainable aviation fuel or conventional aviation fuel; emissions within the locality, which are what give rise to the legal obligations on the local authority regarding air quality, remain the same. It is not a solution. When a developer proposes to create a solar farm, a battery storage area or a nuclear power station—or any kind of major infrastructure—the pre-application process gives the local authority an opportunity to begin to understand which of its legal obligations may be engaged by the application.
I am conscious of the experience that the hon. Member for Barking described, illustrating the need to streamline the process as much as possible, but clearly, as several hon. Members have said, the major risk of that is that a developer comes along and sets out an ambition for a development, and residents are consulted and their response is, “In general—in principle—that sounds okay, but what will the impact on us be? Do we understand that from what the developer is putting forward?”
Luke Murphy
It is useful to reflect on what Cavendish Consulting said in responding to these proposals:
“Removing a lot of the tick box requirements of a statutory consultation opens up an opportunity to be a lot more strategic and insight led in the pre-application communications, moving away from the security of ‘this is how we’ve done it before to get accepted’ to ‘what does this project and this community need’.”
The changes being proposed could be much more beneficial in removing the tick-box exercise and focusing on what communities need.
David Simmonds
I understand the point the hon. Member makes, but part of me thinks, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” For a business whose profits come from expediting the grant of planning consent as much as possible, removing potential obstacles to that is important.
However, as has been outlined in many of the examples that we have debated, there can be crucial points of detail that either would make all the difference to the level of consent and support in the local community for a project, or would engage other legal obligations that Parliament has placed on the local authorities, either to carry out an impact assessment—an evaluation of what that will mean—or, in some cases, to engage with that process to oppose the development taking place, because it contradicts other legal obligations placed on the authority by Parliament in respect of environment, health or whatever it may be. Clearly, we need to ensure that there is a functional process.
Lewis Cocking
Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the pre-planning application consultation entirely places too much trust in developers? Sometimes developers build absolute rubbish. I do not want them to spend too much money on something that does not have some sort of community support, or support from Government agencies. The Bill could jeopardise that, if we remove the consultation completely.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend puts it probably more bluntly than I have, but he is absolutely spot on. I know he has an enormous amount of experience in local government negotiating around exactly these kinds of points.
Matthew Pennycook
I want to tease out a point here, because one of the reasons the Government are confident that the change will lead to beneficial outcomes is that high-quality engagement and consultation routinely takes place in other planning regimes that do not have statutory pre-application requirements. Why do Opposition Members think that their removal, which will equalise all planning consent regimes so that statutory pre-application requirements are not at play, is damaging in this instance? In the TCPA and the types of residential application they are talking about, bad engagement happens, but high-quality consultation and engagement happen too, and residents and other stakeholders get their say post-submission.
David Simmonds
I think that most of us who have been on a planning committee, as the Minister has, probably recognise that, if anything, to satisfy the concerns of our constituents we should be going further with the consultation on small applications, rather than reducing it in larger ways. We are debating developments that will have an enormous community impact, and there are often important points of detail that influence the level of consent.
We have had multiple debates in this and the previous Parliament about the loss of high-quality agricultural land to solar farms, for example. It is quite likely that a community, if it fully understands exactly how a developer will mitigate that impact, will come around to supporting such a development; but if the community is simply faced with, “Here is the planning application. We have made it already. Take it or leave it,” there is a risk from not allowing the opportunity for the level of consent to be built up. That will in turn encourage, and in the case of local authorities’ statutory obligations, force, the exploration of other legal routes of objection to prevent the application proceeding.
While I understand what the Minister is saying, like the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, we will use the opportunity given by the provisions being tabled relatively late in the day to explore alternative methods by which concerns can be addressed. It seems to us fundamental that if a major application is made, those who are affected by it should have the opportunity in advance to learn what it means for them, their community and their home, and should not simply be told that the planning application has been made.
There is a world of difference between a planning application that means, “Your house is going to be demolished in order for something to proceed,” and a planning application that indicates a much less significant impact. It is those kinds of issues that need to be teased out; that is what the pre-application discussions and consultations are there for. We encourage the Government to think about a different, more nuanced way to address fully the concerns that have been expressed cross-party, although in slightly different ways.
Paul Holmes
The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be making a very long speech. I will briefly comment on some of the clauses before the Committee, and elaborate on some of the genuine points that Members on both sides of the Committee have made. I am grateful that the Minister tabled these new clauses, albeit quite late in the day, to give us some clarity, but they actually do not give any clarity on the proposals for the removal of the consultation, particularly new clauses 44 and 45.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and others, I too have chaired a planning committee. I genuinely believe that pre-applications can be very useful. If a community or organisations in a geographic locality have genuine concerns, the pre-application stage can make the passage of planning applications and planning permissions smoother by unblocking some of those concerns, and deliver a better planning application or infrastructure project. A number of colleagues, including the Minister and the hon. Member for Basingstoke, said that this and the length of time the stage takes is a block. I agree with them, but does not mean that it needs to be removed entirely. It means that we should work to ensure that the pre-application stage is better and more efficient.
I am concerned that, if we go down this road and remove pre-application requirements, we will have worse applications and store up longer term blockages when genuine concerns are not met. The Minister outlined the money and time saved, but we will see both start to creep up again or other issues arise. The hon. Member for Basingstoke gave examples of problems. I understand he is an expert in his field but I say to him strongly that solutions can be found. The solution is not necessarily to eradicate completely a provision that is designed to mitigate overwhelming grassroot concerns.
I apologise to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for thinking she was a Liberal Democrat Member. She is a Green, which is absolutely fine—I would never wish being a Liberal Democrat on anyone. [Laughter.] No offence to the Liberal Democrats, but it is rare for me to agree with either party. I am grateful for her speech, as she is clearly an expert. It was genuine and heartfelt, and came at the problem with an attitude shared by me and my colleagues.
As I said to the hon. Member for Basingstoke and the Minister, we all accept that the processes are too long, but we do not believe we are in a position where people want to do bad. My concern, shared by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, is that if we go down the proposed route, applicants and developers will end up having overarching power over local people who want to raise concerns. In my view we are giving developers too much power and the pendulum is swinging too far that way. The Minister’s view is that developers genuinely want to make a difference 100% of the time. There is a difference in approach, so I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for her speech.
I ask the Minister to look again at this matter and produce a guidance regime. [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that there will be guidance. We believe that that needs to be strengthened in the Bill. Completely removing the pre-application consultation stages, as the Minster outlined, is a retrograde step; it will put too much power in the hands of developers, and will silence those who are not nimbys but who genuinely want to achieve the best solutions for their local communities. These measures go too far and need to be looked at again. I shall be grateful if the Minister comes back to the Committee and the House having reconsidered them.
Ordered That the debate be now adjourned.— (Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 29th April 2025
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 April 2025 - (29 Apr 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendment 58.
Clause stand part.
Government motion to transfer clause 4.
Clause 5 stand part.
Government amendments 60 to 67.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government new clause 44—Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements.
Government new clause 45—Applications for development consent: changes related to section (Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements).
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. In the last sitting, we discussed the various clauses and Government amendments in this group, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their considered engagement with them. The proposed changes we are considering are, without question, a significant evolution of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, and it is entirely right and proper that they are subject to intensive scrutiny.
As the Committee is aware, I set out the Government’s position on this matter in considerable detail in my written ministerial statement from 23 April. I therefore intend to focus my remarks on providing useful further points of clarification about the rationale for the proposed reforms and how we see the system operating once they have been made.
In her remarks, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire conceded that the NSIP process can take a long time, but she implied that the problem was merely confined to individual applications. The Government disagree. From our perspective, the problem that these and other changes in this chapter are intended to remedy are systemic. The status quo is not working, and all too often it is burdensome to applicants and consultees alike.
We know that the performance of the NSIP regime as a whole has deteriorated sharply over recent years. We know that pre-application periods have, on average, nearly doubled since 2013, increasing from over 14 months to nearly 28 months in 2021. As much as Labour Members welcome any and every reminder of the chaos unleashed under recent Conservative Administrations, I do not believe that the deterioration we are discussing can be attributed to the uncertainty that the post-2016 period engendered.
The evidence clearly points to the fact that inefficiencies in the NSIP system, both structural and cultural, are driving delays and high costs. We heard examples this morning of the fact that the documentation underpinning consents has been getting longer, and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Part of the reason is that the statutory and prescriptive nature of the pre-application requirements—I again remind the Committee that they are absent from other planning regimes, including those used for applications for new housing—are driving perverse outcomes.
It is precisely because the requirements are statutory that applicants fear that falling short of them will see their project rejected further down the line, or leave them exposed to judicial review. As we have discussed, the result is that projects are slowed down as developers undertake ever more rounds of consultation and produce greater amounts of documentation to ensure that the requirements are met. Sensible improvements are deterred because applicants worry that they will require further rounds of consultation to insulate them from challenge.
In short, as I argued in the previous sitting, the dynamics of the system are actively encouraging risk aversion and gold-plating and are compelling applicants to go above and beyond what may be required in law, rather than merely ensuring that an application is acceptable in planning terms. Because the root of the problem is the statutory nature of the requirements, it is worth noting that the same behavioural incentives would be in play if we reinserted into the Bill precise statutory criteria for what constitutes effective consultation, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington suggested we should.
In his contribution, the shadow Minister argued that we should focus on improving rather than removing the statutory requirements in question. However, he overlooked the fact that the NSIP action plan, published by the previous Government in February 2023, contained a range of reforms designed to drive more effective and proportionate approaches to consultation and engagement, including new cost-recoverable pre-application services for applicants at the Planning Inspectorate, and revised and strengthened pre-application guidance.
While those steps were welcome, and this Government are seeking to embed new services and cost-recovery mechanisms, the feedback we have received from a wide range of stakeholders suggests that they will not deliver the necessary step change needed to tackle risk aversion and gold-plating. It is the dynamic that has arisen as a result of the very existence of the statutory pre-application requirements in question that is hampering their nominal purpose of producing better outcomes, and the present arrangements are driving up costs not only for developers, but for the bill payers and taxpayers we all represent.
The Government are in complete agreement with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that early, meaningful and constructive engagement with those affected, including local authorities, statutory consultees, landowners and local communities, often leads to better schemes, greater local benefits and improved mitigation. We still want and expect the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. As part of that process, we still want and expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement to take place and for positive changes to be made to applications. However, we want and expect it to take place without the downsides that the current statutory requirements are causing.
Removing the statutory requirements in question does not signify that pre-submission consultation and high-quality engagement is no longer important. Statutory guidance that the Government will be required to produce will encourage such pre-application engagement and consultation, but with applicants given the flexibility to carry it out in the way that they consider best for their proposed development, in accordance with that guidance.
Equally as importantly, the system will still reward high-quality engagement and consultation. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to assess whether applications are suitable to proceed to examination. We expect guidance to emphasise that without adequate engagement and consultation, applications are unlikely to be able to do so. Guidance and advice from the Planning Inspectorate will be aimed at helping applicants demonstrate that they are of a satisfactory standard in terms of meeting that process.
Ultimately, all communities will still be able to have their voices heard, whether that is through objecting outright to applications or providing evidence of adverse impacts through the post-submission examination process, which all applications obviously still need to go through.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I do not demur from much of what the Minister says about the provisions. To go back to his remarks about the delays not being caused solely by the chaos under the previous Government, is it not a fact that during the last few years of the Conservative Government, the delays at the decision stage, which is meant to be three months, rocketed?
The regime, which began as one in which every section of it respected the deadlines, became one in which every section respected the deadlines with the exception of the Secretary of State. The intention of those drafting the Planning Act 2008 was that, in such circumstances, a report to Parliament by the Secretary of State when delaying the decision would serve as a disincentive on the Secretary of State for doing so. That clearly has not happened. Will the Minister reflect on whether any other measures could be taken to eliminate the delays caused by Secretaries of State making decisions on NSIPs in future?
Matthew Pennycook
It is certainly the case that it is not only in the pre-submission phase where slippages in timeframes have occurred. The hon. Member makes a valid point about the fact that we have seen a pattern in some Departments of Secretaries of State not making timely decisions. This Government have sought to improve upon the past performance. We are already doing so, but I am open to ideas on how we might tighten the process. The Government are giving further thought to the general matter of how consents are taken through Departments.
To conclude, the changes proposed will make a significant contribution to speeding up and streamlining the consenting process for critical infrastructure, and we are convinced that in many cases they will produce better outcomes than the status quo. I therefore urge the Committee to support them.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
Amendment made: 58, in clause 4, page 8, line 32, leave out subsection (3).—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That clause 4 be transferred to the end of line 32 on page 12. —(Matthew Pennycook.)
Clause 5 disagreed to.
Clause 6
Applications for development consent: acceptance stage
Amendments made: 60, in clause 6, page 10, line 4, leave out “follows” and insert
“set out in subsections (2) to (13)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.
Amendment 61, in clause 6, page 10, line 25, after “Secretary of State” insert “and others”.
This amendment is consequential on subsection (5)(d) of NC45.
Amendment 62, in clause 6, page 11, line 4, leave out from “satisfying” to “and” in line 6 and insert
“section 48 (duty to publicise),”.
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Amendment 63, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 12 to 14.
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Amendment 64, in clause 6, page 11, line 16, leave out “50” and insert “50(1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63.
Amendment 65, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 17 to 20.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63.
Amendment 66, in clause 6, page 11, line 21, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
“(9) Omit subsection (5).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64.
Amendment 67, in clause 6, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(14) In consequence of the amendments in subsections (7)(c) and (10), omit section 137(3) and (4) of the Localism Act 2011.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This technical amendment omits provisions of the Localism Act 2011 that are no longer required (because of changes made by clause 6 of the Bill).
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Planning Act 2008: legal challenges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 8 streamlines the judicial review process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The changes apply to legal challenges against decisions on development consent orders and national policy statements. At the moment, individuals wanting to bring challenges against nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as nuclear plants, railway lines, wind farms and other projects, have up to three attempts to try to obtain permission from the courts. As noted by Lord Banner’s independent review last year into the delays caused by these legal challenges, each attempt extends the duration of a claim by several weeks, and in some cases, by several months.
The clause will remove the paper permission stage, meaning that applications for judicial review will go straight to an oral hearing in the High Court. The clause will also remove the right to appeal for cases that are deemed totally without merit at the oral hearing, which becomes the only attempt for these cases. The Government are committed to maintaining access to justice, which is why the right of appeal will remain for cases that are refused permission at the oral hearing, but that are not deemed totally without merit. The changes are a necessary means of preventing meritless claims from holding up development by exhausting the appeals process and of ensuring that legitimate legal challenges are heard promptly. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. We touched on the issue of remedy earlier today. A local authority, for example, may have a statutory obligation placed on it by a piece of legislation, which means that it has an obligation to take an interest in a particular development, including potentially judicially reviewing that application, if the impact runs contrary to its other statutory obligations.
We are well aware of issues relating to air quality, but there are also organisations such as ClientEarth, which many of us will have heard of. Essentially, their stock in trade is to look for opportunities to address broader issues around, for example, climate change and environmental impact by using what, in some cases, are arguably loopholes, but in many cases, are essentially contradictions in legislation.
The Minister talked earlier about a shift from having statutory pre-application processes to having guidance that would need to be followed. Clearly, one of the issues is that guidance can be challenged, and bodies that have a responsibility to follow the guidance can be challenged as to whether they have fulfilled their obligation to the letter.
Opposition Members certainly have concerns about the implications of removing the right to judicial review. We share the view that we need to ensure that those processes—those applications—are not frivolous and that they are not being used simply because the cost of responding to judicial review, and the delay that is involved, is a tool to create delay, impose costs and therefore deter development, which we all agree should take place. Conversely, however, we do not wish to see a situation where a public body or a local resident—a constituent—who has a genuine right to be heard and a genuine concern arising out of law is constrained from bringing the matter forward and seeking a remedy.
We also do not want a situation where, for example, a decision by Government, which is then taken through this process and restricted from judicial review, results in a third party, such as a local authority or NHS body, being judicially reviewed for its failure to stop that from proceeding—for its failure to bring a judicial review under other responsibilities that it has. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that.
Statutory consultees already have many legal obligations and duties relating to issues such as water quality, air quality and nature. They are obliged to go to the utmost of their powers to fulfil those obligations. Clearly, they may well be held in default if a development proceeds by virtue of the fact that they have not had the opportunity to appropriately challenge it in law. It would be helpful if the Minister set out how that will be fully addressed.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reasonable questions. If I have understood him, he makes a separate point about the statutory consultee system. As he will know—I refer him to my relevant written ministerial statement—we are seeking to reform that system in a number of ways.
On clause 8 specifically, the changes will not affect the ability to challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions in court. They are simply designed to reduce delays. We are not preventing anyone from challenging our planning decisions. Obviously, Government do not control how many of those challenges are made. We are tightening up the process so that if a challenge is judged to be meritless by the court—not by Government—it cannot be dragged on for years through numerous further appeals.
Only cases deemed totally without merit in the oral permission hearing in the High Court will be prevented from appealing to the Court of Appeal. Other cases will continue to be able to appeal the refusal of permission to the Court of Appeal. That will ensure that there is no possibility of meritless claims holding up nationally significant infrastructure projects, while maintaining access to justice in line with our domestic and international obligations.
I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that we are not removing wholesale the ability to mount judicial review challenges. Some have called for us to go further, but we think the proposals strike the right balance between addressing the removal of the paper permission stage and dealing with the issue of meritless claims. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured and may even feel inclined to support the measure.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Notwith-standing the comments from my fellow shadow Minister, who made an excellent contribution, can I press the Minister on one question? My hon. Friend outlined the Opposition’s concern over removing wholesale—we are not saying that the Minister is doing this—the checks and balances relating to somebody being able to challenge a decision that they deem has not been taken in the right way.
However, it would be remiss of us as a party not to acknowledge that there are cases where JR is used vexatiously. To use an example from my constituency, I waited for 12 years to get a 300-foot extension to Southampton airport’s runway. It took three judicial reviews before we finally got that through. There was unmitigated support from the local authority and me as the Member of Parliament at the time, and it was taken to JR for what I would say were very dubious reasons, just to try to delay the project.
I understand why the Minister is bringing in the measures, notwithstanding some of the concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned about the balance. However, I am reassured by what the Minister said about not removing the ability to challenge and tightening the process around what can be accepted as being without merit.
I have one question for the Minister, which he may not be able to answer today—I would not necessarily expect him to—but perhaps he could write to me about it. Following Lord Banner’s work, which was a thoughtful examination of how legal challenges could be streamlined, has the Minister made any assessments, through officials or the Department, of how much time or cost on average the changes to clause 8 might mean for the system overall? I am not expecting him to get his abacus out and look at that now, but I wonder whether he could outline to the Committee, through an impact assessment, the effect of some of the changes.
We will not push this clause to a Division. We understand the principled reason why the Minister is bringing it forward, even if we have some concern about the detail of the measure.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. This clause and the other clauses in this chapter are good news for Scotland, because we in Scotland depend on projects in England to proceed. Many projects are cross-border and need consent in both countries. That is important for jobs, particularly jobs for young people.
I have had the misfortune to be involved in infrastructure projects for many years. From time to time judicial reviews without any merit are brought solely to delay and frustrate projects. It is right and proper that the law is changed to make it clear that, once the High Court has made a decision, following argument—because the right to an oral hearing is retained—further appeals are prevented. Such appeals can lead to significant delays, depending on the business of the Court of the Appeal, which has many pressing priorities.
Some mention was made of costs. I will briefly describe the cost to developers, because the Labour party is a pro-business, pro-environment party. If someone has a development that is subject to a judicial review, they have planned their contracting strategy, and what it will cost to build the development, and their financing. If there is an indeterminate delay, and a series of additional delays of unpredictable length—as a lawyer, I could never tell people how long litigation would take—they are then exposed to significant fluctuations in the financial and commodities markets. There are therefore real costs, so I naturally support clause 8. The clause, along with the rest of the package of reforms to the development consent order regime, will create the opportunity for significant additional employment in Scotland, jobs for our young people, and great net zero and housing projects.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone on this clause—and others; I do not mean to confine his constructive attitude to just this clause. I welcome his praise for Lord Banner’s review, which I agree was thoughtful and insightful. As part of that review Lord Banner made it clear that although the duration differs between different applications, each attempt to apply for a judicial review currently extends the duration of a claim by, on average, several weeks, and in some cases by several months. In large numbers of cases, time is added by legal challenges that are unsuccessful. The changes made by the Bill aim to strike the right balance between improving efficiency and ensuring access to justice.
To be clear, this clause does remove the paper permission stage, but only makes changes by removing the right to appeal for cases that are deemed “totally without merit”. Other cases will retain that right of appeal if they are deemed to be with merit and able to be considered. We think these changes will make a difference to the time that projects take to work their way through the system, and we will work with the judiciary to advance a number of other changes to the process for NSIP judicial reviews, such as introducing target timescales for cases that we think will have a beneficial impact. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 9
Connections to electricity network: licence and other modifications
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 9, page 14, line 6, after “distribution system” insert
“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.
This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which the power under clause 9(1) may be exercised may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 37 to 40.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.
New clause 19—Increasing grid capacity—
The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a plan to—
(a) reduce the cost of, and time taken to make, connections to the transmission or distribution system;
(b) permit local energy grids.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a plan to reduce the time and financial cost of connections to the electricity grid and to allow local energy grids.
Michael Shanks
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. We thought a change in the tone of the Committee for a few clauses would be helpful, before we return to the other Minister.
Amendment 36 clarifies that a modification made under clause 9 may include changes to the order of the queue for connections, which works towards the broader aim of improving the management of connections to the transmission and distribution systems. The purpose of all this work is to reorder the connections queue. That is essential to deal with the extreme level of oversubscription in the queue, and enable a move from the “first come, first served” proposition that we have at the moment to a “first ready and needed, first connected” approach. The amendment is essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses, which is to provide the means to implement connections reform should the current Ofgem and industry-led process face delays or be unable to realise its benefits in full.
Amendment 37 clarifies that the power of the Secretary of State to direct Ofgem to modify a licence or agreement may be exercised only for the purpose of improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, which places an additional safeguard on the use of that power. Amendment 38 clarifies that the Secretary of State or Ofgem may modify an agreement under the powers in clause 9 even where the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement, which provides consistency with the existing wording in clause 12. It is also essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses. Finally, amendments 39 and 40, which are purely consequential on amendment 38, move the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” within clause 9.
I turn to clause 9 more broadly. As many Members will know, the current first come, first served electricity grid connections regime is causing considerable and unacceptable delays. It is blocking clean power projects from connecting to the grid, and blocking demand projects that are critical to our economic growth as a country. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem are reforming the electricity grid connections process to a strategically aligned first ready, first connected system. The reformed process will require projects to meet readiness, technological and locational criteria to progress.
The reform requires complex amendments to codes and licences. Clause 9 therefore enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support the existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary. It is intended to be used should the existing processes enacting connections reforms face significant delays, including alignment with strategic energy plans. The Government or Ofgem will then be able to expedite a set of changes outside the standard process to ensure that our clean power mission is delivered at pace. The clause is focused on improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, and follows precedent in being time-limited to three years after commencement of the power on Royal Assent. Similar powers have been taken in the past, including in section 84 of the Energy Act 2008, but they were also time-limited and are therefore no longer in force.
Clause 10 details the scope of the power in clause 9, which enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents or agreements. The clause first defines the power to modify in clause 9, which includes the ability to amend, add to or remove provisions, and to add or release parties from agreements. It will enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support Ofgem and NESO’s existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary.
The clause further details how the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exercise the power, which includes allowing for general or specific modifications, incidental changes and provisions that do not necessarily relate to the activities authorised by the licence. It ensures that modifications to standard licence conditions are reflected in future licences, and specifies the conditions under which licences can be revoked. Finally, it allows agreements to include conditions that must be met before the taking of specific steps, or provision about the procedure for varying the agreement. Similar scope and procedure have been outlined previously in legislation, including in the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022.
Clause 11 details the procedure around the provision in clause 9 to enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents. It aligns with the precedent established in section 8 of the 2022 Act, which detailed the procedure to modify a generation licence of a relevant licensee nuclear company. The clause obligates the Secretary of State or Ofgem—I am not sure how many more times I will say that in this speech—to consult a list of specified persons, such as the holder of any relevant licences, NESO and any other appropriate individuals, before making modifications. Details of those modifications must be made public as soon as reasonably practicable to ensure transparency with wider stakeholders. However, the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exclude from the publication any information that could harm commercial interests.
I will respond on new clause 19 after it has been spoken to.
John Grady
I rise simply to add my support to this provision. There is an extensive requirement to develop the electricity generation industry in Scotland and England, and this will give rise to great long-term jobs and apprenticeships for young people, as well as move us on to cheaper, secure, lower-carbon energy.
Such queues have been a long-standing issue in the electricity industry, as any developer will tell you, and half the time it is absolutely impossible to know when their project will be connected. That is no basis on which to attract the significant investment we need in our industry in this country, because developers can go to other jurisdictions and get much quicker connections.
This reform has been carefully put together by the ministerial team and Ofgem. The Minister for Energy has addressed the issue, and the reform is to be applauded. It may seem a rather arid and dry topic, but ultimately the reform is of significant benefit to industry in the United Kingdom.
Paul Holmes
What I have to say about these clauses will not be arduous, partly because I am not a shadow Energy Minister—as many Members will be pleased to note, including me—and my focus will be on the planning amendments. This is, however, a very important part of the Bill.
The Minister said he keeps mentioning “Ofgem and the Secretary of State”, but if he would like us to helpfully have a word with the Prime Minister to recommend that he becomes the Secretary of State, we are more than happy to do so. The Opposition believe that even he, as the Under-Secretary, could not do as much damage to our energy system networks and future growth as the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). [Interruption.] It is a policy disagreement.
This is a policy disagreement because, looking at the proposals in these clauses, we are very concerned. We obviously agree that the grid needs to be ready to connect to, because of the demands being placed on the system, and that is the policy of this Government and of the last. However, the focus of the current Secretary of State in really going down the route of the net zero agenda at what we would describe as a very fast speed, sometimes cutting off his nose to spite his face such as by cutting back on some of the energy systems we currently have, has put overwhelming demand on the energy grid.
The Government’s proposed decarbonising of the grid by 2030 will add at least £25 billion per year to the cost of the electricity system. The brunt of this increase will be felt by the people out there, who will see their household energy bill shoot up by over £900. Professor Gordon Hughes, the leading energy system expert, has found that these plans will increase power generation costs, grid balancing and capacity levels, thereby passing on those costs to our constituents.
The costs of balancing the grid alone are set to rise by £4 billion. Despite that, the Government have scrapped the full system cost review commissioned by the last Government. The current Administration are steaming ahead without a clear understanding of the impact on the energy bills of hard-working people—the energy bills they promised to freeze—on their families and on the industry’s competitiveness. Decarbonising the grid requires transparency on costs, not just soundbites about renewables, which I believe is what we have seen.
The Government have also watered down the proposed community benefits of new energy infrastructure, which they lauded before the press a couple of weeks ago, to just £750 per person.
Paul Holmes
From a sedentary position, the Minister says, “Just”, under his breath. It was not me who went to the BBC and leaked a report saying that the Government were going to give more money than they are now proposing; that has been reduced by his amendment, so, yes—“just”.
Furthermore, the Government have abandoned a number of reforms, including a review of the presumption in favour of overhead lines, stronger protection for prime agricultural land against large solar developments, and enhanced safety measures for battery storage facilities. Expanding and improving the electricity system is necessary, but it must be done in a way that balances affordability, reliability and community concerns. We are concerned that the clauses in the Bill remove this transparency and add costs, but will not deliver the streamlined or more rapid benefits to the system that the Minister outlined.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I rise to speak to new clause 19. First, the Liberal Democrat members of this Committee support a lot of what the Government are proposing in this part of the Bill. Creating electricity grids of the future is a critical route to decarbonising and has the potential to reduce consumer bills.
It is much to the UK’s credit that we are making good progress in efforts to decarbonise our electricity generation. Wind and solar in particular account for a growing share of our power generation. However, the transition from one-way transmission of electricity from a small number of very large power stations to a more distributed and multi-directional movement of power creates some challenges. We are going to need major upgrades of our electricity grid to accommodate the growing number of solar installations, as an example, more of which my hon. Friends and I would like to see on new and existing buildings. Making further progress will help our national energy security and reduce consumer bills at a time when energy inflation and the cost of living are still significant problems.
There are examples where cost and/or process have acted as barriers to the ability to feed surplus solar energy into the grid, or to the commissioning of new clean and renewable electricity production. Local energy grids have the potential to benefit communities and use the energy much closer to its source of generation. Therefore our proposed new clause would go further than the Government in the current Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to, within three months of the passing of this Bill, lay before Parliament a plan for how the Government will facilitate the creation of local energy grids and deal with the cost and time of grid connections. I hope the Minister and hon. Members on the Government Benches will embrace this amendment as a way to help continue our country’s journey towards becoming a clean, renewable energy superpower.
Michael Shanks
I will first respond to a few points in the debate generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East—across the Clyde from my constituency—made the absolutely right point that sums up what this connections reform process is all about: the absence of reforming the queue is driving away investment. Reform is critical for investment in our generation capacity and for how we connect demand projects that will be so important for unlocking economic growth. With more than 750 gigawatts currently in the queue to connect in the UK, the truth is there is no scope for that to happen without some radical reform of the queue. The Conservative party, when in government, recognised that that was a challenge and had already set about some reforms to make that happen.
We think we need to go even further. The shadow Minister, in a ray of honesty, said he was glad he was not the shadow Energy Minister. Based on the script on net zero, I think we are all fortunate that he is not the shadow Energy Minister, frankly, but it is the same script we are hearing from everyone at the moment.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Might it not be that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is embarrassed by his party on net zero? After all, on 17 January he said:
“I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 650.]—
only for that to be scrapped by his leader exactly two months later.
Michael Shanks
There is always a quote, as they say, and my hon. Friend is always there with the quotes at his fingertips, which is helpful. The truth is that the only way we are going to bring down bills and deliver energy security is the sprint to clean power. This is a crucial element of that, and of how we unlock investment—predominantly private investment—over the next few years as we build that clean power system. Even if we were not doing that, the grid is essential. It is an essential part of how we deliver electricity to homes, businesses and industry and it is critical that we upgrade it anyway.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister talks about energy security and bringing down bills, and of course we need to have more renewables online to do that, but we also need to issue new oil and gas licences so that we can produce more energy at home. That would help with what he is suggesting.
Michael Shanks
We are straying far from new clause 19, which I am keen to return to, but the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on that point. Gas traded on the international market is exactly why all our constituents pay more on their energy bills. The answer is to get off gas as the marginal price setter, not to have even more of it.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made a helpful speech, although I will resist his new clause. We are in agreement about the issue of connection delays and the first come, first served process not working, and it is important that we reform that. We are of the view that our proposals do that, and the National Energy System Operator has worked with Ofgem and is of the view they are sufficient to do that.
The question of local power and local grids is an interesting approach that we are looking at. We take seriously the role of community-owned power—it is in the Great British Energy Bill, recognising our commitment to it—but we do not see it in itself as a barrier to what we are trying to do here. The infrastructure, including for local networks, that incorporates generation and demand is already permitted under the existing system. It can be constructed and operated by distribution network operators, by independent network operators or by a private wire under a statutory licence exemption provision.
We agree about the importance of community energy and are looking at a range of things, in particular at how communities might to sell power locally. They are all important points, and all this is how we will unlock the social and economic benefits of the clean power transition. For the reasons I have outlined, and because we think it is already entirely possible, we will resist new clause 19.
Gideon Amos
People in Taunton and Wellington are four-square behind new clause 19, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage who spoke to it.
Michael Shanks
I betray my lack of English geography. I am sorry, but I assume that the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage are both in complete agreement with new clause 19. In any event, I thank them, but disagree with them both, instead of just one of them. I commend Government amendments 36 to 40 and clauses 9 to 11 to the Committee.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendments made: 37, in clause 9, page 14, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (3) only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2).”
The amendment makes it clear that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the GEMA to modify a licence or agreement may only be exercised for the purpose of improving the purpose of managing connections to the transmission or distribution system.
Amendment 38, in clause 9, page 14, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) A relevant authority may under subsection (1) modify an agreement mentioned in subsection (1)(e) or a qualifying distribution agreement even if the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement.”
This amendment ensures consistency with clause 12(8) in clarifying that modifications made to a particular connection or distribution agreement under clause 9(1) may be made even if the effect of the modification might amount to the repudiation of that agreement.
Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment, together with amendment 40 moves the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” into subsection (7); this change is consequential on amendment 38.
Amendment 40, in clause 9, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“‘qualifying distribution agreement’ means—
(a) the terms subject to which a connection is made by an electricity distributor in pursuance of section 16(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, or
(b) a special connection agreement as defined by section 22(1) of that Act;”.—(Michael Shanks.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 39.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Directions to modify connection agreements
Michael Shanks
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 12, page 16, line 8, leave out subsection (1).
The effect of this amendment is that a relevant authority may give a direction under clause 12 without first having exercised its powers under clause 9(1) to modify an electricity licence or an electricity industry code.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 42 to 47.
Clause stand part.
Michael Shanks
Government amendment 41 will allow the Secretary of State or Ofgem to direct the NESO or a distribution network operator to amend an agreement under the clause without the need to have previously modified licences, codes and associated documents under clause 9. Without the amendment, the Secretary of State would not be able to use the power to direct the National Energy System Operator or a DNO had not the modification powers in clause 9 —to make changes to licences, codes and associated documents—also been exercised. The amendment will mean that the directive power in clause 12 is no longer contingent on the use of the powers in clause 9.
An example of where the amendment would be needed is if an Ofgem and NESO-led process to amend licences and codes under the framework is successful, meaning that the powers in clause 9 do not need to be used, but the NESO or DNO has not accordingly amended its agreements with customers connecting to the electricity network. The directive powers could be used to ensure that the implementation of connections reform is successful.
David Simmonds
I have a couple of questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has set out, we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel around energy in the Bill.
One of the things we are all conscious of with the move to renewables being the main source of power in the grid—something that the UK has achieved faster than most other countries, with a bigger drop compared with the 1990 baseline than any other developed economy —is that it makes the grid more complex. Unlike oil, gas and nuclear, which can be delivered in an entirely predictable manner, renewables are generally much less predictable. There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we cannot therefore put that element into the grid. We need to find alternative methods so we need to be able to shift greater amounts of power around to meet the growing energy needs.
As the Minister has outlined, the regime that is envisaged will, for a limited period of time, give greater powers to the Government to determine who gets connected and in which order. First, will the Minister set out how he and the Government intend to feed back to Parliament what we learn from that process, to inform the future shape of our energy grid?
Secondly, what recourse will there be for those at a certain point in the queue who anticipate that their development, whatever it may be, will be served by a particular project and connected at a particular point, if the Government decide otherwise because the reordering of the queue is, in the Minister’s view, necessary? We all understand why that may happen, but if someone is about to invest in a major new carbon capture and storage facility—the sort of major infrastructure project that the Bill is designed to support—and they expect it to be powered by a wind farm but are then told they have been moved much further down the queue than they expected, that will affect the delivery of that project. It would be helpful to understand the process whereby those affected by the reordering of the queue are able to challenge the decision, if necessary, and certainly to engage with the Government, or with constituency MPs, who may seek to advocate for them, so that the reordering can be revisited if necessary.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those helpful questions. He rightly set out the fact that the grid is already considerably more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and it will become more complex, which is partly why the reform of connections is so important.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the process of prioritising projects will mean that some will be deprioritised. We have looked at the projects that already have a connection date, and in many cases they will proceed. Viable generation projects above the capacity ranges outlined in the clean power action plan—the first strategic document that will be used to guide projects—might still be able to connect if there is capacity in that particular bit of the DNO after the prioritised projects have been assessed. If there is no space in the pre-2030 queue, they will be offered dates in the 2031-35 process.
We have been clear throughout that the process has not been arbitrary or theoretical. Ofgem and NESO have gone through individual applications that are currently in the process to make sure not only that they fit with the requirements of the clean power action plan but that projects are not unnecessarily disadvantaged. Some projects will go ahead even though they are not in the strategic plan, because where they already are in the grid will make it possible for them to go ahead.
The question of transparency is really important. I will come back to the Committee with details on how we might make the information public, but throughout the process Ofgem and NESO have made public as much information as possible about how they have gone about things, and there was a full public consultation as well. The point about how individual MPs can see whether projects in their constituency are affected is well made and I will take that away and reflect on it.
The critical fact, as the previous Government rightly recognised, is that 750-plus GW is simply unmanageable. Really good projects are sitting with dates long into the future but cannot connect because of what are often phantom projects that are never going to come to fruition and are holding up spaces in the queue. For all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined in terms of the importance of energy security, and the importance of prioritising the queue, we think that the Government amendments and the clause are essential.
Amendment 41 agreed to.
Amendments made: 42, in clause 12, page 16, line 17, leave out
“as mentioned in subsection (1)(c)”
and insert
“in accordance with the conditions of an electricity licence”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 41.
Amendment 43, in clause 12, page 16, line 22, after “distribution system” insert
“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.
This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which a direction may be given under clause 12 may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.
Amendment 44, in clause 12, page 16, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“( ) A direction under subsection (2) must describe the kinds of modification to be made by the person to whom it is given.”
This amendment inserts a new subsection which would mean that a direction made by the Secretary of State or the GEMA to the ISOP or an electricity distributor to modify an agreement must describe the kinds of modification required.
Amendment 45, in clause 12, page 16, line 38, at end insert—
“(7A) Before giving a direction under subsection (2), the relevant authority must consult—
(a) the person to whom it proposes to give the direction, and
(b) such other persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
(7B) Subsection (7A) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation carried out after that time).
(7C) A relevant authority must publish details of any direction it gives under subsection (2) as soon as reasonably practicable after the direction is given.
(7D) A relevant authority may exclude from publication under subsection (7C) any information the publication of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.”
This amendment requires a relevant authority to carry out consultation before giving a direction under clause 12. It also requires a relevant authority to publish any direction it gives under the clause.
Amendment 46, in clause 12, page 16, line 41, at end insert—
“(8A) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) may not be exercised after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
This amendment ensures that the power to give a direction under clause 12 is time-limited in the same way as the power to make modifications to licences and other documents under clause 9.
Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 17, line 10, at end insert—
“(11) In Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 (provisions imposing obligations enforceable as relevant requirements)—
(a) in paragraph 4A (electricity system operator), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—
‘(d) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’;
(b) in paragraph 5 (distribution licence holders), after sub-paragraph (g) insert—
‘(h) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’”—(Michael Shanks.)
This amendment amends Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 in order to provide for enforcement of the duty to comply with a direction given under clause 12.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Managing connections to the network: strategic plans etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 13 will require NESO and the DNOs to have regard to strategic plans designated by the Secretary of State when they carry out functions related to connections. The Secretary of State will designate one or more strategic plans, with the current intention that this will include the clean power 2030 action plan in the first instance and the strategic spatial energy plan going forward. There is precedent in imposing a duty on a body to have regard to a strategic document—for example, the designated strategy and policy statement under section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, which outlines the Government’s strategic priorities, policy outcomes, and the roles and responsibilities of those involved in implementing energy policy.
Let me turn to the detail of the objects set out in the clause. It amends part 5 of the Energy Act 2023 to include a duty for NESO to have regard to designated strategic plans. It also amends the Electricity Act 1989 to place a duty on DNOs to have regard to any designated strategic plan, and adds a further exception to the duty on DNOs to connect in cases where it would not be in accordance with the designated strategic plans. The clause will support the implementation of ongoing connections reforms led by NESO and Ofgem, and will provide guidance and support for NESO and DNOs in making decisions on issuing new connection offers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has been clear in outlining how the clause relates to the previous clauses, and how he wants to overwhelmingly reform the electricity system. I do not see the clause as particularly controversial; it moves on from what he has previously described. Despite my previous speech—I have nothing against the Minister—the Opposition obviously want to be constructive where we possibly can be. The clause is simple and enables the process to carry on, and we will not contest it.
Gideon Amos
I endorse the clause on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, given that it lays out plans rather than an unplanned approach. Provided that interested parties have an opportunity to scrutinise those plans and be involved in them, we also support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Consents for generating stations and overhead lines: applications
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 14, page 18, line 36, after “application.” insert—
“(4) Any fees received by the Scottish Ministers under sub-paragraph (2)(d) may only be used to fund—
(a) consumer benefits packages, or
(b) local planning authorities.”
This amendment would ensure that fees collected by Scottish Ministers through applications can only be used for connected purposes, namely for consumer benefits or to support local authority planning departments.
The amendment was tabled in the name of the shadow Scotland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The Opposition absolutely understand the provisions of clause 14, and we broadly agree with it, but we think it could be strengthened to allow added scrutiny and consultation among those who will be most affected by some of the changes in the Bill, including members of the public and interested parties who will be affected by applications that go forward.
I have had a number of interactions with the Minister for Housing and Planning in Delegated Legislation Committees and on the Floor of the House about the Government’s moves towards planning fee reform. I know we are currently scrutinising the Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but we support planning fee reform and the Government’s move to ringfence fees within local authorities. Amendment 80 seeks to do something along those lines with regard to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Scottish Ministers.
Michael Shanks
Normally, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is my sparring partner in both the Scotland and energy spaces, so it is nice that he has made an appearance in this debate, but I disagree with his amendment. The main reason is that it concerns a devolved competence. This is a UK Government Bill and it is right, given that the resource of local planning decisions and planning authorities is devolved to Scottish Ministers, that they make the decision on how they resource statutory consultees and local planning authorities.
On the point about community benefits, the Scottish Government already have an established process. The 10-year onshore wind ban in England was not in place in Scotland, and the process of good practice for community benefits for onshore wind, for example, is already quite well developed. Processes are in place. Over the past 12 months, developers have offered more than £30 million in community benefits.
We are, of course, exploring all options and the Bill includes bill discounts for network infrastructure—we will come to that shortly—but we are open to much more on community benefits generally, because we agree that if communities are hosting nationally important infrastructure, they should benefit, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rightly said. However, for the reasons I have outlined—this is a devolved competence and not a matter for me as a UK Government Minister—we hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I completely understand where the Minister is coming from. He does not want to tread on the toes of devolved Administrations. I thought he might be more encouraged to do so, considering that the Scottish Government are run by the Scottish National party, which is not doing a very good job at the moment. However, I also understand that he may not want to give them any more money to screw up the job that they are doing.
Paul Holmes
Good—we have some consensus across the Committee. However, the Minister should not be fearful about giving those Ministers greater powers in this respect. We are trying to enable a greater amount of money to be devolved to the local authorities that are going to be directly responsible for ensuring community benefits from community infrastructure for the people who elect them. The Minister has said throughout our discussions that it is important to be transparent and to be able to resource some of the radical reform he is making. He should not be fearful—
Michael Shanks
I do not disagree with a single thing that the hon. Gentleman has just said, but it is not for me to dictate to the Scottish Government. They are democratically elected, and as much as I may disagree with much of what they do, they are none the less the Government of Scotland, and if they want to ringfence funding for a particular part of the process, they should be able to do so. In particular, diverting any funding away from the more speedy processing of planning applications would not be in the interests of the projects we want taken forwards. It is not that I disagree with him, but this is a devolved competence.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that, and I agree with him that it is a devolved competence—that is a fact—but he could be giving Scottish Ministers and constituents in Scotland a present by allowing the Government to make those decisions.
It is not just that the Government could be taking money from Scottish Ministers and giving it to local authorities under proposed new subsection (4)(a), but there is scope in the amendment for Scottish Ministers—the devolved Ministers—to be given the power to allocate consumer benefits packages where they think fit. That is strengthening the hand of devolved Ministers, not taking anything away from them. [Interruption.] The Minister says, “It doesn’t stop them.” No, but this would strengthen their hand. I think that giving devolved Ministers the power to give consumer benefits packages to Scottish people who are affected by infrastructure is a good thing.
I am not the intellectual powerhouse of the House of Commons, but even I can calculate that we would not win if we pushed this to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 14, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“Consultation requirements (Scotland)
1B (1) Where an application is made to the Scottish Ministers for consent under section 36 or 37, the Scottish Ministers must provide for the holding of a public consultation.
(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about the holding of consultations.
(3) Regulations may include—
(a) the length of consultation periods in urban and rural areas;
(b) requirements on applicants to publish the projected local economic benefits and other specified information in advance of a consultation;
(c) requirements on applicants to respond to or demonstrate consideration of submissions to consultations.”
The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend for—
Paul Holmes
The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). Just as the Minister is not an expert on the south coast, I am not an expert on Scottish constituencies, particularly as they all changed their names at the last boundary review.
This simple amendment would introduce additional consultation requirements. It is in a similar vein to amendment 81, which, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I intend to move later. It would enable community and public consultations when an application goes forward. As I said in the last debate, I do not think it is unreasonable that, when an application is put forward, members of the public should have a public consultation to hear about the perceived benefits and to challenge the organisations trying to bring forward infrastructure projects. We must also accept that consultations can take effect in a number of ways, based on whether the infrastructure is being built in rural or urban areas.
This is a simple amendment that seeks to make sure that, when an application goes forward, Scottish Ministers have the powers that the Minister has outlined to ensure there is a public consultation, so that the people on the ground who are genuinely affected by such infrastructure projects have a say and see the transparency that we hope the Bill will put in place.
Michael Shanks
Amendment 84, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), concerns public consultations under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. It is worth making it clear that the planning systems of Scotland and of England and Wales are very different, and the starting points are very different.
The 1989 Act—which we will come to shortly, in relation to the necessary updates to consents more widely—provides for the process of notification and objection at the application stage. This is very different from aspects of the planning regulations in England and Wales, in that there are already opportunities for consultations, but clause 14 creates a further power to make regulations to set out such matters relating to applications for consent, including a pre-application consultation requirement. That requirement will be set out in regulations rather than in primary legislation, but its purpose is to ensure that the application is proportionate, adaptable and future-proofed.
As much as I politically disagree with the incumbent Scottish Government, we have been working together incredibly effectively, since we came into government, on some key aspects. The reforms of the 1989 Act are a good example. To take the earlier point about the changing energy system, that Act was legislation for a different time, and the planning system in Scotland has not kept pace with the reforms in the rest of the United Kingdom. The reforms that we are proposing give Scottish Ministers a framework to introduce regulations to allow for a pre-application consultation process, and to give both communities and statutory consultees meaningful opportunities to influence applications and have a voice early in the process. For that reason, I see much of amendment 84 as replicating provisions already in the Bills, so I hope the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw it.
Paul Holmes
I thought the Minister would recommend that I withdraw the amendment. I will put on the record that I am delighted that the Minister believes in pre-application consultation, because in one breath this morning—
Paul Holmes
The Minister has had his say. All I am saying, politely, is that in a different provision of the Bill, the Government have completely removed pre-application consultation for nationally significant projects, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero believes in them. He does not want to accept our amendment to ensure transparent public consultation because pre-application consultation is strong enough already, and the public will be able to have their concerns looked at. The Minister says that they are different systems, but the principles are exactly the same. Ministers cannot rely on that argument for this amendment but not accept the same argument for amendments considered by the Committee earlier. However, as a realist, I know that this will not go very far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 14, page 19, line 9, leave out from “application,” to end of line 12 and insert—
“(b) consider the objection and the reporter’s final report,
(c) hold a public hearing, and
(d) allow a period of one month to elapse
before determining whether to give their consent.”
This amendment would require the Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
The amendment is in the name of the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who I know the Minister would be delighted to hear from—[Interruption.] I heard the “boo”. Amendment 81 is similar to amendment 84 but more specific. I suspect that the Minister will come back with the same argument, so I will take only a short time on this. The amendment would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing, and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
Put simply, that would allow local residents the right to provide feedback on proposed infrastructure. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree that it is right that people can have their voices listened to by Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government. The amendment would create one mechanism to ensure fairness in the planning system, by allowing not only the pre-application consultation but people to generally give feedback and a say, as they currently can in the English planning system. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, I would be grateful if he wrote to me and the shadow Scottish Secretary, or acting shadow Energy Secretary.
Paul Holmes
Both—that is the world we are in, unfortunately. I would be grateful if the Minister could see if there is an opportunity for a meeting between himself and that shadow Minister on how we can strengthen the grassroots-level consultation that is important to the system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. If we could secure some unofficial channels on how we can strengthen this clause when we get to further stages, I would be grateful. I will not push the amendment, but I would like the Minister to respond to those concerns.
Michael Shanks
I thank the shadow Minister for the way he is discussing these topics. I appreciate that they are from a planning system alien to the one with which he is, I am sure, very familiar—I am tempted to say that the shadow Energy Secretary could join him on the Bench, but he is not here.
I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making. For hon. Members who are not familiar with the Scottish system, a public inquiry can be triggered with one objection into the planning system. The public inquiry can take years to conclude and often is not reflective of actual community sentiment on a particular project. This system does not exist in any form anywhere else in the UK. The purpose of these consenting reforms is to deliver significant efficiencies in the consenting process, and to make decisions faster—not necessarily to make positive decisions faster, just to make decisions faster. Introducing another element that feels like the element that we are removing takes away from that.
As I have said previously, there are still significant opportunities for communities to participate in the process. One of the key aspects that we are introducing is the right of a reporter, who is an experienced specialist in planning and consenting, to consider representations about whether there should be a public hearing on a particular process. That reporter will then make the decision about whether it should go forward into a hearing session or a public inquiry. That is rather than what we have at the moment, which is an automatic trigger that holds up projects for a significant length of time.
I am always happy to meet with the shadow Scottish Secretary on a range of things. I am happy to engage with him, because I appreciate that his part of Scotland has a significant amount of network infrastructure being built; but for the reasons I have outlined, this amendment goes counter to our objectives, and does not sit with the reforms we are making to the Scottish planning system, as distinct from the planning system in England and Wales.
John Grady
I will make a couple of brief remarks as a resident Scottish MP. The Minister has referenced co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is to be welcomed; it reflects this Government’s determination to do right by Scotland and to work productively with the SNP Government in Holyrood.
These provisions will help to unlock significant investment in Scotland. We heard last week how SSE’s programme of projects, which these provisions help to unlock, will lead to £22 billion of investment by 2030. That is the biggest investment we have seen in the north of Scotland since the second world war. Just think what we could achieve if we had a Labour Government in Scotland as well as in England.
The Minister is right to have worked closely with the Scottish Government on reforming the provisions, which in many cases predate 1989, because the 1989 Act was a consolidation. He is right to have worked productively with the Scottish Government, putting Scotland first, because that will give rise to significant investment and jobs—jobs for our young people and high-quality jobs—as well as access for the people of Great Britain to greater volumes of fixed-price electricity that is not subject to fluctuations in wholesale markets, as we have seen over the last few years.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 15 stand part.
New clause 53—Reforms to consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—
“Where any reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland are proposed, the Secretary of State must ensure that such reforms—
(a) do not reduce requirements for community engagement or public consultation;
(b) include measures to address local concerns, environmental impacts, and impacts on all key sectors including but not limited to agriculture and tourism.”
New clause 54—Annual report on consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—
“(1) The Secretary of State must annually lay before Parliament a report on applications for consent for electricity infrastructure in Scotland.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) the outcomes of each application for consent relating to an energy infrastructure project in Scotland;
(b) evidence of community consultation undertaken in relation to each application and, where applicable, how consultation has influenced the design of the infrastructure to which the application relates; and
(c) estimates of economic benefits to local communities from the relevant project.”
Michael Shanks
I will begin with a brief explanation as to why clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East made a moment ago, and one that I have made before, which is that these reforms were in the pipeline under the previous Government. They are reforms to a long-standing piece of legislation that is long due for updating.
I thank officials in my Department and in the Scottish Government for working closely and at speed, with a similar set of objectives and an open-book approach to making this work, to draft the measures in a way that works for all of us. It is a reset of the tone of how we work as two Governments.
On enabling the introduction of pre-application requirements, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley referenced, in the Scottish legislation there are currently no steps to give the public an opportunity to engage as there are in the NSIP regime in England and Wales. This is about improving the quality and readiness of applications at the submission stage. It is important to say that this was driven by the views of Scottish Ministers, who said that they thought it was a useful process, but it will be directed in detail in regulations so that it can be updated and adapted to situations, unlike the process that we have in England and Wales at the moment, which has been held back and has added time and complexity to projects and not delivered what it was intended to do. It will give Scottish Ministers the powers to charge fees for pre-application services, enabling them to better support applicants in developing good-quality applications.
Secondly, the clause establishes a power to set time limits through regulations for key stages of the consenting process, which will support the timely determination of applications and bring down overall processing times. Thirdly, it will establish a proportionate process for responding to objections by relevant planning authorities through a reporter-led examination process. The reporter will choose the most appropriate procedure for gathering any further information they need to provide recommendations in a final report to Scottish Ministers. That may include inquiry sessions, where the reporter considers that that is the best approach to take to address particular issues. Such an approach is similar to the well-established process in which appeals in the town and country planning decisions are currently addressed.
Clause 15 enables regulations to be made that prescribe new processes to vary electricity infrastructure consents in Scotland after they have been granted. The clause addresses the current anomaly that there is no prescribed procedure for holders of overhead line consents to apply to Scottish Ministers for a variation to their consents. The current position forces consent holders to make full consent applications in order to authorise often very modest variations. The clause also allows Scottish Ministers to vary an existing generating station or overhead lines consent due to changes in environmental circumstances or technological changes. Such variations will be made with the agreement of the consent holder. Finally, the clause allows Scottish Ministers to correct any errors or omissions made in consents for generating stations or overhead lines.
I will come back to the new clauses later, but I want first to underline the importance of the consenting process. In Scotland, we generate a significant amount of electricity, and there are further projects in the pipeline, including both floating offshore wind and onshore wind. It is critical that there is an off-taker for that power in the rest of the UK, and that requires us to build significantly more network infrastructure to bring that clean power to where it is required. Although these changes to consenting relate to Scotland, they are of critical importance for the energy security of the whole United Kingdom.
Paul Holmes
I would like to move new clauses 53 and 54, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them first.
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister wants to hear more! New clause 54 is in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross)—I want the shadow Minister to say, “Gordon and Buchan”, just so I can hear his pronunciation. The clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report providing detail of electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made in Scotland in previous years.
As hon. Members will be aware, responsibility for the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland is devolved to Scottish Government Ministers. The Scottish Government are accountable to the Scottish Parliament—not the UK Parliament—for the decisions that they make, for the rationale behind them and for what information they choose to provide on consenting decisions. I am aware that the Scottish Government publish all their decisions, which includes information about what public consultations have taken place and consultations with community councils, for example.
It would be inappropriate and potentially duplicative for the Secretary of State to have such an obligation, but fundamentally, to come back to the point I made earlier, there is a particular concern about putting a statutory obligation on what is a devolved power when there is a democratic link between Scottish Ministers and their democratically accountable Parliament, which is the Scottish Parliament and not this Parliament.
Paul Holmes
Thank you. I must apologise, Mr Twigg; this is the first time I have been a shadow Minister on a Bill Committee and I am a bit rusty, but I am learning very quickly.
I thank the Minister for Energy for being very gentle with me as well when discussing Scottish energy connectivity and Scottish planning. He will understand that beggars cannot be choosers on the number of MPs that we have, but being a Member for what is possibly the most southern part of the south coast that one can get bar the Isle of Wight, I am doing my best to discuss the Scottish planning system. I am grateful for the spirit in which he is responding to our new clauses and amendments. I am also grateful to his officials for their work, too.
I understand what the Minister is saying, and I know his reasons for refusing to accept previous amendments under clause 14, but these new clauses create a parallel system. He is absolutely right that Scottish Ministers are accountable to Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Members of Parliament here are accountable to their constituents. The Secretary of State also has a role within this Parliament and within this UK Government. On new clause 54, the Minister is quite right to say that the Scottish Parliament already has that reporting mechanism, but I do not think that it is unreasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to do that for Scottish MPs here too; when we have questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we discuss UK legislation relating to Scotland.
Paul Holmes
The Minister keeps saying “reserved”. That is fine, but we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, accountable to a UK Parliament, who represents Scottish constituencies. There is a role for this Parliament to report and to scrutinise the successes of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, with the Secretary of State having an overarching position as Secretary of State representing Scotland. Scottish Members of Parliament are entitled to the same rights and benefits as Scottish MSPs when scrutinising the Scotland Government north of the border. The Minister wanted me to pronounce “Gordon and Buchan”. I think that is right—I am not sure, but I did my best. Honestly, there are worse ones to pronounce.
Clearly, we are going to disagree on our approach to these two new clauses, but the reason for new clause 53 is exactly the same. I am surprised by the Minister’s reticence in allowing his Scottish colleagues to be able to have the same rights of scrutiny as Scottish MSPs. It is not an arduous new clause. It would not be arduous on the Government or the Scotland Office to produce those outcomes or statistics. It would not be arduous on the Scotland Office or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to provide evidence of community consultation, particularly when we have just discussed some of the amendments that the Opposition have tabled on community consultation.
It would also not be arduous for the Scotland Office—or whatever Department would be answering—to provide estimates of economic benefits to local communities. That is exactly why many members of this Committee who represent Scottish constituencies are here in this UK Parliament: to develop policy that brings economic benefits to local communities. The Minister needs to think outside the box and allow Scottish MPs from all parties in this House to have those rights to scrutinise, to develop the economic benefits to local communities. He should not feel so constrained by the Scottish devolved Administration; he should branch out, improve and increase the power of the Scotland Office or his Department, and allow Scottish MPs to have their say in this area of legislation.
Michael Shanks
I am in danger of going into British constitutional politics 101, but the hon. Gentleman is introducing the West Lothian question.
The Chair
We have to be very careful given the subject of the amendment. I gave the shadow Minister a bit of leeway.
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister is introducing the best example I have heard in a long time of the West Lothian question. The fundamental thing is that this is not a political question about the Scottish Government or the UK Government. There are reserved matters for which this Parliament is responsible for holding UK Government Ministers to account, and there are devolved matters that Scottish Ministers have responsibility for delivering and the Scottish Parliament is responsible for holding them to account for.
It would ride roughshod over this Parliament’s fairly consistent support of devolution in the UK for us to now suddenly say that those Scottish Ministers are also accountable to another Parliament. I think that we agree on the nature of devolution in this country, although we may strongly disagree on the actions that devolved Governments take, but we cannot support the new clauses, for the reasons I have outlined. This is not about thinking outside the box; it is about recognising the role that the devolved system plays in our constitution. For those reasons, I will resist the new clauses.
Michael Shanks
Clause 16 amends section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which provides for a statutory appeal to be brought by any person who is aggrieved by a decision made by Scottish Ministers—perhaps the shadow Minister. A challenge to an offshore electricity infrastructure consenting decision made under section 36 is by statutory appeal. The clause extends this, so that statutory appeal also applies to onshore electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made under section 36, decisions made under section 37 and all variation decisions.
The clause will create consistency in Scotland by making the challenge process the same for both onshore and offshore consents, and ensuring they are brought in a timely manner. A challenge will have to be brought within six weeks for onshore consents, as is already the case for offshore consents. This will bring the timescale for challenging large electricity infrastructure decisions into alignment right across Great Britain.
Clause 16 also amends the Electricity Act so that the six-week timescale for bringing a challenge commences from the publication of the decision by the Scottish Minister, instead of the date on which the decision was taken. This is a new requirement for both onshore and offshore, and is compliant with the Aarhus convention compliance committee’s recommendations relating to the timescale for challenging planning decisions. There is also a consequential amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of directions relating to deemed planning permission. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
My contribution will be very short, because the Opposition agree with what the Minister said. It seems perfectly reasonable to amend section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which allows anybody aggrieved by the process to appeal. That is a welcome step that meets some of our challenges in other areas of the Bill—not those for which this Minister is responsible—in relation to people being intimately involved in some of these decisions. If people are not happy with what is happening in their local communities, they should be able to challenge it. I welcome the clause, and we will not press it to a vote.
Gideon Amos
We do not object to the clause either. The date of the judicial review challenge being six weeks from the issue of the decision in writing is consistent with the approach under the Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore does not reduce or change people’s right to judicial review. We are content to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Applications for necessary wayleaves: fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 17 will confer a power on Scottish Ministers to make regulations to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for processing necessary wayleave applications that they should make in Scotland. Necessary wayleaves are statutory rights that allow electricity licence holders to install and access their overhead electricity lines and associated infrastructure on land owned by others, and in Scotland they are processed and granted by Scottish Ministers.
The objective of the change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleave applications by the Scottish Government. It is important to act now.
Lewis Cocking
Will the Minister elaborate on why he did not support amendment 80, which we have just discussed, on planning fees going to local councils to resource planning departments? What is the difference between that and him saying to Scottish Ministers under this clause that they can charge a fee, but that it has to go to the resourcing of dealing with these applications?
Michael Shanks
Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that amendment 80 was about forcing Scottish Government Ministers to spend funds on community benefits and other things. This clause is saying that the Government will have the power to raise application fees if they choose to do so. Of course, they could choose not to, but under this clause they will have the power to raise them.
Lewis Cocking
It says that the Minister expects that money to be put into the system to make the system better. Why has he done that in this case when he did not support the amendment doing it?
Michael Shanks
As I think I have just outlined, that amendment did not just call for the money to make the system more efficient; it called for it to be spent in communities on community benefits. That is quite different. My argument to the shadow Minister in resisting that amendment was that we did not want to tie the hands of the Scottish Government, because we see that investing that money in making the planning system more efficient is probably the best use for it, but it is not for me to tell them that. This clause is about giving them the power to set and charge fees to electricity network operators. I suggest that the point he is making is a slightly different one, but if I have misunderstood him, perhaps he can explain.
David Simmonds
A general point arises here, which we also debated on the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee. The different systems in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—most of the legislation we are dealing with here is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—give rise to a risk of inconsistency. The shadow Minister spoke of the importance of community benefit. That is designed to secure community support. If there is a view that Ministers in Scotland might choose to spend such revenue on other things to the detriment of community benefit, that may also undermine consent.
I completely agree with what the Minister is saying about creating the necessary power, but will he commit to further discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can ensure—not just in this Bill, but in future legislation—that where we expect a community benefit to derive from something that we decide on, it will be a consistent benefit across the UK?
Michael Shanks
In general, I agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. I understand the point he is making about consistency, but I take the view that the whole purpose of having different devolved Administrations in England, Wales and Scotland is to make different decisions. Northern Ireland is separate in the energy discussion, because it has a separate grid.
I am not sure that I would say that consistency at all costs is the right approach. We created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they could make decisions locally that affected them in a different way. We have worked with the Scottish Government on these changes to make sure that there is a package of reforms to the consent arrangements under the Energy Act that relates to the planning system in Scotland as it currently is. It is not the same starting point as the system in England and Wales, so it is important to look at them separately. Nevertheless, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
I return to clause 17. Fees are already charged in England and Wales for processing wayleave applications. I reiterate—this comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne—that the Scottish Government do not have the power in legislation to raise those fees. That power is reserved. The clause will give them that power.
Paul Holmes
Has the Minister identified or outlined any potential total income that will come out of this measure? I know that it is not a certain process and that it is not certain how many will come forward.
Michael Shanks
No, we have not. A series of work will be necessary to come up with that figure, because the fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis. It is not a money-making exercise for the Government. That is in line with approaches in the rest of Great Britain. There will clearly be a significant number of such applications in the coming years—more than in previous years, probably—but the detail will be worked out with the Scottish Government. We do not know in advance exactly how many wayleave applications there might be, so we cannot give an exact figure.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will forgive me for intervening again; it will mean that I speak less later. In outline, has he started any engagement with Scottish Ministers to find out whether the intention of the clause will be borne out in reality? If the costs are being recovered on a cost recovery basis, has he secured the necessary assurances from Ministers that the money collected will be used to process the decisions more rapidly, and that it will not be spent in other devolved Scottish areas?
Michael Shanks
I am sorry to come back to this point, but the Government do not bind the hands of devolved Governments in any spending area. When this Parliament—[Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that the Bill gives them the power to do that, which they do not currently have.
Michael Shanks
No, I will carry on answering this point, if that is okay.
We are very enthusiastic about clause 17—who would have thought it? To be clear about this point—I feel as if I am the only Scottish MP on this Committee, but I am not—when this Government increase spending in a particular area, that results in a budget transfer to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Executive, which they can spend on whatever they see as their local priorities. An increase in NHS spending in England does not lead to the exact same in Scotland. We will not bind the hands of every single decision that is made in this case. This is about conferring a power on Scottish Government Ministers to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for necessary wayleave applications in Scotland.
John Grady
I thank the Minister, although he must feel awfully lonely as the Front-Bench Scotsman. As the Member for Rutherglen just on the other side of the Clyde from me, does he agree that the charging of fees for necessary wayleaves is a rather odd way to relitigate the referendum that took place in 1999, and a rather odd way to relitigate the questions of devolution? I know that the Conservative party has some trouble, from time to time, in accepting the devolution settlement. We seem to have moved from the West Lothian question to the Hamble Valley question. It is remarkably confusing.
Michael Shanks
No, I will respond to that point, if I may. I respect the view of the Conservative party and the argument that Conservative Members are making. I completely understand it, but I am trying to make the point gently that this is not about our directing specific decisions that will be made by Scottish Ministers. It is about how—in this case, as it is across wayleave applications in England and Wales as well—fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis in line with UK and Scottish Government policy on managing public money.
Lewis Cocking
Let me try a third time. According to the explanatory notes laid out by the Government:
“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”
The Minister is therefore directing the Scottish Government to spend the money that they get in through this process on that planning process. How is that different from amendment 80 which we discussed earlier and the Government said they will not accept?
Michael Shanks
I am trying to find the exact wording. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I think I have outlined to him three times now why it is different. I do not have amendment 80 in front of me at this precise moment, but it had two parts to it, one of which was about community benefits. It was directing the Scottish Government to take funds and direct them to a specific purpose. This Parliament does not do that in any other aspects of devolved policy, because it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions. I think that I have made that point clear, but if not, I will write to the Committee and make it even clearer. [Interruption.] I am grateful. I now have amendment 80 in front of me. It mentions
“consumer benefits packages, or…local planning authorities”.
Neither of those things is in the gift of the UK Government to direct the Scottish Government to do. Consumer benefits packages are ill-defined, if nothing else, but local planning authorities are democratically elected in their own right, and the Scottish Government make budget decisions to local government, separate from any budget decisions that the UK Government make to the Scottish Government. The two are not comparable in any way. In any event, the Committee has already voted down that amendment.
Paul Holmes
I do not intend to speak for long. I am grateful to the Minister for repeatedly taking interventions, but I think he is in a slight pickle on this one. On a number of occasions he has said, quite rightly—I understand that he has deeply held views, and I promise that I am not going to go back to the West Lothian question, or the Hamble Valley question—
Paul Holmes
I will confine myself to clause 17. The Minister has often said that he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers on a devolved issue. That is perfectly reasonable. When I last intervened on him, I did not ask him to dictate to Scottish Government Ministers; I asked whether he had sought an assurance from them—
Paul Holmes
It is not the same thing. I asked him, in his role as a UK Government Minister, to seek an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers that the retrospective collection of funds under the new power would be used to increase capacity and improve the processing of this proposal. He was not rude to me, but he said, “That’s not my job as a UK Government Minister. It’s up to them as Scottish Government Ministers.” His own explanatory notes say:
“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”
When I asked the Minister whether he had sought an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers, I was not asking him to instruct them. I asked him whether he had any information on the total amount of money that would be brought in, which I accept could vary. I perfectly understood and respected that answer, but in his second answer he said that he could not seek such an assurance because he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers or take power away from them. Given the objective set out in the explanatory notes, how can we have confidence—
Michael Shanks
There is no contradiction here at all. We are confusing two different things. My ability to say that the Scottish Government could raise x amount of money and must spend it on y is different from what we have clearly outlined—the hon. Gentleman has just repeated it—which is that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers do not have the power to raise fees for wayleaves, as is the case in England and Wales. Those are two very different things.
I have said clearly, I think six or seven times now, that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers have no power to charge for the processing of wayleave applications. The clause will give them the power to do so. Of course, I would hope that those funds will be spent on the planning system, or whatever it might be, but I am not going to bind their hands and evaluate the success or otherwise of that in this Committee. The two issues are quite separate.
Paul Holmes
We are dancing on the head of a pin here. I know that the Minister has no power to do that and does not want to have such a power, but how can he, as a UK Government Minister, commend a clause whose objective the explanatory notes explicitly say
“is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government”
while claiming that he does not have the power to ensure that it happens?
I am not trying to be difficult. The Minister is doing a very good job of outlining the clauses, but he has said several times in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—not just in relation to amendment 81, which was not accepted, but in relation to the clause—that he does not have the power to direct Scottish Government Ministers. All I am asking is why he set out the objective of the change in his approved explanatory notes if he cannot make it happen.
I am not asking the Minister to strengthen the legislation; I asked whether he has sought reassurances from Scottish Government Ministers that that is what they will do with the extra income from the measures. He answered that he did not want to force them. That was not the question. All I am asking—he is welcome to intervene on me—is whether he has had a conversation with Scottish Government Ministers about whether they will use this income for the purposes that his legislation has set out.
Michael Shanks
I have not had the conversation. I am happy to have it, but the tone will not be, “Here are my expectations of you as a democratically elected Member of the Scottish Parliament accountable to a Parliament I do not sit in.”
I do not know how familiar the shadow Minister is with the devolution legislation in the United Kingdom, but I gently say that this Parliament gives the devolved Administrations power to raise a whole series of taxes, charges, levies, fines and various other things. We give that power to those devolved assemblies; we do not then tell them exactly how to spend every single penny of that money. This is another example of that. It is a perfectly common thing in the devolution settlement.
Paul Holmes
I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister at all—I know it seems that I am, but I am not. He said that he has not had those conversations but he now will, and that is welcome. This clause is procedural and process-driven, but within the grand scheme of the Bill it is stated clearly in black and white that the UK Government have an objective for the extra income to be generated, yet the Minister has not had that conversation with Scottish Ministers. I do not blame him for that, but he will now have those conversations going forward.
I hope that when it comes to other clauses, UK Government documents will be very clear about the aims, ambitions and outcomes of what they will do because what we have seen this afternoon has been questionable. The UK Government are setting an objective, with no way to actually achieve it.
David Simmonds
This is a small “p” political point rather than a party political point, but it undermines confidence in devolution when we hear that a devolved body—a local authority, regional government or whatever it may be—has been given a power and has not used it, or central Government have said, “We have allocated additional funds for potholes,” but the council has spent it on social care, as we have seen recently. It undermines the confidence in those central messages that what is promised will be delivered.
I urge the Minister, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to please come back to the Committee with that assurance. For those listening to this debate who expect that the funds raised will be spent on the purpose that the Minister has told the Committee they are intended for, that assurance needs to be there.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. I understand that I may not be the Minister’s favourite person, but I am trying to help him—I actually think what he is proposing is very good. We support any measure that allows an income stream to be spent on local people and within devolved Administrations to make processes quicker and more efficient. The other Minister on the Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, knows that that is my stance historically. I support the Government reforming planning fees, for example, and ringfencing them to enable processes to be delivered more quickly, but I say again to the Minister that I hope he does what he has committed to in his interventions during the debate on this clause.
We will not push this to a vote because, as I have outlined in a very long-winded and convoluted way, we support the clause, but I hope the Minister will take a firmer line in speaking to Scottish Ministers. Before he says this again, I am not asking him to direct those Ministers; he seems to have a preoccupation with me claiming that I want him to instruct Scottish Ministers to do certain things. I am asking him, within his role and remit as a UK Government Minister legislating to give those Ministers extra powers, to use the art of politics and diplomacy to make sure that the outcomes he wants, as per the explanatory notes of his Bill, are delivered for the people affected by his changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 19 stand part.
Schedule 1.
Michael Shanks
Clause 18 is technical, amending section 106 of the Electricity Act 1989 to make provision for procedural requirements that apply to the new powers conferred by the provision in clauses 14, 15 and 17. All new regulation-making powers, except for the power to amend primary legislation in clause 14(4), are subject to the negative procedure. Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State must consult each other before making regulations relating to clauses 14 and 15. The power in clause 17 is to be exercised by Scottish Ministers, and it does not require the Secretary of State to be consulted.
Clause 19 introduces schedule 1, which makes amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 consequential to the amendments made by clauses 14 to 18. It also makes some minor amendments relating to consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland. These amendments are made to sections 36, 36B, 36C and 37 of and schedule 8 to the 1989 Act. Schedule 1 is needed to ensure the Bill’s consistency and clarity in relation to the 1989 Act. Some changes are needed to ensure that the new Scottish consenting reforms can function as intended. Some of the clarifications are needed because the 1989 Act was originally drafted prior to the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament. Given the number of changes made to the 1989 Act in relation to Scotland, it is necessary to update outdated references in legislation to ensure that such references are clear and consistent.
The consequential amendments cover three main aspects. First, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about time limits for various parts of the consenting process, the amendments clarify how this relates to Scottish Ministers obtaining advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new section 1A will apply only to applications made to the Secretary of State, not to those made to Scottish Ministers.
Thirdly, there are clarifications to reflect the new processes for variations of consents and the new procedure following objection by the relevant planning authorities for consents under sections 36 and 37 of the 1989 Act. In addition, the minor amendments include those to reflect previous transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers, and some references to the water environment regulations are updated to refer to the most recent version.
As I have said, this is a very technical clause. I look forward to having slightly less debate on it, unless there are any questions.
Paul Holmes
Clauses 18 and 19 are consequential to the previous clauses, and consist of simple process amendments. The Minister will be delighted that we welcome the fact that clause 19 amends the Electricity Act 1989 to reflect earlier transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers. That is exactly as it should be, and we will not be scrutinising the various words. These amendments should go ahead, and I have no further comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 20
Environmental impact assessments for electricity works
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 20 creates a power for the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make limited procedural amendments to the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which for ease of reference I will refer to as the EIA regulations.
As part of the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland, Scottish Ministers are required to assess the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed EIA development. Before the UK left the European Union, Scottish Ministers and UK Government Ministers had concurrent powers, under the European Communities Act 1972, to make regulations for electricity works EIAs. However, although the EIA regulations remained in force as assimilated law after the European Communities Act was repealed, the result is that neither Government have the power to amend them.
David Simmonds
We broadly support the content of clause 20, but I have one question for the Minister. I am mindful of his comments about the process of EU retained law, and it is absolutely right that we are looking to update that. However, a lot of the new powers set out for Scottish Ministers are the kind of thing that, in England, we would expect to be the subject of a pre-application consultation. One might ask the promoter of a project to come in and discuss those exact things with the local authority, the strategic planning authority if there is one, or the mayoral authority or the combined authority, so that the application process can be streamlined as much as possible.
Earlier on, we said that we would amend legislation through the Bill to remove that process in England. Given the intention to effectively introduce a top-quality process for applications to be considered in Scotland, does the Minister agree that there is an element of contradiction in that, in the same piece of legislation, we are seeking to remove many of the equivalent processes in England?
Michael Shanks
I understand the argument, but it appears as a contradiction only if we assume that both planning systems are the same, which they are not. And they are not slightly different—they are fundamentally different. The processes are different. The timescales are different. The opportunities for public consultation are different throughout, so we are starting from a different starting point. Although I understand the hon. Member’s point, I do not think that the two are comparable.
This particular clause is even more narrow than the hon. Member recognised. It is simply about the assimilated regulations. I have been in a number of Delegated Legislation Committees where we have discussed some of the unintended consequences, as we obviously assimilated thousands of different pieces of legislation into UK law. As I say, the result was that neither the UK nor the Scottish Government currently have the power to amend these regulations, which is a ludicrous position for us to be in. This clause is narrow in scope, and I do not think it has quite the reach that the hon. Member is suggesting.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 13th May 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 May 2025 - (13 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
We were discussing clause 36 and I was attempting to reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that his concerns were unfounded. We were discussing fees charged by particular public bodies for providing services associated with Transport and Works Act 1992 orders.
As I made clear, the power is subject to delegated procedures, ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for any changes in the provision of services in the future. I reassure the shadow Minister that the power allows for the charging of fees for services only on a cost-recovery basis. The regulations will set out any required safeguards, just as there are safeguards in place in regulations that relate to the charging of fees by authorities on nationally significant infrastructure project cases, for example. Subsection (4) makes it clear that applicants will be required to have regard to guidance that will provide detail.
The shadow Minister asked me about two specific points. On appeals, there is no set appeals process for the fees charging system, other than the ultimate recourse to judicial review on the basis that the fees charged to do not comply with the forthcoming regulations or are irrational. On small businesses, I recognise that there is potential constraint as some applicants for Transport and Works Act orders may be smaller businesses, such as heritage railway operators, and it may be harder for them to absorb costs, but I reiterate my previous point that the delays in the system that we currently experience are not cost free. We feel strongly that the benefits of the change proposed by clause 36 outweigh the disadvantages of extra costs, even for smaller applicants. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister is reassured and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Disapplication of heritage regimes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The purpose of clause 37 is to remove the need for Transport and Works Act order applicants to apply to multiple consenting authorities for separate authorisation requirements under relevant heritage regimes in England and Wales, such as listed buildings and scheduled monument consents. Instead, the clause provides for the consolidation of the application process for certain heritage authorisations, so that they can be obtained through the Transport and Works Act itself. I must make clear that it is for applicants to determine whether they want to proceed on the basis of existing arrangements, namely consulting multiple consenting authorities, or whether they want to obtain those consents through the Transport and Works Act itself, in which instance the Secretary of State for Transport would need to confirm that that could be undertaken via that route. The consents would be obtained as part of the TWA order process and the decision-making process that pertains to it.
In making this change, as with other changes that we have made in this part of the Bill, we would bring the Transport and Works Act order process in line with the Planning Act 2008, which provides a one-stop shop development consent order process for major infrastructure. To ensure proper oversight is maintained throughout the amended process, applicants will still need to consult the relevant consenting authorities before applying. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Schedule 2 amends the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as a result of the changes made by clause 37 of the Bill. As I have just set out, clause 37 enables an order under the Transport and Works Act to obtain certain consents through the Act itself, rather than requiring separate applications to each relevant consenting authority. Schedule 2 disapplies offences that would otherwise arise from proceeding without those consents or authorisations. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition broadly understand the direction of travel that the Minister has set out and the principles underlying it are clearly quite sensible.
Will the Minister give us a degree of assurance, particularly about the process for determining the circumstances in which the authorities that are listed and the circumstances that are listed may be set aside? That is significant because significant infrastructure developments are often close to heritage railway buildings and historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken.
We know that, in the past, the effect of that regime has been that in many cases developers, in places such as Royal Quay in my own constituency in Harefield, have chosen to put historic buildings back into use for a new purpose. For example, formerly industrial buildings connected with Victorian transport networks could be used for residential development, rather than simply demolishing and clearing the sites and losing that heritage asset in the process.
It would be helpful to understand how we will ensure, through the regime as set out, that those considerations are fully taken into account. I appreciate that we will debate the green belt later on, but there is significant interaction in the Bill between the different types of regime that apply, and we have already had much debate about the green belt and the grey belt.
I am aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government yesterday issued a decision with respect to a site just north of London, and the effect of her determination is that any land on a transport corridor located between, for example, a motorway and a village, even if it is currently in the green belt, will be considered to be grey belt for the purposes of developability. That will clearly have a significant impact in similar situations in locations with a significant heritage element that are close to railways, motorways and other such transport networks that would potentially, from a developer point of view, benefit from swifter development without a consultation being undertaken. However, from the perspective of local residents and the wider community concerned about heritage and land use, they are losing the opportunity to have this.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I rise to speak either against the clause or in favour of amendment 7, which is in my name. I am not sure which, but I am sure you can advise me, Ms Jardine. We have significant concerns about the clause, and I will spend a few minutes on them as it is, perhaps, more serious than it first appears. The clause would disapply the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent and notices for works on land of archaeological importance from Transport and Works Act projects.
Our heritage has benefitted from protection under criminal law since Lord Avebury in the Liberal Government brought in the Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. The Act provides that anyone who damages a monument commits an offence punishable by imprisonment
“with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”.
That protection, and much of the wording in that Act, has survived, and the relevant wording remains in the main and principle Acts for listed buildings: the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. My suggestion is that this is not the time to remove such strong statutory protection and criminal sanction from measures to protect ancient monuments and listed buildings.
I appreciate that the Government, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, say that the approach is similar, but not as wide as the Planning Act 2008 approach, which the Minister has mentioned, and I fully understand the single consenting regime objective. It would be narrower in some ways because, in the proposed Transport and Works Act approach, it could be possible to be more selective about which measures are disapplied. However, the Planning Act 2008 approach is very different, because regulations made under it enshrine those same legal tests that go back decades—and, in some cases, centuries—so that they remain on the statute book and applicants under that Act still must comply with them.
If our country’s heritage is worthy of protection under criminal law, as the Liberal Democrats believe that it is, the same tests should surely be applied under the Transport and Works Act as under other legislation. Those are long-standing tests. In relation to listed buildings, the wording that many in the sector will know is that we must have
“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest”.
Those words ring down the years. For scheduled ancient monuments, the requirement was to have regard to the “desirability of preserving” the scheduled monument or its setting and, in conservation areas,
“to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”
Those are familiar words that, as I say, ring through legislation over many years. They should not be removed from the Transport and Works Act process altogether, which this clause would do. These are central principles of heritage protection that have lasted decades, if not centuries. The Government may point out that, as they say in the explanatory notes, section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains in place, which provides:
“An application for listed building consent shall, without any direction by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority in any case where the consent is required”.
Although that section is referred to, it does not apply here, because consent is not required. All the requirements for consent are disapplied by the clause in this Bill, so there would be no recourse to consent under that route.
Our recommendation is that the important statutory tests be repeated in the legislation for Transport and Works Act projects, just as they are for all other projects, including in regulations made under the Planning Act 2008.
Many heritage organisations share our concerns. The National Trust says:
“We have serious concerns regarding the scope of Clause 37 of the Bill which seeks to disapply existing heritage regimes. This clause enables Transport and Works Act 1992 orders to disapply authorisation”
for listed buildings, and so on. It continues,
“we have strong concerns about the possible disapplication of heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill.”
The Heritage Alliance has stated:
“Until greater clarity and detail is forthcoming from government, we continue to have significant concerns regarding its potential to cause…unintended harm to heritage assets.”
Even the Government’s own agency, Historic England has said:
“Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention…In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present”
in legislation. It goes on:
“The clause, as currently proposed, would therefore result in a weakening of heritage protection.”
It concludes that
“the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection.”
In short, we are very concerned about the removal of such long-standing legal protections for our heritage. In our view, they must be put back on the statute book in one way or another.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Let me go over some of the points I have made to reinforce them, but also to respond directly to the challenges raised.
I think the principle of the one-stop-shop DCO process for major infrastructure is accepted as a beneficial aspect of the NSIP regime. We think allowing Transport and Works Act orders to take that holistic approach to all the consents required has merit. It would provide more certainty for applicants and ensure that some timelines and requirements were reduced, therefore benefiting the speed of the process. I very much recognise the concerns raised about heritage protections. The shadow Minister will forgive me for not commenting on a decision made by the Secretary of State, not least in the period when it is potentially still challengeable, but I note his concerns.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I urge him to consider regulations. That is the approach under the Planning Act 2008, which has worked and ensures that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to apply the same tests that local planning authorities’ inspectors and the Secretary of State have to apply under the 2008 Act. They have to apply their central and historical tests—ironically they are historical tests for historic parts of our heritage and should be retained. We strongly urge the Government to consider regulation in that regard. I am grateful that he has indicated he will consider that, no doubt among other options. We believe it should be statutory. On the basis of the assurance given, we will not press the matter to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We will certainly go away and reflect, because it is broadly our intention to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is brought into line with other consenting regimes, not least the Planning Act regime and how that operates in respect of some of these protections. I commit to give him an answer by Report stage, either in terms of changes we think are necessary or reassurance that we do not think changes are necessary. One way or another, I will get him a clear answer on his, as I said, fair and reasonable challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 38
Deemed consent under marine licence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 38 allows Transport and Works Act orders to include a deemed marine licence for projects in UK waters, where a separate authorisation is currently required. That removes the need for a separate application to the Marine Management Organisation, or MMO. It allows for a single process, again similar to the Planning Act 2008, which already allows deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the MMO before applying, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.
The MMO will continue to enforce marine licence conditions under existing powers. This is another change that we believe creates efficiencies and removes duplication. As I have said, it aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas. A streamlined approval process will save time and costs for applicants while maintaining important environmental safeguards. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition wholly understand the intention behind clause 38, but I want to ask the Minister a quick question. How will enforcement responsibilities be co-ordinated to prevent confusion between the MMO and other authorities involved in Transport and Works Act orders? I accept that the core of the Bill, for good or bad, is to streamline and ensure the Government deliver their objectives quicker than at present, but can the Minister reaffirm that he is wholly assured, in line with his officials’ advice, that streamlining the process will not compromise environmental protections?
Matthew Pennycook
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. In terms of enforcement, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if consent is granted under the Transport and Works Act, any breaches of marine licence will continue to be dealt with by the Marine Management Organisation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Authorisation of applications by local authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 39 removes the requirement that exists at present for a second local authority resolution after submitting a Transport and Works Act application, making the process faster and simpler. Currently, local authorities must achieve a majority vote from their local authority members both before and after submission of an application. Key stakeholders told us during the development of the Bill that the second resolution is unnecessarily bureaucratic and causes delays. Removing it will cut red tape and speed up transport projects. This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We agree with the Government on clause 39. However, if local authority members need to give a majority vote on the first round, it makes the Minister’s claim that the measure will reduce bureaucracy seem a tad overstretched. We will not press the clause to a Division, but circumstances do change between the first and the second resolution. With great respect to the Minister, it is a bit of a stretch to say that simply not putting the second resolution on the agenda of a full council meeting or committee will overwhelmingly reduce bureaucracy. On that point, as well as on the slight undermining of transparency, we seek reassurance from the Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. In no way am I implying that in a committee meeting, the process of putting hands up on another vote is itself onerous. What are onerous are the delays that can be caused by the need simply to reaffirm a vote that has already taken place. The Government think this is a simple and proportionate change to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is modernised appropriately.
As I hope the Committee saw this morning, the Transport and Works Act, which is over 30 years old, needs to be brought up to date and into line with other consenting regimes. Clause 39 deals with just another example of an element of that Act that requires addressing. All interested parties in a Transport and Works Act project will be able to make representations as they do now—the process will continue as it does now, but without the need for the second resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Extension to Scotland of certain amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
This is another example of the way in which the Transport and Works Act needs to be tidied up, because there are currently unnecessary legal duplications. We want to address those, and that is what clauses 40 and 41 do. Previous regulations under the Act applied only to England and Wales. That created dual versions of certain Transport and Works Act provisions —one for England and Wales, and another for Scotland. Clause 40 removes the duplication by extending provision to Scotland so that there is only one consistent version of the text. This is a simple procedural fix. Scotland does not use the Transport and Works Act, so the change has no practical impact there. It simply ensures clearer legislation with no unnecessary duplication.
Reducing duplication makes the law clearer and easier to apply, and simpler to understand for all applicants. It also reduces complexity for legal and policy teams, making future updates faster and more efficient. This supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport laws.
Clause 41 provides a power to make amendments to primary and secondary legislation that are necessary to maintain the effect of that legislation in consequence of clauses 30 to 40. The power cannot be used to implement changes in policy or make amendments for reasons unrelated to clauses 30 to 40; its purpose is simply to ensure consistency. If any changes are needed to primary legislation that already exists or is made in this parliamentary Session, the relevant regulations will need approval from both Houses. If any changes are needed to secondary legislation, the negative procedure will apply. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Fees for applications for harbour orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 42 amends the Harbours Act 1964 to enable fees for processing harbour empowerment and revision orders to be levied on the basis of hours of time deployed on any particular application, rather than on the basis of average costs. This is part of a package of measures that Government are taking to strengthen performance in the handling of harbour order applications, especially in England, after a backlog built up over recent years.
Relevant Departments, along with the Marine Management Organisation itself, are further addressing these challenges through various administrative initiatives alongside this provision. The clause applies to England, Scotland and Wales, consistent with the territorial extent and application of the original Harbours Act. The Bill does not determine the overall level of fees; there will be full consultation of ports before fees are altered by regulations.
Provisions for the new system of setting fees will come into effect two months from Royal Assent. To ensure that fees can still accompany harbour orders before regulations are made, the provision repealing the current power to determine fees will be commenced by regulations. The new fees system will take precedence over the current system upon the commencement of this clause, meaning that there is no practical need for the previous regime to be switched off for the new fees regulations to be made.
However, following discussion with the devolved Governments, a decision on the desired timing for this repeal in Scotland will be necessary. The Secretary of State would, as a routine matter, make the commencement order at a date chosen by Ministers in the devolved Government.
The clause further supports the Government’s growth and clean energy missions by improving the efficiency of harbour order processing, which will support our wider objective of improving transport consenting processes. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Installation of electric vehicle charge points
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 43 will remove the need for a section 50 street works licence when installing electric vehicle charge points on a public road, and instead allow applicants to apply for street works permits. Applying for a street works licence is costly, and it can take a long time for an application to be approved. The lengthy process of having to apply for a street works licence to install charge points on a public road is delaying the roll-out of this essential infrastructure.
The licence application process has previously been identified by installers as a significant barrier to installation. The application process and associated costs for those licences also vary greatly between highway authorities. On average, each street works licence can cost between £500 and £1,000 and take 12 weeks or longer to obtain. As a result, installing apparatus can be a lengthy and costly process, hindering the efficient roll-out of electric vehicle charge point infrastructure.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the Minister’s comments on clause 43. As we enter the world of net zero and increasing green travel, we need to have the infrastructure in place, so we support the Government’s attempts to make that easier. Whether I think electric cars are the future is not within the scope of clause 43—I declare an interest, in that I do not. I think we need to invest in other areas and that, eventually, we will see that the infrastructure simply cannot be delivered in the way that it needs to be, but that is for another day. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy, who is doing his work in secret at the back of the Chamber, is shaking his head at me. We will have a chat in the Tea Room afterwards about how we should be investing in hydrogen instead of electric cars—but, as I say, that is outside the precepts of this clause. I will get back to the clause.
What safeguards are in place to ensure that EVCPOs meet their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to road reinstatement? I do not mean to dumb down this argument, but we have all had emails coming to our office about this: when road repair and utility companies do works, they are not often joined up. They are not often communicated to local people properly, and, when a local authority gives permission for works to be done by different utility companies, they are not often done in conjunction. An area of the road is dug up, then another organisation comes along and digs it up, and they do not put the roads back properly. Can the Minister outline whether, under current legislation, he is satisfied about that?
Companies being allowed to make these changes with reduced bureaucracy and at increased speed is welcome, but we need to make sure that local authorities use their responsibilities properly so that the consumer and the public are not put in the frustrating situation, which we have all seen before, of disruption and a lack of co-ordinated effort when utilities and other companies do works in local areas.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for speaking to this clause, and I am pleased to say that the Liberal Democrat Benches are keen to support it. I am also pleased to agree with the Conservative spokesperson on this, although I was disappointed to hear that his preferred method of transport involves hydrogen, rather than joining me on my bicycle, which I very much enjoyed riding in his constituency a couple of months ago.
It is important that we do everything we can to support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is essential to our goals on air quality and climate change. The United Kingdom has a long way to go, with just 20% of vehicle sales last year being electric, compared with 90% in Norway. Hopefully, these measures will help us to close the gap.
I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that this will not undermine the requirements to make sure that street works are done professionally and repaired with full competence. For any Members with an interest in the subject, the Transport Committee is doing a detailed inquiry into it. Hon. Members are right to point out that that is often a major source of frustration for our constituents. I am very pleased to support this clause.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I strongly support the clause and was really glad to see that the Electric Vehicle Association England welcomes the change. It will make it easier, cheaper and faster to install public chargers for EVs.
There is a battery assembly plant run by JLR in my constituency. We are making more components for electric vehicles, but my constituents find it really difficult to make the jump to invest in an electric vehicle, because there are just not enough electric vehicle charging points in the town centres around my constituency. Anything that makes it easier and removes the blockages will be extremely helpful.
I echo some of the points made by the Opposition spokespeople. We must make sure that the charging points are installed carefully and thoughtfully, which means taking into account the pavement requirements of pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or using wheelchairs. Will the Minister explain how that will be taken into account?
I definitely welcome this change, and it is a huge step forward. Particularly in more rural constituencies like mine, people need to be able to drive their electric vehicles in and out of town centres for work, and to be able to charge them.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I support giving consumers choice and making it easier to install electric car charging points. This will be a massive help for people in flats—if they want to make the switch to an EV and cannot charge their vehicle at home, the more public charging points there are, the better—but we need to think about it carefully.
My constituents are fed up with multiple utility companies digging up the roads willy-nilly—sometimes, the same stretch of road. There does not seem to be any logic behind where roadworks will be, and multiple roadworks happen at the same time.
We need to issue guidance. If utility companies, councils and other authorities are going to install loads of charging points, it needs to be done in a logical way. What work are the Government doing with all the different companies and operators in this space? We do not want to see consumers turning up to different charge points that all have different connectors. We need to make this as easy as possible for the consumer, no matter what car they drive.
I reiterate that we cannot just dig up roads willy-nilly. What discussions are the Government having with the companies in this space to make it as easy as possible for consumers to access charge points?
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these proposals. This is a major reform that will allow the Government to speed up the delivery of vital electric vehicle infrastructure, to deliver on our climate targets and ensure that we can meet the growing demand for electric vehicles.
I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, on the future of electric vehicles. The Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-investment. Electric vehicles are the future, and they are going to create jobs.
Paul Holmes
I resist the temptation to say that the hon. Gentleman is picking me up on every point in this Committee. At no point did I say that I do not think we should have cleaner energy or better, cleaner and greener vehicles. I happen to think that the investment that is needed to bring the infrastructure up to scratch, alongside the emissions caused by the technology that is used in the creation of these electric cars, means that we need to diversify and find other ways to have cleaner cars.
In no way should the hon. Gentleman interpret my words as being anti-business. In fact, other areas, particularly the hydrogen sector, will deliver much more business investment in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and in his constituency of Basingstoke, through the proposals coming forward with the energy companies in the Solent.
Luke Murphy
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I do not disagree. Instavolt, one of the largest public electric vehicle rapid charging network providers in my constituency of Basingstoke, fully supports these proposals.
The reason why I think the Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-jobs is that businesses are crying out for certainty—they want certainty about the transition, not big question marks about the future. I support the removal of the need for a street works licence under section 50, which will cut down on paperwork and costs. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth on accessibility, but I support this proposal, which will allow us to speed ahead and build a world-leading charging network.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I echo the points made by other colleagues: I absolutely support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is more likely due to this change. To be clear, I think local authorities will welcome it. They have long been frustrated by the current framework, which means that as they seek to roll out electrical vehicle charging points they are met with a planning system that prevents them from doing so at the necessary scale. Clause 43 removes the burden from local authorities and also from individuals, who often want to purchase an electric vehicle but think twice because being able to get a charging point in the convenience of their individual home is too difficult.
Finally, the point about cost is important. When we speak to companies that manufacture vehicle charging points, they are clear that the number of installations helps them to reduce the cost per head. This measure will mean that it becomes easier to install at a faster pace, with the hope that the overall cost will be reduced. I support the measure and think it will be a crucial step in this Labour Government’s important mission to reach net zero.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the broad support on both sides of the Committee for the intended purpose of the Bill, which will mean that companies installing EV charge points can do so, as I have argued, using permits available online across England, and will no longer have to apply for costly licences, which can take several months to obtain, via a range of different local authority processes. That will speed up the installation of on-street EV charge points and help local authorities to co-ordinate works with other roadworks. I think the use of that digital platform will help local authorities to have an overview of all the installations taking place in their areas.
A number of points have been made. The hon. Member for Broxbourne raised the issue of street works and digging up roads. While I take his point, there is a difference between the installation of EV charging networks and general utilities works, and there is more that can be done to manage that process. If he will allow me, because it is a slightly separate issue, I am more than happy to set out for him in writing what the Government are doing on that particular point.
In general, however, the concerns I have heard relate to safeguards. There is a separate point about whether members of the Committee believe that the existing statutory requirements are fit for purpose or need to be reformed, but I want to make clear that this clause will ensure that the statutory requirements that are in place continue to apply to EV charge point installers. We are not losing any of the existing safeguards, including guidance and safety codes, so the inspections and reinstatements will continue to apply and installers will be obligated to keep their apparatus in working order. In addition, existing regulations already require installers to provide annual reports to the Secretary of State on the reliability of their network, and investigatory powers and sanctions are available to deal with non-compliance.
In relation specifically to pavement access, EV charge point operators will still need to comply with the safety code of practice, which sets out the requirements to ensure access while works are taking place. I can give hon. Members assurance on that point. I hope I have set out that existing statutory requirements will continue to apply, so no safeguards are lost; in moving from a street works licence to a permit, we are just ensuring that we can make it far easier for charge point operators to roll out vital infrastructure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Fees for planning applications etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 39—Surcharge on planning fees.
Matthew Pennycook
We turn to part 2 on planning, chapter 1 of which relates to local planning decisions. Clause 44 seeks to introduce, through regulations, the sub-delegation of planning fees to local planning authorities. It is an important change, and we feel it needs to be made. We know that a lack of capacity and resources in local planning authorities and among statutory consultees leads to delays in decision making and in the delivery of housing and economic growth.
I hope the Committee is aware of the changes that the Government are making, outside the scope of the Bill, to enhance local authority capacity and capability. The Chancellor has announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. On 27 February, the Government announced funding to support salaries and complying graduate bursaries to help with our commitment to appoint 300 new planning officers in local planning authorities. We have made changes, through regulations, to increase planning fees for householder and other applications, with a view to providing much needed additional resources for hard-pressed local planning authorities. More broadly, the Department’s established planning capacity and capability programme is delivering a wider package of support.
For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally, and they are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2023-24, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £362 million per year. It means that local authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service to developers and investors.
Clause 44 will tackle the problem by enabling local planning authorities to set their own planning fees and charges to cover their costs. It will do that by allowing the Secretary of State, through regulations, to sub-delegate the setting of planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. Allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees is the most effective way to increase resources in a manner that responds to the individual circumstances of each local authority. It will help to address capacity issues in the planning system by ensuring that planning authorities are adequately funded to deliver vital services.
We are also introducing safeguards to ensure that the fees are reasonable and directly invested in improving planning performance, and that they are not used to fund other council services. Planning fee charges will not be able to exceed the cost to local planning authorities in determining a planning application. That will prevent disproportionate or unjustifiably high fees being set. That is an important point, because one of the concerns we have had is about the ability, without the provision being in place, of local authorities that do not want to see development to set extremely high fees to deter applications. To ensure transparency, local planning authorities will also be required to consult on any fee increases and publish evidence to justify the fees that they charge. Finally, and most importantly, income received from planning fees will be ringfenced, as I have said, so that it can only be used in the determination of planning applications.
Clause 44 is another crucial step towards a more responsive and efficient planning system. I hope we can all support it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Government new clause 39 seeks to introduce a new sustainable funding model for the statutory consultee system. Alongside local planning authorities, statutory consultees play an important role in the planning system, providing expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to ensure good decision making.
However, it is a concern that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. The concerns expressed by local planning authorities and developers about the operation of the system are wide-ranging. They include statutory consultees failing to engage proactively, taking too long to provide advice, re-opening issues that have already been dealt with at a plan-making stage, submitting automatic holding objections that are all too often withdrawn at a late stage in the process, and frequently issuing holding responses that allow statutory deadlines to be met while seeking over-specific levels of information from developers over long timeframes. All of those concerns can cause substantial delay and uncertainty for applicants.
The Government are determined to return the statutory consultee system to meeting its goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making. In March, I set out a number of steps that we are taking to achieve this in England, including ensuring that the statutory consultee system works to support development and economic growth, limiting the instances in which statutory consultees should be consulted, changing the performance management of statutory consultees and, finally, developing a model to support sustainable funding.
The new clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply a surcharge to planning application fees. This would apply to development that is permitted by local planning authorities, and to other bodies that are able to charge planning fees under the Bill. It will be used to fund bodies, such as statutory consultees, that provide advice and ancillary support that enables good decision making.
Through regulations, we will develop detailed proposals that will establish the level at which any surcharge would be set, and the types of planning application it should be applied to. In doing so, we will be highly conscious of the need to balance the burdens that we are placing on developers with the benefits that will accrue to them through a more effective and efficient planning application system. We will consult on such proposals before any regulations are introduced.
I note that statutory consultees can already generally secure payment for voluntary pre-application work, and that will continue to be the case. A new funding mechanism for statutory consultees, alongside the sub-delegation of planning fees, as per clause 44, will allow us to address capacity and resourcing issues, and support a faster and better quality decision making process. On that basis, I urge the Committee to support the clause and the new clause.
David Simmonds
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley wants to raise some points, but I want to ask a couple of slightly technical questions.
The first relates to clause 44(6), on directions in relation to planning fees. The publication of a schedule of planning fees is part of the statutory council tax-fixing process, which every local authority is required to undertake. As we hear from our residents, that generally takes place in February and comes into effect at the start of the following financial year. If a local authority publishes its proposals, as the Minister described in respect of cost recovery, it needs to be confident that any change—in the form of a direction from the Secretary of State—will come in a timely manner that enables further consultation so that the lawful council tax fixing can occur. What provisions will be in place to ensure that any objection from the Secretary of State will come in a timely manner?
My second slightly technical question is this. My experience of planning authorities is that there is huge variation in their cost bases. That partly reflects a shortage of staff, but it also reflects different local arrangements. An authority with large numbers of householder applications may use an outsourced service to process them at a relatively low cost. However, if senior, experienced, in-house planning officers are responsible for managing all planning applications, that will significantly increase the cost. Neither of those things is illegitimate; each is a manifestation of the democratic decision making of elected politicians about what is appropriate for their community.
It would be helpful to understand what process the Secretary of State will go through in determining what a reasonable level of planning fees is. For example, will she consider the requirement for specialist input at a technical level because there is a significant amount of radon gas, which is found in certain challenging sites because of their topographical nature? Whether there is a requirement for remediation and specialist consultancy will be critical to a proper assessment of that planning application. Other local authorities may have development opportunities of a different nature. Will the Minister set out his thinking on that? That would be enormously helpful.
Rachel Taylor
When the Committee met the witnesses a week or so ago, we touched on section 106 agreements and the role of planning authority lawyers in that process. I think that the fees for processing and determining applications include the process for agreeing a section 106 agreement. Is it the Government’s intention to include costs arising from the legal department’s time and efforts in determining those applications in the ringfenced planning application fees? I am aware that there is a severe shortage of qualified and experienced property lawyers in both local authorities in my constituency, as well as a shortage of planning officers.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support the thrust of clause 44. For a very long time, we Liberal Democrats have called for local authorities to be free to set their own fees for planning applications, so we welcome the approach.
I seek a couple of clarifications from the Minister. Does clause 44 refer to planning applications and not to listed building consent? I think we all share a desire to keep listed building applications free of charge, so will the Minister let us know about that in due course? Local authorities are struggling for funding. In my own Somerset council, £2 out of every £3 of council funding is spent on care for adults and children, leaving £1 out of every £3 provided by council tax for everything else, including planning, housing, enforcement and environment, so funding is crucially needed.
Somerset council has asked for the freedom and flexibility to set its own planning fees. One challenge it faces, in common with other planning authorities and planning departments, is the market rate paid to professional town planners, who frequently find that the level of remuneration in councils is worse. Will the Minister confirm that local authorities will be free to set salaries above the market rate to attract planning officers in circumstances when the market conditions make that necessary? The Minister may not wish to answer all my questions now, but I hope that he can address them at some point.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I fully support what the Government intend to do in this clause. Those of us who have worked in local authorities or have supported the development industry over many years will know that there are many occasions when statutory deadlines are not hit, reports do not go to committee at the right time to enable consent within an agreed timescale, and reports have to be deferred because they have not been written well enough by an overstretched planning department.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the arrangements that will be introduced through this legislation. Will there be a backstop for local authorities that do not put a regime in place? Will he consider allowing local planning authorities and developers to agree bespoke fees for applications to be determined on a shorter timescale? Is the use of planning performance agreements, which are currently in common use, affected by the new legislation? What performance management arrangements do the Government want local authorities to put in place to justify the fee changes?
Paul Holmes
I welcome what the Minister has to say about this clause. In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, we welcome the general gist of permitting regional variation to planning fees as a general principle. In theory, that will create opportunities for local planning authorities to set their rates at a level that works best for them. How will the Government ensure consistency and fairness in planning fees across different local planning authorities, particularly for developers operating in multiple regions? Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?
In considering the need to support local planning authorities, what support will be provided to them to accurately calculate cost recovery levels and comply with consultation and reporting requirements? Given the ever-changing and growing costs to local planning authorities, which we all recognise, how frequently will they be allowed or required to review and update their planning fees?
Luke Murphy
I, too, rise to support the measures. The Committee heard evidence from developers that they do not at all mind paying higher fees as long as they get a fast, quality service that delivers quicker and better outcomes for everyone involved.
We know that planners are absolutely vital to planning the future of our communities, the places where we will live for years to come, and they cannot do that on a shoestring. For too long, we have seen many local planning authorities unable to cover their costs, which causes delays and cuts and has led to a doom loop in the planning system. It is great that the Government plan to give control to local planning authorities, with the safeguards that the Minister has set out, to set their own fees and ensure that we can have the proactive, effective and fast planning system that we all want.
Matthew Pennycook
I will set out a couple of points in response to questions raised by hon. Members. If I miss anything, I am more than happy to follow up in writing on the technical detail, including on some issues that sit outside the scope of the clause but are pertinent.
For example, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, raised the issue of salaries that could be paid to local planning department staff. That will be a consideration for local planning authorities attracting talent. He is right that over recent years we have seen, for a variety of reasons, a bleeding out of talent, particularly to the private sector. There is a challenge in attracting the requisite skills into the public sector to ensure that we can take our planning reforms forward.
The purpose of clause 44 is to allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to delegate the power to set planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. It will be up to local planning authorities whether to set their own fees or remain on what will essentially become a default national fee rate. We will carry out a national benchmarking exercise, including engagement with local authorities, to ensure that the default rate is at an appropriate level.
For the process by which local authorities can set their own fees, if that is the route they want to take, the Bill has a number of safeguards to ensure that fees are not set too high. In the first instance, local planning authorities will be required to undertake public consultations and publish information to justify any local fees prior to their introduction. To respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that is in the process in which local planning authorities would be able to evidence particular challenges in their area that require them to have a skillset and resource base slightly different from those of other local planning authorities, but that would have to be properly justified.
For objections, there will be a process by which the Secretary of State can intervene and direct local planning authorities to amend their fees or charges when those have been set at an inappropriate level. I note the point, well made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that such directions—that intervention—would have to come at a point that allowed a local authority to ensure that the changes were made in a timely manner relative to its other financial responsibilities.
Any hon. Member is free to intervene if I have missed a point, but I hope that I have broadly reassured the Committee that the clause will provide for those who want to set their own fees—although I stress that an authority can remain on the national default rate if it wants—so that the fees can more fully reflect the cost of processing applications and thus ensure that we are providing a timely service. It is a beneficial change.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is generous in inviting interventions; I rise to make a small one. I technically ought to declare that I live in a listed building—a fairly shabby one—but that is not the only reason why I wanted to listed building consents to be free.
Matthew Pennycook
On that point I should say, although I hope this was implied, that we will set out detailed processes in the regulations. We will absolutely take into account points that have been made today. I give the hon. Gentleman my undertaking that the specific issue that he raises will be fully considered as part of that process.
Lewis Cocking
I have a question to gain clarity for local authorities. Will the Minister request local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning currently? If the increase in fees is to go into additional planning service, I would not want to see local authorities moving money out of their planning services now, and then charging additional fees so that the services still had the same budget. I hope I have explained that point sufficiently. Will he ask local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning now, to ensure that the additional fees that they will be able to charge go into additional service?
Matthew Pennycook
That is an interesting point. That would be a fairly extreme measure for a local authority to undertake but, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, it could drain its planning department budget, foreseeing that it would be able to set a fee at an appropriate rate to make up for that, and therefore in a sense evading the clear stipulation that we have here to ringfence planning fee charges to the provision of planning services. I will say a couple of things on that basis.
As I said, local planning authorities will have to consult publicly and test their fee level. As part of that, they will have to consider the benchmarking exercise that we will undertake for the default national rate—so we will have a sense of what different local authorities are charging. However, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall go away to reflect more fully on how—as I hope is clear we have been thinking today—local authorities without the best intentions might seek to game the system.
Matthew Pennycook
The final point I will make before giving way is that, were a local authority to seek to evade that ringfencing provision by reducing the amount of resource going into its planning department—a not particularly sensible route to take—and then, potentially, it were not able or allowed to charge a fair and proportionate fee set in that regard, it would come under the usual planning performance dashboard, where the Department can look at the local authority for not providing a timely service or performing appropriately. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a set of intervention powers would be available to national Government, were that the case.
It is far more likely, however, as we have heard from local authorities, that they would use the power to set local fees that reflect the cost of services, using it to bring more resource in and—generally, this is what they want to do—to start processing applications in a more timely manner than they can now.
David Simmonds
The Minister’s response has been excellent. Clearly, there will be a number of different arrangements at a local level. That should encourage us, as a Committee considering the legislation, to reflect a little further.
In the example that the Minister talked about—the behaviour of local authorities—it may not be about those who have ill intentions. Some local authorities may have a planning and building control department—although the two regimes are separate, there is great commonality of skills—while others may have outsourced one or both those functions, or have them in-house but entirely separate.
As part of the published council tax fixing, there is a requirement to set out a schedule of fees for building control. Some local authorities may choose to bundle that together, so when people put in a planning application, they pay for both; but others may do that separately. Some developers, including householders, may choose to purchase the building control privately, even though they could purchase it from the local authority. A lot of factors will determine what a reasonable cost base is. It would help if the Minister shared with the Committee some further thinking on how the Government might seek to establish a baseline, in particular in the light of potential challenges in the future by developers who feel that the level of cost at a particular spot is other than reasonable.
I press the Minister a little on how that interacts with two further points that he made. Government new clause 39 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to implement a surcharge as a percentage of a planning fee that has been set. From what I understand of what the Minister said in his commentary, that will principally be to fund the work of the statutory consultees. Clearly, the imposition of a surcharge will then form part of the planning fees that have to be part of the statutory consultation on the legislatively fixed timetable that the local authority has to follow. How will the Government ensure that that timetable is respected, so that they themselves are not subject to the challenge?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing those two points. I am more than happy to come back to the issue in more detail, but as a general point, a lot of further detail is yet to come post consultation and the regulations’ being laid. We will provide further detail then on some of the technical questions as to how the power will be implemented.
The surcharge introduced by Government new clause 39 will provide the ability to fund the statutory consultees and other bodies that provide assistance and advice in relation to the planning application process. For example, we may wish to fund training and guidance for local planning authorities so that they can better engage with statutory consultees. However, the surcharge, which, as he rightly says, comes as an additional amount on top of the fees for processing applications, is very much intended to address the particular challenges that we are facing in terms of how statutory consultees are able to engage with the process in a timely manner, so that we get that advice up front.
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little further? That is a really helpful answer in illuminating the Government’s thinking, but could he explain to the Committee how that will interact with the existing arrangements for planning performance agreements, which are very common in respect of larger-scale planning applications? Clearly, if a developer required to engage with all this wider statutory-consultee process is already entering into a voluntary agreement with the local authority to fund the process, there is a risk that that will have an impact. It risks either reducing the ability of the local authority, because that surcharge is effectively being taken by the Secretary of State, or increasing the cost base and therefore opening up the question whether the planning fees are reasonable in the first place.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things in response to that, and then perhaps, Ms Jardine, in the interests of making progress on the Bill, I will happily write to the Committee to set out further details of the operation of the surcharge.
First, on how the surcharge will be processed and distributed, it will, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, be paid by the person collecting the fee to the Secretary of State in a manner and at a time prescribed by regulations, which are forthcoming. Outside the regulations, the proceeds will then be earmarked for distribution to bodies that provide advice and assistance in the planning process, including by way of consultation responses.
Secondly, the question has been asked several times whether the Government have properly considered the cumulative impact of fees and charges—are we getting the fees right? We are very aware that the surcharge will increase the fees that are already out there—it is an additional levy in that sense—and that other measures in the Bill may already result in fee increases. I repeat that we are committed to consulting on the proposed rates and the type of application that this should apply to—not least to allow the development sector to fully engage with those proposals.
On that basis, I think it would help the Committee if I set out later—chapter and verse—how we think both the clause and the surcharge will operate, on a very practical basis, and how local authorities can understand the Government’s intent in bringing them forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Training for local planning authorities in England
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 45, page 58, line 3, at end insert—
“(c) require that any training accredited under this section includes content on—
(i) inclusive design principles in the built environment;
(ii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations 2010, with particular emphasis on the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard and the M4(3) wheelchair user standard;
(iii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010;
(d) require that all members, elected members, and officers of a relevant local planning authority who carry out any function relevant to planning undertake mandatory training comprising the content set out in paragraph (c).”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—
“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”
This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.
Clause stand part.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I did not prepare anything in advance—apologies—but I do think it is important for the Committee to consider amendment 152, tabled by an hon. Member from another party. The amendment asks the Government to consider using the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that the training provided—which is essential for those involved in planning decisions, whether elected members or officers—includes a specific focus on accessibility.
This is a really important issue. If we are to be an inclusive and equitable society, it is vital that planning decisions are made in a way that takes into account the importance of accessibility. It is also an increasing issue. We are an ageing society: in 2022, 19% of our population was over the age of 65, but in 50 years’ time that will be 27%—half as many people again. We know that disability is associated with age; we know that 45% of people over the age of 65 report a disability, and half of those disabilities are mobility-related. So, accessibility of buildings—accessibility of all the areas that come within the remit of planning decisions—is a crucial aspect.
I ask the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in amendment 152. Does he recognise the importance of these issues? Would he consider taking this away and exploring whether the clause could be amended to make this minor but important additional change, to ensure that all planning decisions going forward recognise the importance of accessibility?
Jim Dickson
Just before I speak to the amendment, I will say that I fully support what the Government are doing here. As a former member of a local authority, I have seen good training, but in other contexts I have also seen very poor training for planning committee members. I know that most local authorities have a scheme in place, which is obviously welcome, but it is variable. Having some national guidance and trialling it in legislation is extremely important.
My point on the amendment is that accessibility is vital. I hope it will appear in guidance that the Department produces further to the legislation. We might wish to see a whole range of other considerations in that guidance, too, but I hope this one will be in there. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that these important issues will be included in guidance. He might make the case that it is much better to have them in guidance because it can be changed regularly, rather than in primary legislation, which is changed via a much more torturous process. It would be interesting to have the Minister’s insights on the full range of the guidance.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to see this clause. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, we changed the council constitution to do exactly what the Government are trying to do here. I want to know how many local authorities will be affected, because I know that many of them already have mandatory training for planning committees in their constitution.
What I have not seen in the Bill is how often council officers will be required to carry out the training—will it be once per term of office, which means once every four years, or annually? I cannot seem to find any detail on when elected councillors will be required to do the training. I would like the Minister to comment on what he envisages as a workable interval. Obviously the training has to be timely, because there are always changes to the national planning policy framework and local plans, but not too exhaustive, so that councils can still make planning decisions.
The Minister speaks about speeding up planning decisions. I would not want councils to fall into the trap of not having enough people with the right certificate, and the right training at the right time, to carry on their quasi-judicial function of planning. I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Rachel Taylor
Amendment 152 is well intentioned and sets out a number of matters that planning authorities should take into account when organising training. There are also other aspects of the planning process to consider, including how we make better provision for electric vehicles. The last major piece of planning legislation from 1990—it has endured for 35 years—is very prescriptive about the content of training for members and officers, but it will be extremely difficult to encapsulate everything that is needed.
I certainly think that the requirements for people with disabilities and for climate and nature are sometimes conflicting. I have seen a number of planning schemes where trees are put in the middle of the road or pavement. Although those environments look nice, they do not accommodate people with disabilities, such as sight or mobility problems.
We have to adapt as things move on, and this is exactly the sort of thing that I would ask the Minister to consider in guidance that could be regularly updated, as opposed to it forming part of the Bill. I certainly support the amendment’s intention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for tabling it.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support amendment 152. The Liberal Democrats have a similar measure on the amendment paper, new clause 11, which also refers to the accessibility of housing. We are pleased to support this amendment, and we support training for planning authorities in general. In the Minister’s summing up, can he address the concern of some organisations that, as well as accessibility, the training needs to include conservation and heritage?
Paul Holmes
Clause 45 relates to mandatory planning training, which is long overdue. It could be a huge benefit to local planning authorities to have trained planning committee members.
When many members of the public—and many Members of Parliament—saw the mandatory training element of the Bill, they probably shouted, “Oh good God, thank you!” There is a massive variation in the outcomes of planning committees, as we will come to in debates on other clauses where we disagree with the Government on planning committees. To strengthen planning committees and ensure that they all perform—and that members of planning committees perform to the best of their ability and are trained to make the complicated decisions that local planning authorities and committees have to make—is a good thing.
I declare an interest that, as a former chair of a planning committee at Southampton city council for two and a half years, I really enjoyed the training. The planning training at the time, when the council was under Conservative control—I will say that it does it now under Labour too—was automatically given to newly elected councillors on the committee. It was exemplary.
Councillors could not pick and choose whether to go. Instead, the council very clearly said from an early stage, “If you do not attend this training, we will not defend any decision that you make, and we will not put you on the planning committee, despite the best wishes of group leaders from all parties.” That is a commendable approach, and one that I know other local authorities also take.
Planning decisions are sometimes the most user-friendly decisions that are made; although they are not necessarily the most important, they are where a local resident will have the most interaction with their local authority. Apart from when a bin is not collected—or, in a unitary or county council, when someone is going through problems with education or an education, health and care plan—planning decisions are the bread and butter of the public facing element for locally elected politicians.
Later in Committee, we will talk about how the Opposition feel that the Government are trying to take some of those responsibilities away, but the precept of this provision to allow locally elected councillors to have the best training that could possibly be provided, so that they make decisions that they are proud to stand by and are legally defensible on appeal, is long overdue and is of huge benefit to local authorities. We welcome clause 45.
On Government amendment 49, the Minister may forgive me a slight rant. I absolutely agree with this amendment on mineral planning authorities. I suggest that officers and managers of highways authorities, particularly those in Hampshire, should also undergo some training, given how woefully Hampshire county council officers have dealt with a mineral extraction facility in Hamble in my constituency. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that in his semi-judicial capacity, but I can because I do not have those responsibilities.
Locally elected councillors, who should make the decision and have had the proper training, refused Cemex’s application. When it came to appeal, local planning officers removed the rug from under people’s feet by refusing to defend that decision, so the local community has had to find £75,000 to try to defend it—thank God for the constituents of Hamble who are defending it. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that case, and I am being slightly facetious, but perhaps we need an audit of the way that officers engage their responsibilities as mineral and waste planning authorities. Other Committee members are aware of the case in Hamble, and, although I will not ask them to speak on it, I know they will be sympathetic to my call.
I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for moving amendment 152 on behalf of the hon. Member for Shipley. It is well intentioned, but it would create a burden that is already met by national equality and planning legislation, as well as local authority planning guidance and locally set planning regulations. This is a slight role reversal, but I hope that the Minister will agree—I am not writing his lines for him—that accepting the amendment would create more bureaucracy for councillors on planning committees.
There is already provision, through national guidance, national legislation and local guidance, to ensure that developments are accessible and that accessibility is at the forefront of any proposed development. The Opposition do not support the amendment, because we believe that we have made great advances over recent decades in ensuring that developments are accessible and that local authority members and planning officers take very seriously their responsibilities when it comes to accessibility in the planning system.
I wholly welcome clause 45, which is a great thing for the empowerment of local authority councillors. It will bring councillors, their constituents and their residents closer together. Some of the most difficult decisions that I had to defend in my time as a councillor were those I took on planning applications as chair of the planning committee, particularly on the big blue IKEA in Southampton, which other hon. Members might have been to. Yes, I did that—I am looking to other Hampshire Members, who may have been there.
That decision was controversial, but I was able to defend it because I had had the training. When some of my or my committee’s decisions were challenged, I had a detailed knowledge from that planning training, which officers provided, so I could be questioned at appeal and make sure that the decisions were sound. We lost a few, but we defended a few; that is the nature of local democracy. I say to the Minister that I am deeply encouraged by clause 45, which we wholeheartedly support. We do not accept amendment 152. We wholly agree with Government amendment 49.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the considered and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will set out the purpose and effect of the clause, address amendment 152 and speak about Government amendment 49.
As we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, planning is principally a local activity, because decisions about what to build and where—although not decisions about whether to build at all—should be shaped by local people. That is why we believe that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. As I have said, I have been a local councillor and sat on planning committees, as have many Committee members—the hon. Gentleman just set out his experience. Planning committees are comprised of dedicated elected members, and in most instances the decisions are well informed and robust.
It is, however, vital that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. One of the ways we want to achieve those outcomes is by ensuring that all planning committee members receive adequate training to support their important work, which can be extremely complex when it comes to certain challenging applications.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne rightly made the point that lots of local planning authorities already have some form of mandatory training in place. Data from the Planning Advisory Service suggests that more than 80% of councils do, but a percentage do not, and approaches to training vary quite widely across the country. That leads to inconsistencies in knowledge relating to planning law and in practice among planning committee members, which obviously has an impact on their ability to apply the relevant laws and policies when making planning decisions.
David Simmonds
I am struck by the Minister’s point about the need for consistency. We will all be conscious of the level of inconsistency in delegated planning decisions, which make up around 95% of decisions on planning applications. Does he have a programme in mind to achieve the level of consistency for those decisions that this measure will bring to decisions made by democratically elected members?
Matthew Pennycook
If I could probe the hon. Gentleman in turn, does he mean consistency in the decisions made by expert planning officers rather than on individual planning applications?
David Simmonds
Actually, the answer is both. We will all know of people’s experience with local authorities: they meet a planning officer to discuss a delegated planning decision and they receive advice, but when it is submitted, it is considered by a different planning officer who takes a completely different view. Given that that is how the vast bulk of planning applications are dealt with, if the Government’s aim is to bring consistency and certainty to the process—it is a laudable aim—it will be necessary to focus on the more than 90% of decisions that are already made under delegated powers, as well as this measure, which is for that small number considered by the planning committee.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a fair and reasonable point. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him to set out the Government’s thinking on that issue. If it is available—I fully expect that it will be— I will give him some sense of the level of refusals on appeal for decisions made by committees versus decisions made by expert planning officers, which I think would be relevant. In general terms, in many instances, we think that expert planning officers have the relevant expertise to make good decisions on the basis of planning law. We are trying to ensure through this clause that elected members also have that experience in place through mandatory training.
As has been rightly said, the clause is about building on existing good practice—there is very good practice out there—and ensuring that it is implemented consistently across the country. It is worth noting that mandatory training for committees was strongly supported by the sector as a whole in the responses to the planning reform working paper where we set out ideas in this space, lots of which we are taking forward.
We will introduce regulations to specify which planning functions are covered by this measure, what the training looks like—its nature and content, and how it will be delivered—and details about the certification process. Those regulations will be subject to further engagement with the sector and I will reflect on all the points that have been made today.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being very kind; he just mentioned a point that I forgot to mention. I do not expect certainty, and he has said that he is bringing forward regulations, but what work has the Department already done with organisations that may have the capacity and the desire to provide that training to local authorities?
There may be situations where a planning officer within a local authority may be confident that they can provide that training, as was provided to me, but we also had the Local Government Association and other private KCs—QCs at the time—who could be paid to provide training. How does the Minister anticipate the training will be provided and by whom? Has his Department started the work to see what parties might be interested in providing the training?
Matthew Pennycook
We have had a huge amount of engagement with the sector, both in working up the proposals and in the feedback that we have received to the planning reform working paper. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the Planning Advisory Service that already provides local authorities with support, and there are other organisations in this space that have a direct interest in planning and training. I am happy to provide him with further details if he wishes but, as I say, through the introduction of regulations, further detail will be forthcoming.
I should mention—Opposition Members will particularly enjoy this one, I think—that the Mayor of London can act as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance, so the training requirement will apply to him too.
Paul Holmes
I might as well pack up and go home— I did not hear any “hear, hears” in response to that—because the Minister has given us the best news that the Mayor of London requires planning training, after the failure of his authority to deliver the housing numbers that it wants and now the announcement that he thinks that he has carte blanche to build over the green belt with his blessing and that of the Secretary of State. I am delighted that under a Labour Government’s proposals, the Labour Mayor of London might actually learn something about planning in his authority.
Matthew Pennycook
What is there to say to that? In no way did I imply that the Mayor of London requires planning training—I think he has had extensive planning training—but the training requirement set out in this clause will apply to him, because he acts as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance.
Likewise, it will apply to mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities where they have functions corresponding to the Mayor of London conferred on them. The requirement will also apply to any persons authorised to act on their behalf, including, for example, deputy Mayors in London and other such figures. A mandatory requirement for training in planning matters will improve the overall decision-making process and decrease delays in delivery of much-needed homes and other crucial developments.
Before I turn to amendment 152, I will address a very well made point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne. Through regulations, we will set out the timing of when training is required, but he asked an important question about what happens if training is not in place when a decision is required and whether that would stall the process. As he will know, local authorities have their own codes of conduct. We trust local authorities to ensure that committees are carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations set out by the clause. We are aware of the need to ensure that undue delays are not caused, so for that reason any decision reached by members who are in breach of the measure will not be invalidated, but the requirement will still apply to local authorities. We are reliant on their code of conduct to enforce it.
Amendment 152 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and spoken to by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As other hon. Members have said, it raises the excellent point that development must form an inclusive and safe environment for everyone. We wholeheartedly agree that that is of paramount importance.
The national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible. We want to ensure that our mandatory training supports members of local planning authorities to make decisions properly, in accordance with the relevant planning policies, including those I have just mentioned, and other material considerations. That is why we will work closely with the sector to design the mandatory training.
We do not think it is necessary to specify details of all the matters covered by mandatory training in the Bill, as to do so would be exhaustive and would pre-empt the forthcoming regulations and the further detail that I have referred to. I assure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled the amendment, that we will consult on the content of the training to ensure that councillors are appropriately supported in making decisions in this area.
Gideon Amos
I invite the Minister to go slightly further. Will he say today that the regulations will include the requirement for both accessibility and heritage training?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member understandably tempts me to start to specify what will be in the training, but I will not do that. Further details will be brought forward in due course, but I have certainly heard the case made by Committee members about what the training should include in respect of accessibility and other issues.
Finally, Government amendment 49 is a minor and technical amendment that clarifies that members of mineral planning authorities should also undergo training in planning matters. Mineral sites deal with complex planning issues, so it is only right that members of mineral planning committees, acting on behalf of mineral planning authorities, should be included in the requirement to undergo relevant training.
Along with amendments 50 and 51—which we will come to shortly—this amendment clarifies the position of mineral planning authorities for the purposes of the Bill. To be clear, we want to remove any doubt as to the requirements of the Bill with respect to the training of members of mineral planning committees, and that is what this amendment achieves. For those reasons, I humbly invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw amendment 152.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—
“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.
Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Delegation of planning decisions in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 46, page 61, line 39, at end insert—
“(7) Sections 319ZZC and 319ZZD and this section apply in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a relevant mineral planning authority as if references to a relevant local planning authority were to a relevant mineral planning authority.”
This amendment has the effect that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring certain planning functions conferred on mineral planning authorities in England to be discharged by certain persons or by committees of a certain size and composition.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 51
Clause stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have set out, the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Under local government law, local authority planning decisions must be a committee function, not an executive one, and presently every council has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by the planning committee rather than delegated to officers.
While the vast majority of planning decisions for local planning authorities are made by committees— around 96%— there is some inconsistency, which can create risk and uncertainty in the system. Clause 46 therefore seeks to build on the existing approach by giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I reassure the Committee, as I have at other stages, that these measures are not about taking away democratic oversight but about spreading good practice, and there is good practice out there already.
A national delegation scheme will set out which planning functions across the country should be decided by officers and which by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set requirements around the size and composition of planning committees, so that we can have a uniform arrangement across the country as to what is effective in that regard. That will help to address some of the issues that we have identified around the operation of planning committees, which include a lack of consistency and clarity on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local development plan, or considering niche technical details including post-permission matters; and a lack of transparency on committee decisions and their consequences.
There is lots of good practice out there, and we know that in almost all instances, committees make good decisions on the basis of planning law and relevant material considerations. However, we are all familiar—in particular those of us who have served in local government and on these committees—with examples of where a development proposal was on a site allocated in the local plan, and in line with all policy expectations, but the committee refused the application against officer advice, and the subsequent appeal was upheld, unnecessarily costing the local authority significant sums of money and creating delay.
Paul Holmes
Does the Minister not understand that local plans are usually formed by an administration and executive of the council, and that it is up to local ward members who may be affected by appointed or adopted sites within that local plan, and who feel that they want to have a say, to request that that is called in? If a planning committee decides that it should not go ahead, that is their decision. Does he not see that there is a separation between the power of the executive to meet the guidelines that the last Government and his Government have set out, and the willingness and ability to allow the planning committee to make decisions, even if it is on sites that an executive has already approved in the council’s local plan?
Matthew Pennycook
A number of points here are worth pulling out. We have just discussed on mandatory training the need to ensure that all elected members across the country who serve on committees are cognisant of planning law and other considerations to which they must adhere.
I would gently press back. We know there are instances where committees take a decision on allocated sites against officer recommendation, out of line with planning law and those considerations, because it is easy to do so in certain instances—they might be responding to pressure from the gallery. I have had direct experience of that. It is deemed a cost-free decision to refuse an application on that basis, but it is not cost-free to the local authority and it introduces unnecessary cost and delay, and all the burdens that come with appeals.
Lewis Cocking
Does the Minister recognise the other side of that coin? There are examples, and I can give him some from my local authority, of where officers recommend a planning application for approval, the committee turns it down, it goes to appeal and the planning inspector has agreed with the committee. It is not one size fits all; there are two sides to the argument and there will be examples of both. This measure puts a lot of trust in, and gives even more power to, planning officers.
Matthew Pennycook
It does, and we think that is right. We think we should trust and empower expert planning officers. The appeals process will remain in force. I recognise the scenario the hon. Gentleman outlines. Local planning officers do not get every decision right. To gently challenge him, he is making the case for no scheme of delegation at all. Schemes of delegation are in place across the country. We are not saying that we do not trust expert planning officers to make the decisions on any applications. We trust them in lots of local authorities to make lots of decisions. As I said, 96% of applications go through planning officers.
There are two issues at play here, which we will perhaps draw out in the debate. We should be honest about them. Members may reasonably take the view that there should simply be no national scheme of delegation—that providing that consistency on the basis of a uniform national arrangement is wrong in principle. If that is the case, I respect that decision. That is not the position of the Government. We think there is a case for a national scheme of delegation.
Then there is the detail of what should go into that national scheme of delegation. Have we got the balance right in terms of the applications that should come before planning committees and should go to planning officers? We already trust expert planning officers to make decisions on a host of delegated applications across the country. The problem is there is huge variation in how those local schemes of delegation apply.
Lewis Cocking
In the current scenario, local planning authorities can go through their own scheme of delegation, and if there are lots of objections or a significant public interest, they can determine that instead of doing it through the scheme of delegation, they can bring it to the planning committee, which they will not be able to do under the national scheme of delegation.
Matthew Pennycook
I refer back to my point: the hon. Gentleman may take the view, which is a perfectly coherent and respectable view, that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. That is not the Government’s view, because we think there are significant advantages to be had from introducing greater consistency and certainty about what decisions go to a committee, so we can have a uniform approach across the country.
Rachel Taylor
Does the Minister agree that very often the controversial decisions that go to planning committees and are declined by them, leading to an appeal, result in higher council tax for residents, because of the huge cost of appeals, reviews and so on? A national scheme of delegation, where it is clear which decisions can be made under delegated authorities and which cannot, will therefore simplify the process for developers, remove the delays and costs for them, and keep costs down for local residents.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not a cost-free decision to refuse an application where a committee does so on grounds that are not robust. That does not apply in the vast majority of instances. As I say, most committees are comprised of elected members who are diligent, considerate and aware of the risks. Through the mandatory training that we have just discussed, we are trying to get to a situation where elected members are trained and are more cognisant of planning law and the considerations they have to take forward. We want to ensure that there is consistency across the country.
As I say, there are two issues at play here. Some Members may take the view that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. If Members do not take that view, which is not the Government’s view, the debate that we should be having, and will have—as I said on Second Reading, we will bring forward details, so that we can consider them alongside the Bill—is what the most appropriate national scheme of delegation would be, to achieve the right balance between making sure that the most controversial, major applications come before committees and entrusting expert planning officers to make other decisions.
Paul Holmes
I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to political proportionality when it comes to any future national scheme of delegation. I will give him an example. Forgive me if this is slightly out there; if so, I can write to him, or we can have a conversation in the Lobbies later.
Say a local authority was 87% made up of one party, and there was one councillor from one party and another councillor from another party. In my constituency, we have a local authority that is overwhelmingly dominated by one party. For many residents, the planning system feels like it is out of touch, because the leader creates a different committee that allows just his party to make a decision—or, in the usual planning committees, local residents do not feel like the administration’s wishes are being taken into account, because the planning committee is overwhelmingly dominated by one party.
Will the Minister please assure us that any national scheme of delegation will not exacerbate that situation where local authorities have very strong political control one way, and political decisions within the planning system are taken by an overwhelming political administration? Will he assure us that we can have future discussions about that, so that such a situation in any local authority would not be made worse by a national scheme of delegation? I hope I explained that right.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister did explain that correctly, and I recognise the challenge. I would say two things: first, I assure him that party political considerations have not factored in any way into the development of the clause. The measure that we are proposing will improve the situation in the sense that, if there are very clear rules about which applications can come before a committee and which should go to national expert planning officers, as per a national scheme of delegation, some of the potential to use specific applications that might not be the most major, controversial applications that should come before a committee, in a political way, will be removed. As I said, the detail regarding what the national scheme of delegation will entail will come forward in due course.
As I mentioned, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the size and composition of planning committees. Best practice suggests that having smaller planning committees can lead to more effective debates and decision making. We have seen some extremely large and unwieldy planning committees across the country. We want to ensure that there are, within reasonable parameters, some prescriptive views on what the most effective size is.
Our views have been tested with the sector. In response to our working paper, there was broad support for the principle of the proposals from the local government sector, and we will continue to take on feedback as we refine our detailed proposals. That will, as I said, include a formal consultation on the regulations through which the new powers will be exercised. That is a requirement imposed on the Secretary of State by the clause and must happen prior to the regulations being made.
As I said, local democratic oversight of planning decisions remains essential, but it is vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. Clause 46 is about ensuring that skilled planning officers in local authorities are trusted and empowered in their roles, while retaining important democratic oversight on those sites that local people care about most. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendments 50 and 51 are both minor and technical amendments clarifying that the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relevant planning functions to be discharged by committee, sub-committee or an officer, and regulating the size and composition of a planning committee, also apply to mineral planning authorities. As the Committee will be aware, a local planning authority is not necessarily also a mineral planning authority; it depends on if and where there is a minerals site.
Mineral planning authorities are a special type of planning authority, and it is only right and proper to include them within these provisions to ensure greater consistency and certainty within the planning system. We must be clear about which local authorities are to be caught by this clause. The amendment clarifies that mineral planning authorities, where they exist, are to be subject to the provision in the clause.
Paul Holmes
We will oppose the clause. Our reason for doing so is that this chapter of the legislation is a massive power grab and piece of centralisation. The whole Bill—in particular its planning reform elements and this clause—reeks of this Government’s centralising zeal, as I said on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
I tried to explain our point of view in my interventions on the Minister. He rightly challenged people to say whether there should be a national scheme of delegation, and Conservative Members wholly say that there should not be. I am grateful that he recognises that that is a not an opportunistic viewpoint; it is one that we sincerely believe.
Local authorities should have the power to do what they wish to do, because they are elected by their constituents and their residents. They, too, have a democratic right to exist and to undertake the responsibilities placed on them by the residents of their wards. They have a democratic right and duty to undertake those responsibilities and to participate in their accountability structures as local councillors, delegated to make decisions on behalf of their residents, and of their towns, cities and villages all over the UK.
As I said, we are concerned that the clause is just another attempt to centralise and to give the Minister and the Secretary of State the ability to build 1.5 million homes without necessarily allowing democratic checks and balances to be in place. In further amendments later in the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State actively try to take power away from local authorities and locally elected people.
Has anyone on the Labour Benches who was in a local authority—I asked this on Second Reading—been approached by their local councillors saying that they are not happy? Former council leaders and former councillors sit on this Committee, and I ask them whether councillors have told them that their own party is taking away councillors’ power and ability to speak for their residents. Members of Parliament in Committee are actively allowing that to happen if they vote for this clause to stand part.
Many local authorities are allowed to choose the way in which they do their business. That is why we do not believe that there should be a national scheme of delegation. In my own regional structures, the county council has a regulatory committee and two planning committees, and the borough council—although I have vast disagreements with how Eastleigh is managed—has local area committees that are accountable to the local wards in their localities. Such committees are actually more democratic, because different parties might represent the ward on them. When I was a councillor in Southampton, we had one planning committee that looked after everything within the authority boundary. All of that is because local authorities, through their own delegated schemes and democratic structures, pick how they wish to conduct their business. The clause will simply stop those local authorities being able to do that.
I am not talking to the Minister only about the size of the committee and the principles behind that. All the way through this clause are regulations for the Minister to lay, not only about the size and composition of committees discharging such functions, but requiring which functions are to be discharged. Local authorities already have that. We believe that local authorities should be able to decide that.
I challenged the Minister on one of his examples about local plans that are drawn up by an executive but can now be challenged by locally elected members of a planning committee. We do not see anything wrong with that. Local council members represent wards affected by local plans delivered by an executive. Whether that is an executive of the same political persuasion as the councillors who have concerns or of a different political persuasion, councillors have their rights under a local scheme of delegation.
That planning application should be able to go to a planning committee and be called in by a member under the rights that they have as a councillor. If, after its members have been trained through the excellent provision proposed by the Minister, the planning committee still decides to reject the application, that is the power and right of the locally elected councillor, and this Government are taking that right away.
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member not recognise that a local plan has to be approved by full council? That already gives every single councillor the ability to have their say at a full council meeting. Democratic oversight sits not just with local planning committees, but with different local authority functions. Democratic oversight is at its best at full council, and local plans are approved at full council, with a vote for every member.
Paul Holmes
I accept what the hon. Lady says, but I do not agree that a local ward member who may disagree with the local plan should not then have it considered in planning committee later on. Of course, a full council does meet to approve the local plan, but I go back to my original point: that is an executive decision.
Paul Holmes
It is an executive decision. An executive is required by legislation to put five-year housing land supply forward under a local plan, and a local plan is approved by full council. That work is undertaken by officers, signed off by a lead member for environment or planning under their responsibilities, and put forward to full council. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that, but why does she then say that if a ward member wants to call in a planning application that affects the constituents who elected them in the village they represent, that should not be allowed to go to a planning committee and be decided on by that committee, whether or not it is against the executive’s local plan?
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member not recognise that once a local plan is approved at full council, it is a regulatory framework that has legal standing? That is the framework on which a planning committee bases its decision. I take the point that members may want to voice a view, but in the context of a regulatory framework, all we are doing is setting people up for failure and costing taxpayers money for decisions that will be overturned on appeal.
Paul Holmes
Again, I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but it is still within the rights of the appointed planning committee to say yes or no to the detailed development proposals. Local plans talk about numbers and locations. Planning applications that go before officers but are then called in by the committee are discussed in detail: what the developments look like, how many affordable houses there are, and what roads and community infrastructure there will be. That is the right of local planning committees, and under these measures this Government will take that away.
Why does the Minister feel that he and the political leadership of his Department should say what functions should be discharged by a committee, sub-committee or officer, and what conditions local authorities should abide by? I say that that is the right of the local authority, and that a scheme of delegation drawn up through consultation by local members in a full council or a committee role should perfectly satisfy the democratic checks and accountability that local people expect.
We said earlier that one of the only ways in which people engage with their local authorities is through the decisions that their councillors make on planning applications. This Minister and this Government are potentially taking that away from a huge number of people across the country, just because they want to get their 1.5 million houses through. They are doing so based on what they think is acceptable, despite the fact that local councillors may not find it acceptable to them. That is a disgrace. This is the way in which this Government have decided to go forward on delivering their 1.5 million homes—through mandatory targets in urban versus rural areas, a national scheme of delegation, and taking power away from local planning authorities, local councillors and lead members.
The Opposition say that that is a disgrace. That is something that local members should be doing. At every sitting of this Committee and at the later stages of the Bill, we will always say that locally elected councillors should have the power and right—they have the democratic responsibility and the democratic mandate—to make local decisions for local people. This Government are taking that away. We will oppose this clause and push it to a Division, because it is simply not right for the people in this country, who elect their councillors to speak for them. Every hon. Member on the Government side of the Committee whose councillors and constituents are affected by planning decisions is effectively saying to those councillors that they are not good enough to make decisions on behalf of their ward members, and that those ward members should not be making decisions on behalf of their councils. I look forward to them explaining that at their AGMs.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak on amendments 50 and 51.
Portsmouth is a part of a minerals partnership and collaborates with Hampshire county council, Southampton city council, New Forest national park authority and the South Downs national park authority. Together, they have developed and adapted Hampshire’s minerals and waste plan. Does the Minister agree that amendments 50 and 51 will support administrative efficiency, particularly for those fully urbanised authorities such as mine in Portsmouth, where we have no or very few mineral resources to extract? Releasing such authorities from having full mineral plans and duties could reduce future duplication and free up much-needed planning resources, allowing us to work on plans that are relevant and specific to our area.
Gideon Amos
We support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, but a confrontational approach, whereby elected representatives are longer allowed to take decisions on behalf of local people, will alienate people from the planning system, create more conflict and make it harder to deliver the homes that we need. Taking powers away from local elected representatives is taking powers away from local people. So much of planning is already predetermined by national guidance and policy.
Only last Friday, I had two parish councillors at my surgery. They came to ask why Government guidance on highway planning overrides everything that they, local people and their own transport planning expert know about highway safety in their village. Those objectors wanted to support the housing scheme in Cheddon Fitzpaine, but they were asking for a previous commitment to secondary access to be honoured. The councillors were told that there would be costs of £400,000 if they did not follow Government transport planning guidance, and they had no choice but to accept the application without the road. Not for the first time, after that meeting some of my councillors came to me and said, “What is the point of being a councillor if local resources are so constrained that there is no money to provide local services?” Even on planning committee, the Government are taking away decision-making powers from local people. It is totally unacceptable.
Matthew Pennycook
This is an important point to try to tease out. The decision the hon. Gentleman has just referred to took place in an instance where, if I have understood him correctly, local residents took issue with the application of national policy and guidance on a planning decision. I do not think it is the position of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats that national policy and guidance should not exist, and that it should all be completely localised. We may have disagreements on the spectrum, but we all recognise that national frameworks should be in place in some instances. The NPPF is a good example, as are other policies and guidance.
That is why I think we should have a more rational and proportionate debate—we may disagree at the end of it—about the pros and cons of a national scheme of delegation, and, if one is in favour of it, as the Government are, what it should include. There is this idea that, at present, local authorities and local elected members can do whatever they want—that they are completely free, and their mandate gives them scope—but, no, that is not true. They are constrained in several respects. In fact, we have debated that at length in this Committee. The NSIP regime was introduced in recognition of the fact that certain applications should be determined on a national basis, not by local committees.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect and expand on why in this area, local discretion should be untrammelled—if I follow his argument—whereas in other areas he would rightly support the idea that national guidance and policy should be in place. He may differ with the content of that guidance, but local planning authorities are subject to frameworks and guidance that I think we all recognise should be in place.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, but guidance and policy are guidance and policy. We are talking about giving him and all future Ministers, of whatever party, the power to write the delegation arrangements for each local council in the country and tell them what they may or may not be allowed to decide. The difference is that national infrastructure projects are huge projects that have a national justification and are decided by an elected Secretary of State, but the Bill will forcibly delegate to an employee of a council decisions that will quite often be completely disagreed with by every single member of a council but will stand as a decision of that council. It cannot be logical.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a separate argument, but the hon. Gentleman cannot pray in aid the case that he has just cited, which was made on the basis of a national scheme of delegation not being in operation, and where his local residents just took issue with national policy and guidance, which he thinks should be in place. He has recognised, quite rightly, that elected members of the Government can take views about what national framework should be in place.
We strongly feel that there is a good case for a national scheme of delegation that does not remove, in the apocalyptic terms that the shadow Minister outlined, all decisions and all ability to input into applications from local residents, but simply sets out where appropriately elected members in committees should make decisions and where decisions should be left to expert planning officers.
Gideon Amos
I completely accept that policy and guidance exist, but there is a degree of discretion when it comes to policy and guidance. We are dealing with primary statutory legislation here, and there would be no discretion over its implementation.
I think the Minister should accept that this is not about a fluffy national scheme of delegation that we all agree with; this is about removing the right of councillors to recover decisions to democratically elected members of the council. They may not; they are not allowed to. The clause is very clear that the Local Government Act 1972 will be changed so that councillors may not recover those decisions, and they will be made by employees.
This is not about a national scheme of delegation. We could all agree on a recommended scheme and have a standard scheme of delegation. This is about the law. I am surprised that the Minister is so lightly giving all future Ministers power to deny decision making by local councils.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable argument. Does he agree that we could be having a very different debate today if the Minister and the Secretary of State had not been so heavy-handed in legislating on what local councils can do? We could be having a conversation about national guidance for planning committees. This overreach and this democratically reductive approach are the reason why the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington I are so concerned about the Government’s measures.
Gideon Amos
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, the Local Government Act will be changed so that councillors may not have permission to recover such decisions, even if every single member of the council disagrees with a decision. This would be better described not as a national scheme of delegation, but as a forced removal of planning powers from councillors.
In response to a statement in December, a number of Members from across the House challenged the idea of taking these powers away from planning committees. The Minister said that the measure would be in relation to “minor reserved matters” applications—that is from Hansard on 9 December 2024—but the clause we are presented with has no limits at all. The Secretary of State may draft regulations in relation to any relevant function, so there is no such qualification and no limitation on any future Minister or Secretary of State.
Let us look at the history of planning in this country. It began as a local system and has gradually become more and more centralised and nationalised in its approach. Surely to goodness, that is exactly what will happen again with this huge power that is being given to future Secretaries of State.
Breaking the link between elected councillors and decisions made by their councils is so anti-democratic, and it will undermine trust in politics further. Councillors are coming to me and asking me, “What is the point of being a councillor any more?” Imagine their voters’ response if councillors say that they no longer have any ability to affect a whole tranche of decisions, and what decisions they are allowed to make will be determined by Ministers in Whitehall, not by their council.
By dint of this clause, the Government’s message is, “It doesn’t matter how much you engage in the planning system. It doesn’t matter which councillors stand for election, what they stand for, what their manifestos are or who gets elected. All decision making is directed by Whitehall, and local people must keep out. They have no say over what their employees will decide at the council.”
The enforced removal of decision-making powers is completely unnecessary to sustain the granting of the permissions and consents that everyone wants in order to provide the housing that the country needs. The vast majority of planning decisions—some 97%—are already made by council officers. Councillors and committees are not blockers; they approve nine out of 10 of all applications that come before them.
Nesil Caliskan
I have heard comments about the planning system during the debate, but less focus on the fact that we have a housing crisis that has manifested itself in record numbers of people living in temporary accommodation, with young people unable to buy properties and many people priced out of the communities into which they were born and in which they live. A national housing crisis requires a national solution.
I do not believe that the proposed changes in any way hinder or damage democratic oversight from a local perspective. The reality is that with the existing framework, it is not possible to deliver planning approvals at the scale that is required to meet the national housing crisis, and a national delegation will help to speed up delivery. We cannot simply depend on a handful of brave councillors who too frequently find themselves in the firing line of decision making for schemes that it is clear to everybody should already have been approved.
I hear what Members say about local authorities, and what the LGA has said. However, the LGA is also clear about the housing crisis our communities are experiencing. The national scheme of delegation gives clarity not only to local authorities and planning officers, but to the industry that we so depend on to be able to build homes up and down the country. The scheme will also speed up processes. The speed at which planning permissions could be granted means that developers are more likely to put bricks on the ground and build homes. It is about recognising the severity of the housing crisis in this country and its impact on millions of people, and choosing whether one is willing to take action to address that need.
Ellie Chowns
I absolutely recognise that we have a housing crisis in this country, but does the hon. Lady recognise, in turn, that it is not just a question of building our way out of the housing crisis? Does she recognise that we have nearly 1 million empty homes in this country, that we have an incredibly unequal housing system, and that financial mechanisms such as the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages had a huge effect in making our housing system even more unequal and unaffordable for many people? Does she recognise that a key part of resolving the housing crisis has to be for Government to take a more direct role in funding the development of more genuinely affordable social rented housing?
Nesil Caliskan
I recognise a number of those points, but supply of housing is the fundamental reason why we have a housing crisis in this country. The amendments being proposed sit alongside many of the solutions that she is seeking. Without our ability as a country, including local authorities, to see housing delivered at the necessary speed, we will never see the number of affordable homes we need or a buy-to-let market being constrained in the way that it needs to be. Supply is the No. 1 reason why we are experiencing a housing crisis. We cannot deliver the number of homes we need without fundamentally looking at the planning system.
Finally, on councillors having their say, the idea that councillors run for public office only because they want to sit on a planning committee—it sounded as if a number of Members were insinuating that—is, I am afraid, a little out of touch. There are lots of ways in which local authorities and councillors can make a difference. Planning committees are indeed one of the most attractive committees, but there are multiple layers of regulatory policy in a local authority that members not only can have a say on, but get to vote on. Earlier, I referenced a local plan that full councils are required to vote on.
An officer making a decision on an application that will not go to a planning committee does not remove a local authority’s ability to put out for consultation. Members of the public, and indeed councillors, will still have the opportunity to submit their views through what will be a statutory consultation period. Local authorities and planning officers will be obliged to take those views into consideration.
I want to underline the point that if we accept that there is a housing crisis in this country and that the planning system is broken, surely planning has to be an aspect that we look at in recognition that local authorities are sometimes being hindered by the existing framework. The speed at which we can deliver housing through a more streamlined planning system, putting faith in professionals in a local authority alongside councillors, will allow us to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we so desperately need.
David Simmonds
I will start where the hon. Member for Barking finished. We know that the planning system has delivered consents for 1.5 million new homes in England, where the development sector has failed to step up. One of the things much debated among political parties is the fact that that seems to suggest that, although there are undoubtedly issues, the planning system has been good at producing the opportunity for those new homes—the challenge has been the inability of the development sector to step up to the plate. That should be the priority to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned the Mayor of London’s recent decision about going into the green belt. That is in the context of a capital city that already has 300,000 unbuilt planning permissions for new homes. The Opposition’s argument is that the priority should not be increasing the stock of unbuilt planning permissions but delivering the homes that our country needs.
Gideon Amos
As an illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s point about unbuilt planning permissions, in Somerset there are permissions for 11,000 new homes that have not been built, while the new NPPF requires a 41% increase in the allocation of permissions. There is no record of these pressures having led to an increase in the number of houses actually being built.
David Simmonds
If we look at the statistics from the ONS on new household formation and the balance between that and the delivery of new homes, we see that they are reasonably in balance at the moment. We know that many people would like a bigger home or a different type of home, and that is why we have consistently argued that we need to focus on the nature of the homes we are delivering, not just on the units being delivered through the planning system.
Members have consistently made the point about centralisation. The UK is already an exceptionally centralised country: we have fewer democratically elected politicians per head of population than most other developed democracies in the world. Our concern with these measures is that they further reduce the voice of a local resident through their democratic representative about a decision that may be the most significant thing affecting their home or their neighbourhood in their entire life.
By creating a national scheme of delegations, we go beyond a point of saying that all local authorities must ensure, in the delivery of a quasi-judicial process, that they are following the law. We begin to say that this is no longer a delegation: it is compulsory. We are taking away the democratic power of the local authority, under which it delegates those decisions to planning committees and to officers, and we are deciding in Whitehall who will make those decisions.
While I absolutely respect what the Minister is saying about expert planning officers, having served in the last Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and worked very closely with the RTPI, I think we need to be realistic. In many cases, when the Minister says “expert planning officers”, we are talking about newly minted graduates who do not live in—and have no experience of—the local area. They arrive and undertake a desk-based exercise to make these decisions. They are not highly experienced people with a level of local insight who understand why particular aspects of design, materials, or the nature of a development will have a real impact on a neighbourhood.
There are specific examples; one is applications by elected members themselves. I know from my time as a councillor in Hillingdon that a standard rule to ensure transparency is that any application by an elected councillor must be heard by a committee. If someone wishes to change the windows in their home, or build a loft extension, it has to go through a planning committee, even when those things are covered by permitted development rights. That was to ensure that level of transparency. It is not clear how such issues are dealt with through this proposed scheme of delegation.
Matters of detail can be critical: ensuring the acceptance of a proposed development at a neighbourhood level may often come down to issues like overlooking or how it respects the privacy of neighbours. Does it have tree planting, to screen developments that people are unhappy to see? Will there be mitigations around noise? Those are not trivial matters; they have a huge impact on people’s quality of life. The ability of elected representatives to say, “This decision made, entirely in accordance with planning law, needs to be taken transparently in public so that these representations can be heard” is critical.
Olly Glover
I am conscious that we are reaching that time in the afternoon when we may be feeling a little fatigued, so I shall attempt to keep my remarks concise. First, it is important to bear in mind in this discussion that the Minister’s and the Government’s desire to take action to increase our ability to deliver the housing the country needs is sincere. The debate, of course, is whether the measure is an effective way of doing that.
I say to the hon. Member for Barking that there are many reasons why people decide to become local councillors. However, going by those in my constituency, it is because of a deep passion and care for their community. Major developments, of course, have major impacts on communities—hopefully for good, but sometimes for ill. It is entirely understandable that councillors would wish to have the full opportunity to scrutinise such proposals.
I was encouraged to hear the Minister say that national guidance and context are important for planning officers; I therefore hope that he will be receptive to some of our amendments and proposals in subsequent clauses. We must be clear that we are not attacking planning officers in this debate; they have a difficult role in balancing the national guidance and statutory requirements with strong local sentiments from councillors and residents. But that is why it is so important that councillors do continue to be involved.
One of the challenges is that we make the assumption that more house building automatically leads to more affordability, which sadly is not necessarily the case at all. The issue is all about the type of housing being delivered, and perhaps the current market-dominated approach is not always so effective. For example, in my constituency of Didcot and Wantage, in Oxfordshire, we have seen 35% population growth in 20 years. I have never opposed a housing development—neither in my current role as a Member of Parliament, nor before election. I do not intend to change that, because, yes, we do need more housing.
However, the housing growth has led to the fact that, in the town of Didcot, where I live, the average house price is now 15 times the average annual salary. South Oxfordshire Housing Association highlights a serious shortage of social and affordable housing, particularly for one or two-person households. A fairly small two-bedroom terraced house from the mid-’90s costs nearly £300,000, despite some of the fastest house-building growth rates in the country. So the issue is not just about the volume; it is also about the type.
I will give another example, then conclude my remarks. In Valley Park, to the west of Didcot, an outline permission request for a 4,000-plus home development came before the planning committee in 2021. The planning application was recommended for approval by officers, but the councillors on the committee felt that it did not include any provision for healthcare—something already under pressure in the town—and that cycle and walking provision was also poor. Because elected representatives made speeches during the meeting, outlining the issues, the planning decision was deferred for a couple of months and those things were able to be added in. That is an example of the real value that councillors can add.
Another example is that an application for a Lidl in the town of Wantage was recommended for refusal, but the planning committee and the councillors, having heard from local people, realised that it would be a well-used amenity and granted approval. Those are just two examples of where councillors in my constituency have added huge value.
In this time, when we are seeing a perhaps unprecedented loss of faith in politics—I am certainly thinking of the recent elections and, shall we say, some interesting voting patterns—keeping the local link and making sure that local people are brought into the planning process, and that planning is done with them rather than to them, continues to be very important. Councillors play a key role in that, and that is why they should retain their current positions and influence on planning committees.
Lewis Cocking
I am beginning to get fond of the Minister, but we do disagree about clause 46 specifically. It is an attack on democracy. I have already made the point that, within my local authority of Broxbourne, we have a scheme of delegation that delegates some decisions to officers, but there is an ability to change that: if lots of residents are particularly concerned about a development, or even about a dropped kerb, that can go to committee.
I have served on a planning committee and overturned officers’ recommendations, both for approval and for refusal. On one planning committee, after we overturned an officer’s recommendation for approval, the issue went to the planning inspector, who wrote back, saying, “I uphold every reason that the planning committee has given for refusal. I fully support the decision it has made.”
I am really concerned about the lack of accountability because, at the end of the day, whether council tax goes up because of planning decisions made by the council that it then needs to defend at appeal, or bad planning decisions are made, the electorate can have their say at the May local elections. They can say, “Do you know what? We don’t agree with any of the decisions that this council is making, and we can vote for someone else at the ballot box.”
A national scheme of delegation removes councils’ ability to be flexible. This should not be one size fits all. There is also no accountability. We work with some brilliant planning officers, but we also work with some who are not as good in their opinions on planning applications. I have many examples within my own local authority. Speak to one planning officer, and they will say that something is a brilliant idea that fits the national planning policy framework; speak to another, and they will take a completely different view. There is a lack of accountability in what the Government are doing. Let me make a broader point: I do not know what councils have done to offend the Government. They want to abolish lots of them, create super-councils and take away their planning powers.
When we adopted our local plan in Broxbourne, I think it was the second local plan in history to be adopted virtually; because of the covid regulations, we had to meet online. I gently push back on the arguments that councillors at full council—I know that they have to vote on a local plan at full council—have had their say on a development. A local plan is not that specific. It will set out areas for development. It may set out some principles, such as wanting a school or a community centre on a site, but it will not go into detail on design, or the look and feel of the community.
The idea that councillors have had their say on the local plan and now everything will be approved and can go through is nonsense. I have made the point in the House that we really need to think about the communities we want to make. We can approve as many house building targets or applications as we want, but we have to give some thought to the communities.
Amanda Martin
Does the hon. Member accept that two thirds of local planning authorities in England—around 206 councils—do not have an up-to-date local plan?
Lewis Cocking
Both of mine have a local plan. A number of authorities do not have one; it is a long and arduous process, and I welcome discussions about how we can streamline it. As I said, if a local plan has been approved, a site may have been allocated for development, but the minutiae or detail regarding the design of that development will not have been gone into. I have always maintained that the reason developers struggle to get through the planning system is because they try to build absolute rubbish. If they came forward with lots of really good schemes, councillors would not give them as hard a time as they do.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I have sat on a planning committee and seen developers come forward and make planning applications in line with local plan allocation on outline, which means that we are just discussing the principle of development, or potentially the numbers or the access, with all the detailed designs left to the full planning application. It is set out in gold. We get everything we want. We get a good 106 negotiation. There will be a new doctors surgery and a new school. Lo and behold, when that same developer comes back with a full planning application, it is completely different, but because the principle of development has been established it is very difficult to then turn down. Developers are taking some councils for a ride, and we need to be careful of that.
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I worked very closely: we are part of a small percentage of ex-council leaders who actually saw through a local plan.
Nesil Caliskan
We had to work together on a statutory basis to consult each other’s local authority, so I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes around the pressures of the planning system, particularly as we both have scars on our back, having seen local plans through. However, I ask him to reflect on the fact that a number of the issues that he raises can be effectively dealt with through local guidance and design principles—an authority within the administration that has set out clear guidance, not just for the public in their place but for applicants.
Those are very separate issues from what the Government propose around a national delegation scheme, which is about speeding up the process for what will be a national framework to agree to a number of houses to meet a target. His points are really important, but they would not be lost through what is proposed in the amendments.
Lewis Cocking
I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady; we worked closely together as leaders of neighbouring authorities. I would push back slightly. The point has been made before. I do not necessarily think that the hold-up is the planning system. There are lots of unbuilt planning applications out there—I can reference loads of applications in my constituency from when I sat on the planning committee nearly two years ago where a single house is yet to be built. The Government have an ambition to build 1.5 million homes. If they want to achieve that ambition, they should be going after all the planning applications that are yet to be built out.
The hon. Lady makes some valid points on design codes. I would welcome more guidance so that local authorities can use them more effectively—I think lots of local authorities would agree with that—but design is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Lots of planning officers do not live within the local planning authority in which they work. Local councillors who stand in a local authority area have to, by law, either live or work there. They are part of the community. I am really concerned about removing the power of planning committees and local councillors to determine planning applications in their area.
This works both ways. As I have said, I have voted to overturn where officers have recommended a refusal. Councillors have to be brave sometimes on planning decisions, as the hon. Lady well knows, and as I well know from being on a planning committee. I am really concerned about the attack on democracy and the lack of accountability.
When the Minister sums up, can he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account if they make the wrong or bad decisions? This is not just a policy where someone has stood for election because they want their bins collected on a Monday and not a Tuesday. Once planning permission has been granted and the application has been built out, the result is there for decades. It is very difficult to retrospectively change that if mistakes are made. Ultimately, the public have their say at the ballot box, but with unaccountable officers, they do not. How will the Government hold planning officers to account under this national scheme of delegation?
Matthew Pennycook
Let me first say that, for entirely understandable reasons, this has been a passionate debate. People feel very strongly about the local planning system, the role of elected members in it, and the role of residents in inputting to those decisions. That is because local planning is principally a local activity. It is for that reason that we as a Government are putting so much emphasis on ensuring that up-to-date local plans are in place in every part of the country, because we think that they are the best way to shape development in a particular area, but we want to ensure that planning committees function effectively.
I will make a couple of points in response to the issues raised. The first is on outcomes. I slightly chide the shadow Minister, because it cannot be true on the one hand that this is a measure, as he alleges, that we are introducing to build our 1.5 million homes and then, on the other hand, to say that it will essentially make no difference to the current arrangements.
Outcomes-wise, we think this is an important part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, because it will ensure that decisions are made in a more consistent and more timely manner. That is why I gave the example on Second Reading of reserved matters applications. I do not know what the views of Members are, but I certainly do not think that every reserved matters application should come back to committees. I think that often delays the process.
We can discuss many of the other challenges that we face in the planning system. It is absolutely true that there is more that we can do on empty homes; we are giving that consideration. There is more that we can do on build-out—watch this space. There is more that we can do on all these things, but it is still the case that the planning system is too inconsistent and slow, and that there are things we can do about that.
To come back to the point on build-out, and we do need to take action on build-out, it is this Government’s view that we need to oversupply consents into the planning system to ensure that we are building out at the rate that meets the housing crisis, because whatever anyone thinks about the rights or wrongs of this reform, we are not building homes at the scale that we need in order to meet housing need and housing demand. We have to do things differently. In terms of outcomes, we think this measure is impactful.
Gideon Amos
Another time, I would be interested to discuss what level of oversupply will actually work, because we have huge oversupply permissions already. My point is in relation to reserved matters. The last reserved matters application I dealt with was for a waste site that had 770 objections. I think local residents would have been incredulous to be told that their local planning committee was not allowed to decide that application. There were more objections to that than to any other application in the council area for years. The Bill does not say that this relates to just reserved matters, but even if the Government did bring forward a proposal to say that, does the Minister not see how controversial and significant even reserved matters applications can be?
Matthew Pennycook
I take the point, but let me be clear about what I said: every reserved matters application should come back before a committee. I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, but in terms of outcomes we think this measure will be impactful.
My second point is about straw men. Parts of this debate have generated more heat than light, if I am honest, and many allegations have been thrown around. Some said that this measure rides roughshod over local democracy, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne alleged that the Government are saying that once a local plan is in place, every decision will just be shoved through. That is obviously not the case, so let me be very clear about what we are talking about.
Local schemes of delegation are in place across the country. In lots of those, lots of decisions are delegated to planning officers. In principle, we all agree that expert planning officers should be allowed to make decisions on certain applications—I do not think that is contested—so let us put what we are discussing in proportion. We are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations are and will continue to be considered by the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee or the planning officer. In that sense, I will continue to argue that the proposed change does not remove democratic oversight.
My third point is about what is decided. There are understandably a lot of assumptions about what the national scheme of delegation will suggest. I would wager that in a couple of years’ time, when we look back at this, a lot of the concerns raised will seem to have been unfounded. I hope the Government allay those concerns when we bring forward the precise proposals about what we want the national scheme of delegation to entail. It is not the case that the controversial and significant applications that several hon. Members have raised, which we agree should absolutely come before committees, will be ruled out in the national scheme of delegation. The assumption about the amount that we are removing from the system will prove to be unfounded.
Paul Holmes
I would say to the Minister that significance is in the eye of the beholder, but may I bring him back to something that he said? I do not want to do him a disservice, but I believe he said that planning officers’ decisions, rather than local committee decisions, would not change under a national scheme of delegation; they will still be there. Can he assure us that any ability that currently exists within local schemes to call in a decision made by a planning officer will not be affected by the national scheme of delegation that he proposes?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is doing so, but he tempts me to announce the proposals that we will bring forward. I would like to do that as a package so the House can see what the Government are proposing. As I said, at that point I think some of the concerns will have been assuaged.
My fourth and final point, which is the crux of this debate, is that we can have a very sensible discussion about the type of things that should or should not be in a national scheme of delegation. The shadow Minister just inadvertently went down that route, and I am happy to have that conversation. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington gave the game away, in a sense, when he argued that if we were just talking about a scheme of standardisation across the country, that would be fine, but a national scheme of delegation is not. We are, in a sense, talking about a standardised scheme that will ensure consistency in the system about what comes forward.
Matthew Pennycook
I will just make this point, then I will give way for a final time. This debate has revealed a very principled difference of opinion, sincerely held, about whether it is appropriate at all to have a national scheme of delegation. I feel very strongly that, just as the Government set frameworks in other areas, it is right that we have a say on schemes of delegation that apply in local areas. I think that is right, both in terms of the outcomes that will be secured and to reduce uncertainty and risk in the system. I understand that Opposition Members feel differently and think that a national framework should not be applied. That is a perfectly reasonable view, but we disagree.
Matthew Pennycook
But the conversation that we will have to have, because we have the numbers, is what the national scheme of delegation should incorporate, not whether we bring one forward. Three Members want to intervene. We have a few minutes left.
Gideon Amos
My point was about the distinction between a voluntary guideline and putting in statute the removal of powers from councillors. I repeat: does the Minister not have any qualms about giving all future Ministers and Secretaries of State in future Governments the power to make any regulations they want to take these powers away from councillors?
Matthew Pennycook
I think it is perfectly appropriate that we introduce a national scheme of delegation, and that we bring forward, through a regulation-making power, those details in due course. Any future Government would have to consult on changes and take them through via secondary legislation, and it would be up for scrutiny.
I am tempted to comment more widely on regulation-making powers, but I gently say to Opposition Members that some of the placeholder clauses that I saw in legislation in the previous Parliament make this one seem very minor, in relative terms. We can debate that more widely, but I think our approach, both in outcomes and in a reasonable balance between democratic oversight and trusting expert local planning officers, which we all do in certain circumstances, is the right one.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has been generous with his time. Could he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account? At the moment, we can call in planning applications democratically. How are we going to hold planning officers to account under a national scheme of delegation?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that point. It is a point well made, and it was also made by the shadow Minister on another clause. I will go away and reflect on what more, if anything, needs to be done in that regard. It is rightly put that, just as we want to ensure consistency in decisions by elected Members, we want consistency in the decisions and recommendations made by expert planning officers at a local authority level. I will happily come back to the Committee on that.
David Simmonds
I gently say to the Minister, who I look up to in many ways, that it is a challenge for the Committee to rely upon, on the one hand, an argument that this is not a big deal because it would affect hardly any planning applications, and on the other hand, an argument that it is so important we have to push it through via a national scheme of delegation. The concern that Members have is considering the 4% of applications that go to committee as a major problem, when in fact, by general acceptance in today’s debate, they are not really much of an issue. We lose the important element of local democratic accountability without any corresponding benefit in planning delivery.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we do think there is a corresponding benefit, because we think the change will remove a large element of risk and uncertainty in the system and ensure some very important applications are made in a more timely way. I end by inviting the shadow Minister, at the point we publish our proposals, to come back on whether we have got the balance right. I am more than happy to continue the conversation about what we take forward on the regulations. On the principle of introducing a national scheme of delegation, the Government feel very strongly that it is the right thing to do.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 13th May 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 May 2025 - (13 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. It will probably get very hot, so if you would like to take off some of your layers, that is absolutely fine.
Clause 21
Long duration electricity storage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. On that cheery note, it is great to be back in Committee this morning.
The clause is about long-duration electricity storage, or LDES, which is an incredibly important part of an electricity system, allowing us to store cheap renewable energy when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, and to generate electricity when people need it most. It is a crucial part of our clean power mission.
Across Great Britain, we already have 2.8 GW of LDES on the grid. I have had the pleasure of visiting some pumped hydropower stations that have been part of our system for decades. They allow excess electricity to pump water high up to a mountain reservoir, where it can be released when we need it to drive turbines and generate electricity. The most recent of those sites, however, was completed more than 40 years ago. The clean power 2030 action plan suggests that we need another 1.2 GW of LDES in the next five years. The National Energy System Operator suggests that we could need up to 15 GW by 2050, so a significant increase on where we are today.
Despite low operating costs and high system-wide benefits, which in 2024 were estimated at £24 billion, the large up-front capital costs to build such stations in the first place, and the revenue uncertainty over such a long lifespan of an asset, have deterred private investment in LDES over the decades. The clause therefore introduces a cap and floor scheme to develop new long-duration energy storage in Great Britain.
Those wishing to develop an LDES asset will be able to apply to Ofgem for protected revenues, conditional on satisfactory delivery and operation and on sharing excess profits with consumers. That provides the revenue certainty needed for investors, giving the green light for the next generation of those important assets. We expect—we have set out deliberately—that this will be technology-agnostic. We therefore expect that we will have more pumped hydro, as well as more novel technologies such as liquid air energy storage.
The clause imposes a duty on Ofgem to establish and operate a cap and floor scheme to encourage the development of LDES assets across Great Britain. The clause also defines the minimum eligibility requirements for the scheme: assets will need a minimum power output of 50 MW, and to be able to discharge at full power for eight hours without recharge. Simply meeting those requirements, however, will not guarantee success, and Ofgem will only select the projects that are most useful for system-wide benefits and for consumers. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to update that definition by regulation. It also defines in broad terms how Ofgem will set the cap and floor, and how it will fund floor payments.
This is a really important step. As I say, after 40 years of not building long-duration energy storage in this country, we are incredibly excited to be building it once again. It is also crucial to how we deliver the clean power system in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see you again. I welcome both Ministers to their places. As soon as you said that we can start removing layers, Mrs Hobhouse, my button suddenly popped off. I apologise, and I guarantee that I will not remove any more layers, for fear of disrupting the Committee.
The clause amends the Electricity Act 1989, requiring the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to implement a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy electricity storage or LDES. We are concerned that the clause introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and will distort the market with the introduction of the scheme. I have several questions on this. Can the Minister explain what criteria will determine the initial cap and floor levels? More importantly, how frequently will they be reviewed to stay responsive to market changes?
We know that the scheme aims to provide financial stability to LDES for operators by setting revenue caps and income floors, and to encourage investment in this technology. However, will LDES operators and investors have a role in reviewing or adjusting the scheme to ensure that it reflects real-world conditions? Will there be eligibility criteria for a formal application process for operators to access the scheme, ensuring fair access for all players? Those concerns, we would argue, highlight the need for clarity and effective integration with broader energy policies and to ensure the scheme’s success. I look to the Minister for clarification on those elements of the clause. We do not intend to divide at this stage, but we will provide further scrutiny at further stages of the process.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse, it is especially a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. Liberal Democrats are supportive of a scheme to encourage long-duration energy storage and, for that reason, are generally supportive of the clause. Long-duration energy storage is crucially needed, including, of course, battery storage.
There are instances of fires in battery storage facilities, but there is no reason why they should not be built safely—they can and are built safely. We ask the Ministers to consider whether fire brigades should be statutory consultees in applications for battery storage proposals. That is not the case at the moment, which seems perverse, given that there is an acknowledged fire risk that needs to, and can, be dealt with. We should have fire services as statutory consultees to ensure that happens.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I rise simply to support the provision. The first point to note is that this sort of technology has always been critical for the electricity system, which is why we have plants such as Cruachan in Scotland—which I commend to everyone as a great place to visit on their summer holidays—and Dinorwig in Wales. We need more investment in this.
As someone who has been involved in the energy sector for almost 30 years, the simple fact of the matter is that this technology will not be invested in without additional support. The plan for a cap and floor mechanism is well worked through, and has a reasonable pedigree in the electricity industry for supporting investment. Clause 21 seeks to introduce that. Quite properly, it is technology-agnostic, because there is a great deal of innovation in this sector. The provision is important for decarbonisation, energy security and jobs across the British Isles; I therefore support it.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members to please indicate a little bit more clearly to me—preferably at the beginning of a debate—whether you want to speak.
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and their recognition, first and foremost, of the important role that long-duration energy storage plays in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East referred to Cruachan—the hollow mountain —and I think there is barely a person in Scotland who has never been on a school trip to there. I would recommend it to anyone; it is a fantastic example of not just how important this is to our energy system, but the engineering that has lasted a significant number of decades and still runs on our system. It plays an incredibly important role.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, raised a number of important questions. Ofgem has consulted on the process for the first window of the cap and floor scheme. It has published detailed, technical guidance on what we would expect those projects to be able to deliver. We, and Ofgem as the regulator, have very deliberately been technology-agnostic to allow more of these innovative projects to come forward. That first round will run its course, but we absolutely would expect that Ofgem and the Government will look at the results of that review and see if there are areas that we might improve on for a further round if that is deemed necessary. We will keep the scheme constantly under review.
The cap and floor scheme that Ofgem has run for interconnectors has been an incredibly successful way of delivering value for money for consumers and of giving that revenue certainty over the long term. It is a model that works very well. We will review the projects that move forward in the scheme. As I outlined, there are technical requirements that they must meet, but there will also be a process of ensuring that the projects deliver value for money for consumers.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly recognises the role that LDES plays in the mix. We could see some battery projects coming forward in this round. Traditionally, they have not been part of long-duration energy storage, but that technology is moving forward rapidly and some might be able to bid into this process. There are some really innovative projects in that space.
It is important to take the question of how we deal with safety risks for batteries in a balanced way. There are safety incidents for a whole range of infrastructure in our country; some get a lot more attention than others in the media, and we need to be careful not to draw more attention to one particular technology at the exclusion of others. But the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that safety should be paramount in everything we do with every energy system and every part of infrastructure.
We are looking at the wider question of how we might introduce additional safety measures on battery storage sites more generally, not just as part of the LDES scheme. The Health and Safety Executive has a key role in regulating battery designers, installers and operators to ensure that they take the necessary measures to ensure health and safety. It is an important step, and one that we take seriously.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I want to press the Minister on the point raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. On a visit to the London Fire Brigade I learnt that there is a particular set of risks associated with batteries—essentially, the difficulty of putting the fires out.
In the grand scheme of things, batteries are not more serious than, for example, oil storage, but they require different equipment and differently trained and equipped crews to respond. Will the Minister say more about how, as batteries become a more significant part of the energy mix, he will ensure that fire brigades are able to take a view at the planning stage and are made aware of the risks—just in case they have to respond?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which we will take onboard. It is already part of what the Health and Safety Executive and the Fire Service are looking at nationally in terms of guidelines, but the Government continue to take an interest. The hon. Gentleman is right that as the schemes expand across the country, more fire brigades that may have not had experience of these incidents in the past will have to gain experience. It is an important point and we take it seriously.
On a general point, I am glad that hon. Members across the Committee recognise the importance of LDES. It is genuinely an exciting moment for the country that we will build some of these important engineering projects to deliver the long-duration energy storage that the country needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 22, page 29, line 33, after “benefits” insert
“of £1,000 per year for ten years”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 102—Community benefits from major energy infrastructure projects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘major energy infrastructure project’ and ‘specified connection’ have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.
(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—
(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and
(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.
(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and
(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.
(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.
(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—
(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;
(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;
(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;
(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”
This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefit to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.
Paul Holmes
Amendment 83 was tabled by the shadow Scottish Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). We welcome clause 22, which empowers the Secretary of State to establish a financial benefit scheme for people living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. It is vital that people living locally to such works, who will see their life disrupted, should receive fair compensation for their trouble. I said in the last Committee session, as did other Opposition Members, that we support the Government’s move to do that and to involve local communities, following on from some of the provisions that the Conservatives made in government.
Where there is a disagreement, however, is on the level of that compensation. Amendment 83 would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme under which persons with a specified connection to qualifying premises are entitled to a financial benefit of £1,000 per year for 10 years, provided directly or indirectly by electricity providers. We believe that this would be able to be monitored under the current scope of the legislation, particularly where it says that the Secretary of State may provide funding from Parliament to those administering the scheme.
Provisions would also be made for complaints, procedures, appeals or dispute resolution related to the scheme. The regulations would be subject to an affirmative procedure—we do not see any need to change that. The clause would apply to England, Scotland and Wales and come into force on Royal Assent. We would argue that the level set out in the amendment would not need to change the Bill. The scheme would allow eligible residents, mainly through electricity suppliers, to receive benefits based on the proximity to above-ground transmission projects, including past projects, which are fair and proportionate.
Under our amendment, any scheme established under proposed new section 38A(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 would have to include provision for, for example, homeowners residing within 500 metres of qualifying premises to be entitled to financial benefits of £1,000 a year for 10 years. The Minister and I did not argue—we never argue—but debated last time, and the Opposition accept the nature of what the Minister intends to do, but we feel that there needs to be more clarity for the consumer and for local people. There were stories on Sky News that the consumer benefit for homes near electricity transmission infrastructure would be set at about £250 a year, so I would be grateful if the Minister would state what he expects the level of compensation to be and clarify that for the rest of the Committee.
Whether the Minister chooses to accept our very reasonable offer of £1,000 a year or not, will he answer how errors or instances of fraud will be handled within the administration of the benefit scheme? What rights do residents or other parties have to appeal decisions or penalties related to the benefit scheme? What role will the Secretary of State play in ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the scheme, with particular regard to regulatory powers?
As I said, I do not want to go over the arguments again, but the Opposition believe that we must take communities with us, when it comes to consumers and people affected by large-scale planning decisions through centralisation and an attempt—to be fair to the Minister—to reduce the bureaucracy and deliver the infrastructure that we need. We talked last time about community benefit under other amendments and clauses of the Bill. The Opposition believe that residents and local communities deserve to know that there will be a certain amount for a certain period, and we believe that £1,000 a year for 10 years is something that local people would welcome. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly on clause 22, which I welcome. This scheme is key to delivering the key Government commitment to ensuring that those who are closest to new electricity infrastructure feel the benefits soonest. Also important is the Government guidance that will be brought forward on how developers will ensure that communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit, including through funding for community projects, sports clubs and leisure facilities. I welcome this key commitment.
It is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, is not here to explain further his comments in the newspapers today. He has moved from saying that he opposes electricity pylons to the issue of scientists themselves, suggesting that climate targets are not, in fact, science-based. It is disappointing that he is not here to defend his amendment, but I very much welcome the Government’s proposal.
The Chair
I remind Members that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine cannot be here because he is not on the Committee, so he is excused.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise in support of amendment 83, in which the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland sets out a fair and reasonable system as to what benefits people living near new energy infrastructure should be able to get. It is important to note that the House of Commons Library says that the Government are minded to set aside £2,500 a year for 10 years. The Government should be able to find it within themselves to support our amendment, considering we do not even go as far as the provision that they suggested, according to the House of Commons Library. This amendment should be an easy step to get to where the Government want to go.
I do have some concerns. It has been raised in Committee before that this provision cannot be a simple solution to not doing any consultation. We still need a belt-and-braces consultation, and I want to hear some clear words from the Minister to say that this will not replace that—residents will still be able to have their say, and there will still be a full and proper consultation when new energy infrastructure comes forward.
I am disappointed to see in the legislation hardly any detail about what the community benefit scheme will be. I have said before that if we leave too much ambiguity, electricity providers and developers will want to get away with paying nothing at all or as little as possible. We should not allow that to happen. We should allow people—our constituents—who live near energy infra-structure projects to get the best deal possible, considering that they will have to put up with a lot of disruption. I have some constituents who live near large housing developments. There is a lot of disruption during the construction phase, so I want more detail about what the Government intend to set out.
As I have said, a House of Commons Library paper said that the Government were minded to go to £2,500 a year. The Government should therefore have no issue supporting the amendment because it does not go as far as that. It sets out reasonable benefits that everyone should expect across the country, leaving less to ambiguity and putting power into the hands of this Parliament scrutinising this legislation rather than developers and electricity providers because, as I said, they will want to get away with paying as little as possible.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 102, which stands in the name of the Liberal Democrats. This would ensure that all communities hosting major energy infrastructure—solar farms, wind farms, major battery storage, gas, nuclear or other power stations, as well as transmission infrastructure, which is already covered by the Bill—would receive a benefit of 5% of the annual revenue of that project.
Safeguarding the future by tackling climate change is vital, but we are only going to achieve that if we bring communities with us and make it affordable for households. We recognise, and of course welcome, the provision in the Bill for community benefits for those near transmission lines, but those living beside nuclear, gas, coal-fired or other power stations are not eligible for any community support. For example, I supported the development of Ham Farm solar park in Taunton, but none the less the community gets no benefit for the significant impact it is having on that community.
It is time that we had a system that gave community benefit for all energy infrastructure if we are to persuade communities and work with communities to host that infrastructure. If we are going to move Britain to a low pollution energy future with more home-grown energy—something the Liberal Democrats strongly support—we must be willing to compensate those expected to live with and host these enormous developments. It is time, in short, that local people benefited from national energy projects.
Liberal Democrats have consistently led the way on community benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) brought in the first community benefit system of this kind. In 2013, when he was Secretary of State and making the UK the biggest offshore energy generator in the world, he said:
“Communities hosting renewable energy installations play a key role in meeting the national need for secure, clean energy. It is only right that local people should be recognised and rewarded for that contribution”.
He continued:
“developers already offer community benefit packages on a voluntary basis, we challenged them to do more”. —[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 116WS.]
He then announced an increase in the recommended community benefit package in England from £1,000 per megawatt of installed capacity per year to £5,000, which remains the basis of the system today. Now it is time to extend that benefit to all energy, and to make it proportional to the revenue raised by energy projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who is a real champion for his constituency, proposed a scheme such as is set out in new clause 102 to Highland council back in 2021. It is important to recognise that the industry has contributed in this area, and in renewables especially.
In February 2024 the Government, in their document, “Developing Local Partnerships for Onshore Wind in England: Government response”, endorsed the 2013 system of £5,000 per megawatt installed capacity. Our new clause would mean that 5% of revenue from all energy projects goes to local communities. To put some figures on that, Grubb and Garjardo at UCL Bartlett estimate that, in a good year for energy generators such as 2022, UK revenue from renewables was £15.5 billion. Put that across 53,000 megawatts of installed capacity, meaning that £288,00 revenue per megawatt of installed capacity was raised, and 5% of that would be around £14,000 in community benefit per megawatt of installed capacity. In less good years, such as 2021, it might be around £7,000 per megawatt of installed capacity.
With average electricity bills in households being £730 in the UK, it is also important to secure reductions in bills by adopting the Liberal Democrat policy in our manifesto of finally decoupling electricity prices from the wholesale gas price. Based on Energy UK’s figures, that would mean a reduction in electricity costs per household of around £200 per year. The sums yielded to communities through the new clause—around £7,000 in 2021—would be comparable with the volunteered figure of £5,000 from the industry, but with the added benefit that when revenues increase, the community benefit would also increase.
So far the Government have taken only limited steps, which are welcome; but as part of the proposals that we put forward for a similar system in a debate in Westminster Hall in October, we were encouraged by the Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, who said:
“On community benefits in particular, we are continuing—at pace”—
that key word—
“the work started by the previous Government to review how we can effectively deliver benefits for communities living near this infrastructure.”
He said that they were,
“developing clear guidance on community benefits for both the infrastructure and the transmission networks.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 276WH.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire provides an example from the highlands. It is in the periphery of the UK—the highlands and elsewhere—that many of the biggest energy projects are located. Typically, they are areas where there are high levels of fuel poverty, limited access to affordable housing, lower wages, and high costs for electricity connection and heating. Rural areas, where many major projects are built across the UK, share the characteristics of departing young people, sparse and remote public services, especially after the ending of the rural service delivery grant, and poor infrastructure.
Other countries provide compelling examples of what can be done. Denmark, for example, requires new renewable projects to offer at least 20% ownership to local residents. In Germany, local authorities, or Länder, such as Munich, develop their own offshore wind farms, and community benefit comes from the tax revenue that they provide.
Our new clause would see two thirds of the benefit funds designated for the community, by which we mean to be spent in the council ward affected, where community groups themselves could and should be delegated with the power to manage and distribute those funds, with one third used for community benefit at a more strategic level for the council area decided by elected councillors. Fuel vouchers, affordable housing and investment into health and social care could be among the priority candidates for the spending of these benefits. It is unacceptable that these communities, which provide the backbone of our energy revolution, often see little financial benefit from hosting such infrastructure.
Michael Shanks
I thank all Members for an interesting debate. Amendment 83 was tabled by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. He is ever present in these discussions, but never present—
Luke Murphy
Can I withdraw my criticism about the absence of the shadow Minister for Energy?
Michael Shanks
The Minister for Energy made it on to this Committee; the shadow Minister for Energy could have made it on to this Committee as well, so my hon. Friend should not withdraw his criticism so hastily. Anyway, he is ever present in these discussions and we enjoy his contributions from beyond the Committee room.
Paul Holmes
I will try not to take that personally. The Minister should be grateful for what he has got. If he wanted a shadow Energy Minister on the Committee, he could have made that known through the usual channels.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. I will turn to the substance of the amendment before I get into trouble, Mrs Hobhouse.
The amendment seeks to set the level of benefit at £1,000 per year over 10 years. First, I should say I welcome the fact that across the Committee today there is support for that principle. That is really important, because the principle that we want to recognise—to be fair, the previous Government did when they launched the consultation—is that if we host nationally important energy infrastructure, particularly transmission infra-structure, which so often has less of a community benefit in the communities that it passes through, there should be some benefit from it. That is a really important point.
The balance that we sought to strike was to find a way to give a benefit to those households affected by the transmission infrastructure, but also make sure that the wider bill payers across the country that will pay for those community benefits are not saddled with a significant bill as a result. So the balance that we struck was £250 per year over 10 years. I would never seek to question the House of Commons Library, but I think perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne might not be correct in his interpretation of its figures. It would be £2,500 over the course of the 10 years that the scheme would be in place. I think that is what he was referring to.
In our view, the point here is that this still provides a significant benefit regarding bills for those households for a substantial amount of time—10 years—but at the same time does not result in significant amounts being added to the bills of other people right across the country who will pay for this. We think £1,000—which we looked at carefully as part of this process—is too much.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the Minister, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the principle of community benefit. However, would he not agree with me that it becomes problematic if we put in specific numbers, such as £250 or £1,000 a year? Inflation will change what that means, so is it not more relevant and logical to place a requirement more like the amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which talks about a community dividend that is in proportion to the revenues generated by the project rather than an absolute number?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for that point; I will come to the new clause shortly. The difficulty with that approach for transmission infrastructure is that by definition it goes through so many different communities in a linear way that it would be really difficult to divide up that funding among communities. How you define each community is quite challenging, whereas defining households that are within a certain distance of pylons, for example, is very easy, and we want to give a direct benefit to those households.
Ellie Chowns
Logically, we could divide by the number of miles of transmission infrastructure in each community.
Michael Shanks
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but a transmission line goes through a significant number of communities in a linear way. For a wind farm, you could draw a line around it and benefit all those communities; a transmission line does not work that way, so we would be giving to a significant number of communities who have maybe one or two pylons near them. That is why we think what is most important is that the households closest to the infrastructure get the direct community benefit.
To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, this is not the only part of the Bill—we will also have a community benefits fund for infrastructure like substations, where if there is one particular piece of infrastructure built in a community, with all the disruption that goes with building that, wider community benefits come from that as well. It is not one or the other; we are doing both, but in a legislative sense, we only have to legislate on the Bill discount scheme, which is what we are talking about in this amendment.
The shadow Minister asked for detail on some important points—including that we should set out in secondary legislation the specific level of benefit and the duration over which it will be paid. Of course, the £250 a year is a “minded to” position that we have come to as a result of the consultation that the previous Government did and the evidence that we have seen, but that will be set out in secondary legislation, which—to the hon. Lady’s point—allows us to alter that over time if the scheme is successful. This is, in some ways, a trial to find out whether the intended policy outcomes result. I hope that for those reasons—I will come to some others—the hon. Member for Hamble Valley might withdraw his amendment.
Clause 22 is about creating a financial benefit scheme for eligible households living near certain new or significant increases in network transmission infrastructure, and inserts new sections into the Electricity Act 1989. It empowers the Secretary of State to establish and determine the overall design of the scheme, including qualification criteria, scheme administration, enforcement, and provisions requiring the benefit to be passed on.
The “pass-through provision” is outlined in new section 38B(2), and is essential to ensure that the right consumers benefit and to ensure that when an intermediary sits between the electricity supplier and the end user—as happens in some cases—the intermediary will be required to obtain the full benefit and then pass it on to the end user. If this is not complied with, new section 38B(3) allows regulations to provide for the withdrawal or recovery of benefits made to intermediaries.
To enforce compliance with the scheme, new section 38C details the enforcement provisions that may be made in regulations, and I hope this answers the shadow Minister’s point around potential fraud in the system and the imposition of penalties that we will make through secondary legislation for instances of regulations not being complied with. Finally, new section 38D deals with provisions around data collection for the purposes of administering the scheme. Overall, it is worth remembering the purpose of this clause: it is to improve the public acceptability of network transmission infrastructure.
Lewis Cocking
I appreciate the Minister’s correction of what I said—the Government are less generous than I interpreted, in terms of the £2,500 over 10 years. But can he give us some warm words about this not replacing any consultation and say that it is on top of all of the consultation and residents being allowed to have their say, and that we will not allow electricity companies just to pay some money and then get away without doing any consultation at all? Can he give us some reassurances on that?
Michael Shanks
It is a very important point, and this will come through in the discussions that we will have more generally in this Committee around community consultation, but it will continue to play an important part. I think it is important to separate out any question of compensation from community benefit.
This is not a compensation scheme, and landowners that currently are compensated for infrastructure being built will continue to be compensated through whatever channels that is decided in. This is a community benefit, so it is additional. It is about recognising that it is critical for the future of the country that we build new grid infrastructure, and that if someone hosts that infrastructure they should gain some benefit from doing so. This is our proposal for doing that, alongside the community benefit funds that we have announced.
The Government believe that it is appropriate to set out the full detail on this in regulations, as is the case in many such schemes that have been set up over the years, due to the technical level of detail that will be required, and have drafted this clause to make sure that it applies only to transmission infrastructure, as it is not the intention that it should apply to other technologies. I commend clause 22 to the Committee.
That brings me to new clause 102, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which seeks to introduce a scheme that would ensure communities are provided with financial benefits from hosting major energy infrastructure projects from a range of technologies. I welcome the intent of this measure. Indeed, I have had a number of conversations with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on this very topic over the past nine months in which I have had the privilege of having this job, and spoken fairly recently to his colleague, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr Angus MacDonald)—I was in his constituency yesterday, seeing the investment that this Government have made in port infrastructure in his constituency.
We therefore agree broadly with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington’s point about how communities should benefit from all this energy infrastructure, but the new clause is not the right way to do it. We are already considering—he quoted myself to me, and I was delighted to hear I was fairly coherent in that debate—the question of wider community benefits. Clearly, at the moment most such community benefit schemes are voluntary schemes run by developers. It is important to say that some of those are actually hugely successful, and communities welcome the collaborative approach in drawing them up, but others are very unsuccessful, and leave communities without the genuine benefits that they should get. We are therefore looking at this really closely at the moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke noted, we published guidance in May 2025 on community benefit funds for those who live near electricity transmission infrastructure, and shortly we will publish updated guidance for onshore wind in England, which, of course, follows the 10 years of the previous Government’s ban in England. We are also exploring options for our overall approach to community benefits, to provide consistency across different technologies and to maximise the ambition from that. We have left on the table the option of that being mandatory in every case, but we want to look closely at how that would work, and how the design would work to ensure that we are not setting a scheme that does not suit the flexibilities that individual communities might want to take advantage of.
I reiterate that communities are providing a service to this country when they host clean energy infrastructure and there should be a benefit from it. Towards the end of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he rather veered off community benefits and into an equally important space on community ownership, which is something that I have also had a number of important conversations about. We see ownership of energy by communities as a really important step as well, and that is a step up from community benefits.
Gideon Amos
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing the serious points in the new clause, and particularly for saying that mandatory schemes will not be taken off the table. He was coherent back in October, except—if I might suggest—for the phrase “at pace”. Could he explain what “at pace” means in this context, in terms of what the timescale might be?
Michael Shanks
That is a question that I have asked myself many times over the past nine months. The problem is that we inherited a number of these things from the previous Government and we are working through them.
I have regular meetings on the subject. It is really important that we get this right, because we need to strike the balance: ultimately, the community benefit funds will, one way or another, be paid for by bill payers, but we want communities to have a real benefit. The balance has to be right because we are trying to bring down bills for everyone across the country. The Conservative amendment would increase people’s bills, but we are determined to try to bring them down. There is a balance to be struck.
We feel that this is an exciting moment to drive community ownership forward. A key aim of Great British Energy will be to drive forward the local power plan, so that communities do not just have benefits from infrastructure, but own some of those benefits. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned the real benefits of communities having a stake in projects—they can spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on, rather than on what a scheme might define. The two go hand in hand.
The bill discount scheme is an important step to drive forward community acceptance of new network infrastructure. We will develop proposals at pace for the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and for communities right across the country on the wider aspects of energy infrastructure. I hope that he will not move his new clause 102.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Minister for some of the answers he has given—
Paul Holmes
Well, I am grateful to him for trying to give all the answers, but I only agree with some of them, as he would expect. I wish that he would accept the amendment, but he has stated clearly that he will not. The amendment is ambitious and would give clarity to the consumer and local people about what they should expect.
I understand what the Minister said about the amount of money given to local people being legislated for in secondary legislation, but there is a question about why he will not put that into primary legislation. He could be clear—the £250 a year was clearly leaked to the press a few months ago—but the Government have still not produced any legislation to give certainty to the consumer. That is symptomatic of the Government: in lots of areas of the legislation, they simply have not provided any detail to the people it affects. We will get to those other examples later, when we come to the specific issue of planning reform.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke seems to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Opposition politicians’ quotes; I suggest that the Whips Office makes more use of him, given his ability to get an Opposition quote quickly, just like that. He might want to get a hobby, I don’t know, but he is good on quotes.
Luke Murphy
I do not need to have encyclopaedic knowledge to read the newspapers this morning, which is where the shadow Secretary of State made those comments.
Paul Holmes
I do not know which newspaper the hon. Gentleman reads, but it is obviously not a very good one, because it takes the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary out of context.
My hon. Friend did say that the target date was not based on evidence, but he was talking about the arbitrary nature of the 2050 target for net zero; he clearly did not say that there was no science behind the concept of climate change. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is a doughty champion and fiery Back Bencher, destined for high ministerial office. He would be a good Minister, but he needs to read out the whole of a quote and give the genuine context of any comments by Opposition politicians.
To come back to the amendment, Mrs Hobhouse—I feel your beady eye upon me—the shadow Scottish Secretary has a clear record. In his earlier comments, he talked about bills going down, but bills are up by £300 a year. There was a manifesto commitment to reduce energy bills for people by £300 a year, and that is simply not happening because of the record of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. At the moment, it is closing down oilfields and relying far too much on renewable energy, without getting to the sustainable level at which energy bills could come down. The Minister keeps saying that he wants to bring them down, but when will they come down?
We understand and support the aims and ambitions of new clause 102, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. However, we think there is some question about its practical implementation, specifically taking into account
“5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project”
and the provision
“for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community”.
We do not necessarily think that that is how the money should be distributed. As we discussed in the last sitting, and I agree with the Minister entirely, if a local authority gets money dedicated for a community, that does not necessarily mean that the money will get to the community. That is part of the flaw of the section 106 system and the community infrastructure levy. We all know examples of when money has been given, with the good intentions shown in this honourable new clause, but the community that needed to be helped simply was not. We feel that is not the best way to distribute the money; I believe the Minister feels the same, following our lengthy discussion on whether he can or cannot award money to Scottish Ministers or local authorities. I am sure he will come back to that line another time.
On new clause 102, the point is what the Minister said earlier about lines going through multiple local authorities; the well-intentioned money would not get to the right people at the right time. It would be diluted, and we do not think that that is the right way forward. However, we absolutely support the Liberal Democrats in their ambition to make sure. That is why we put a specific figure into our amendment 83: we absolutely want to make sure that the people desperately affected by some of the infrastructure investment genuinely get some of that money. We also understand and endorse the element of community improvements, which I know we will come on to in other areas of the legislation.
The Minister is a good man. We entirely endorse him and will work together on the need for benefits for the people affected. But he needs to be more ambitious—he should have come the Committee today with a specific figure; he should not have said to the Committee that he is “minded”. He could have put in primary legislation the amount the Government were willing to give. I put down in my notes too soon that the Minister was very tight, with £250 a year—I think that was unfair to him.
But the Minister needs to be more ambitious: he should match our commitment to £1,000 a year and to local people affected by such infrastructure knowing that they would be guaranteed that for 10 years. Most people are responsible when spending their own money; we believe they would put that into the community, which would benefit it and improve its infrastructure. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee, and we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before we move on to the next clause, I remind Members that, although I recognise the importance of the principle and the discussion of community compensation and benefits, we need to press on and get through our agenda of line-by-line scrutiny. It is important to discuss the principles, but please also remember that we have a very long agenda in front of us.
Clause 23
Electricity transmission systems: extension of commissioning period
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
We come to the most exciting clause in the Bill: the offshore transmission owner, or OFTO, regime. I can see everyone is on the edge of their seats.
This is an incredibly important clause. It provides a competitive market for offshore electricity transmission, which is important because it helps us to achieve cost-effectiveness in the building and operation of offshore wind farm connections on to the national grid. The clause is part of our efforts to ensure the regime supports the UK’s continuing ambition to be a world leader in offshore wind.
The clause extends the time that wind farm developers who build their own transmission assets have to divest those assets to an independent offshore transmission owner. That time is currently 18 months and the clause increases it to 27 months. That period is known as the generator commissioning clause, or the GCC.
The clause addresses the increase in size and complexity of wind farms since the GCC was first introduced. My Department issued a call for evidence on the OFTO regime, which closed in February 2024 under the previous Government. The responses suggested that the GCC period was too short and should be extended due to the increase in the size and complexity of wind farms, which has led to an increased risk of developers experiencing technical faults, and has meant more time is required for more complex commercial negotiations.
Without the clause, we would expect to continue to see many offshore wind farms needing to request individual transmission licence exemptions, which we bring to this House for decision, if they are unable to transfer transmission assets within the current 18-month period. The vast majority of offshore wind farms entering the process since 2016 have needed to apply for one of these exemptions, with each exemption requiring a separate statutory instrument to be considered each time.
The clause is therefore expected to reduce very significantly the number of offshore wind farms requiring an exemption. The requirement for an exemption leaves wind farms at risk of shutting down, taking a source of renewable energy off the grid and endangering the UK’s energy security, which is of course something we all want to avoid. This is a technical but very important clause and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Use of forestry estate for renewable electricity
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
The clause enables the generation of electricity from renewable sources within the public forest estate through inserting a new section into the Forestry Act 1967.
Our public forests are a national asset, providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits. They also offer an opportunity to contribute to our clean power by 2030 mission through the development of home-grown renewable electricity proposals. The clause will support this by enabling Forestry England to undertake activity relating to both small and large-scale renewable electricity projects on the public forestry estate.
Developments may take place on both forested and non-forested land within the public forest estate. There will, however, be no reduction in size of the estate and sites will be carefully selected. These powers will see us integrating technologies including solar, hydro and wind energy into our natural landscape, accelerating progress to net zero and helping to tackle climate change.
Principles underpinning renewable energy developments include ensuring that there is no net loss of woodland area, positive habitat restoration and maintaining a sustainable home-grown timber supply. Forestry England has already developed around 40 small-scale renewable energy installations, but under current legislation any excess electricity that Forestry England generates is wasted and cannot be exported to the grid. That includes rooftop solar and biomass heating to generate energy used at their various visitor centres and offices. The new powers will allow Forestry England to export electricity generated from its own projects to the national grid.
Without this change to legislation, there would continue to be an imbalance between English activities in this space and those that take place in Scotland in connection to renewables. Public land being managed by the forestry authorities in Scotland is currently able to be used to generate renewable electricity at commercial scale. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the clarity in the Minister’s opening remarks on the clause. While the theory of generating renewable energy, and deriving income by selling electricity generated from renewable sources, on public forestry land is positive, several concerns need to be addressed that do not lend support to the Government’s initiative. I issue a word of warning to the Minister from experience: measures that concern public forests can be very divisive. As the previous party in government, we still have the scars on our back when it comes to forests. However, we accept that there are clear precedents in Scotland for what the clause will do.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on these very well intentioned measures. Again, there is a need for clear consultation with people who live locally. We accept that these forests are run by experts, and we pay tribute to them for the way in which they run our forests across the country, but there will be people who have an absolute passion for our forests. Believe me: we saw them in our inbox when I worked for an MP. We need some clarity on that.
My first question is how the powers will balance commercial activity with conservation duties. The Minister said that there are examples of where we have done that before. It is a genuine question. We must make sure that when there is a drive to allow this to happen, some of the conversation elements are not lost in the management of the forests, and that renewable projects do not undermine biodiversity, recreation or climate resilience.
Secondly, what criteria will determine when ministerial consent is required for projects? As I am sure we agree, clear thresholds are necessary for consistency and community confidence. Within that, there must be consultation of local people. As I said, it can be an incredibly emotive topic when people find out from their local forestry commission that it is engaging in some electricity generation. When it comes to our beautiful forests, such wording can mean that people need to be told about it properly and consulted properly. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that will be at the forefront of these projects? As I said, we have been there before.
Does the Minister have any concept of how income from renewable generation will be managed? Oversight mechanisms will be vital to ensure transparency and accountability in these commercial activities. Are there limits on the scale or type of renewable projects on public land to prevent industrial-scale developments, and how will local communities be engaged in decisions affecting their access to public land?
While the clause offers opportunities, it poses risks that need careful management, so I urge the Government to provide more details to ensure that the powers are used responsibly, and that there is no mission creep at the end of the day from this very well intentioned clause.
Luke Murphy
I rise briefly to welcome the clause, which underlines the Government’s commitment both to tackle climate change and to restore and protect nature. As the Minister said, we have seen how Forestry and Land Scotland has been able to make use of its estate to install more than a gigawatt of generating capacity, which has been a major source of revenue for it to continue its conservation, preservation and reforestation mission. Once again, it underlines the Government’s commitment to protect nature while tackling climate change.
David Simmonds
My great-grandfather spent his entire working life at the pit in Cwmcarn, which is now a forestry commission site. There is evidence of the coal that was dug for centuries on that site, which is now a place that is enjoyed for leisure by all. Broadly, I echo the comments about welcoming the clause.
On page 35, line 20, the excluded types of fuel are listed, to determine what may be considered to be renewable. Waste to energy is not included; nor is the sustainable fuel mandate, which is currently focused on aviation fuel, but ultimately involves producing a gasoline product entirely from waste the purpose of which is to create energy. The fuel may go into aircraft, but it could be used for other purposes. The concept of waste to energy means, essentially, building an incinerator on forestry land to burn waste and generate electricity. By implication, that is something that the Government envisage as a result of that subsection. Could the Minister say more about that?
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has taken the right tone, which is that our forestry land is to be treasured and protected for future generations, but there is a balance to be struck—we strike it every day in relation to how much the public can access and enjoy that land, and use visitor facilities. Stewardship of our forestry land is the responsibility of all of us. I thank him for his remarks.
We expect the footprint from the projects to be incredibly small. In fact, the most successful projects in Scotland are often on the rooftops of visitor centres, alongside toilet blocks, and in those sorts of places, so we are not talking about cutting down huge areas of forest to build ground-mounted solar. However, the point the hon. Gentleman made about consultation is critical. There will be comprehensive public and statutory consultation, and I fully expect Forestry England to carry out an even more detailed engagement process, given its stewardship role for certain pieces of land.
In fact, in Scotland, where some projects have been carried out, groups of people who frequently use the forest have been involved in designing the projects and deciding what the money will be spent on. There are real benefits to that. Although there is sometimes short-term disruption from construction, often the projects have resulted in accessible routes being opened in Scottish forests, including new wheelchair-accessible paths, so previously inaccessible land is being made accessible. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about consultation.
On the subject of revenue stream, we expect the measures to enhance Forestry England’s wider role and its existing objectives, which do not shift as a result of the measures. Of course, those objectives relate to environmental conservation. In fact, the revenue, which is currently being wasted—the critical point is that these projects cannot export to the grid—could actually create a net benefit, and we would expect it to do so. That is an important point, as is the issue of mission creep. We will certainly keep that in mind.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has satisfied me with his answers and is adopting a constructive tone regarding the clause, but I want to press him on the criteria used to determine ministerial consent. He is right to say that we do not want mission creep, and that we would usually expect minimum amounts of development around visitor centres and in the existing infrastructure of forests. Can he outline where the Government might set, not necessarily restrictions, but additional criteria regarding the size and scale of energy projects under the clause?
Michael Shanks
Again, there is a balance to be struck: we do not want to create a fixed set of national guidelines that preclude larger scale projects that would not disrupt existing forestry. I do not want to suggest that every piece of forestry land is the same, and therefore that the guidelines should apply in the same way. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will write right to the Committee about it.
I say the same to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. As I think he would expect, schemes such as those he mentioned are not intended to be part of these measures However, I will consider whether we can tighten the guidance. The clause is intended to be about using land that, in some cases, already has some of these projects on it, but they cannot export to the grid. Small-scale solar or hydro—those are the sorts of schemes that we see as fitting alongside the wider mission of Forestry England. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point, and I am happy to write to the Committee about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Fees for certain services
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse.
Chapter 3 of part 1 of the Bill deals with reform of transport infrastructure. Its various clauses—all of which, I hope, are uncontroversial—are designed to streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering transport infra- structure projects. Clauses 25 to 29 of the chapter make various amendments to the Highways Act 1980.
As hon. Members will be aware, local authorities and statutory consultees provide advice, share information and prepare responses to consultations on proposed highway projects. However, they currently do not have a statutory basis on which to recoup the costs associated with the work they do to review the applications. That can lead to delays in processing applications due to a lack of resources, or information being received late in the process.
Clause 25 inserts a new section 281B into the 1980 Act, providing a new regulation-making power for the Secretary of State in England and for Welsh Ministers in Wales to charge applicants for services in connection with certain schemes and orders on a cost-recovery basis. To be clear, it will not allow them to make a profit; instead, it will support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies to carry out those processes, which in turn will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process.
The charges will apply to parts of the Highways Act associated with approving new roads, making changes to existing ones and making other legal orders necessary for highway projects. Furthermore, we will use a proportionate delegated power to ensure that cost recovery and the provision of services remain flexible and responsive in the light of changing circumstances over time, such as inflation.
The clause will bring the Highways Act into line with cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. By resourcing the input from critical stakeholders, this power will contribute to the acceleration of highway infrastructure project delivery, supporting the Government's economic growth mission now and in the future. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome clause 25, and I welcome the Minister to his position. He has a lot to live up to after those clauses, and I will continue to be nice to him. I say well done also to the other Minister for the constructive way he has been working on this Committee. Opposition Members do appreciate that. Because we are not stupid, we realise it is sometimes a challenge to win votes. Although the votes we undertake here are closer than the ones on the Floor of the House of Commons, let that not be an encouragement to us to call more.
As I said, we welcome clause 25, which allows public authorities to charge fees for services related to specific highway schemes. None the less, some clarity is needed on several points. While recovering costs is reasonable, the clause must be carefully implemented with safeguards to ensure fairness, accessibility and consistency across England and Wales.
The Minister has stated that this is a reserved matter for certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities, but will he outline how this goes with his perfectly admirable stance on devolution? Will he look to allow new combined authorities and mayoralties to take on some of the powers, or is he planning for them to be devolved even further, to mayoral authorities coming on stream rapidly from the Department under this Government? We would like some clarity on how he sees the powers being amended once local authorities and some of those statutory bodies no longer exist or are reformed.
Has the Minister considered the impact of the fees on small developers, charities and community groups? Could they create barriers or delays in any process? Will there be provisions allowing fee waivers or reductions for certain applications, such as for community-led or rural projects? How will disputes about fee fairness be resolved, and will there be an appeals process? What guidance will there be to ensure consistency in fee application across regions, to avoid significant variations from one local authority or statutory body to another? Finally, could the fees delay or discourage essential infrastructure development, especially in areas with planning capacity challenges?
Rachel Taylor
I acted for developers before coming into the House, and I know their biggest concern was always delays, not the fees that the local authority charged for doing these things. As a result of the lack of capacity in local authorities, there has been a move to more unadopted roads on small estates, which has its own problems for property owners going forward. I really welcome this provision, because it lays sensible steps toward making it easier for developers to complete their projects sooner, which enables them to make more money.
I think that the offset in costs will be welcomed by small developers. This provision is particularly important in the small authorities that cover large geographical areas, because it will enable them to go out and make visits. To give an example, my client was required to build a pavement but could not do so while there was a vaccination centre up the road. The local authority could not, under the fee structure, find the time to come out and visit the site, which would have enabled it to make a more sensible decision. In general terms, this provision is really welcome and developers, both small and large, will see this as a very positive step forward.
Lewis Cocking
I have a few comments, although I support the principle of this provision. There is not enough capacity in some planning departments, so I agree that fee cost recovery and some of the additional fees, particularly those relating to highways matters, are really important for local authorities, but I have a few questions. When will the money be paid? Will it be paid before the development has started, so there is capacity in the system? People sometimes make planning applications and get planning permissions but do not actually build out the development, so will the fees still need to be paid in those cases?
I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to comment on. Some authorities still have section 106 agreements, and I am concerned that developers will just move money from those section 106 agreements—money that is to be put into education or healthcare, for example—by saying in a viability assessment that they now have to pay these fees to the local authorities, particularly around highways. How can we stop it being the same money, just moved around? These fees should be additional to the money from section 106 agreements that the council was already getting, as they are going directly into capacity issues within planning departments. I am worried that developers will try to play games by just moving the same money around the system or cutting the same pie in a different way, which will not help local authorities. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those comments, but I wholeheartedly support what the Government are trying to do in this specific case.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome both the broad support for the intent behind the clause and the very reasonable questions that have been put to me by members of the Committee. To be very clear, because we have strayed into pavement applications, section 106 applications and other things, this clause very specifically relates to allowing local authorities and statutory consultees to recover the costs that they incur when providing services on highway-related applications only. We may discuss later some of the other matters and the general position of planning authorities and the challenges they face in capacity and capability. I just wanted to make that point.
All the clause does is bring the Highways Act 1980 into line with the cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. It is broadly accepted that we need to support local planning authorities and statutory consultees to process applications in a timely manner. We think that will drive high-quality and timely—
Matthew Pennycook
I will address the hon. Member’s point, if he will wait, and then he is more than welcome to come back in. As I said, it help to drive timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highway infrastructure projects and avoid extra costs. This is an important point to make: there are costs associated with the fact that applications are not taken through in a timely manner. If they are delayed or time out, that can result in design changes or the process to reach a decision being extended, which brings extra costs. In general terms, we want to ensure, as with many of the provisions in the Bill, a more streamlined, certain and faster consenting process.
It will be for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to set out in regulations those bodies that are able to charge the fees; they may include bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England. Regulations and guidance will set out in more detail what advice and information will be covered by the cost recovery process, as well as other matters, including how fees are calculated, when fees can and cannot be charged and the point at which fees are charged.
We will get into separate issues relating to build out, but to respond gently to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I cannot see how a very specific highways-related application will necessarily bleed over into section 106 negotiations. None the less, I will reflect on that point, as we do not want cost recovery provisions in the clause to allow developers to reduce section 106 contributions on the basis that they are having to pay this charge. As I said, delegated powers will ensure that the cost recovery power is future-proofed by ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for changes, not least in inflation, which we have discussed before.
Lewis Cocking
I completely understand where the Minister is coming from on specific applications just for roads. I suppose my comments were related to new towns or garden villages, where there will be lots of facets to those applications—house building, new roads and what have you. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on the fact that he will look at those issues that I have raised.
Matthew Pennycook
I certainly will do so, and, just to stress the point once again, what we are trying to do here and in a number of other clauses in this chapter is broadly about bringing the processes under the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 into line with other consenting regimes. As I said, in this case, it is about ensuring that cost recovery provisions established under those other infrastructure consenting regimes apply in the case of the Highways Act. However, I certainly will be more than happy to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s point, and on those made by other members of the Committee. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Power of strategic highways company in relation to trunk roads
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 26 will allow National Highways to handle the majority of the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. As I am sure all Committee members are aware a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road.
Trunk roads are major routes in our highways network that are managed by National Highways instead of local authorities. Having the power to make a road a trunk road is an essential step in ensuring that key roads are maintained at the national level. Trunk roads perform an important role in enabling safe, reliable and often long-distance journeys by both people and goods between our major towns and cities, and provide access to our international gateways.
The current system places much of the process for handling requirements of these section 10 orders—namely their preparation and publicity—on the Secretary of State, rather than the highways body itself. Clause 26 will simply transfer the administrative control of the application from the Secretary of State to the strategic highways authority—National Highways. It will also align the handling process with the way in which applications under other parts of the Highways Act are currently managed.
I stress that the Secretary of State will remain the ultimate decision maker on the application. However, by removing the administrative burden from the Secretary of State, clause 26 will create a more efficient process, which we believe will lead to faster decisions on new and upgraded trunk roads. This will help to deliver road improvements more quickly, support economic growth, enhance transport links and reduce congestion.
Paul Holmes
On that point—depending on the Minister’s answer, I may not have to make a speech and detain the Committee—the Minister has outlined that the strategic highways authority is National Highways; does he envisage that for some roads, particularly across England, the county council is the strategic highway authority, and will have to apply the section 10 changes? Is he not worried that, because of the financial implications for some county councils—regardless of politics—there could be a kind of enticement for people to get rid of some of the strategic parts of their local road networks? It may be a complete lack of understanding on my part, but could the Minister outline whether county councils could be included in some of that process?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister about the role of county authorities in managing the highway network, and how the Highways Act and the consenting regime applies to them. I do not think his point is pertinent in this respect, in the sense that the clause transfers administrative functions related to section 10 orders under the Highways Act from the Secretary of State purely to National Highways. It does not change the legal decision-making authority, which remains the Secretary of State’s, but the administrative burden, in terms of the final preparation, publishing and consultation of the necessary documents, would be done by the applicant—National Highways. But I am more than happy to provide the shadow Minister with further detail about the interaction with county authorities.
Paul Holmes
Please do not write to me on that. I say that not to offend officials but because I do not want them overworked and the Minister has clearly outlined what he means, for which I am grateful. The question was obviously to clarify my understanding of the legislation. I asked it because I just wondered whether strategic highways authority included county councils. My county council controls a large number of roads, and I wondered whether it was enveloped under the proposal—under the meaning of strategic highways authority. The Minister has answered that, and I am perfectly content not to make a speech.
Matthew Pennycook
I very much welcome that intervention, as will my officials, I am sure. It saves them a letter—although letters may be forthcoming in the course of debate if we require further detail on very technical points. I will just stress the point again: I think the confusion lies in the fact that section 10 orders apply only to National Highways, if the shadow Minister needs reassurance in that regard. But broadly, these are procedural changes that just allow, as I have said, the administrative burden to be transferred from the Secretary of State to National Highways.
David Simmonds
Just to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister—again, at the risk of placing officials in need of writing a letter—we can consider London, where we have Transport for London, Highways England and various other agencies or companies that manage the miles and stretches of those motorways. Very close to my constituency we have the M40/A4 motorway, which is literally the same road but transfers from being a Highways England road to a TfL road at the boundary of Greater London. There could be significant issues where, for example, local authorities that are responsible for neighbouring roads would need to be consulted, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, particularly in respect of where we have TfL, red routes and things like that, all of which I think would be within the scope of the clause, that that has been fully considered so that we can ensure that we do not see unnecessary friction as a result.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that in any circumstances we would see friction on elements where the Secretary of State remains the body that takes forward the administrative process. I cannot envisage a way in which that would cause friction. Just to be very clear, a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road. That is action carried out by National Highways, as I have said. We simply want it to take the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—apologies to my officials —on this administrative change as to who takes on those actions, namely National Highways rather than the Secretary of State, and how that interacts, which I think was his point, with the boundary of roads managed by the Greater London Authority, which is not covered by this clause of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I am just reflecting on my experience as a councillor in local government. There are often disputes. For example, the creation or designation of a red route clearway as a trunk road removes all parking along the length of that route and also affects things like bus services along it, so there are situations in which there may be a difference of opinion between a local authority, which is the current manager or administrator of the route, and a trunk road manager, who wishes to designate it as such for the benefit of an infrastructure project but clearly will not be subject to the consequences that that would have for bus routes, parking and other issues under the ambit of the local authority. I am just looking for clarity that there is a process by which those issues will be resolved and that there will be a relevant level of consultation, so that the kind of tensions that we saw around low traffic neighbourhoods with a dispute between Transport for London and a local authority about what was going on in a local area are not replicated.
The Chair
I remind everybody of the tightness of the parameters within which we need to keep this debate. Otherwise the Committee will have to find another day to sit. By no means do I want to stifle debate, but it is also up to the Minister to allow interventions or not.
Matthew Pennycook
I think we will all know where to place the blame if that scenario arises—we will not need to add an extra day.
I gently say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that he is comparing apples and pears. To be as clear as I possibly can be, all the requirements set down in the legislation in respect of preparing and publishing materials, and the fact that the Secretary of State remains the decision maker, remain in place. The clause purely changes the body overseeing the administrative actions associated with those applications. On that basis, I think this is a fairly uncontroversial procedural change. We have committed to write to the hon. Gentleman about any possible interactions with the Greater London Authority’s management of red routes. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Deadlines for consultation and decisions on certain orders and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 27 will reduce the objection period for applications under the Highways Act 1980 from six weeks to 30 days. Such applications could be for the construction of new roads, changes to existing ones and other necessary legal orders for delivering highway infrastructure. The objection period refers to the timeframe during which interested parties can view application materials and provide comments.
Reducing the objection period will speed up the consenting process without sacrificing the safeguards that are essential for the fair consideration of objections. An objection period of 30 days aligns with the relevant objection periods for other transport consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Again, I draw the shadow Ministers’ attention to the fact that, as per the previous clauses, we intend to align the Highways Act provisions with those in other consenting regimes, to provide for a more uniform arrangement across the piece.
Additionally, the clause will introduce a 10-week deadline for the Secretary of State to make decisions on these schemes and orders. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for the decision-making stage for the relevant processes, unlike in other consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Bringing the Highways Act into alignment with other consenting regimes will improve certainty and the efficiency of the process. The power for the Secretary of State to extend the decision deadline, if necessary, ensures flexibility in cases where additional time may be required.
By shortening the objection period and setting a clear decision timeframe, the clause makes the process more predictable for all stakeholders. Faster, more predictable decisions will result in more efficient delivery of transport infrastructure projects, contributing to better transport networks. We think this change strikes the right balance between improving speed and maintaining fairness, ensuring that the process remains transparent and accountable. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
May I say, Mrs Hobhouse, that you are absolutely on fire? We are getting through things very quickly, and I will adhere to your instructions.
The clause updates the objection and decision-making timelines under the Highways Act 1980. Although the goal is to align with other planning regimes, several concerns remain. First, the clause reduces the objection period in England to a minimum of 30 days, but maintains it at six weeks in Wales. What justifies that discrepancy? Should there not be consistency across all authorities?
Furthermore, is it not the case that reducing the objection period may limit the time available for affected parties to prepare responses? I know that this is outside the remit of this very prescriptive clause, but many constituents will say that they did not get the letter or see the things that were posted, or that local people simply were not able to see things. I really think that this 30-day restriction will harm many average Joes—I hate that term, but I do not know how else to put it. People out there, who have busy lives, busy jobs and families, and who are working on their daily lives, will really struggle, in the first place, to see things within 30 days. However, they will also not know that the period is now 30 days and may therefore not be consulted on some of the actions that authorities may take.
I ask the Minister to assess whether 30 days is the right length of time. I am not talking about having an unrestricted length of time for consultation, and we absolutely need to make sure, if we want to deliver on some of these policies, that the timeframe is reasonable. However, I question whether 30 days is far too rapid and will cause more harm than good to the consultation rights of the British public. I would also ask what systems will be in place to notify stakeholders of deadline changes and extensions in individual cases, to ensure clear and accessible communication.
I have a last question. While the intent of the clause is to streamline processes, we must ensure fairness, transparency and quality decision making, allowing stakeholders to engage meaningfully. We absolutely accept that there is currently no statutory deadline. Ten weeks is adequate, but on the 30 days element of the consultation period, when we think about people out there with busy lives, I think could cause a huge problem for democratic accountability and for the transparency of the system in allowing local people to have their say. I ask the Minister to look at that 30 days again, but we will not press the clause to a Division.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his response and questions. Again, I make the point that with a number of these provisions we are trying to align the Highways Act with other consenting regimes. I do not know whether his position is that the statutory objection period in those other consenting regimes—for example, the Planning Act 2008—should be lengthened. I would argue that such an extension would add time and complexity. We think that should be brought into line with the others.
We think that 30 days is the appropriate period, that the existing arrangements, which set out a period of not less than six weeks, are too long, and that we should bring the Highways Act into line with the other regimes. On that basis, we do not think that the clause sets a precedent for the shortening of objection periods, because objection periods of about four weeks, as I have said, can be found in other infrastructure consenting regimes. That is an adequate period of time in which to submit objections.
The shadow Minister asked another, separate question about the Secretary of State’s ability to extend deadlines from the 10-week period. Again, in any such instances, the Secretary of State would need to send written notice of the extension to the relevant parties in those cases, setting out why an extension is required. I hope that on that basis the shadow Minister is reassured about the use of that particular part of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Procedure for certain orders and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause seeks to address the fact that under the existing system, a statutory instrument is required to approve applications under sections 16 and 106(3) of the Highways Act, and for orders under section 10, which are made by the Highways Authority in the form of a draft statutory instrument, whereas a simpler confirmation process exists for other applications under that Act.
An SI is currently required for applications to make or unmake a trunk road or special road, to construct a special road, or to build a road bridge over or road tunnel under navigable waters. Those statutory instruments are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, but they take extra time to prepare. That represents an unnecessary and disproportionate burden of bureaucracy in our view.
As I have mentioned, the Highways Act already contains a quicker process for confirming other types of application via a confirmation document issued by the Department for Transport. The clause will simply allow the applications to which I have referred to be confirmed via a confirmation document issued by the Department. In short, that again aligns the handling processes across the relevant parts of the Highways Act. That will support the Government’s goal of speeding up the consenting of transport infrastructure by streamlining the process.
To maintain transparency in the decision-making process, the clause ensures that a confirmation notice must be published in the public domain. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause concerns compulsory acquisition powers in relation to projects undertaken under the Highways Act 1980. No clear provision is currently available to allow Highways Act project promoters to temporarily use and possess land, such as for construction purposes, by compulsion. In lieu of such a provision, if a project promoter cannot come to a commercial agreement with the landowner or owners for a licence to access the land required, the project promoter will typically apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to buy and use the land. That approach is disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily for construction purposes. Additionally, the current arrangement offers the landowner no legal right to regain their land.
The intention of the clause is to provide clarity that project promoters, under the Highways Act 1980 regime, can temporarily use and possess land by compulsion. It does so by introducing a clear and proportionate legal power to require authorities that have already identified a piece of land as necessary for the planned construction of the proposed highway works to temporarily use land when they cannot reach agreement with the landowner, while also protecting landowner rights to regain their land and support compensation mechanisms.
By reducing legal ambiguity, the power will help to shorten often protracted land negotiations, speeding up the process to submit an application for highways works, ultimately thereby delivering transport projects quicker. In doing so, it will contribute to the Government’s ambition to simplify the consenting of major transport infrastructure projects.
David Simmonds
Broadly speaking, the Opposition support the intention set out in the clause. Improving the efficiency of such works is clearly a very logical step. Could the Minister say a little more about how the power will interact with the powers and duties that apply to statutory undertakers? I am thinking, for example, of where it is necessary to divert a gas main or water main, or other significant infrastructure, where there are already legal rights in place that can be used for that purpose. An issue we are all familiar with is the disruption caused to transport networks when major works are being undertaken. Will there be a process for ensuring a degree of co-ordination? Will there be a requirement or expectation for consultation so that, where a highways body wishes to undertake that work, it can possibly be co-ordinated with the work of other statutory undertakers involved in the same project, to minimise the disruption?
Will there be an assurance that that process will provide for an appropriate level of compensation for the landowner whose land is being taken temporarily, as that often seems to be a source of dispute? This should not become a back-door way by which a highways agency, as the lead body, says, “We are going to take that at no recompense,” rather than going through a process of negotiation to achieve an agreed sum in respect of the loss of amenity to the owner of the land.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that contribution and I recognise the reasonable concern he raises. If he will allow me, because it is a very technical aspect of the Bill, I will write to him with full details of how we see this power working, particularly in respect of compensation measures. I think his remarks recognised that the present arrangements do not provide the necessary certainty for landowners that they can regain their land. They force applicants to use disproportionate powers. We are trying, through the clause, to provide certainty that there is a way to take possession of land temporarily when required.
It is worth saying that there is a temporary possession power in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. It is a different mechanism; it has not yet been enacted. We are trying to achieve a fairly simple clarification through the Bill, which will not require us to enact powers that are above and beyond what is required under the simplification to which the clause gives effect. It is an uncontroversial procedural change that will make the process more certain and efficient for both parties and provide them with reassurances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Replacement of model clauses with guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 30 to 41 make various amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. I would hope that the Committee has a shared recognition that that Act of Parliament needs to be more efficient for applicants applying for transport infrastructure schemes such as new railways or tramways in England and Wales. This will allow transport infrastructure projects to be delivered as efficiently as possible, providing faster decisions and support economic growth.
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move template model clauses from legislation into guidance. The model clauses are intended to streamline the drafting of Transport and Works Act orders, but they can currently only be amended through secondary legislation. Setting them out in more flexible guidance, rather than legislation, will allow them to be updated more regularly via a more efficient and faster process. That supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport rules, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework moving forward. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Removal of special procedure for projects of national significance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that on this clause, at least, we can avoid detailed questioning by the Opposition, because there is nothing with which issue can be taken. It is a simple tidying up of the statute book. The Transport and Works Act requires updating to reflect the wider changes that are to be implemented in the planning sector. It was, as I have mentioned, given Royal Assent in 1992.
The purpose of clause 31 is simply to remove a redundant section of the Transport and Works Act, which refers to schemes considered to be “of national significance”. Since the Planning Act 2008 was introduced as the consenting regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with clearly defined thresholds for what is considered “of national significance”, it has effectively rendered that part of the Transport and Works Act entirely redundant.
The effect of the clause is a simple procedural fix. By removing outdated references, the clause will make it easier for developers and public bodies to understand and apply the law, while also reducing administrative burdens. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have flagged up the important point that is highlighted by subsection (3), namely the lack of retrospective application. I would like the Minister’s response on a point that is of concern to the Opposition. There is always a risk that powers that are due to expire will be used and exploited in advance of new legislation coming in. What measures does the Minister have in mind to ensure that that does not turn into a problem?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. As ever with his points, it was well made. I will go away and reflect on it, but I struggle to see how the use of the clauses we are considering in the Transport and Works Act—as I have said, they have been rendered entirely redundant since they were superseded by provisions in the Planning Act 2008 that clearly define thresholds for what is deemed to be nationally significant infrastructure —give rise to the challenge that he posits.
David Simmonds
The Minister has served on a planning Committee, and he will be aware of the challenges that arise where, for example, a historical permission is secured on which a developer subsequently seeks to rely. It is clear that the intention is, quite rightly, to remove those redundant clauses. The concern I am highlighting is that when permission rights have arisen under the clauses that have been made redundant and a developer later relies on them, we must ensure that the process is effectively managed.
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the point correctly—I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister and set this out in detail, but he can intervene if I have not got this right—the challenge is about applicants who in the past have relied on the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 that we are today arguing are redundant, and how permissions obtained on that basis prior to the Planning Act 2008 interact with the changes in the clause. It is essentially a concern about retrospection in relation to the clause.
David Simmonds
We are zeroing in on the issue that I seek to highlight. The statement in subsection (3) says that the clause does
“not apply in relation to an application in respect of which a notice”
has been made
“before this section comes into force.”
Early on in his remarks, the Minister referred to sections of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that have not come into force, eight years after they underwent scrutiny in a Committee like this one and Parliament passed them. This clause may not come into force for some considerable time after we debate it in Committee and the Bill becomes law—indeed, it may never come into force. If the previous legislation remains the relevant legislation for an extended period, or if a developer sees advantage in securing a permission now, under the previous legislation, before the new measures take its place, do we have an appropriate process for dealing with that?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the point, but I think the shadow Minister is conflating an application under the relevant provisions in the Transport and Works Act and what the clause seeks to clarify, which is when schemes are considered to be of national importance. As I said, with the Planning Act 2008, we have an Act of Parliament that provides very clear thresholds for when schemes are considered of national importance.
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister with further detail, but I think he raises a valid point. We think the redundant section 9 should be removed from the Transport and Works Act to give developers and public bodies clarity on how the law should be applied going forward, while also reducing administrative burdens. The easiest way—mindful of your strictures, Mrs Hobhouse—to move the Committee on and ensure that we can debate important clauses later in the Bill is for me to commit to writing to the shadow Minister with exhaustive detail on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Duty to hold inquiry or hearing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 32 and 33 relate to public inquiries under the Transport and Works Act. Clause 32 will amend the circumstances in which an objection is considered to an application under that Act. Currently, if an objection is raised to an application under the Act, a public inquiry or hearing can be required to be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. That can result in costly and lengthy public inquiries taking place, even where objections lack merit.
The length of the inquiry process can range greatly depending on the complexity of what is being examined, from six months to two years. Clause 32 will mean that a public inquiry is held only when an objection is raised that is considered by the determining authority to be serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and cost for applicants. All objections will continue to be decided—I want to stress this point—entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. This not about removing the voices of individuals or communities; instead, it ensures that the objections process remains proportionate, so serious objections are given due attention.
Clause 33 makes amendments to section 11 of the Transport and Works Act regarding decisions on costs arising from a public inquiry. It will enable an inspector conducting the public inquiry to make decisions on those costs, unless the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them. Currently, the inspector must write a report with recommendations of costs to the Secretary of State based on the conduct of parties taking part in the public inquiry. That approach contrasts with the Planning Act 2008, where cost decisions are made by the examining authority.
By delegating the decision-making capability to the inspector conducting the inquiry, we will ensure that claims are resolved more quickly for all stakeholders. That will reduce administrative burden in determining such cases and save time, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. The Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales, will retain the ability to direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them should they not wish to delegate responsibility on a potentially contentious case. The clauses, as I have argued, will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative burdens, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I commend them to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I rise to query some of the provisions. We understand that the Government’s proposal would effectively remove the automatic right to call a public inquiry. The Minister knows we are concerned that the Bill seeks to remove people from the process, and to remove the opportunity for objections in the planning process. That is a very serious concern for us. The clause proposes a public inquiry only where the Secretary of State
“considers that the objection is serious enough”.
Matthew Pennycook
Hopefully I can provide the hon. Gentleman with further clarification. I recognise and appreciate the valid concerns he raises. As things stand, it is not the case that any objection to an application of the kind we have described results in a public inquiry or hearing, but it can in many instances give rise to one.
For example, when an objection comes from a landowner whose land would be affected by compulsory purchase; when a local authority for the area concerned receives an objection that they do not consider frivolous or trivial; or when other concerns are raised that need to be considered, a public inquiry or hearing takes place. In many circumstances, that is appropriate. In others, it may be the case that an exchange of correspondence, for example, can achieve the same goal without the need for a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I hope that gives him some reassurance as to the type of circumstances—
Matthew Pennycook
I am pre-empting what the hon. Member is going to intervene on, so I will finish making the point and he can come back to me. I hope he is reassured as to why we consider the change necessary, and the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
The hon. Member raises an entirely valid point about the fact that it will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide on a case-by-case basis when objections meet the test that he rightly reiterated. I will reflect on how we might provide further clarity, perhaps through guidance on the circumstances in which that test should be applied, but I recognise there is a fair challenge about what cases will come through this route.
I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the problem we are trying to resolve is that under certain circumstances, as things stand, a public inquiry or hearing can be triggered where it is not necessary, and there may be a far more proportionate way of moving things on and responding to objections—for example, in an exchange of correspondence. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman somewhat. As I have said, I am happy to reflect and come back to the Committee with further thoughts on this point.
Gideon Amos
I simply say that doing away with, effectively, an automatic right to a public inquiry in certain circumstances, as the Minister has clarified, and replacing that with the words “serious enough” is a big leap. I strongly encourage the Minister to put on record guidance on what relevant parties can expect will be considered serious enough to merit a public inquiry.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not have much more to add. There is a genuine problem with the current arrangements that we need to resolve. As I have said, in some circumstances a public inquiry or hearing is not necessary; things can be dealt with in other ways. Under the current arrangements, public inquiries and hearings can be triggered even if an objection is considered to be lacking in substance. That is onerous and disproportionate, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the basis on which the Secretary of State for Transport will determine whether the objection is of the relevant level of seriousness to require a public inquiry or hearing. I am more than happy to come back to him on that point in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Deadline for decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 34 provides a power for the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to introduce statutory deadlines for the determination of Transport and Works Act order applications. Unlike other infra-structure consenting processes, the Transport and Works Act process does not have statutory timeframes to govern the duration of its decision stage, and that can lead to uncertainty and delays. The clause will bring it into alignment with other planning consenting processes, such as the Planning Act 2008 process, and introduce greater accountability of decision makers.
Clause 35 seeks to modernise the way decisions under the Transport and Works Act are communicated. It enables the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to issue a notice online when publicising a decision on an application for a Transport and Works Act order and removes the requirement to publish the notice in the London Gazette. Moving to digital advertising will mean that notification of decisions can be done on the same day as decisions are finalised, which will ensure that there are no delays in communication and provide a more efficient service to interested parties. The clause also provides that any legal challenges must be filed within six weeks, starting the day after the notice is published, bringing the timeline in line with other consenting regimes.
By making use of modern technology, we will bring the Transport and Works Act into the 21st century, helping to speed up the process and deliver transport schemes more quickly. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Fees for certain services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision in regulations for public authorities—limited to certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities —to charge applicants for their services in connection with Transport and Works Act orders. Currently, public authorities cannot recover costs for this work, and that can lead to delays because of a lack of resourcing. The clause will apply to parts of the Act associated with approving the construction or operation of railways and tramways, externally guided buses, monorails and certain other types of guided transport.
Supporting the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highways infrastructure projects. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause and the clarification and certainty that the Minister has given, but I want to put some questions, along similar lines to those we have asked before, about transparency and limits or caps on the fees that authorities can charge.
We believe that without clear limits, there is a risk of inconsistent or excessive charges and a disproportionately wide range of fees across authorities. What mechanisms will be in place to allow applicants to challenge or appeal fees that they consider unreasonable? What impact does the Minister think this measure may have on smaller companies in the supply chain, which may be less able to absorb the costs that will be imposed? We do not disagree with the principle of the clause; we just have some questions about the detail.
Finally, how will the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers review or update the regulations? As costs and administrative practices evolve, it is crucial that the regulations are reassessed regularly to ensure that they remain fair, relevant and effective. Will the Minister remark briefly on that and on some of the smaller businesses that may be affected?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those points. The clause only allows for the charging of fees for services on a cost-recovery basis. I think there is broad agreement across the Committee that cost recovery for applications is a fair and proportionate way to proceed. Organisations will not be—
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
Wednesday 14th May 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to our Hansard colleagues at hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also ask Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Officially, I think that Members have to ask my permission to remove their jackets, so I can give a unilateral order, on a hot day like this, that you may all have it off—[Laughter.] You may all remove your jackets; it is hot, especially for women of a certain age. We now come to clause 47.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 47, page 62, leave out from line 32 to line 2 on page 63.
This relates to amendment 22. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 22, in clause 47, page 63, leave out lines 14 to 17.
This relates to amendment 21. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq—although I was not sure how much of a pleasure until you introduced the sitting in the way that you did.
Amendments 21 and 22 would remove the requirement on unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, simply based on the resources that unitary authorities have and the stretch under which they have been placed.
My own authority is working hard to stave off financial challenges after being left with a massive deficit to manage—£2 of every £3 of the council’s funding is spent on care for children and adults, but it also has to prepare a new local plan. It has permission for 11,000 homes that are not yet built, but the new plan will require a 41% increase in housing allocations in Somerset, which is a massive task that will cost millions of pounds. For an individual unitary authority, having to not only establish a unitary local plan but, at the same time, prepare a spatial development strategy seems over the top. That should be reserved for mayoral authorities, where a strategic authority is established.
We do not oppose the concept of spatial development strategies; for strategic-level authorities, they could be a sensible addition to the planning system to reintroduce the strategic level of planning that was taken away. However, we are concerned about the significant additional burden on unitary authorities in also being required to prepare spatial development strategies that are meant to be more strategic in nature and have more than a single unitary authority area. With that in mind, I commend amendments 21 and 22 to the Committee.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to resume our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling amendment 21, but the Government will have to resist it for reasons that I will set out. Having said that, as we have already discussed in previous sessions, we absolutely recognise the real challenges that local planning authorities face not only in resourcing but more widely in capability and capacity. We have discussed a number of the measures that the Government are taking, both in the Bill and outside it, to address that challenge.
Amendments 21 and 22 seek to make upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities ineligible to produce a spatial development plan. It is the Government’s intention that, in the future, all spatial development strategies will be produced by strategic authorities in accordance with our devolution framework, including combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority. While we are making substantial progress, with six areas currently part of the devolution priority programme, the establishment of strategic authorities across the whole of England will be a gradual process.
However, the Government want to move quickly on strategic planning. That means that, as well as combined authorities and combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities are being made into strategic planning authorities with a requirement to produce a spatial development strategy. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would remove the requirement for those aforementioned authorities.
The requirement to produce a spatial development strategy will be realised either individually or in defined groupings; in some cases, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities may also be grouped with a combined authority or combined county authority. As such, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
Dr Huq, I do not know whether I get the opportunity to sum up, so I have jumped in with an intervention. Could the Minister clarify the circumstances in which an individual unitary authority—perhaps a unitary county such as Somerset, or Oxfordshire, if it becomes a unitary county—would be required to, on its own, prepare a spatial development strategy? Will all unitary authorities be required to prepare spatial development strategies on top of, and in parallel with, preparing local plans? I think that that clarification would be helpful.
The Chair
Apparently, there will be a chance to sum up and to respond to the summing up.
Matthew Pennycook
Thank you for that clarification, Dr Huq; we may hear further from the hon. Gentleman on that point. Just to be clear, the Government are driving for universal coverage for strategic planning across the whole of England, so, either individually or in defined groupings, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will have to, in some form, be part of producing a spatial development strategy.
As I said, I very much recognise the challenge that the hon. Gentleman posed around resourcing. It is worth pointing out that, in addition to the elements that we discussed yesterday—the £46 million that the Budget allocated to local planning authority capacity and capability, and the measures in the Bill allowing for the setting of fees locally and the ringfencing of those fees—the Government have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We recognise the need for core funding and that is being negotiated with the Treasury as part of the spending review for 2026 to 2029.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Could the Minister outline what would happen if a unitary council created a spatial development strategy and then became part of a larger, bigger authority under the devolution? What would happen to their specific strategy, and would that new authority, as a bigger authority, have to create a new SDS across the whole area?
Matthew Pennycook
Over time, spatial development strategies will have to reflect the appropriate geographies at the point they are renewed and refreshed—if that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point. But as I said, either individually or in groupings through the strategic boards we are creating, we will have to have those SDSs in places, although obviously the geographies will be able to change over time, if that is the wish of the component member authorities.
As I was saying, for the reasons I have outlined the Government believe that the legislation, as drafted, is essential to support the introduction of our strategic planning policy, which is an important means of ensuring our pro-growth agenda and that we are able to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. As we have argued on many occasions, the introduction of a robust, universal system of strategic planning is a core part of the Government’s reform agenda, and we think that the Bill is required to operate in the way that I have set out. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, and he has my respect for bringing strategic planning back into the system. I know he has worked on that for a number of years; some of us have also worked on regional planning for a number of years and can remember the regional spatial strategy processes—in fact, took part in them. However, the question of individual unitary authorities preparing SDSs remains quite a challenge.
Perhaps the Minister, in summing up, could say something about the timescale. I can see that the Government are moving towards universal coverage of mayoral—well, strategic—authorities, as well as SDSs, which makes sense, but the timescale will be crucial here. If an individual authority becomes something of an orphan, or it needs time to ally itself with others and agree its strategic authority area—for example, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire put forward their proposal but were knocked back, so they cannot establish that strategic authority—it would seem unfair for those authorities to be required to prepare three SDSs for those three counties on top of three local plans. That is a massive amount of work. We must not underestimate the weight of work that goes into a local plan. For a huge area such as Somerset, it will costs tens of millions of pounds and it will take several years. For those three authorities also to be required to prepare an SDS at the same time would be unfortunate.
If the timing could work such that—this may be the Government’s intention—those authorities have sufficient time to establish their mayoral strategic authorities first, and then develop an SDS, that would appear to be a much better way. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on that. We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Minister, I am advised that you are not obliged to speak now—you can respond in writing—but if you wish to, you can.
Matthew Pennycook
I will address a couple of points to give the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington some reassurance. First, I very much welcome his support for the reintroduction of sub-regional strategic planning—I would actually say introduction, because we are not proposing a regional model along the lines of what happened before.
In our view, there has been a clear lack of strategic planning and of those effective cross-boundary mechanisms between local authorities for delivering housing growth in the past 14 years. Therefore, we do not intend to wait for strategic planning to be reintroduced. It is the Government’s intention for all future SDSs to be produced by strategic authorities, but I recognise that there is a sequencing issue here.
As I have said, however, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, and the Government want all areas of England to feel the benefit of effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Strategic planning boards will allow areas outside of strategic authorities to do that, so we think there is a mechanism that will allow for those instances where a strategic authority is not yet in place. As I said, however, I do recognise the sequencing issue.
To reiterate to the hon. Gentleman, we have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We expect all local planning authorities within the area of a strategic planning authority, such as district councils within a combined authority, to be closely involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, including by sharing staff members and expertise. That is already standard practice in areas producing a joint local plan, which can be done at the discretion of local authorities wishing to take part, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured him and other hon. Members as to the Government’s intentions in this area.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 47, page 63, leave out from line 28 to the end of line 28 on page 65.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 122, in clause 47, page 64, line 40, at end insert—
“(e) requiring the production of infrastructure delivery plans;
(f) funding for meeting the requirements of this subsection.”
This amendment would extend the list of matters which the Secretary of State could include in regulations about strategic planning boards.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I cannot tell you how delighted I am to be here for the second day in a row, with a third day tomorrow.
This simple amendment would block the mandatory transfer of powers over planning to strategic planning authorities in proposed new sections 12B and 12C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. On the consultation for the spatial development strategy, we also think the consultation requirement in proposed new section 12H(3) should be replaced with a simple requirement to consult the public.
Blocking the mandatory transfer of powers over planning to strategic planning authorities would allow for greater local control and flexibility in decision making. It would ensure that planning decisions remained more closely aligned with the specific needs and priorities of individual communities, rather than being imposed by a centralised authority. Local authorities often have a better understanding of their residents’ needs, the environmental considerations and the unique challenges, making them more capable of tailoring development plans to suit their areas.
Retaining those powers at the local level would also promote accountability, as local officials and politicians are directly answerable to the communities they serve, and foster a more transparent and responsible planning process. That approach would encourage more balanced development that reflects local aspirations, while reducing the risk of a one-size-fits-all solution imposed from above.
We take into account the comments of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington about the burden on local authorities. I think the Minister has responded to that issue, but I would like to press him further on the Government’s drive to unitarisation. He is outlining that, as we go through, this would be a gradual process, but I hope he would acknowledge that there is a risk that the repeated reforming of local government could mean added bureaucracy and a repeated requirement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, to amalgamate plans and go through another review period. I hope the Minister can reassure us that there would be no burden on local authorities in relation to amendment 21, which slightly ties into the concerns and aspirations behind why amendment 76 was tabled, but I do not intend to debate this amendment for very long.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I bob to speak to amendment 122. Is now the right time?
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and thank you for your ongoing generosity to those of us who continue to learn how Bill Committees work.
Lib Dem amendment 122 would require the production of infrastructure delivery plans by local authorities and accompanying funding to meet the requirements of those. I note the comments of other hon. Members about taking into account the administrative burden on local authorities; we need to strike the optimum balance here, but I shall explain why I think infrastructure development plans are of merit and need to be mandated.
For those not familiar with IDPs—to use yet another dreaded acronym—I should say that they are developed during the local plan-making stage and serve as an important part of the evidence base and quality of those local plans. They identify and schedule the infrastructure needs for a community, including social, physical and green infrastructure, all of which are needed in addition to houses for the high quality, well-functioning communities we all wish to see.
The planning policy team at the local authority writes to all infrastructure providers to ask them to identify what infrastructure will be needed to accompany the development that the local plan is proposing. That becomes a list, which is tested through a viability assessment and local plan examination. Once the plan is adopted, and at the point where planning applications are submitted, planning officers will use the IDP to help to secure infrastructure—through direct delivery, financial contributions or indeed a mix of the two. IDPs are therefore an important part of both securing infrastructure and tracking the progress of its delivery.
However, at present IDPs are not compulsory and are not specified in the national planning policy framework or the Government’s planning practice guidance. Local plans are supposed to be reviewed every five years, although many are not, and by extension IDPs may be updated only infrequently. We think Government should compel local authorities to produce infrastructure delivery plans so that communities get the necessary infrastructure to create the well-function communities that we need to transform our country.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. As we have seen, there are very many amendments to this part of the Bill, which speaks to the fact that it is one of the most important parts of the legislation the Government are moving through. It is absolutely necessary that it should happen, but I want to make a quick point about infrastructure that is pertinent to this amendment.
As the Minister knows, and the Committee may know, I represent Ebbsfleet Garden City in Dartford: a new community that has arisen from no homes in about 2015 to around 5,000 now, and is due to be 15,000 by the middle of the next decade. We have seen with Ebbsfleet Garden City the importance of social and physical infrastructure being built alongside homes. Generally, the corporation there has done a good job in making sure that there are schools, recreation areas, community spaces and medical facilities; the timing has not always been brilliant, and sometimes the growth of the homes has outstripped the provision of infrastructure, but that infrastructure does eventually get delivered.
It is extremely important that the Minister gives an assurance, in line with what the amendment, I know, is seeking to do. I do not know whether the precise format that the amendment suggests is the right way to do it, but it is vital that we see that social and physical infrastructure grow at the same time as the housing.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member agree that nothing in this Bill makes developers build the social infrastructure that he is describing, which many communities desperately need, first—or at all?
Jim Dickson
The hon. Member is helping me to make my point. The only difference I have with him is that I know that the Government intend to ensure that infrastructure appears at the same time as homes and the Minister will provide reassurance on that. It is vital that that happens, via either a development corporation with those powers, or the spatial development strategies that we are discussing. Let us ensure that we do build the physical and social infrastructure at the same time as homes, with the examples of generally good development we see in Ebbsfleet Garden City reproduced elsewhere, as the Government meet their ambitious plans to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me begin with amendment 76, tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which seeks to remove provision for the establishment of strategic planning boards that would allow two or more authorities to produce a spatial development strategy jointly. The main purpose of strategic planning is to provide a mechanism for cross-boundary planning between local planning authorities and to plan for growth on a scale that is larger than local. For that to be done as effectively as possible, it is essential that spatial development strategies are produced across the most appropriate geographies. To that end, it will be necessary for some strategic planning authorities to be grouped together so that they can produce a spatial development strategy across their combined area. Unless SDSs are produced across appropriate geographies, they will not be as effective as they could be and the full benefits of strategic planning will not be realised.
To address the perfectly reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, as I said, and the Government want all areas of England to benefit from effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Therefore, in some cases, responsibility for producing an SDS will transfer between different authorities while the broader reforms are being undertaken. We are seeking powers in the Bill to complement existing powers to make regulations for transitional arrangements when such scenarios occur, similar to how responsibility for a local plan can transfer when a local authority becomes a unitary authority. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
I turn to amendment 122, which seeks to add provision for infrastructure delivery plans and funding to the list of matters in proposed new section 12C(3) to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that the Secretary of State may consider, including in regulations establishing a strategic planning board. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that that list is not exhaustive. Indeed, proposed new section 12C(2) is clear:
“Strategic planning board regulations may make provision about…such…matters as the Secretary of State considers are necessary or expedient to facilitate the exercise by a strategic planning board of its functions”.
In general terms, the Government are clear that new development must come with the appropriate social and physical infrastructure and amenities for new communities to thrive. The hon. Member for Broxbourne challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, saying that there are not provisions in the Bill directly relating to things like infrastructure delivery plans. That is right, but the Bill is not the sum total of the action the Government are taking in housing and planning. As my hon. Friend alluded to, we are talking action in other areas. However, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage directly, it is not the Government’s intention for strategic planning boards or any other strategic planning authority to be required to produce an infrastructure delivery plan, although I am more than happy to pick up the wider discussion about infrastructure with him outside the Committee.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s position and commitment to infrastructure delivery alongside housing. Will he comment specifically on infrastructure that allows people to get on a train and go to work? Does he agree that transport infrastructure is critical and that we must not build homes in the middle of nowhere, which condemn people to poverty? The ability of people to connect to places by getting on a train or a bus to go to work and earn a decent wage, and then to get back home, is crucial for an economy that works for everyone.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As we know, done properly, transport infrastructure and effective interventions in that regard can unlock huge numbers of homes. As I said, the Government have already taken action to support the provision of infrastructure, for example in the changes to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and we are looking at what more can be done, but it is not necessary for the clause to introduce that.
I will make a final point about how IDPs work now. IDPs are put in place where local authorities decide to take them forward, on the basis that they support the delivery of a local development plan. Local development plans have to be in general conformity with spatial development strategies. There is a clear link here, even though we are not asking strategic planning boards to have responsibility for bringing forward IDPs in the way that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage suggests. I hope that I have given him some reassurance and, on that basis, that he will agree that amendment 122 is not necessary. I also request that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley withdraws his amendment 76.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate the spirit in which, as usual, the Minister comes back. I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I would appreciate some further conversations and some reassurance on how, in the reform of local government, we do not add an undue burden on local authorities.
The hon. Member for Barking made an astute point, as usual, approaching this topic with her experience: we must absolutely make sure that where development happens, whether in rural areas or areas in the middle of nowhere—although I presume that that would be rural too—the infrastructure also comes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, nowhere is that stated in the legislation.
The Minister is a man of integrity and I take what he says as such. I know that his aims and ambitions are to make sure that there are further plans with an infrastructure-first approach, but given the Bill at the moment, as well as the reforms and changes to the NPPF, the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking will simply not be met under this legislative agenda. Indeed, some of the housing targets and reforms brought in by this Government have placed an overwhelming burden on rural areas, rather than on urban areas where the infrastructure is already in place and easier to develop.
We look forward to challenging and scrutinising the Minister in future stages of the Bill. We also await with anticipation proposed future legislation that he will bring forward on infrastructure—
Paul Holmes
Not legislation, sorry. Forgive me. We are good mates—well, I think we are—so I must resist the temptation to talk across the aisle. On that basis, we look forward to what the Minister will say. We will scrutinise the measures on infrastructure that he may bring forward, and we will not press the amendment to a vote.
Olly Glover
Briefly, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and for his empathy with and understanding of the point that we sought to make about infrastructure supporting housing. I am very grateful for his offer to discuss the wider problem at a future stage. On that basis, I am content not to move amendment 122.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 47, page 65, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise for new development previously-developed land.”
This amendment would require that spatial development strategies prioritise development on brownfield land over other locations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A strategic planning board has a duty to ensure that any development specified or described under subsections (4) or (5) does not take place on green belt land unless there is no practicable option for development in existing urban areas, including by—
(a) increasing the density of existing development, and
(b) regenerating an existing development,
in an urban area.”
This amendment would ensure that a strategic planning board must only propose development on green belt land where development in urban areas is not possible.
Amendment 82, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy proposes the development or use of agricultural land, the strategy must consider—
(a) the grade of such agricultural land;
(b) the cumulative impact of projects developing or using such agricultural land.”
New clause 104—Protection of Green Belt land—
“For the purposes of protecting Green Belt land, local planning authorities must—
(a) within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of existing areas of Green Belt land and;
(b) for areas designated as Green Belt land under the review, prevent any development for a minimum period of 20 years.”
Paul Holmes
The amendments stand in the name my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner or, in the case of amendment 82, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—I cannot remember his constituency name, but he is listed on the amendment paper. Like the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, I am learning on the job—
Paul Holmes
I appreciate your forbearance, Dr Huq.
The amendment and the others tabled by Conservative Members relate to a brownfield-first approach. Our concern with the measures in the legislation as drafted, and with the actions of the Government so far, is that the green belt at the moment is under threat. Specifically, with amendment 72, we want to ensure that land that has previously been developed should be considered for development ahead of other categories of land. That will reduce pressure to build on undeveloped greenfield land, helping to protect natural habitats, agricultural land and green belt.
In addition, we believe that such developments can regenerate neglected or derelict urban areas, improving the local environment, attracting investment and jobs, and helping residents. That is not to mention that putting brownfield sites first may benefit from existing infrastructure such as roads, public transport and water power, reducing the need for costly new developments, and making services more efficient. Essentially, we are saying to the Minister that we want spatial development to have a brownfield-first and an existing development-first approach, and a basic assumption within those guidelines.
With amendment 75, we want essentially to allow development on green-belt land only where urban development is not possible. Already we have seen in the last couple of weeks the Mayor of London, for example—despite assurances from this Government that the green belt would be safe—proposing to put something forward around the M25 on green-belt land. I know the Minister cannot comment on live planning or on the decision made by the Secretary of State this week, but there are other examples where we are seeing an encroachment on to the green belt. The Government have given assurances that the green belt would not be under threat, but we can see that some measures in the spatial development strategies and the existing powers being given to Ministers and the Secretary of State do not provide overwhelming safeguards to the green belt across the UK.
The amendment is a perfectly practicable step to make sure that ,where we have previously developed land and brownfield sites, there is a basic assumption that that is where buildings should go first, for all the reasons I set out. We also think that restricting development on green-belt land, and allowing it only where urban development is not possible, helps to protect the countryside from urban sprawl and ensures that the natural landscape, farmland and biodiversity are preserved for future generations.
We also argue that it encourages a more efficient use of previously developed brownfield sites, as I said, within towns and cities, supporting urban regeneration and reducing the environmental impact of new construction. I think that slightly matches the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking: by focusing growth within existing urban areas, this approach also makes better use of existing infrastructure and public services, helps to maintain clear boundaries between towns and rural areas, and supports sustainable patterns of development that are less car dependent and more community focused.
Amendment 82 would require that a spatial development strategy consider the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects on agricultural land. Notwithstanding what I said about the protection of the green belt, previous actions, particularly by the Minister’s ministerial colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, show an eradication of, and an easier approach to developing on, agricultural land. The position we have long held on that, which I know the Minister may not agree with, is that in this world of uncertainty, agricultural land should be protected. Food security is of absolute importance when we have seen food prices go up in the country because of international uncertainty.
By requiring a spatial development strategy to consider both the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects such as the ones I described, the amendment would help to safeguard the UK’s long-term food security. High-grade agricultural land is a finite and valuable resource—I think everyone on the Committee would agree with that—and it is essential for domestic food production. Factoring in its quality ensures that development prioritises lower-value land where possible, reducing the loss of productive farm land. Additionally, considering the cumulative impact of multiple developments helps to prevent gradual, piecemeal erosion of agricultural capacity, which might otherwise go unnoticed in individual planning decisions. This approach promotes a more balanced and informed strategy that protects rural economies, biodiversity and the resilience of the agricultural sector.
I hope the Minister takes the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to protect. They are not political amendments, but genuine attempts to probe the Minister to see whether he could bring in some additional protections—despite previous actions on the green belt—and look to strengthen the legislation to protect agricultural land, which I know he will agree is so important at this time for our domestic food production. The Government have been positive, and I welcome the food strategy announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We support that, and we absolutely agree with the aspiration.
We need a food strategy in this country—before the Minister stands up and says that the last Government did not do enough on that, let me say that I think that is a fair challenge. That is why we welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement at the beginning of this Government, but that has to be matched by the legislative actions being taken in other areas of Government, which is why we have tabled these amendments.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 104, which relates to green belt protection. We recognise that the Government’s proposals are set out in the national planning policy framework. We do not support the way in which the standard method is being imposed on local authorities, nor do we support the way in which green belt release will be forced on local authorities through the requirement that they review and effectively release land for green belt. However, among the rules that the Government have put forward, we sympathise with the strictures they have come up with for the release of green-belt land where local authorities decide to do that, which should support higher levels of social housing.
Our new clause would require a quid pro quo for the release of green-belt land, which clearly will happen—it must happen, because it has been required and dictated in an NPPF. Local areas want to see proper protection for their green-belt land. Indeed, many areas would like to have a green belt, but it is extremely difficult for areas that have not historically had green belt to introduce it, such that there are hardly any areas where that has ever happened.
There is therefore an inequity in terms of protecting land. Greenfield land can be just as valuable and important in Taunton, where we have green wedges stretching into the centre of town, as it is in and around London, where there is official green belt protection. Our new clause would provide for local authorities to carry out a review of the green belt and then to protect that land from development for 20 years. That semi-permanent protection would be a quid pro quo for the loss of green-belt land that many authorities will see under the NPPF.
It gives people a real sense of the planning system’s failures when they have believed for years and years that a piece of land near them is protected green belt, but then they attend the planning committee or some meeting, and a planner—possibly like myself in the past—comes up and says, “Oh, no, no. It’s not actually protected any more. It’s not got long-term protection; that protection didn’t mean anything,” and it is wafted away. Communities want to know how their most precious areas of green land will be protected. Our amendment seeks to provide them with a mechanism to establish green belt protection for at least 20 years.
Nesil Caliskan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I would like to make a couple of points about the green belt, not least because I would like to address the direct comments from the shadow Minister.
Nesil Caliskan
I do not expect him to have followed my very short career to date or my position on the green belt, but just for the record, my long-standing position has been to identify appropriate areas on the green belt, particularly in London, where we have a housing crisis, that can be built on. The truth is that there are many areas of the green belt—areas that could, indeed, be described as grey belt—that already have some kind of development, perhaps without planning permission, or where enforcement is needed, that are entirely appropriate for housing development, and many of those areas are already well connected.
In my constituency, a new train station has been built in the Barking Riverside area in recent years. It is not green belt, but it is strategic industrial land. In our discussions about well-connected neighbourhoods, we often forget the pressure on strategic industrial land, too. That is a good example of where infrastructure was delivered and houses have followed. The rest of the country can follow that example.
On the point about urban areas needing to be the priority for development, of course, we have to see urban development intensify in housing delivery, but many of our urban areas already have high density, and overcrowding is a familiar picture. It is simply not possible to deliver the housing numbers we need by looking only at urban areas. I often hear the argument that it should be brownfield sites first. Of course, they should be first, but if people think there is a secret drawer full of brownfield sites that will deliver the housing numbers we need in this country, they are out of touch with the housing pressures facing our communities.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is right that I have not followed the minutiae of her career, but I know from her comments in the Chamber and this Committee that she has an expertise that we should all listen to, even if we disagree. She led a council for a good while, so I know that she is an expert in these areas.
She outlined in her comments that urban areas should have a higher rate of delivery because they are of higher densities. Why is it, then, that on the Floor of the House, that is not matched by what she is voting for? Housing targets under the new algorithm in her area and her constituency are being reduced, while in rural areas, where she is concerned about the lack of infrastructure, they are being increased exponentially. How does she defend that, with what she has just said?
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Member gives me the opportunity to make two points. First, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will allow the Government to spearhead infrastructure delivery in this country in rural areas that do not have the necessary infrastructure. That is why the Bill is so important. With the necessary infrastructure, we will be able to see the delivery of homes not just in urban areas. Secondly, to the point about housing delivery in Barking and Dagenham, the area has some of the most impressive stats for house building in London and the rest of the country. It has been delivering housing at a much better rate than areas not just in London, but in the rest of the country.
My final point is about the threat to the green belt, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned. The biggest threat to the green belt is not having a strategic approach to planning in this country. If we take the absence of local plans in areas, as it stands, the legal framework means that if a planner says no to a planning application, and there is no up-to-date local plan, then on appeal, the appeal process can enforce such that the development happens in the green belt anyway. We need a strategic approach across the country that not only encourages or, in fact, forces local authorities to have up-to-date local plans, but ensures that house building—alongside infrastructure, which I firmly believe the Bill will help to deliver—is fair in its approach to delivering homes.
We cannot just build in urban areas. We do not have that capacity. It is unfair for those who are already living in overcrowded accommodation. People deserve to have access to open and green spaces, and our rural communities deserve to have the infrastructure necessary for well-connected neighbourhoods. I firmly believe that the Bill supports that, and that the debate around green belt and access is more nuanced than some Opposition Members have set out.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise in support of amendments 72, 75 and 82. I await with anticipation what the Minister will say, because surely we can all agree that green belt should be protected and that we should do brownfield first. Sometimes, under the current planning system, green-belt land gets developed on through the back door.
Even if a council has an up-to-date local plan, there can be issues if it does not meet its five-year land supply or housing targets in terms of its build-out rates, which the council has very little control over. The council has control over the speed and determination of planning applications. However, it can approve all the applications it wants—it could approve thousands—but if the developer or developers are not building them, the council then gets punished. Someone else will come along and say, “I want to develop on this piece of green-belt land,” and when that goes to appeal, the Planning Inspectorate will say to the council, “You haven’t got a five-year land supply, and you’re not meeting your build-out rate targets.” It is the community and the council that get punished for developers not building what they have been given approval to build.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In relation to previous comments that have been made about building on green belt through the back door, does he agree that these amendments strengthen the case for some of those councils? The current planning appeals system takes into regard national guidelines and national legislation, and these amendments provide a safeguard to stop some of those things happening.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I completely agree. We should do anything we can to strengthen councils’ hands in protecting green belt. I suspect there is broad support for brownfield-first and protecting the green belt.
I turn to amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). A wider failure of the planning system is that it does not account for the cumulative impact of lots of planning decisions. This amendment goes some way to protecting farmland. It may be appropriate for a field to be developed for a specific farming purpose, but if there is lots of development in farming areas in a specific location and the planning committee does not take into account the cumulative impact, there can be negative consequences—for example, where a floodplain is built on and that creates issues for the field next door.
The Government need to grapple with this wider issue of the cumulative impact of lots of development. At the moment, planning committees judge the planning application in front of them and do not necessarily look at the cumulative impact. I hope the Government will support our amendments, in particular amendment 82, which tries to rectify some of those cumulative impacts in order to protect our agricultural land, which is very important for our food security.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank members of the Committee for these amendments. I hope I can give them some reassurance that none of them is necessary from the Government’s point of view.
I turn first to amendments 72, 75 and 82, tabled by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. These amendments relate to developments taking place on green-belt, brownfield and agricultural land resulting from the introduction of spatial development strategies. While I understand the positive intent behind the amendments in seeking to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect valuable land from development, they are not necessary, as current national policy already achieves the intended aims.
On amendment 72, I fully agree that we must make the best use possible of brownfield land for development. The Government have been very clear that we have a brownfield-first approach to development. That is recognised in national planning policy. We made changes in the recent national planning policy framework update to expand the definition of “previously developed land” and reinforce the expectation that development proposals on such land within settlements should normally be approved.
We are also consulting on our working paper on a brownfield passport, which we are considering through the introduction of national development management policies, as provided for by the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The aim of those proposals we are seeking feedback on—lots of feedback has been gratefully received—is to ensure that we prioritise and accelerate the development of previously developed land wherever possible. We are very firm on our brownfield-first approach.
Paul Holmes
I accept what the Minister says; there is a recognition across Government, demonstrated by some of the actions they have taken, that they have a brownfield-first approach. I simply ask him: what has he got to fear from an amendment that would back that up and ensure that that goes out into the community, strengthening his Government’s position?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that challenge. On this whole group of amendments, whether they have been tabled on the basis of a misunderstanding of spatial development strategies or Members have just taken the opportunity—I completely appreciate why—to initiate wider debates on the Government’s national planning policy, I will address why I do not think they are necessary.
The Government are in absolute agreement on the point made about brownfield first. In a sense, we want the default answer for planning permissions on brownfield to be yes, unless circumstances necessitate otherwise. The hon. Member for Broxbourne made a very good point about build-out, which I addressed yesterday. The Government are looking to take action on build-out, not least with the introduction of the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to incentivise the prompt build-out of housing sites, and we are looking to bring those forward in fairly short order.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has just said that he wants a default yes on brownfield sites. Is he concerned that if we give carte blanche to developers and say, “You can build whatever you want on brownfield sites,” some of that development on brownfield sites will not be of the quality that I am sure we both want?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not concerned, for the reasons set out in the “Brownfield Passport” working paper, which I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go away and read, if he has not had the chance to do so already. In a sense, we are looking at a set of proposals, and again I emphasise that we have asked for feedback on them and we are considering how that feedback maps on to how we take forward this approach through national development management policies. In effect, we are saying that there is a presumption that the answer to applications on brownfield land is yes, but it has to meet certain criteria and conditions. The various options that we have explored are set out in that note, but it would absolutely not be a free-for-all on brownfield land, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I do not agree that amendment 72 is necessary to achieve the important objective that it raises because, while spatial development strategies will provide for a high-level framework for infrastructure investment for housing growth, they will not allocate specific sites. Strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategy is consistent with national policy. National planning policy, as I have said, already provides strong support for brownfield development, and it is clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call.
It is also clear that authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements of the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies, and those national policies are clear, as I have argued. I therefore ask that the shadow Minister withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 75 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies consider other practical options before identifying infrastructure or the distribution of housing within the green belt. To be clear, spatial development strategies cannot allocate land for development. This is a really important point: they can identify broad locations for new development, if the participating members wish to take those forward, and that may include land within the green belt. However, the formal allocation of sites will remain the preserve of local plans and neighbourhood plans.
I am in full agreement that it is crucial to take a brownfield-first approach to development, as I have said, in which the reuse of previously developed land and options to increase density are given priority. I can assure Opposition Members that, when any such green belt review takes place, existing planning policy in relation to the reuse of green belt will still apply. The NPPF makes it clear that, when plans are considering the release of green-belt land, they must demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified needs, including making use of brownfield land and optimising the density of developments. This is a point that I have made on several other occasions: there is a sequential approach to plan making to green-belt release, and it is very clearly set out what the Government intend in that regard.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My apologies, Dr Huq, for my late arrival to the Committee. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, for moving the amendment, which stands in my name. I seek a more detailed assurance from the Minister. I appreciate that he is not in a position to comment on the specifics of individual cases, but yesterday I raised something that is very pertinent: the decision of the Secretary of State on the Abbots Langley development.
It was a longstanding principle of the approach to green belt that, where there were hard boundaries such as motorways, rivers and railway lines, the preservation of green space between them and adjoining settlements was very important, because it creates a green boundary and some additional space to reduce air pollution. The Secretary of State’s decision in respect of the national planning policy framework 2025 is effectively to redesignate all such land as grey belt. Areas that our constituents clearly understood were directly protected and were in the green belt have effectively, at the stroke of a pen, been redesignated as grey belt and eligible for development. That is why these amendments are so important. We need to guarantee that those vital green spaces, which provide a bit of a cushion between hard infrastructure and people’s residences, will be preserved and protected. Without commenting on that specific case, will the Minister address the legitimate concerns raised by that decision?
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a couple of points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I understand his argument, but I go back to the point that what we are doing in this clause and others in this part of the Bill is setting out a framework for spatial development strategies for cross-boundary strategic planning. National planning policy is already in place in those areas and is very clear. The national planning policy framework sets out the considerations for deciding whether development in the green belt is appropriate.
The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it includes previously developed land in the green belt, such as disused petrol stations, and other land that, although formally designated green belt, does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes. The test of what qualifies as grey belt is very clear in the NPPF, and that is supplemented by planning policy guidance. For every application, there will be a judgment about how the national policy applies—the hon. Gentleman will understand, for the reasons he has outlined, why I will not comment on specifics.
I repeat that it will not be for SDSs to allocate plots of land; that will be for local plans and neighbourhood plans. Where the release of green-belt land is necessary, the Government are asking authorities to prioritise the release of brownfield land within the green belt, along the lines I have just discussed. Our proposal in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify infrastructure of strategic importance or an amount of distribution of affordable housing does not change the existing requirements in relation to the release of green-belt land. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 75.
I can assure the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections on agricultural land, but I do not consider amendment 82 to be necessary to achieve that objective. Strategic planning authorities will need to consider national policy when preparing their SDSs. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural land. Planning policy already recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. If the development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be prioritised.
The Government are supplementing the national planning policy that is in place in respect of this issue with a land use framework, which has gone out to consultation. That will set out the Government’s vision for long-term land use change, including by exploring what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. We all agree on the need, on such a constrained island, to make the most effective use of land possible.
When it comes to issues such as solar farms, which we have discussed in the Chamber many times, I want to ensure the debate is proportionate. Even in some of the most optimistic scenarios I have seen for solar deployment, no more than 1% of agricultural land will be released. That is why the National Farmers Union and other bodies have called for a proportionate debate in this area. It will be necessary in certain circumstances to release agricultural land, but that must clearly proceed on the basis of national planning policy.
In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements in the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies. For those reasons, I am confident that there is adequate planning policy and guidance already in place to describe requirements for development on different types of land tenures.
New clause 104, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, also focuses on green-belt developments. It seeks to prevent development on green-belt land for 20 years or more after a green belt review has been completed. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. That remains the case.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. Not only did the green belt expand between 1979 and 1997—it almost doubled to just over 1.6 million hectares—but we saw a significant amount of green-belt land release, in what I would argue was a completely haphazard manner, under the last Government. It is not the case that this Government have introduced green-belt land release for the first time, and through the changes to national policy we are trying to introduce a strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release so that we release the right parts of the green belt first. Our revised national planning policy framework maintains strong protections for the green belt and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. It also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.
However, we know that there is not enough brownfield land in this country, and not least brownfield land that is viable and in the right locations to meet housing demand and needs. That is why we ask local authorities who cannot meet their needs through it to review their green-belt land to identify opportunities to create more affordable, sustainable and well designed developments. In doing so, we expect authorities to prioritise the development of brownfield land and low quality grey-belt land in the first instance.
High performing green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons will still be protected, and our new golden rules will ensure that development that takes place on the green belt benefits communities in nature, including the delivery of high numbers of affordable housing. That is a really important point to stress once again. Given the value that the public attribute to the green belt, the Government clearly expect that through our golden rules the communities that see development take place on it will benefit in a way that is slightly different from other forms of development.
The framework is clear that where it is necessary—only in exceptional circumstances—to alter green-belt boundaries, that must be done using the local plan process of public consultation and formal examination by planning inspectors. The framework is clear that development can be committed in the green belt only in specific prescribed exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, it can happen only in very special circumstances. That is a high bar.
Given that statutory plans secure the designated status of green-belt land and that planning policy already demands the rational and evidence-based application of green-belt protection for plans and decisions, I do not consider amendment to be necessary. In the same way as I have politely asked Opposition Front-Bench Members to withdraw their amendments, I hope the hon. Member will feel content to withdraw this amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Paul Holmes
As always, I appreciate the Minister’s very detailed response. However, we tabled these amendments to set a precedent. We welcome the Minister’s clear words about how there is an anticipation and a want from the Government’s policy agenda, particularly through the NPPF, for a brownfield-first strategy. He therefore has nothing to fear from allowing some of these new spatial development strategy boards to have that precedence underlying how they are acting and operating.
The Minister is absolutely right that those boards do not allocate sites, but there is an argument to be made about where those boards, in their constitution through the national legislation that is being set up, are guided by precedence that is overwhelmingly backed, as he clearly said, by other legislation and guidance from his Department. He therefore has nothing to fear from amendments 72 and 75.
On amendment 82, I completely understand the Minister’s point. It would be churlish for any politician to stand up and say there should be absolutely no development on agricultural land. That is a fair challenge, and that is not what the amendment’s parameters seek to establish. He was right that development will be needed on such sites on occasions, but again, the amendment would clearly set out that the most valuable productive agricultural land—not in terms of financial value—would have precedence in the guidelines of these new boards.
Again, the Minister should not fear the intentions of the amendment. He clearly set out that he agrees—much more than I thought he would—with some of the aims and aspirations behind the amendments. Apparently, his Government agree with those intentions and will cover them through other means. He should not fear the amendments. I politely ask him to accept them, although I know that he will not change his mind.
Paul Holmes
That does not mean to say that once they are reviewed again after 20 years, those sites might not be allocated, but that is the choice of the local authority and the local people that are leading that piece of work.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that he would have our support for new clause 104 if he decided to press it to a Division. However, there is a clear precedent and reason why we have tabled our three amendments. I say to the Minister that we must go for a brownfield-first approach, with an acceptance that we must protect green-belt land when urban development is not possible. We must also protect the most valuable and productive agricultural land in the country through the planning system and Government regulation. We intend to press amendments 72, 75 and 82 to a vote. I hope that the Liberal Democrats also press theirs to a vote.
Gideon Amos
I rise simply to confirm that we will press new clause 104 to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief because I can see that the hon. Members opposite are intent on pressing the amendments to a vote. I have a couple of things to say, at risk of eroding the fondness that hon. Members opposite have expressed for me in recent days. That is troubling, but I will continue none the less.
What can I gently say to the shadow Minister? I think he must have forgotten—because I am sure he has not overlooked it—that it is not the case that the Government have been converted to the Opposition’s view on the subject. From day one, we have been clear about the stipulations in terms of a brownfield-first approach, and the approach to green-belt release that I have outlined. They were clear in the NPPF changes, and they remain the case. I gently challenge the hon. Members by asking them to think again.
SDSs are intended to be high-level plans for housing growth and the allocation of infrastructure investment. They are not big local plans; they do not need to do everything in national planning policy. The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is that we transcribe all national planning policy into SDSs and have requirements. The requirements are already there, they apply, and regard will need to be given to them in the development and production of SDSs. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I humbly ask hon. Members to give a final thought about whether we need a Division.
David Simmonds
Again, at the risk of a political love-in taking place, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all of the debates extremely courteously, and he has responded in detail. However, there is a genuine point of principle. I gently respond to him on a point that I raised earlier. We have had a lot of assurances that there is a shared direction of travel around the protection of the green belt.
However, the first significant decision that has been taken by the Secretary of State, in line with the planning practice guidance from February 2025, has driven a coach and horses through the expectations that were set about how that protection will operate. I think that that has stiffened the resolve on this side, so that we are now saying that we need to press the issue, because it is clear that whatever undertakings appear to be made, the reality is that decisions to develop on the green belt, in places that constituents reasonably expect to be protected, are being taken. Therefore, we need to ensure that, as far as possible, we secure those protections in the legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have already said, I will not speak about two individual decisions that have been made. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the concern that he outlines—that is, a particular decision that he does not agree with—will not be resolved by trying to transcribe national planning policy into the SDS process. National planning policy remains in force, and I do not think it is necessary that in order to achieve the aims that are set out, which the Government agree with—in terms of brownfield first and a strategic approach to green belt release—for the amendments to be agreed. I ask hon. Members to think again, but reading the room, I think they are certain about pressing the amendment to a vote. The Government will resist it.
The Chair
No, because the debate was now, but the votes on amendments 75 and 82 and new clause 104 will come later.
The Chair
This afternoon, probably, after lunch. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] They are in that sequence on the amendment paper.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough and Rushden) (Lab)
I know we vote on new clause 104 later. But will we vote on amendments 75 and 82 now?
The Chair
If you look at your amendment paper, page 7 has got amendment 75, but we are only on page 2 now.
Gen Kitchen
Is it not that they are grouped together, so we vote on them as a group?
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Dr Huq. I am not questioning the Clerk, who has been fantastic, or you as Chair, but I simply do not understand. It may be that I am being thick and stupid. All week we have had votes on the amendment paper listed by grouping, which I have been following. We have votes on amendments in the order they have appeared in the selection list.
I understand that new clauses are slightly different, but the precedent from the previous sessions is that we have voted on Opposition and other amendments tabled in the order they appear in the groupings. Can you explain why, on this occasion, we have voted on Opposition amendment 72, but amendments 75 and 82 come later? I am not challenging your decision; I am just seeking your clarification.
The Chair
The Clerk will talk to you afterwards. We want to go to Prime Minister’s Question Time—there are Members in the Committee Room who have questions at PMQs. As I said, amendment 122 was another example of an amendment where the debate and the vote were separate—I said that it had been previously debated.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 47, page 65, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) A spatial development strategy must have regard to the need to provide 150,000 new social homes nationally a year.”
This amendment would require spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to provide 150,000 social homes nationally a year.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert
“; (c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;
(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;
(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”
Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area, when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) “urban area” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, “social rent housing” has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Gideon Amos
Amendment 29 would give effect to the Liberal Democrat target of building 150,000 new social homes per year by introducing such a requirement into spatial development strategies. It is a commitment set out in our manifesto, alongside a funding commitment of £6 billion per annum of capital investment—above current levels of affordable housing programme spending—to get to that level of provision over the course of a Parliament.
In contrast, the Government’s commitment of £2 billion in affordable housing programme funding for 2026-27, for up to 18,000 homes, is welcome but, in our view, does not go far enough. For too many people, a decent home has crept out of reach. The National Housing Federation and Shelter both make it clear that at least 90,000 new social homes are needed per year, given the loss of 20,500 social homes in 2023-24. According to the New Economics Foundation, 2 million council and social rent homes have been lost to right to buy since the 1980s, but only 4% of those have been replaced—a massive sell-off, leaving far too many people out in the cold when it comes to their housing aspirations.
A bath cannot be filled if the plug has been taken out. We need to end the current system of right to buy and allow councils the power to do so. As the University of Glasgow has shown, the building of private homes—even at the rates the Government advocate—will not mean any significant reduction in house prices. We should not rely on the private sector to build those low-rent and social rent homes we need. Private sector homes are built for profit. We need private market housing, and we have consented to thousands of new homes in my Taunton and Wellington constituency. However, those homes will never be released on to the market at a rate that will diminish prices or bring rents down to the levels that most people can afford. For all those reasons, we need to build 150,000 social rent homes per year, and that is the target that this amendment seeks to install into spatial environment strategies.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise to speak to amendments 17 and 94. Can you clarify this is the correct time to do so?
Ellie Chowns
Marvellous! These amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I speak to them as probing amendments. Amendment 17
“requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.”
In our previous debate, we discussed questions of housing density. This amendment would help ensure land is used as effectively and efficiently as possible and prevent urban sprawl by encouraging strategic planning strategies to specify the optimal level of housing densities. It is not about specifying particular levels of housing densities but making sure that, in the preparation of strategic plans, adequate attention is given to the question of housing density.
That has a couple of benefits. First, it prevents unnecessary encroachment on green spaces, which, as I think we all agree, are so important—not just for nature protection but human wellbeing. It is also about ensuring that developments themselves have the life they need to succeed. The hon. Member for Barking made the point about the facilities, size and density of communities being at the critical mass to generate liveable communities. That means enough people to provide transport infrastructure and services, for example.
That is particularly relevant, as obviously our vital targets for decarbonisation require a modal shift away from short car journeys and towards active travel and public transport. Those forms of transport are especially supported by increasing housing density, so I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Amendment 94 is concerned with the definition of affordable housing in clause 47, and suggests that, for the purposes of the clause, “affordable housing” should be considered to mean “social rent housing.” In our debate yesterday, it was pointed out that so-called affordable housing should be done only with air quotes around it, because so often it is not anywhere close to being affordable. We have, however, already set out in existing legislation and guidance what social rent housing means.
The reality is that in our housing market, social rented housing is the most affordable form of housing by far. In the context of a housing crisis and an increasingly and incredibly unequal housing market, it is crucial that when we set strategic plans to create affordable housing, that housing must be genuinely affordable. That has to mean social rent. I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Olly Glover
I shall keep my remarks brief, because we had a rich discussion during yesterday afternoon’s session about the need for social and affordable housing. I wish to say a few words in support of amendment 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would stipulate within a spatial development strategy the need to provide 150,000 new social homes a year nationally. It is notable that all members of the Committee made clear their support for social and affordable housing, but we had a very valid debate yesterday about how to get there.
As per the evidence I gave from my constituency, and as is the case in many others, it has become clear that leaving it to the market and hoping that that leads to sufficient affordable and social housing is not an approach that has hitherto succeeded. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore very much support mandating targets and far more social homes as part of the mix, rather than just hoping it happens organically via developers and local council regulation.
Paul Holmes
On a point of process, Dr Huq, I wish to move amendments 73 and 74. Do I speak to them now and move them formally?
Paul Holmes
Okay, I just wanted to double check. The Opposition have tabled amendments 73 and 74 to limit increases and decreases in the allocation of housing targets when being assessed by spatial development strategies. The Minister should not be surprised by this approach. We have been very clear from the beginning that we disagree fundamentally with how the Minister and the Secretary of State have decided to assess housing targets and algorithms since they took office last July.
We fundamentally disagree with what we think is a politically gerrymandering housing algorithm, as we can quite clearly see through the evidence. We believe that in the rural areas where there is a lack of infrastructure—notwithstanding that we agree that infrastructure needs to be built, although, as the Minister has said, there is no actual mechanism in the legislation to insist on an infrastructure-first approach—the housing targets outlined by the Government are political gerrymandering. In very rural areas, housing targets can sometimes be doubled, tripled or quadrupled, but in urban centres and particularly in cities, those housing targets have been reduced.
We have tabled our amendments because we believe there needs to be some guidance on spatial development strategies. There should be national guidance and regulation for the Government’s approach to housing allocation: on how much they should be allowed to uplift, but also on how much that they can decrease, particularly in the amount of housing they can deliver in urban areas.
There is precedent for why we have done this. If we take my constituency of Hamble Valley as an example, there are two local authority areas. Under the Minister’s proposals, Fareham borough council has gone from a yearly housing target of 470 houses to one of more than 800. Eastleigh borough council, which is already over-delivering on its annual housing targets, currently has a target of around 623. They are building 1,200 homes a year themselves because of their debt levels, which is clearly a massive overreach and increase in an area that does not have the necessary infrastructure. The doubling of that requirement for house building, including on junction 7 of the M27—I do not expect the Minister to know the geography—is leading to huge amounts of bad effects with increased traffic because of the lack of infrastructure delivered alongside the housing targets.
If the Minister looks at neighbouring Southampton city council, which is controlled by the Labour party and has delivered only 200 homes a year, whether they are affordable or for private purchase, its targets have been reduced from 1,200 a year to 1,000 a year. That is the same in nearly every urban authority that the Minister has put forward—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but if he looks at the evidence from the House of Commons Library, housing targets in urban council-centred areas are generally being reduced. It is happening in Southampton, and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barking—her targets have gone down.
Need I remind the Minister that it is also happening in London? The Government’s targets in London are being reduced, while the mayor has announced just this week that he wants to build on the green belt. If he is so keen to build, he should be looking at the densification of his city. He should be looking to build on brownfield sites first, as we have just discussed, and he should not be given political cover for failure by a Minister and a Secretary of State who are reducing housing targets in predominantly Labour council areas in urban cities.
That is an argument that we have rehearsed before. I know the Minister will come back and say that he disagrees, and I expect him to do that, because he is defending his algorithm, but he cannot defend it to the people in this country. It is a politically gerrymandering algorithm that damages. It targets the failure of predominantly Labour councils in urban areas, and targets the success of predominantly rural authorities that struggle, and it punishes them. Those are the areas that have challenges that urban areas do not have in trying to match those housing targets.
We have tabled amendment 74 in such detail—to ensure that there cannot be an increase in the number of homes in any strategy area of more than 20%, or a reduction of the required number of homes in urban areas by more than 20%—to try to mitigate some of those politically motivated measures that the Government have undertaken in other areas through the national planning policy framework. That is why we are putting forward these amendments.
We have a fundamental disagreement with the Minister over the housing algorithm. He knows that we have a fundamental disagreement over housing targets and the way in which they deliver them, because we think that, where there are hugely increased housing targets, that places a burden on local authorities. The algorithm also reduces the quality of housing provided, because there is a rush to try to meet housing targets for fear of Government repercussions, but the quality of builds, the quality of the developments and the associated infrastructure and community investment goes down. Believe me, I have seen that in my local authority, and I invite the Minister to attend my constituency at any time he wants. On its boundaries, Eastleigh borough council has been building double the number of homes that are required. The financial decisions that it has made mean that the quality of development has gone down and resentment among the public has gone up. The infrastructure that has not been delivered means that people in my local area—and areas across the locality in Hampshire, just outside my constituency—suffer.
So I say to the Minister: that is why we are tabling these amendments. I know that he is going to come back to me very strongly—
Paul Holmes
Well, the Minister says “facts”, but he should read the House of Commons Library document on the housing targets that he proposed. He cannot deny that the rural uplift in housing targets under his algorithm is an exponential rise, but the increase under his housing algorithm for urban centres is much smaller. That is delivered by the fact that for many urban centres in cities across the United Kingdom, the number of houses required under his Government’s targets has reduced.
I look forward to the Minister’s “facts”. I hope that he knows that we have a fundamental disagreement on this; I have said that repeatedly in the Chamber, on Second Reading, and in many Westminster Hall debates, where housing targets have been a topic of concern for many Members of Parliament across the country. As I say, I look forward to his “facts”, and I look forward to his reading the House of Commons Library document that backs up the arguments that we are making. We will press this amendment to a vote.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. May I seek your guidance? My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, the shadow Minister, has spoken to two amendments tabled in my name, which we intend to push to a vote. It is a departure from Committee procedure to vote on one amendment but not on the others, when a vote has been expected, and to set them aside. When, in the Committee proceedings, will we return to the amendments discussed earlier to vote on them?
The Chair
It goes according to the sequence in the amendment paper. At the moment we are at amendment 29, on page 3 of the amendment paper. When will we reach amendment 73, on page 5? How long is a piece of a string? We intend to reach it today, but perhaps not before the sitting is adjourned at 11.25. This was all decided in a Programming Sub-Committee at the beginning of our Committee proceedings; someone put matters in this order.
Gen Kitchen
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. Opposition Members are very interested in their amendments, but I am keenly and acutely interested in Government amendment 48 and schedule 3. Government amendment 48 is on page 10 of the amendment paper. We have been going through the groupings of amendments on the selection list, and in previous sittings, when we have voted on amendments, we have voted on the groupings, rather than following the amendment paper. I am concerned that if we are now following the amendment paper, we should have voted today on amendments 5, 21, 22, 76, 122, 4 and 72.
Gen Kitchen
So therefore we have been going through the groupings, rather than the amendment paper.
The Chair
The learned Clerk tells me that he can ventriloquise an explanation but it would be easier for him to explain after the sitting is adjourned.
Gideon Amos
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I echo the comments of other members of the Committee. We have so far followed the groupings on the selection list, and within each group we have voted on each amendment that has been pushed to a vote. New clauses may be a different matter, but that is what has happened in the Committee to date.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I do not wish to exacerbate the conversation, but the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden, is correct, and I am concerned that if we entertain the new way of working, even though it may be challenged, that we will lose the efficiency and rhythm that this Committee has had.
I am open to challenge by the Clerk, but in previous sittings we have followed the groupings on the selection list, which has meant that we were prepared—though of course we are always prepared—and know the sequence that we are following. That was so for the whole of the Committee proceedings. This approach, following the amendment paper, has not been in action for the previous sittings of the Committee. I wholly endorse the comments made by the Government Whip. I believe that, if we could follow the groupings and vote on the amendments in order, as we take them, that would assist the Committee in getting through the process, and business of the day.
The Chair
I have been on these Committees for 10 years, and chaired them for the last five years, and as far as I understand, this is the way we always do it. We often say a measure “was debated earlier”. It just seems to be coincidence that the decisions fell as they did yesterday—or whenever it was. This is, I have been told, non-negotiable.
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I return to the question: can you indicate when in the Committee proceedings we will return to vote on those amendments?
The Chair
That depends on how succinct or verbose people are. I am not Mystic Meg. The Committee will decide on those amendments whenever it gets to them in the amendment paper.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I know you want to discuss this matter with the Clerk after the sitting adjourns. I wholly welcome that. Perhaps we should all attend, so that we can learn. It must be the case, Dr Huq, that you can give us an indication. I get the point about the verbosity and speed of colleagues on the Committee, but it would benefit Committee members if we knew whether we will vote on the various amendments that we have tabled at the end of the discussion of clause 47, or whether those votes could come at a later stage, after the discussion of the clause. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking that guidance and would appreciate a general steer.
The Chair
These things are often negotiated by the two Whips: they make it happen at a certain time. Any vote on amendment 73 will come after the debate on amendment 88—that will be today—and amendment 74 will come after that.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. The groupings have been negotiated by the Whips. The Chair’s selection of amendments is in that order, and votes have followed that process.
The Chair
The Clerk helpfully suggests that we could suspend the sitting to give members a primer on this matter.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Huq; it is a delight to serve under your chairship. Listeners to the debate have missed out on an entertaining discussion of the procedure of voting on amendments and clauses. I rise to comment briefly to amendment 29.
I do not think that anyone on the Government Benches disagrees with the notion that we need to build more genuinely affordable homes and social rent homes, but I do not think that the amendment fully accounts for the cost of 150,000 additional social homes. A generously low grant rate for a social home is around £183,000 a year, and that would be just over 30,000 homes a year, so there is a significant gap between what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington proposes and what can be afforded through the amount of money that is being suggested.
I also gently remind Opposition Members that the largest cut to the affordable homes budget occurred in 2010, under the coalition Government. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and I have debated that previously. That was a 66% cut in the affordable homes budget, and we would not be in this situation had such a significant cut not been enacted.
Matthew Pennycook
Amendments 29, 73, 17, 74 and 94 would introduce additional requirements for spatial development strategies in relation to housing. They seek to specify or describe what spatial development strategies must include across a range of areas, such as housing target limits, affordable housing definitions and housing density requirements.
I thank hon. Members for their interest in the Bill’s spatial development strategy provisions. However, the Government believe that these amendments are not productive in achieving the Bill’s objectives. I will attempt to be succinct rather than verbose, given the time we have lost and the need to make progress on the Bill. In general terms, we think that introducing further requirements for SDSs would limit their effectiveness and operability, as well as the purpose and effect that the clause seeks to achieve.
Amendment 29, moved by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would make specific provision for strategic planning authorities to have regard to the provision for new social rented homes. The Government are clearly committed to delivering more social housing, and I hope the Committee recognises the steps that we have taken over the past 10 months, including an £800 million in-year funding top-up to the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme; £2 billion of bridging support—I think the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in referring to it as £2 million—that will bring forward up to 18,000 new social homes; and in the multi-year spending review, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. In that, we are looking to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes, which is a Government priority.
Proposed new section 12D(5)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes provision for a spatial development strategy to specify or describe an amount or distribution of affordable housing, or any other kind of housing that the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. SDSs can therefore already play an important role in the delivery of social and affordable housing, if the strategic authority in question considers it necessary. Amendment 29 is therefore not necessary, and I request that the hon. Member withdraws it.
The shadow Minister tempted me into a much wider debate on the Government’s revised standard method for assessing housing need, which was introduced in the updated NPPF late last year. I will not go into too much detail, but the point of difference is that, under the previous Government, a 35% urban uplift was applied to the most populous local planning authority within the country’s 20 largest cities and urban centres. We have removed that urban uplift.
Matthew Pennycook
Because it was a completely arbitrary number that bore no relation to objectively assessed housing need. We have replaced it with a standard method and with targets under which city regions, as a whole, will see their targets increase by 20%, on average, compared with the previous planning period. We have increased targets across those city regions, and the new method directs housing growth to a wider range of urban centres across England. We have introduced a more ambitious, credible and objective method of assessing housing need in any given area.
On average, that gives rise to a 20% increase in city regions. The previous Government said that the 35% urban uplift applied not to London’s most populous local authority but to the whole of London, which is out of kilter with all the other arrangements that they made across the country. That left London with a fantastical target that was impossible to deliver. We have rightly revised down the target, but the shadow Minister will know that we are being very clear that London needs to increase delivery quite significantly. The Mayor has taken steps in recent days to ensure that happens.
Amendments 73 and 74 would apply limitations to the extent that spatial development strategies can redistribute housing requirements over a strategy area. The distribution of housing requirements is likely to be a key role for most, if not all, spatial development strategies. It would be overly prescriptive to apply an arbitrary restraint on the ability to decide the most appropriate location for new housing. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, in many of the debates I attend, this is what their parties call for: a smarter and more strategic way for local authorities in sub-regional groups to come together and select locations for housing growth that help to absorb some of their housing target numbers in a more sensible way, where that is applicable. We do not want to be prescriptive and constrain their ability to do so in whatever way works for the sub-region in question.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member for Basingstoke invited me to go down memory lane to what was happening in 2009, 2010 and so on. I am happy to do so. The Liberal Democrats went into coalition at that point. They were 9% of the Members of Parliament, but prevented a great deal of the worst excesses of the Conservative Government over that time, and continue to stand by that achievement. In fact, there was a 25% increase in affordable housing starts based on £15 billion of additional funding on affordable social housing under the coalition. In contrast, in 2009, a Labour Chancellor proposed cuts in the pre-Budget papers that he called “deeper and tougher” than anything Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s, and began a £22 billion cut in capital expenditure, which was greater than the—
Gideon Amos
I will not give way. I need to get back to the present day, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. It is important to dwell not on the proposed cuts of £22 billion to capital expenditure from 2009-10 onwards that the outgoing Labour Government were proposing, but on the reality of the situation that faces people who need social homes today. That is what amendment 29 is all about.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke suggested that the amount required per social home is £183,000. Figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggest that that is actually £131,000 a home. I do not doubt his sincerity in looking at the costs of each social home, but those are our figures. Against that, our proposed investment of £6 billion would be on top of the existing affordable homes programme of £2.3 billion.
In passing, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we recognise and respect the £2 billion investment that the Government have put into the affordable housing programme for up to 18,000 affordable homes. It is worthwhile. Our amendment simply asks the Government to go further and faster. Our commitment of £6 billion per year in our suggested budget—funded by the taxation proposals we set out there—added to the £2.3 billion of the existing affordable homes programme, would be sufficient to get us to a delivery level of 150,000 social homes per year in the course of a Parliament, according to figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.
Our proposals are therefore founded on some consideration of the financial costs involved and of the priority that the Government need to give to the delivery of social homes. I reiterate simply that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, relying on the private sector to provide low-cost social housing or even to bring down the price of housing has not worked to date and is extremely unlikely, to say the least, to happen in future.
Matthew Pennycook
An important point to make is that, through the revised standard method for assessing housing need and the housing targets that flow from that, we are asking local authorities to do more to meet the housing crisis. We expect more social and affordable homes to come through under section 106 agreements.
I take issue, gently, with the assertion that I think is implicit in some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman: that we are just leaving everything to the private market and doing nothing ourselves. The fact that we have topped up the affordable homes programme by £800 million and brought forward this bridge of £2 billion in anticipation of the future grant funding to come is very much at odds with his description of leaving it all to the market. The Government are not leaving it all to the market; we are providing grant funding over and above what we inherited from the previous Government.
Gideon Amos
We have always accepted and we support that allocation of funding to social housing, but a theme in Government thinking seems to be that the delivery of more homes through the private sector will bring prices down. If the Minister wishes to correct me, he should feel free to do so. That was my central point: we cannot rely on private housing to do that. The delivery of social homes needs to be done by Government. I was pleased with the Minister’s passion for delivering social homes, which he expressed clearly, and I therefore expect him to accept the amendment. It would simply increase the targets to deliver social homes to a reasonable level of 150,000 per year.
The delivery of social homes is a priority. We need to fund that to make it happen. If we really want to deliver more homes in this country, however, there are two big blockers, and they are not people, wildlife or the communities who will lose their voice in planning committees. The blockers are the funding for social housing and for infrastructure. If those two things were brought forward, I suggest that we would be able to build almost unlimited numbers of new homes.
For all those reasons we moved our amendment, which would simply take the Government’s rightful ambitions and laudable objectives of delivering social homes a little further and faster, and would set a target for the first time for the delivery of social homes. We do not have such a target, but one is desperately needed if we are to address the housing crisis, as organisations across the board have attested we should, including the National Housing Federation, Shelter and so many others. On that basis, I have moved this amendment.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
Wednesday 14th May 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert “;
(c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”.
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;
(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;
(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”.
Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area,
when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) ‘urban area’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”.
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”.
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Good afternoon and thank you all for coming to this afternoon’s line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I apologise to the Minister and anybody who felt that I was going so quickly through the agenda yesterday morning that they felt interrupted—that was not my intention. I think everybody has understood that the agenda is very long. I will try to make sure that I do not interrupt anybody today, but please remember that we need to move through at pace.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 47, page 66, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would create a requirement that spatial development strategies specify infrastructure of strategic importance for the purposes set out in subsection (4).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in clause 47, page 66, line 5, leave out first “or” and insert “and”.
This amendment would create a requirement that infrastructure of strategic importance specified in a spatial development strategy have the purposes both of mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Amendment 79, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, after “area” insert
“, including through the provision of social infrastructure.
(4A) For the purposes of this section, ‘social infrastructure’ means the framework of institutions and physical spaces that support shared civic life.”.
Amendment 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and
(g) recreational and leisure facilities;
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”.
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak to amendments 88 and 89, which together relate to spatial development strategies and their content. The important point is that spatial development strategies should provide properly for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Currently, the Bill says that they “may” provide for those matters. From the Liberal Democrats’ point of view, spatial development strategies must provide for tackling climate change.
Amendment 89 seeks to change the Bill’s current wording so that instead of saying that spatial development strategies may consider mitigation “or” adaptation, it says that they must consider mitigation “and” adaptation. It seems perverse that it should be one or the other. That may not be the intention, and no doubt the Minister will have a lengthy explanation as to why the Bill is drafted as it is, but our position is that climate change must be tackled in spatial development strategies. It is not an either/or in terms of adaptation and mitigation: it needs to be both.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and also in support of amendment 79, on social infrastructure.
Amendment 79 is a probing amendment, emphasising the importance of social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, community hubs and sports facilities. These elements of the public realm are so important for community cohesion and strong communities. There are many communities that are doubly disadvantaged: they are economically disadvantaged and they lack the social infrastructure that is a key catalyst for development, social cohesion and wellbeing locally. We have a real opportunity in the Bill to specify the importance of social infrastructure—the elements of public space that enable people to come together to make connections and strengthen communities, and that act as the springboard for prosperity.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse. On your comments about the speed with which you handled things yesterday, that is to your credit as a Chair, rather than the other way around.
I rise to speak to Lib Dem amendments 89 and 123. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Climate change mitigation and adaption are needed. Mitigation is about preventing climate change and adaptation is about dealing with the effects of climate change that we have not been able to prevent.
Amendment 123 relates to our earlier amendment on infrastructure delivery plans, and is intended to achieve something similar. House building is essential, as the Committee has discussed, to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning. We have targets for building homes, but we do not have the same targets or focus for all the things that come alongside housing.
My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has seen population growth of 35% in 20 years, which is why the boundaries of the predecessor constituency of Wantage shrunk considerably ahead of the 2024 general election. The single biggest issue I hear on the doorstep is that our services are struggling to cope. People cannot get doctor’s appointments, their children cannot access vital special educational needs and disabilities services, roads are often at a standstill and residents are not happy with the amount of amenities provided.
We must invest more in local infrastructure, particularly where there has been considerable housing and population growth, and support our local authorities to deliver it. Local authorities often do not have the powers or funding to deliver some of the most important infrastructure, particularly in respect of health, which is administered at a more regional level, and major transport schemes, as I will to illustrate. Nor does anyone within local authorities have the power to hold the bodies responsible to account—at least not fully.
For example, a new housing estate in my constituency has a bare patch of land designated to be a GP surgery. There is money from the developer in the section 106 agreement, to put towards the build, but the body responsible for delivering healthcare is the regional integrated care board, and although the development has been finished for a number of years, the land for the GP surgery still sits undeveloped. Fortunately, the district council is working with the ICB, and the GP surgery now has planning permission. But if the ICB had chosen, it may not have been delivered at all—there are no targets as part of the planning process that say the ICB has to deliver it. I am sure that is not the only case and that the same thing is replicated across the country.
Another example from my constituency is that of a new railway station at Grove to support the enormous population growth we have seen at Wantage and Grove. Local authorities do not have the power to insist that funding is allocated to that station on the Great Western main line, and are dealing with significant problems in accessing facilities in Oxford, as well as access to London and beyond. By not delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for housing growth, which is essential, as the Committee has discussed.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister’s supportive comments about the delivery of infrastructure, how it will unlock housing and how it needs to come forward to do so mean that he must be lending his support to the reopening of Wellington station in my constituency, which would unlock several thousand new homes? It was ready and construction was starting when it hit the review in July, when the Chancellor had said that such stations would go ahead.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes the case persuasively for a new station at Wellington. I note that it is not responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but I hope he is aware that railway and station re-openings in recent years have seen vastly more use than even the most optimistic forecasts and models predicted.
Without delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for the housing that we all know we need. The issue of housing targets not being supported by accompanying targets for—and commensurate investment in and focus on—infrastructure, amenities and public services needs to be rectified. That is essential for happy and well-functioning communities, and for ensuring that there continues to be public support and consent for more housing.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Let me take each of the amendments in turn, beginning with amendment 88. I fully agree that it is essential to consider and identify infrastructure needs when planning for new development, including through spatial development strategies. I do not agree, however, that amendment 88 is needed to achieve that outcome, as the Government intend to set a strong expectation in national policy that key strategic infrastructure needs should be addressed in spatial development strategies. Furthermore, the Bill grants powers to the Secretary of State to intervene where she considers that spatial development strategies are inconsistent with national policies, as we discussed in relation to previous amendments.
On amendment 89, although I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for clarity on the matter, I do not agree that any changes are needed to clarify the provision. Proposed new section 12D(4)(b) already enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. It does not need to be one or the other.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate that the Minister is hoping that spatial development strategies will make provision for that, but does he accept that the wording in the Bill is that they will provide for either mitigation or adaptation? That is the wording on the face of the Bill, is it not?
Matthew Pennycook
No, I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. As I have said, proposed new section 12D(4)(b), as drafted, enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigation and adaptation. The Government are very clear that we need to have concern for both. As I have said, it does not need to be one or the other. I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further detail—in writing, if he wishes—as to the operation of that subsection.
On amendment 79, I recognise that the provision of social infrastructure is also an important consideration. Proposed new section 12D(4)(c) already allows spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for the purposes of promoting or improving the social wellbeing of the area. I therefore do not consider that additional provision is needed in order to enable SDSs to describe social infrastructure.
On amendment 123, I agree that, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage noted, sufficient provision of health and education facilities, and other forms of essential infrastructure listed in the amendment, is critical in supporting and facilitating new development, and in ensuring that the needs of existing communities are met. I hope that I gave the hon. Gentleman, in relation to a previous clause, some reassurance about the Government’s intent in this policy area. I also recognise that in some cases, for a variety of issues, it can be related to whether sufficient developer contributions have been secured and so on, but in many cases there is an issue of co-ordination with bodies like ICBs. I think the Government could potentially do more in this area.
I note the plea from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for his local railway station, which I will ensure is passed on to the relevant Minister in the Department for Transport but, in terms of amendment 123, I do not agree that it is necessary to enable spatial development strategies to contribute to such an outcome. Proposed new section 12D(4), as drafted, already gives strategic planning authorities the scope to specify in their strategies a wide range of infrastructure types, including those listed in the amendment.
On the issue of specifying infrastructure targets, I do not think it is appropriate for spatial development strategies themselves to set infrastructure targets. Again, that is because SDSs will not allocate specific sites, and therefore they are not likely to give sufficient certainty about the precise level of infrastructure needed at that stage. That is a role for subsequent local plans, which will need to consider infrastructure needs at a more granular level when sites are allocated and, as I have said before, need to be in general conformity with other plans. Spatial development strategies will, however, be able to specify the key infrastructure needs for the development that they identify.
For the reasons that I have outlined, and because we do not want to fetter the production and development of spatial development strategies—it is for the areas that bring them forward to have a measure of discretion about their infrastructure and housing tenure needs—we do not think the amendments are necessary, and I request that hon. Members withdraw them.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I remain concerned. The Bill states:
“A spatial development strategy may specify or describe infrastructure the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.
Particularly if the Government will not accept the amendment discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, on the provision of infrastructure, surely spatial development strategies must specify or describe that sort of infrastructure.
Matthew Pennycook
On that I point, as I have said, the Bill sets out that SDSs
“must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”
We could spend many hours debating the implications of “and”, “or”, “may” or “must”—I have spent many an hour in Bill Committees doing that, when we were trying to string out the Bill for various reasons. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and reflect on the point he makes about the wording and whether further clarity would help.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and
(g) recreational and leisure facilities;
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;
(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and
(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Amendment 28, in clause 47, page 66, line 41, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) take account of Local Wildlife Sites in or relating to the strategy area, and
(b) avoid development or land use change which would adversely affect or hinder the protection or recovery of nature in a Local Wildlife Site.”
This amendment would ensure that spatial development strategies take account of Local Wildlife Sites.
Ellie Chowns
I am delighted to move amendment 1 on chalk streams, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).
Clause 47 introduces spatial development strategies to provide a new strategic layer to the planning system. That creates a real opportunity to create new planning protections for strategic but threatened natural resources, such as chalk streams. We have talked about these matters in the Chamber throughout my time here, so I think we all know that the south and east of England are home to fresh waters that rise on chalk soils, whose filtration qualities result in crystal-clear, mineral-rich waters teeming with aquatic life. They are truly beautiful.
A handful of chalk streams occur in northern France and Denmark, but the majority are found in England, so this globally rare ecosystem is largely restricted to our shores. We have a huge responsibly to protect it, and a huge opportunity with the Bill. Sadly, however, we are currently failing to look after this natural treasure adequately for the world. These rare habitats are threatened like never before due to development and other pressures. Some 37% of chalk water bodies do not meet the criteria for good ecological status, due in large part to over-abstraction of water to serve development in inappropriate locations. This spring is the driest since 1956, and there is a risk that some vulnerable chalk streams will dry up altogether, which would be terrible.
Amendment 1 would equip the Bill to address those risks and reduce the impact of development on chalk streams. It would direct the Secretary of State to create new protections for chalk streams and require spatial development authorities covering areas with chalk streams to use those protections to protect and enhance them within the SDS. The affixing of chalk stream responsibility to spatial development strategies would allow the protections to be applied strategically and effectively across entire regions where chalk streams flow. Water bodies, rivers and streams do not respect our administrative boundaries, so we need cross-boundary co-operation to ensure effective protection in the whole catchment. That would also allow the protection requirements to be fairly balanced with development objectives, furthering the wins for both nature and development that Ministers say they are so keen to see from this Bill.
Successive Governments have failed to bring forward the planning reforms needed to address the development pressures that are eroding some of England’s natural crown jewels, and chalk streams are absolutely in that category. There is significant cross-party support for this amendment and for action—I have heard many Members speak about this matter in the Chamber—so I hope the Minister listens, accepts the amendment and delivers a timely new protection for one of our most threatened habitats.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mrs Hobhouse. I do not agree that this is the right place to make such an amendment to the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about chalk streams and I want to put on my record my appreciation for those rare and irreplaceable habitats.
In Basingstoke and Hampshire, we are blessed with the River Loddon and the River Test. During the election campaign, I enjoyed—or was subject to, depending on your point of view—a sermon from Feargal Sharkey about chalk streams, and I learned much. As the hon. Lady says, they are very rare and irreplaceable, and they mean a lot to many people.
Although I do not believe this is the place to put this amendment into legislation, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out the Government’s position on how to protect these rare and special habitats. I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke for their outstanding work and campaigning to protect these much-loved rare habitats.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support amendment 1 and speak to amendment 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage will talk about, and amendment 28, in my name, which relates to local wildlife sites.
Amendment 28 would require spatial development strategies to take account of local wildlife sites and include policies that would avoid development on them. Local wildlife sites are some of the country’s most valuable and important spaces for nature. They are selected locally using robust scientific criteria. Those critical sites for biodiversity create wildlife corridors that join up other nationally and internationally designated sites, improving ecological coherence and connectivity. It is a misconception to think that all the best sites for nature conservation are designated sites of special scientific interest—that is not true. SSSIs cover only a representative sample of particular habitats, which means that only a certain number of sites are covered by the national selection. Local wildlife sites, in contrast, operate by a more comprehensive approach, and all sites that meet the criteria are selected. Consequently, some local wildlife sites are of equal biodiversity value to SSSIs.
Where there is little SSSI coverage, local wildlife sites are often the principal wildlife resource for the area, as well as an important place for communities to access nature on their doorstep. In my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, there are 213 local wildlife sites covering almost 23.5 sq km, compared with 16 sq km of land designated as sites of special scientific interest.
In the interest of time, I will cut short my remarks, but it is important to say that the current protection for local wildlife sites in the national planning policy framework is not strong enough, and 2% of sites have been lost or damaged in recent years. My amendment would improve the recognition of local wildlife sites and provide clarity to allow plan makers and decision makers to make the appropriate provision to protect and enhance local wildlife sites within spatial development strategies.
Olly Glover
I rise to support amendments 30, 28 and 1. Chalk streams, such as Letcombe brook in my Didcot and Wantage constituency, are a precious habitat, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire eloquently articulated. The Letcombe Brook Project, set up in April 2003, has done a huge amount of work—mostly through volunteers—to enhance and protect its natural beauty. It is important that the Bill is amended to specifically protect chalk streams and local wildlife sites. That is not just my opinion as a humble Liberal Democrat Back Bencher; in the oral evidence sessions and the written evidence we heard from organisations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and Butterfly Conservation, who are all gravely concerned that the Bill does not include enough safeguards.
In addition to the Letcombe Brook Project in my constituency, in Oxfordshire, organisations such as the Earth Trust have, in just 40 years, created precious wildlife sites that are useful for training and educating local people and children. It is important to protect those sites, which is why these amendments have been tabled, and the Bill does not go far enough.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and echo the comments about your chairing yesterday being absolutely excellent. I am sure that, as the afternoon goes on, the Government Whip will be looking for you to be as stern as you were yesterday.
I rise to speak briefly in favour of amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, on the importance of chalk streams. I know about this issue personally, as I spent five years as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which had another chalk stream in the River Itchen. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned, Hampshire has a unique ecosystem and a huge array of chalk streams.
I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, which is vociferous in making sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Hampshire constituencies know about the importance of chalk streams. I will refer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North as well, because she is a very welcome part of our Hampshire family—even if many of my constituents would not accept that Portsmouth exists. She also knows how much the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust does in the local area and for us as parliamentarians.
It is important for chalk streams to be protected. We support this well intentioned amendment, because it does no harm to have guidance to make sure that spatial development strategies refer to the unique and important ecosystems that need to be protected. I do not think it is anti-development or that it would harm or hinder activating development if needed. It is a useful step and guideline to make sure that developers take into account the areas that need to be protected.
The River Hamble, which is not a chalk stream, runs through the middle of my constituency. In that river, too, we are seeing the adverse effects of development in the parameter of the river, with water run-off and the pollution that is naturally created by the building process. The current regulatory framework is not doing enough to protect those rivers.
We are seeing our river ecosystems die. That was a heavily political subject at the last general election, and we need to do more on that issue. There are provisions in the Environment Act 2021 that give chalk streams some protection, but even though I am a Conservative who does not believe in over-regulation, I do believe that having that guidance for local authority decision makers would be helpful, which is why we support amendment 1.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank members of the Committee for so eloquently outlining the intent of these amendments. I will first deal with amendments 1 and 30. I very much accept the positive intent of these proposals and would like to stress that the Government are fully committed to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made clear, 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England. They are unique water bodies, not only vital ecosystems, but a symbol of our national heritage. This Government are committed to restoring them. We are undertaking a comprehensive set of actions outside the Bill to protect our chalk streams; in the interests of time, it is probably worthwhile for me to write to the Committee to set those out in detail.
We do not believe it is necessary to include amendment 1 in the legislation, as existing policy and legislation will already achieve the intended effect. Local nature recovery strategies are a more suitable place to map out chalk streams and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new section 12D(11) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires spatial development strategies to
“take account of any local nature recovery strategy”
that relates to a strategy area.
Strategic planning authorities will also be required to undertake habitats regulations assessments, subject to a Government amendment to the Bill. That places a further requirement on them to assess any adverse effects of the strategy on protected sites, which, in many cases, will include chalk streams. The point I am trying to convey to hon. Members is that strategic planning authorities will already have responsibilities in relation to their protection.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This is an important and much debated issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the Committee whether he has given consideration to bringing this issue within the remit of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, specifically in respect of species that are unique to those particular habitats. This is very much an area of cross-party interest; I am conscious of my own constituents, who have the Colne Valley, which has a chalk stream. I work closely with my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose constituencies this affects as well.
This issue often goes significantly beyond the scope of a local nature recovery strategy, simply because pollution discharge or run-off in one part of a river ecosystem results in a problem elsewhere. While I am sure the Minister will say he welcomes the measures that we passed in the Environment Act during the previous Parliament—which, for the first time, introduced comprehensive monitoring for issues such as sewage discharges—I believe there is still an opportunity to do a bit more to protect these unique habitats.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. We will come on to discuss our approach to development and the environment more generally when we reach part 3 of the Bill. In response to his specific question, it is probably best dealt with in the letter I will send to the Committee on this matter, where I can pull together a range of points. The important point I am trying to stress, for the purposes of amendment 1, is that if a strategic planning authority considers the identification and protection of chalk streams to be a matter that should be included in its SDS, proposed new section 12D(1) already makes clear that an SDS must include policies relating to the
“development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area”
so that it can be taken into account. There is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from including such policies in their spatial development strategies if they consider them to be of strategic importance.
As I said, we have an ongoing debate about when centralisation is appropriate or not; I assume the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will tell me that it is, in this instance, in her view. But for those reasons, we do not consider these amendments necessary to achieve the desired effect.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is absolutely right on this occasion. I just want to probe his comment. He outlined perfectly how, under the proposals he is bringing forward, spatial development strategies can include and incorporate the protection of chalk streams—I perfectly accept that. However, does he not accept that there is a risk that, if any of the decisions arising from the SDS are later challenged under the appeals procedure, without the national guidance that the amendments might provide, those protections might not have the full weight that they would if national regulation ensured the protection of the site? I hope he gets my gist.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I do, and I am happy to expand on the point. What I have been trying to convey is that local nature recovery strategies are a new system of spatial strategies for nature and the environment, which will map out the most valuable areas for nature, including chalk streams, and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new subsection 12D(11) requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to any part of the strategy area.
For the reasons I have given—I am more than happy to expand on these points in writing—I think that the well-founded concerns, which I understand, are unfounded in that respect. We believe that the amendments are not necessary to achieve the desired effect that the hon. Lady has argued for.
I turn to amendment 28. As outlined previously, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as existing provisions in this legislation will already achieve the desired effect. Again, proposed new subsection 12D(11) already requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategies that relate to any part of the strategy area. Local nature recovery strategies are required to identify areas of particular importance for biodiversity, and statutory guidance published by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is clear that they should include all existing local wildlife sites. Strategic planning authorities are therefore already required to take account of local wildlife sites in relation to the strategy area.
Similarly, existing policy already affords protection from development that would adversely affect local wildlife sites. The current national planning policy framework is clear that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject applications where significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. We therefore do not consider the amendments to be necessary.
Ellie Chowns
Although I take the Minister’s point that there is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from making provision for protecting chalk streams, there is not anything to ensure that all the strategic planning authorities in which chalk streams exist will definitely take those measures.
I am going to be tabling further amendments later about irreplaceable habitats. I am not in the habit of proposing amendments about every single specific ecosystem, but chalk streams specifically have global significance and are cross-border in nature, and the spatial planning strategies offer a huge opportunity to tackle the issue head-on.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy includes a Smoke Control Area or an Air Quality Management Area, the strategy must—
(a) identify measures to reduce air pollution resulting from the development and use of land in that area, and
(b) outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in relation to the management of air quality.”
This amendment would require spatial development strategies which cover Smoke Control Areas or Air Quality Management Areas to consider air pollution and air quality.
This amendment would require that, where a spatial development strategy includes a smoke control area or an air quality management area, the strategy must identify specific measures to reduce air pollution from the development and use of land, and must outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in managing air quality.
Currently, over 10 million people in the UK live in smoke control areas: zones where restrictions are placed on burning certain fuels or using specific appliances to reduce particular emissions. Likewise, more than 400 air quality management areas have been declared by local authorities under the Environment Act 1995 in locations where air pollution exceeds national air quality objectives. These are places where we are really not doing well enough on air pollution. Despite the formal recognition of these zones, they are often not meaningfully integrated into spatial development strategies, so this legislation gives us an opportunity to ensure that new housing, transport and infrastructure projects, when approved, must fully account for their cumulative impacts on already poor air quality.
Construction and land development are direct contributors to air pollution through increased traffic volume, emissions from building activity and the removal of green space that helps to filter pollutants. In many cases, strategic planning authorities are not required to take those factors into account when drafting or approving development strategies. The amendment would close that gap by ensuring that air quality is treated not as a secondary consideration, but a fundamental part of sustainable planning. Perhaps I should declare an interest as an asthmatic, like huge numbers of people in the UK.
The amendment also strengthens the accountability of strategic planning authorities, by requiring them not just to assess air quality impacts, but to work out what they are going to do—to define their roles—in addressing them. That would help to prevent the recurring issue where the responsibility for mitigating air pollution falls between Departments or different levels of government, central and local. It would ensure that development strategies are consistent with the UK’s broader legal commitments to air quality, including the targets that we set under the Environment Act 2021 and the national air quality strategy.
From a public health perspective, the case for the amendment is clear. Air pollution is linked to an estimated 43,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. That is a huge number and contributes to a range of serious health conditions, particularly among children, older adults and those living in deprived areas. The economic cost of air pollution, including its impact on the NHS, is estimated at a whopping £20 billion a year. Embedding air quality considerations directly into spatial planning is a proactive and cost-effective way to address the crisis before further harm is done to human health.
I believe that the amendment provides a clear, proportionate mechanism for ensuring that planning strategies support our clean air objectives. I strongly urge the Minister to consider warmly the amendment.
Gideon Amos
I very much sympathise with the amendment. Indeed, I have air quality management areas in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, including two that breach the lawful limits of air pollution. We desperately need the bypass for Thornfalcon and Henlade, which would solve that particular issue.
In brief, I feel that the approach in amendment 93 is not quite right, because it would be better directed at local plans. As I understand it, spatial development strategies are not site-specific or area-specific in their proposals. We do not feel that the amendment is quite the right approach, but we are very sympathetic to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s motivation for tabling it.
Matthew Pennycook
Once again, I understand the positive intent of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s amendment. Of course, improving air quality is a highly important issue in many parts of the country, not least in my own south-east London constituency. It is part of the reason why, many moons ago now, I established the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It is a public health issue and a social justice issue, and the Government are committed to improving air quality across the country. Amendment 93, however, is another example of trying to ask SDSs to do things that they are not designed for, and replicating existing duties and requirements that bear down on authorities in an SDS.
Ellie Chowns
Does the Minister not recognise that the fact that we have such huge problems with air pollution means that existing regulation is not working well enough?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy, in the interests of time, to set out what the Government are doing on this agenda through ministerial colleagues, but I return to this fundamental point: what are we introducing spatial development strategies for? They are high-level plans for infrastructure investment for housing growth. They need not replicate every existing duty and requirement in national policy.
Local authorities are already required to review and assess air quality in the area regularly, setting air quality management areas where national objectives are not being met. National planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impact should be identified at the plan-making stage to ensure a strategic approach. Again, I make the point that SDSs have to ensure that local plans are in general conformity with them. Planning decisions should ensure that any development in air quality management areas and clean air zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
Placing responsibilities—this is the fundamental point, which also applies to other amendment—on strategic planning authorities in relation to air quality management would replicate existing duties, and we therefore do not think the amendment is necessary. The hon. Lady may feel strongly and wish to press it to a vote. However, although it is entirely laudable that hon. Members with amendments are taking an opportunity to make points about the value of existing national duties and requirements, or the ways those may need to change, I hope that I have clearly outlined why the provisions on introducing an effective layer of strategic planning across England are not the place to have those debates.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for his response. We will have to agree to somewhat disagree on this matter, but in the interests of time—and because I can count—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 47, page 69, line 37, leave out from “must” to the end of line 4 on page 70 and insert “consult—
(a) residents of the relevant area;
(b) businesses located in the relevant area; and
(c) representatives of those that the authority considers may have an interest in any relevant area.”
This amendment would change the existing requirement in the Bill for a strategic planning authority to notify specified parties to a requirement to consult local residents, businesses, and representative organisations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 90, in clause 47, page 70, line 2, leave out “and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 91.
Amendment 91, in clause 47, page 70, line 4, at end insert “, and
(e) persons who experience disability.”
This amendment would require strategic planning authorities to consider notifying disabled people about the publication of a draft spatial development strategy.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to have been promoted to shadow Secretary of State, Mrs Hobhouse, but as soon as my colleagues and leader find out, I am bound to be sacked.
This important amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; we have pushed the Minister on this issue on Second Reading and other occasions. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has made clear his strength of feeling about the measures and the amendments that he has tabled on the planning system, and about the radical reforming zeal that they will deliver to people across the country, through a centralised national approach to amending our planning system.
However, the Minister does not want the scrutiny for local people that goes with that. Proposed new section 12H(3) states that
“the strategic planning authority must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy—
(a) voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of the strategy area”,
as well as a number of other organisations. We agree with the Minister that the development strategies will be wide-ranging in their impact on local communities, but if the Minister believes that, he should also believe that the people affected by them should be consulted. He should believe that those people should have their say on whether the development strategies have been drawn up in the right way, whether they contain what they should contain and whether they perhaps contain too much.
We just discussed the importance of chalk streams, and the Minister said that there is nothing to stop authorities from putting protections for chalk streams in a strategy. However, the Bill states that these organisations “at least” have to be notified—there are people who do not have to be notified. We believe that there should at least be some consultation exercise on the detail of the draft spatial development strategy put forward by the strategic planning authority. Something as important as that should be consulted on.
In discussing chapter 2, the Minister has outlined that local people are important and that spatial development strategies are vital to ensuring that development and planning are delivered in a radical, efficient and much more concrete way. That is why we tabled this amendment. We believe that the Minister should be bold. If he thinks that the measures in the Bill are as radical as he says and that they will wholeheartedly deliver on the infrastructure and the local base-led planning system he so wants, he should be confident in allowing the people that the Bill affects to have their say and be able to share and bask in the glory of the radical agenda he is bringing through. We believe that consultation is a good thing and, as we have said on previous amendments, constituents and local people should be able to shape what they want and do not want within them.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is making important points about how we consult the public, but we heard clearly from him this morning that that was the role of local councillors. I refer him to new section 12I to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which provides that any spatial development strategy must be examined by the public. Another layer of consultation would be an unnecessary addition when there is already in-built public consultation in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
I genuinely thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She has clearly examined the Bill, which is such a big piece of legislation—in the right way. I simply say that an examination of and consultation on the creation of a spatial development strategy would not always have what people want in it, or do not want in it, as its ultimate end goal once the draft has been put together. When a draft spatial strategy has been put together, people should be able to have their say on it.
The hon. Lady will know from her previous career, as I do from mine, that when people want to have their say on something in a consultation that an authority proposes, some will be happy—maybe they are getting what they want from it—but some will never be happy. They will always want to grumble; we have all had a few of those in our inboxes. However, we believe it is right that once something as key and new as these strategies is brought together, local people should be able to have their say.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a requirement on strategic planning authorities to consult prior and during. We are saying that once the draft strategy is put forward, it is crucial that local people have their chance to have a say. If a strategic planning authority is confident that it has made the right decision on a local development based on the consultations it has already done, it should not be scared or hindered by a consultation to see what happens in respect of the finished product.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making some eloquent points. Does he agree that if the Government are intent on bringing in a national scheme of delegation, and changing the role of the planning committee and how councillors interact with the planning process, even more consultation should be done at the stages he is describing so that we can ensure that residents still get their say over development in their area?
Paul Holmes
Yes. We had a significant debate yesterday on what I said was the Government’s centralising zeal in taking powers away from locally elected politicians. Many Opposition Members agree with me. The Opposition tabled an amendment that would not have allowed to go ahead something as large-scale being put together by a strategic planning authority, created by the Government, but the Minister won. We believe people should be consulted.
As I said to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, it is vital that when there is a democratic deficit—we fundamentally believe that one is being created by other aspects of the Bill—local people should have the right to be consulted on the end product. That is why I say this to the Minister, slightly cheekily, but with a serious undertone. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, he is the forward-looking planner of our time, and I know he gets embarrassed about these things—he is blushing—but nobody in the House of Commons is more deserving of the role of Housing Minister. He worked hard on the role in opposition, and he comes from a space of wanting to reform the system. We accept that, but sometimes his reforms have consequences, and if those reforms are so good, he should not be afraid to allow the people who elected him to his place and the Government to their place to have their say on something as radical as this change.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to amendments 90 and 91—hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. We have significant concerns about community involvement in consultation and about many of the points that have just been made. I have more to say on all that for the next group, in which we have tabled an amendment to make those points.
Amendments 90 and 91 would simply ensure that disabled people are consulted in the preparation of spatial development strategies. The Equality Act 2010 includes a public sector equality duty: a duty on public authorities to advance equality and eliminate discrimination. That implies that disabled people should be consulted on spatial development strategies in any case. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report on disabled people in the housing sector said:
“Despite the cross-government effort to ‘ensure disability inclusion is a priority’…we have found little evidence that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is treating disabled people’s needs as a priority in housing policy.”
We need to make sure that the voices of disabled people are heard in the preparation of spatial development strategies.
Ellie Chowns
I rise, briefly, to support the substantive point about the necessity of public consultation on something as important as a spatial planning strategy. As new section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is entitled “Consultation and representations”, it is disappointing that there is actually no provision for consultation. There is provision only for the consideration of notification, which is inadequate for strategies that will be as important as these. I urge the Minister to consider going away and aligning the text of his clause with the title of his clause.
David Simmonds
When we were drafting amendment 78, we gave a good deal of consideration to the direction of travel set out by the Government. The concerns that underlay the drafting were reinforced in the evidence sessions, where the Committee heard from a cross-party panel of local government leaders that the consultation process in planning was an opportunity to get things right, and for a public conversation about the impact of any proposed development, large or small, in order to forestall, through the planning process, objections that might later arise, by designing a development that would meet those concerns.
We have heard today a number of examples from Members that fall within that category. We have heard cross-party concerns about the impact on chalk streams, where consultation would allow effective parties with an interest to bring forward their views—for example, on the impact of run-off. A developer would therefore have the opportunity to build those concerns into the design of their proposed scheme to mitigate the impact and address the concerns.
We heard about the impact of air pollution on asthmatics—including, for the record, me. If a developer says they are planning to use biomass or wood burning as the heat source for a development, and the stoves are on the DEFRA exempt list—that is, if the Government consider that they produce little or no environmental pollution—that might be acceptable to people with that concern. However, if it will simply be up to the developer to install whatever they wish, that will have a significant negative impact and there is no opportunity for mitigation. The consultation is therefore critical.
There is a direction of travel: it feels very much that the Government’s view is that consultation and democracy are a hindrance to getting new units built. It is very clear from the views expressed by many Members—from all parties, in fairness, but certainly in the Opposition amendments that have been put forward—that we are keen to retain a sufficient element of local democracy and local voice to ensure that the kinds of concerns I have described are properly addressed. I invite the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, which would not in any way derail the intentions that he sets out in the Bill, but would achieve the opportunity for consultation, which is critical.
Matthew Pennycook
I take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed. As with all the debates we are having, I will reflect on the arguments that hon. Members have made. However, we do not think the amendments are necessary. As I have sought to reassure the Committee on previous occasions, each SDS will have to undergo public consultation and then be examined by a planning inspector. Once a draft SDS is published, it is open for anyone to make representations about that SDS. For those reasons, I hope that, in dealing with the specific amendments, I can reassure the Committee that they are unnecessary.
Turning first to amendment 78—
Ellie Chowns
I have been reading the clauses very carefully. As I read the Bill, it provides that a draft SDS can be produced without any public consultation whatsoever—in other words, a draft SDS can be produced by somebody in a cupboard with access to the internet. New section 12H, which deals with consultation and representations, provides an opportunity for consultation on the draft, preparatory to the examination and then the finalisation.
The problem is that new section 12H does not provide for consultation; it provides only for the consideration of notifying various local bodies. According to the Bill, it provides that
“the authority must also publish or make available a statement inviting representations to be made to the authority”.
Without any clarity on what that involves, an authority can just put something on a website that says, “If you’re interested in this, send us an email,” and nobody in the local area would have a clue that it was happening. The point of consultation is that it is an active process of engagement with those who have a legitimate interest in the matter. I think the Bill’s drafting does not reflect that.
Matthew Pennycook
May I press the hon. Lady, so that I understand her carefully made point? A draft SDS will be published and it will be a requirement, under clause 12H, that the strategic planning authority either notifies or consults, and that will then be open for comment or representations. I want to understand the hon. Lady’s point, because I will go away and reflect on it. In what way does she think that is different from the consultation process on, for example, a local development plan?
Ellie Chowns
New section 12H(3) says that the authority
“must consider notifying…the following”,
so there is no specification that it must notify; it must only consider notifying. The person in the cupboard could consider notifying them and decide, “No, I’m not going to notify them.” The only hard requirement is that
“the authority must…publish…a statement inviting representations”.
As I have just outlined, that is not the same as consultation. I taught this subject at university: according to Arnstein’s ladder of participation, consultation is at a higher level than notification. Will the Minister take that away and consider improving the provisions for consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady cut me off early in my remarks, so let me develop them somewhat and deal with the specific point that, by our reading, the amendment deals with. The list of public bodies detailed in new section 12H(3) sets out that strategic planning authorities must consider notifying community and interest groups that a draft of their spatial development strategy has been published. In subsection (3), it is very clear who the strategic planning authority must consider notifying—I have it in front me. That list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive. Indeed, new section 12H(4) requires strategic planning authorities to invite representations, as I have said, about their draft strategy. That invitation is open to all, including residents and businesses within the strategy area.
The purpose of new section 12H(3) is to ensure that strategic planning authorities consider a broad range of opinion when they consult on their draft strategy. There is nothing in the Bill, or elsewhere, to prevent residents or businesses from participating in the consultation, or to prevent strategic planning authorities from notifying them of the consultation specifically. For those reasons, we do not think—
Matthew Pennycook
In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being very clear in his position on the amendments, but I have extreme sympathy for, and agreement with, the hon. Member for Hereford north.
Paul Holmes
I am sorry about that. I am not very good at geography; I did not teach it at university.
I hope the Minister takes these concerns in the spirit in which they are intended. I say that a lot, but there is genuinely a huge concern about the difference between notifying and consulting, and about what he has said in Committee today. The minimum wording in the Bill—I guarantee that strategic planning authorities will look at it and follow it to the letter, given the work they have to do—is that the strategic planning authority
“must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy”.
New section 12H(4) outlines that the planning authorities should publish the draft spatial strategy
“as required by subsection (1)(a)”,
or make
“such a strategy available for inspection”,
but there is a vast difference between “notifying (at least)” and consulting.
Paul Holmes
I will, but then I want to ask the Minister a question to see whether he will answer, in which case we might not press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Can I make sure that this is a speech and not an intervention on the Minister? Minister, had you sat down and made all the points you wanted to make to all the amendments being debated?
Matthew Pennycook
I sat down because I saw the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rising. We do have another amendment to respond to, if he wants me to.
The Chair
I would like the Minister to speak to the three amendments we are debating, including amendments 90 and 91. I will then invite the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to respond and he can take an intervention from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
Matthew Pennycook
In the interests of brevity, Mrs Hobhouse, I will make one final comment, then I will go away and reflect and we can return to the matter on Report, where there will be time for consideration.
Again—it has felt like this a lot today—I think we are conflating different things. The process for an SDS is different from the process for the development of a local development plan. They are different things.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister says he knows, but in a sense the legislative underpinning that we have looked at for this measure, and the most obvious and comparable example, is the London plan. Broadly similar provisions exist in the London plan, and when it is put out to consultation it gets tens of thousands of responses to the notification, which are taken into account. I say gently that I do not think we are talking about an arrangement here much different from what applies there. To make the point again, this is a very different strategy that we are asking strategic authorities, or boards in those cases, to bring forward.
David Simmonds
One question that frequently arises when there is a challenge to a development through the process of judicial review is about whether the processes of consultation have been correctly followed. Removing a requirement for consultation and replacing it with a discretion to notify dramatically lowers the ability of people who are very concerned that developments are brought forward within their strategic plans that would not have been acceptable and would have failed to meet the proper consultation standard—for example, on issues such as air quality or environmental impact. In fact, it would be in the interests of the development industry for proper consultation to take place, rather than its being forestalled in this way.
Matthew Pennycook
I come back to the point I have made several times now: SDSs cannot allocate sites. There is a role for local plans underneath SDSs, which must be in general conformity with them. We would have failed if we simply ensured that SDSs were big local plans with the level of detail required on site allocation for a local plan. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that SDSs will not opine on whether a particular development on a particular plot of land is acceptable. They may outline the areas of general housing growth that the strategic authority or constituent member authorities want to be brought forward in that sub-region.
Again, I am more than happy to go away and set out in chapter and verse the way we think the clause might operate—if we ever get to clause stand part, I might be able to outline it in a little bit more detail—but I think that when hon. Members grasp the full detail of what we want these strategies to do and how we think they should be prepared and developed, they may be reassured. If not, we can come back to the matter on Report.
Rachel Taylor
This really is a semantic point about language. I fully appreciate that there is a massive difference between notification and consultation, but new section 12H(5) is very clear that that notification is also required to contain an invitation to the relevant person to make representations. Surely an invitation to somebody to make a representation is a consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
I did not teach the subject, so I do not know. I am content to be schooled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on the philosophical meaning of a consultation versus notification. As I read it, the relevant strategic planning authority has a duty to produce and then publish a draft SDS, and they are required to notify all the groups under subsection (2). It is not exhaustive; they can add additional groups if they want to consult further. They must include, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth rightly says, an invitation to those persons to make representations, which will be considered.
Strategic planning authorities have the discretion to go further. There is nothing stopping relevant authorities undertaking wider or different forms of consultation if they wish to inform their strategy. I think what we are talking about is somewhat a semantic difference. I will leave it there. I have spoken enough about this and the reasons why the Government do not think the amendment is necessary. If hon. Members feel strongly enough, they can either press it to a vote in Committee or we can return to it on Report.
The Chair
I call the shadow Minister to respond, but I also would like to know whether he wishes to press his amendment to a vote.
Paul Holmes
I cannot yet tell you that, Mrs Hobhouse, because I want first to respond to what the Minister has said, and then hear his response in an intervention I will invite him to make. The Minister and I are obviously fairly jaded about the length of time that this is taking. I feel exactly the same as he does, but this is a serious concern from all parties, as he has accepted. He outlined his belief that the wording in the Bill is substantive enough to ensure that there is an invitation to make representations.
The process established by the Bill says that the authority must “consider notifying”—that could be, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, in a very small advert on a distinct web page that is not very accessible somewhere—“(at least) the following” people. It then publishes a strategy and asks for representations, which must be in a prescribed form and manner and within a prescribed period. That is fine, but nowhere in the Bill does it outline what happens to those representations once they are received. There is no obligation on the development organisation to look at those representations.
Paul Holmes
The Minister can make that face, but that is true. Nowhere does it say that the authority has to look at the representations, give any feedback on them or do anything about them. All we are saying in amendment 78—it was addressed in other Members’ speeches as well—is that local people should be consulted on what they think about the proposals.
The Minister is, as I have said repeatedly on this Committee, a man of integrity and he has listened to our case, but nowhere under proposed new section 12H, particularly in subsections (3) and (4), does it require authorities to do anything with the representations. There is nowhere where those representations could feasibly make the proposals and draft plan better or fundamentally change their contents. I will invite the Minister to intervene—
Paul Holmes
—when I have posed this question. We are seriously concerned about this element of the Bill. The Minister said in Committee yesterday that they have the numbers. We accept that, and we can look at this on Report. We will look at this on Report, because it is a substantial area in which the Bill falls short.
If the Minister commits to meeting all interested parties and look actively at how, in subsection (3), we can remove “consider notifying (at least)” and include not just notifying, but consulting, and we get a clear, proper commitment to that in Committee this afternoon, then we will consider not pressing the amendment to a vote. I know the Minister has the numbers, but I hope, in the spirit in which our amendment is intended, he understands that people who will be impacted by these decisions will want to have that consultation. I ask the Minister to intervene to hear if he is willing to do that. If he is not, we will press this amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will intervene in the interest of trying to bring this discussion to a close, because I feel I have outlined the Government’s position in quite some detail. I have understood the points that Opposition Members have made. I have committed to reflecting on them.
I have also committed to writing to the Committee, which I will do, and it might be useful for the debates on Report if I outline, because I have made reference to the London plan, as the prime example of an existing spatial development strategy, how consultation works under that plan; how generally, in terms of the principles of good plan making, consultation operates across the system; and how we think the approach outlined in clause 47 in reference to spatial development strategies will operate. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is more than welcome to press the amendment to a vote—I do not mind in any sense—but if I give hon. Members that detail and they still feel strongly enough on Report, we can continue the debate then.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Minister and I know he is doing his best in this regard. I am challenging not to be obtuse or difficult, but because, as I have said, there is clear concern about the wording in the Bill, and his interpretation, which is the really important thing, is an interpretation of language in the Bill that we just do not feel is tight enough. I know he has committed to writing to the Committee, and we would like him to do that. I did ask whether he would consider looking at the consultation element in relation to proposed new section 12H(3).
On his reference to the London plan, that is fine—we can compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges—but let us look at the fact that this is a provision in legislation that will be new. I think that he should be looking at this afresh, aside from what happened before. Just because something has happened before does not mean it is correct or right, and we want the language in the Bill tightened up as much as possible. I really regret to say to the Minister—
Ellie Chowns
I plead with the hon. Member not to press the amendment to a vote, in the interests of time and also because I cannot vote for his amendment proactively, because I think it is even more poorly written than the text it is trying to replace, so can we—[Laughter.]
Paul Holmes
After I was so kind to the hon. Lady! Actually, we agree on this issue, and it is not my amendment; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, so it is his fault. But whether she thinks it is poorly worded or not has no bearing on my inclination to press the amendment to a vote or not, because I think the principle is what matters. I think we both have a principled stance on what we want to achieve in the Bill, which is consultation.
Whether the hon. Lady thinks that the amendment is worded wrongly or not—I say that with all due respect, genuine respect, to the hon Lady—what I was saying to the Minister was that he has made a number of commitments, but I fear that coming back to this on Report and not—[Interruption.] I am coming to a close, Mrs Hobhouse, but other people have had their say on this and it is important that we have our say on our amendment. The Minister has been very clear on what he wants to do, but I do not think he has gone far enough, so we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 47, page 70, leave out line 40 and insert—
“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
I want to discuss participation in and consultation on spatial development strategies. I appreciate that this will be a long day as we are going on until 7 pm, but this is a really important part of the Bill, and the level of public involvement that is allowed in spatial development strategies is really important. It is vital that the Bill gets that right.
The amendment provides that strategic authorities would have to prepare a statement of community involvement, which would set out the people who had a right to be heard on a spatial development strategy. That approach recognises that spatial development strategies are different from local plans. This debate was had, probably in this room, during debates on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Labour Government did not intend to include any right to be heard in local development plans, but they changed their mind and accepted the wisdom of the arguments that were put forward. A right to be heard on local development plans was enshrined in that Act.
I recognise that spatial development strategies are different, that a right to be heard is more challenging in a strategic context, and that the London plan does not have a right to be heard. However, the provisions on spatial development strategies in this Bill do not even go as far as those in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which set out the London spatial development strategy. That Act has a duty to take account of consultation, and there is no such duty in this Bill.
I have some sympathy for the amendment that the shadow Minister proposed—the points made were valid—but we did not feel the drafting was quite right. Picking out particular businesses and interest groups was not how we would do it. We propose that strategic authorities should develop their own statement of community involvement. After all, that is what local councils are expected to do on their local plans, so why should a mayoral authority not be required to do that on a much more overarching, much more strategic and much more powerful document that would follow as a result?
In another respect, the Bill provides for even less consultation than there is on nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning Act 2008. In that Act, there is a statutory duty to take account of consultation—I believe it is in section 50, if memory serves me correctly. In this Bill, there is no duty to take account of consultation. There is a difference between considering notifying parties and consulting them and being required to take their views into account.
Matthew Pennycook
This is an important point, and perhaps some of the confusion arises from the stages of the process. Let me draw his attention to proposed new section 12K(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That makes it very clear:
“The strategic planning authority must…consider any representations received in accordance with regulations under section 12H(7)”—
which we have just discussed—
“and decide whether to make any modifications as a result”.
A strategic planning authority cannot, as I think the shadow Minister asserted, bin all the representations that it receives in a cupboard—I think that was how the hon. Member for North Herefordshire phrased it. It does have to have regard to them. I just address that point, in terms of the examination, about what is required to come via submission to the Secretary of State before adoption.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me on that point. He is absolutely right that there is a provision stating that consultation responses must be taken into account, but there is no duty to consult and no requirement, and it is the same for community involvement. In fact, the Bill explicitly states that there will not be a right to be heard in the examination in public.
We should be clear that what is called a public examination of the strategy does not mean that the public are allowed to take part. They are allowed to watch and listen to it—that is what it means—but they are not allowed to take part. A clause specifically states that there should not be a right to be heard, so those affected—members of the public, landowners, businesses and so on—will not have a right to take part in that examination. There is effectively no right to take part in any of the process.
We propose a modest approach that is less onerous than what is required of local planning authorities: a statement of community involvement, in which mayoral authorities would establish for themselves what categories of persons have the right to be heard in examinations of their plans. I believe that is a sensible measure that would provide a different level of involvement, which is appropriate given that a strategic authority obviously covers many more people and it would be difficult to provide a right to be heard to every member of the public. A provision to allow mayoral authorities to set out their own consultation and involvement standards seems eminently sensible to us, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearly setting out his intent. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed this afternoon, I will certainly reflect. As a point of principle—I will repeat this clearly, so that it is on the record—the Government of course want local communities to be actively involved in the production of a spatial development strategy for their area. All persons have the right to make representations on a draft SDS. However, we do not think it is necessary to be overly prescriptive about how strategic planning authorities should go about seeking the views of their communities, or to require them to demonstrate how they are doing so.
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, following the implementation of changes made in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, local planning authorities will no longer be required to produce a statement of community involvement setting out how they are engaging with their community. I do not think it would be appropriate to place a similar requirement on strategic planning authorities.
Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to give people the right to be heard at examination. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right for persons to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. As I have said several times, it is the Government’s intention that spatial development strategies should act as high-level documents that set the context for subsequent local plans that must be in general conformance with them. Notably, unlike local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific sites for development. Therefore, it is more appropriate for people to have the right to appear at local plan examinations and for examinations of spatial development strategies to be kept proportionate to their specific role.
I say that having heard very clearly the hon. Gentleman accept and understand the difference between what the Government are trying to achieve via SDSs vis-à-vis local development plans, for example. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations of the London plan, which, while not identical in legislative underpinning, is the most comparable SDS that is out there. For reference, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows given his background and experience, the most recent spatial development strategy examination—that of the London plan in 2019—took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.
For those reasons, we do not think the amendment is necessary, and I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gideon Amos
We wish to press the amendment to a vote, because we believe in the right to be heard and, in general, we are highly concerned about the potential erosion of the democratic planning system by the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 47, page 74, line 10, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 48.
Schedule 3.
Gideon Amos
The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will be extremely brief on this topic. Simply put, there is no provision for how often a spatial development strategy should be reviewed, and our amendment proposes that it be done annually. It may be that annually is not be the appropriate timeframe, but there should be regular reviews. That is the spirit of the amendment, although I will not seek a vote, to enable the Committee to make progress.
Matthew Pennycook
I will start by responding to amendment 124 moved by the hon Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will then speak to clause 47 stand part, Government amendment 48 and schedule 3.
In reference to amendment 124, it is true that, unlike local plans, which must be reviewed at least every five years, there is no set timescale in which spatial development strategies must be reviewed or replaced. Spatial development strategies are intended to be long-term strategies that provide greater certainty for investment and development decisions. The areas producing them will vary greatly in their size, the scale of development that they require and the changes over time which they must respond to. This light-touch review requirement gives strategic planning authorities greater discretion to review their strategy as and when they feel it necessary to do so.
By way of comparison, the London plan, which has the same review requirement, has been fully replaced twice, and another version is now under way; it has also undergone several interim reviews and updates. I hope that strategic planning authorities will exhibit similar diligence in maintaining their SDSs. In the event that a strategic planning authority fails to adequately keep its strategy under review, the Secretary of State will have the power under the Bill to direct the authority to review all or part of its strategy. For those reasons we do not think that this amendment is required.
The Government firmly believe that housing and infrastructure needs cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning are essential. A nationally consistent system will underpin the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, help to deliver better infrastructure, and boost economic growth. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will understand what we are trying to achieve with this clause and withdraw the amendment.
Government amendment 48 makes consequential changes to regulation 111 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to add spatial development strategies drawn up under the Bill to the definition of “land use plan”, and update the definition of “plan-making authority” and the references to
“giving effect to a land use plan”
to reflect the introduction of the new spatial development strategies. The amendment will bring the new spatial strategies into line with the spatial development strategy for London, along with local and neighbourhood plans. It ensures that strategic planning authorities will also be bound to carry out habitats regulations assessments. A habitats regulations assessment will identify any aspects of the spatial development strategy that may have an adverse effect on special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites. That will ensure that the impacts of development on protected habitat sites are appropriately considered.
Finally, on clause 47 stand part, as we have discussed at some length, the clause reintroduces a system of strategic plan making across England. The recent period has been something of an aberration, as throughout most of the past 50 years, England has had a strategic tier of plan-making. We have had structure plans at county level, regional planning guidance from central Government and regional spatial strategies prepared at regional level. The past 14 years, without any formal planning since the abolition of regional spatial strategies, have been anomalous, and this Government’s firmly held view is that that has led to suboptimal outcomes. Over the last 40 years, development levels have consistently failed to meet the country’s needs, resulting in a housing crisis and significant affordability gaps across the country. Additionally, the number of local plans being adopted or updated has continued to decline, with only about 30% of plans adopted in the last five years.
As is generally accepted by hon. Members, the planning system is in dire need of reform. A system of strategic plans is central to our efforts to get Britain building again. The duty to co-operate introduced by the Localism Act 2011 was intended to replace strategic planning, but it has failed. Instead, it created a bureaucratic system and significant uncertainty, led to numerous local plan failures, and ultimately failed to deliver the kind of joined-up thinking and co-operation across local authority boundaries that was intended. Indeed, the failure of the duty was such that the previous Government legislated for its repeal in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I can assure the Committee that this Government will honour the previous Government’s intentions and commence the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act to repeal the duty. Our goal is to establish a system of strategic planning that garners support from all sides of the House, and so create a stable and consistent framework for planning the growth that this country so desperately needs.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Section 47: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment made: 48, in schedule 3, page 146, line 4, at end insert—
“Habitats Regulations
11A (1) Regulation 111 of the Habitats Regulations (interpretation of Chapter 8) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘land use plan’—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘(the spatial development strategy)’ substitute ‘(the spatial development strategy for London)’;
(b) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a spatial development strategy as provided for in Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;
(ab) a spatial development strategy of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);
(ac) a spatial development strategy of a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);’.
(3) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘plan-making authority’—
(a) in paragraph (a), after ‘replacement’ insert ‘of the spatial development strategy for London’;
(b) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a strategic planning authority (within the meaning given in section 12A of the 2004 Planning Act);
(ab) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;
(ac) a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan;”’;
(c) in paragraph (c), before sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
‘(ia) section 12P or 12Q of the 2004 Planning Act (Secretary of State’s powers in relation to spatial development strategy);’.
(4) In paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (c), after ‘strategy’, in both places, insert ‘for London’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (c) insert—
‘(ca) the adoption or approval of a spatial development strategy or of an alteration of such a strategy under Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;
(cb) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;
(cc) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan”;’.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment revises the Habitats Regulations 2017 so that the new kind of spatial development strategy (see clause 47 of the Bill) counts as a “land use plan”. The effect is that an assessment under those Regulations will be required in certain cases before the strategy is adopted.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48
Overview of EDPs
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 83, line 2, after “to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that conservation measures undertaken within Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) should significantly protect environmental features.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”
Clause stand part.
Clause 49 stand part.
Gideon Amos
I am sure we can hardly contain our excitement about moving on to another clause. Amendment 12 would require that conservation measures undertaken within environmental development plans should “significantly” protect environmental features.
Clause 48 is definitional, introducing the concept of environmental delivery plans and setting out briefly what they should contain. Amendment 12 would strengthen the second of the four main functions of an EDP in subsection (1)(b), which describes the purpose of any conservation measures, including an EDP, as merely to protect the environmental features in question. “To protect” is not adequate or strong enough. The amendment would have the relevant text read, “significantly protect” the features, which would provide stronger protection.
We heard oral evidence from various environmental groups at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill. They rang alarm bells about the level of protection that EDPs would offer and said that it would not be strong enough. This is a specific change to the test of what those environmental measures should deliver, and it would go some way to address the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Paul Holmes
I apologise, Mrs Hobhouse, for the length of my speech on the previous clause; this one will not be as long. I will take your steer and cut my remarks to a more suitable length. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said from a sedentary position, but she is making my speech longer.
Amendment 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an attempt to elaborate on the Opposition’s arguments about Natural England. The Minister will know where this amendment is coming from. He was open to some of the challenge from Members and witnesses in the Committee’s evidence session in which concerns were repeatedly raised about the functionality, ability and readiness of Natural England to play the role expected of it by the Secretary of State and the Minister in the parameters of this legislation.
I was initially concerned about Natural England because I have had involvement with it in my constituency, and some of its response times and ability to react in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner are sometimes compromised. That is by no means a criticism of the chief executive, who I thought gave very honest and able testimony in our evidence session. I will précis her words, as I did not make a note, but essentially she said, “We are going to wait for the spending review, but there is a lot of work that we need to do. We have been assured that the Government are going to resource us, and there are added responsibilities, but we hope, we see, we think.” I am afraid that, when we are looking at such monumental changes to development and nature recovery planning, we need better than that.
The Minister was really open when we cross-examined him in the evidence session. He said that I was tempting him to give an answer ahead of the spending review. I will not do that this afternoon; I know that he is but a small cog among the many Ministers asking the Chancellor for more money to resource their Departments. I understand that, having been through it myself. None the less, we are concerned about Natural England’s ability and whether it is the right organisation to take these responsibilities forward.
Amendment 77 to clause 48 would remove the reference to Natural England and provide that an environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document. The second part of the amendment, proposed subsection (1B), would provide that where an EDP is prepared by a local planning authority, the references to clauses 48 to 60, which essentially outline Natural England’s responsibilities, should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.
We believe that local planning authorities have the wherewithal to develop local environmental delivery plans. They have experience of doing so. I know that there is some challenge, given the resourcing of planning departments, but the Minister’s record on that issue, as well as the actions that he is taking through this legislation, which we wholeheartedly support, make me confident that that challenge will be met.
As I say, I am concerned to ensure that local authorities can develop environmental delivery plans. After my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has spoken, will the Minister elaborate on that in his winding up? I hope that since the evidence session, he has taken a look at some of the legislation and recommendations for Natural England, or discussed them with Natural England to reassure himself that Natural England is resourced for the actions that he and Secretary of State will require it to undertake, although I realise that he will say this is a slow-burn development going through. Those are the parameters of our amendment, and we hope that the Minister will look on it favourably. If he cannot, we hope he can give us some reassurance that Natural England is still the best fit to undertake these responsibilities.
David Simmonds
For the Opposition, support for the recovery of nature and the natural environment is a high priority. Amendment 77 and the arguments we will advance later are about ensuring that the additional capacity the Government are bringing to the process of nature recovery through their changes to the planning system is focused in a way that delivers.
As we have heard, both in evidence and in the general debates around the comparison with the section 106 process, for example, where financial contributions are sought, they are accumulated until the point when the delivery of a plan—for school places, road improvements or whatever it may be—is viable. Clearly, the Government intend environmental delivery plans to work in the same way.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has ably set out, during the evidence sessions we heard concerns about the capacity of Natural England, as a further part of this already complex system, to deliver on that objective. In his rebuttal remarks earlier, the Minister relied on the proposed new section on chalk streams, saying that it was an example of something that could be dealt with through a local nature recovery strategy. That is one alternative to Natural England seeking to create a much larger process, but there are many others.
In my constituency, we have the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, which might well be able to deliver a very substantial project in this respect. All of those bodies have a very direct relationship with the local authority, which is the planning authority. Rather than create an additional element of complexity, we should streamline the process so that a local authority becomes not only the planning decision maker, but is able, through its direct engagement with the developer and its detailed local knowledge of the environment in which the development is taking place, to take on that responsibility. Should it feel that Natural England is the best delivery partner for that, okay. I am sure we would all accept that, but there will be other options available, especially when the impacts the EDP is intended to mitigate are quite specialist or quite local in their effects. That is the thinking behind the amendment.
I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley in that I do not consider the Minister to be a small cog in this wheel. I am sure that his will be a significant voice in discussions with the Treasury, given the priority given to growth. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, because this is an opportunity to step away from the previous delays, which were frequently cited in evidence on the role of Natural England, and to ensure that additional capacity goes into the part of the planning system that we know is already delivering at scale—the part that is under the control of local authorities.
Matthew Pennycook
Excellent. I wanted to make sure, given previous confusion on other clauses.
Before I speak to clauses 48 and 49 and respond to the points made, I hope you will indulge me slightly, Mrs Hobhouse, as I take a few moments to set out the Government’s overriding objections to amending this really important part of the Bill, which I know will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the Opposition.
As set out in our plan for change, this Government are committed to reforming the planning system to build the homes and critical infrastructure our country needs. The reforms in this Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious targets of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes, and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. However, we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not, and should not, come at the cost of the environment.
By pursuing smart planning reforms, we can unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country, delivering a win-win for development and the environment, and building a future where nature and the economy flourish together. The new approach that the nature restoration fund will facilitate will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in terms of driving the recovery of protected sites and species, thereby delivering more for nature, not less. The fund will move us away from an unacceptable status quo. I think there is recognition in Committee that not only does the status quo deters and constrains development, but all too often it fails to improve our environment.
David Simmonds
The Minister mentioned moving to a cost recovery basis. Earlier, I mentioned a weakness of section 106: by the time funds are accumulated, maybe over a five or 10-year period, costs have risen and the delivered outcome is significantly less than was envisaged to mitigate the original impact. Could the Minister set out the process for establishing the relevant costs, with reference for example to the much-mocked £115 million HS2 bat tunnel, which came up in the evidence sessions? That has been hugely costly. We could end up with a very substantial bill that the developers and the promoters of the project had never expected in the first place, but that was judged necessary as a result of this process, despite it being entirely out of the view of the planning authority determining the original application.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to come back to me on that point, but we will deal with the mechanism by which fees are set under the EDPs in a later clause. I hope that, at that point, I will provide him with more clarity, but perhaps we could defer that particular discussion, because I think it would be more appropriately dealt with then. For the reasons I have given, I commend these clauses to the Committee and ask for the two amendments to be withdrawn.
Gideon Amos
We are concerned about this issue. Our set of amendments in these areas is small; they are in the spirit of the Bill and of what the Government want to do with environmental delivery plans. They are designed to provide the strengthening that environmental groups are calling for clearly and strongly. We will not push the Committee to a vote, but we remain concerned and we will return to similar points, which are also in the spirit of the Bill, on later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”—(Paul Holmes.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 50, page 84, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) An environmental feature identified in an EDP must not be—
(a) an irreplaceable habitat;
(b) ecologically linked to an irreplaceable habitat to the extent that development-related harm to that feature or the surrounding site would negatively affect the irreplaceable habitat.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, ‘irreplaceable habitat’ means—
(a) a habitat identified as irreplaceable under The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024, or
(b) an ecologically valuable habitat that would be technically very difficult or impossible to restore, create or replace within a reasonable timescale.”
This amendment would mean that an Environmental Delivery Plan cannot be created for irreplaceable habitats, and would maintain existing rules and processes for the protection of irreplaceable habitats, including under the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 50, page 84, line 32, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.
Amendment 33, in clause 50, page 84, line 33, at end insert
“, and deliver new nature-based solutions to flooding and sustainable drainage systems in the area covered by the EDP.”
Amendment 148, clause 50, page 84, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is—
(a) a chalk stream;
(b) a blanket bog.”
Government amendments 95 and 96.
Clause stand part.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in very strong support of amendment 18 to clause 50, which is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to part 3. I have significant concerns about part 3—concerns clearly shared by a wide range of environmental organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and by many prominent scientists.
Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that irreplaceable habitats, those rare and exceptional ecosystems that, once lost, cannot be recreated, are explicitly excluded from being subjected to environmental delivery plans under the Bill. In simple terms, it provides a critical safeguard for our most ecologically valuable places by ensuring that EDPs, tools designed to offset and manage environmental harm from development, cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or to features whose degradation would harm such habitats. It is not possible to offset an irreplaceable habitat; it is, by definition, irreplaceable.
Luke Murphy
I rise to speak to clause 50. The Government and the Minister deserve complete praise for their attempt to thread the needle of building more homes while protecting and restoring nature. We must recognise that the system we inherited was failing on both counts. The innovative approach outlined in this part of the Bill, including in clause 50, is to be applauded.
I have one question for the Minister. In evidence to the Committee, there was a difference of opinion between Natural England and Wildlife and Countryside Link about whether the mitigation hierarchy would still apply under the Bill. As the Minister is aware, the Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed concerns about the undermining of the mitigation hierarchy. Here we have a disagreement between Natural England and the OEP on the loss of the mitigation hierarchy, and whether developers can indeed get away without avoiding harm.
I have also seen written evidence from Arbtech, the leading ecological consultancy in the UK and a major employer in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). In its representations on the issue, it also expressed concerns on behalf of developers about the complexities that could be created for them. I ask the Minister, how can we clear up the discrepancy? It is absolutely clear that the Government want to avoid harm for habitats that cannot be easily replaced, and that the Government want to restore and protect nature and achieve our housing goals. How can we give the OEP and others the confidence that the Government’s intentions will be made a legal reality?
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak in support of amendment 13, which would require that the conservation measures undertaken within environmental delivery plans should significantly protect environmental features. It is one of a number of similar amendments that I will not speak to at length. Together, they would strengthen the thrust and strength of environmental delivery plans.
I say gently to the Government that if none of these strengthening opportunities is taken, we will end up with a Bill that provides environmental delivery plans that do not have the confidence of environmental bodies in this country or those who represent our environment. I hope that the Minister will consider that as we debate these amendments, which may seem to concern minor matters of wording but could really strengthen the structure of EDPs.
We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about amendment 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. We are concerned about irreplaceable habitats, and we look for some reassurance on that topic before considering how we respond to that amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Before I start, let me make a point that I think has been well conveyed, but that I will make again for the sake of clarity: I hope that Opposition Members who have dealt with me in the past know this, but when I say that I am reflecting and listening, I am. I will take all the comments about these clauses away. As I said in respect of the opinions that have been shared with us by the Office for Environmental Protection, we are already thinking about how we might respond to allay some of those concerns.
Environmental delivery plans will ensure that the environmental impact of development is addressed through the delivery of effective, strategic conservation measures. The conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to provide a positive contribution to overall environmental improvement, delivering the win-win that we have spoken about.
Clause 50 is central to establishing the new approach that I have outlined. It introduces requirements for the environmental delivery plan to identify and set out information on three of the key concepts that it deals with. The first is the environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected: either a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species. Those protections stem from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I will come back to that point, which is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
The second concept is the relevant environmental impact of development, and the third is the conservation measures that will be put in place to address the negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature. For example, where an environmental feature is a type of plant that is a notified feature of a protected watercourse, and the environmental impact is nutrient pollution from housing development, the conservation measures will address the nutrient pollution from the housing development but will go further to improve the conservation status of that type of plant in that watercourse.
In designing conservation measures, Natural England will consider the lifespan of the development and the period over which conservation measures need to be secured and managed. EDPs will be able to include back-up conservation measures that could be deployed, if needed, to secure the desired environmental outcomes. That is not only important for nature, but part of ensuring that the Secretary of State can be confident that EDPs will deliver conservation measures that outweigh the impact of development. This shift from the status quo towards active restoration is a key feature of the nature restoration fund.
A draft environmental delivery plan will also contain information on the expected cost of conservation measures to ensure that conservation measures are adequately funded. The cost of the measures will be relevant to making sure that the levy is set at a reasonable level for development, while allowing us to be confident that the conservation measures will be delivered.
As well as setting out further detail as to what an environmental delivery plan will contain, clause 50—with clarification from Government amendment 96—establishes the ability of Natural England to request that a planning condition be imposed on development as a conservation measure. Those pro forma conditions will allow avoidance and reduction measures to be secured up front, alongside wider conservation measures. It could be, for example, that as part of an environmental delivery plan dealing with the impact of water scarcity, a planning condition requires development to achieve a certain standard of water efficiency.
Although it has always been the case that those conservation measures would be maintained, Government amendment 95 introduces a requirement that an environmental delivery plan sets out how they are to be maintained and over what period, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.
I turn to the amendments tabled and spoken to by Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire set out, amendment 18 seeks to prevent irreplaceable habitats, or habitats linked to irreplaceable habitats, from being included in environmental delivery plans. I should first set out clearly that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce protections for irreplaceable habitats.
Existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the national planning policy framework will continue to apply. Those protections provide that where development results in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, development should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. That policy is set out in the NPPF and applies to those particular habitats.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she is more than welcome to.
The Chair
Order. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene, or shall I call her to speak at the end?
Ellie Chowns
I want to say something further, but not specifically as an intervention.
The Chair
The shadow Minister would like to speak to that amendment. Can I call him first?
Paul Holmes
I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mrs Hobhouse, because I did not register that amendment 148 was in this group—that is my fault.
Paul Holmes
It is getting late, and I have been thinking about chalk streams all day. I will speak briefly to amendment 148, which is in the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). Clause 50(4) states:
“Where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site, the EDP may, if Natural England considers it appropriate, set out conservation measures that do not directly address the environmental impact of development on that feature at that site but instead seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”
The amendment would add two important carve-outs through an extra subsection (4A), whereby subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is a chalk stream or a blanket bog—[Laughter.] The Minister was laughing. We have carved out those two things in the amendment—well, the shadow Environment Secretary thought it was very important, obviously, and I have researched what a blanket bog is—because of what we discussed earlier.
In particular, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined perfectly that our chalk streams in this country are exceptionally special, are unique ecosystems and are unique in most ways to the UK, particularly Hampshire and certain other parts of the country. Therefore, we think there is scope to create subsection (4A) to exempt those two specific protected characteristics from subsection (4).
That is the reason why we tabled amendment 148: chalk streams obviously cannot be moved—I am not being facetious; I promise the Minister that we are not at that stage of the day—and they are incredibly rare, so it would not be appropriate to try to create that environmental protection elsewhere. We could do it from one chalk stream to another, but chalk streams are so rare that we would not want to harm, inadvertently or purposefully, the country’s chalk streams.
I hope the Minister sees that those very small additions to the text of clause 50 would strengthen the Bill. I commend the amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to clarify, for Hansard more than anything, I laughed only at the shadow Minister’s delivery of the term “blanket bog”. I was not in any way questioning the importance of that type of peatland.
David Simmonds
For the edification of the Committee, they are also known as featherbed bogs.
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed. I look forward to seeing how Hansard tidies up that exchange.
As the shadow Minister said, amendment 148 would prevent chalk streams and blanket bogs from being an environmental feature for which conservation measures can be put in place that address the harm from development at a different location from the impacted site. Where the feature to which an EDP relates is an irreplaceable habitat, such as a blanket bog, it would not be possible for impacts on that feature to be compensated for elsewhere. That is the nature of their being irreplaceable.
The Bill is clear that impacts must be adequately addressed for an environmental delivery plan to be made by the Secretary of State. Moreover, as I just set out in relation to a previous amendment, both chalk streams and blanket bogs are protected by the national planning policy framework. They are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so they would not be the focus of an environmental delivery plan.
The NPPF makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections will continue to apply. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press the amendment.
Due to the slightly muddled way in which we have debated these amendments, I have not had the chance to respond to amendment 13, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, so I will do so now. As he set out, it would require environmental delivery plans to go further than the current requirement to contribute to an “improvement” in the conservation status of an environmental feature to contributing to a “significant improvement”. The Government have always been clear that they would legislate only where we could secure better outcomes for nature, and that is what we have secured through these clauses by moving beyond the current system of offsetting to secure an improvement in environmental outcomes.
Clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. That reflects the commitment that EDPs will go beyond neutrality and secure more positive environmental results.
That commitment ties into the crucial safeguard in clause 55(4), which ensures that an EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That means that environmental delivery plans will already be going further than simply offsetting the impact of development.
However, requiring environmental delivery plans to go even further, in the way that the amendment proposes, risks placing a disproportionate burden on developers to contribute more than their fair share. In effect, I am arguing that EDPs already go beyond the status quo. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment, not least because we will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate on clause 55.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister and other hon. Members for their comments; I would like to push the amendment to a vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on the importance of including the word “significant”, but as the Minister says, we will come on to that later. I recognise the importance of chalk streams and blanket bogs, but they are not the only habitats that should be protected, which is why I think my amendment is clearer and more comprehensive. It incorporates the issues that were raised by the hon. Member.
The Minister argued that my amendment is not required because there are existing protections for irreplaceable habitats, but he indicated that there could be some grey areas, for example where certain features of irreplaceable habitats, such as particular creatures or aspects, are considered as part of EDPs. That creates an unhelpful greyness and is concerning.
The Minister mentioned the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection. That advice has caused me considerable concern. The OEP is worried by several aspects of the Bill and states:
“In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”,
so it would undermine protections that are currently in place. The OEP states:
“As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife—those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.”
That says very clearly that changes are urgently needed to part 3 of the Bill. If we cannot amend part 3 to protect irreplaceable habitats, what hope do we have of tackling other issues? This is very important, and I would like to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
For clarification, there was no further debate on amendment 148 because amendment 18 was the lead amendment in that particular group.
Amendments made: 95, in clause 50, page 85, line 4, leave out from “cost” to “likely” in line 5 and insert “, and
(b) how the conservation measures are to be maintained,
over the period covered by the EDP or, if longer, the period for which the conservation measures are”.
This amendment additionally requires an EDP to state how the conservation measures will be maintained, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements.
Amendment 96: in clause 50, page 85, line 7, leave out
“requirement for Natural England to request”
and insert “request, by Natural England,”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to remove the reference to “a requirement for Natural England” which is unnecessary.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Nature restoration levy: charging schedules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Clause 52 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
In establishing this new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that developers have clarity around the required levels of contributions to benefit from an environmental delivery plan. This transparency will ensure that developers can factor in the cost of the levy, should they choose to use the EDP.
Clause 51 establishes clear, understandable charging schedules with each environmental delivery plan, including one or more charging schedule. These schedules will set out how much developers will be required to pay to discharge their environmental obligations through the EDP and will reflect the environmental impact that the EDP is seeking to address. This may vary depending on the nature and size of the development, with the charging schedules being bespoke to each particular environmental delivery plan. In addition, the charging schedule will be regulated in accordance with clauses 62 to 69, which will allow regulations to be made setting out requirements for how these rates will be determined.
I think this is probably the appropriate point to respond to the shadow Minister’s previous point. Those regulations would allow for fees to be index-linked to account for inflation, which is part of what he raised, but he mentioned build costs as well. Those regulations allow that scope.
David Simmonds
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is a combination of indexation, which is always the relevant consideration. For example, we have been through the recent experience of covid, which unleashed a huge wave of construction inflation. If the EDP were to be negotiated at a certain point, the envisaged outcome of that might be a substantial investment in, for example, a chalk stream environment or the creation of a new habitat.
There might be significant construction inflation between the point at which that EDP is first negotiated, the point at which sufficient contributions have been accumulated from the various parties that might have been involved in the development—which gives rise to the need for it—and the point at which that money is available to be spent. How will the level of the EDP be appropriately calculated so that we do not end up with what we already see in the section 106 system, whereby a contribution is secured from a developer, but by the time it comes to be spent, it is insufficient to pay for the mitigations that were necessary when it was negotiated?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation.
Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters. Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust.
As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question. Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified.
The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features.
To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England. A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that.
The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee.
I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak to amendment 3, a crucial amendment relating to timing. The current wording in clause 52 opens the door to conservation measures in EDPs coming long after the environmental features that they relate to having been damaged. Such a delay could be fatal to some habitats and species that have already suffered decline, so the mitigation could come too late. That is what the amendment aims to address. The absence of direction on the timing of EDP measures has been highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection as one of its key concerns about part 3. The OEP’s advice to the Secretary of State observed:
“The bill is silent as to when conservation measures must be implemented and by when they must be effective. This gives rise to the possibility of significant impacts on the conservation status of protected species or sites arising before the successful implementation of conservation measures.”
That is the exact concern at the heart of amendment 3.
I want to illustrate the point with the example of the hazel dormouse. This rare, beautiful species has declined in number in England by 70%. Populations have become extinct in Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland in the last few years. In places where they are clinging on, EDPs could be the final nail in the coffin. Hazel dormice are reliant on woodlands, travel corridors, established hedgerows and scrub. If an EDP permitted the destruction of those habitats on the basis of replacement habitats being provided some years down the road, it could be too late. It takes seven to eight years for hedgerows and scrub and significantly longer for woodland to become established, but a dormouse’s life span is three to five years, so there are several generations of dormice that could be affected by the destruction of habitat. Without their home, the populations would quickly die off, causing irreversible damage to the species before the replacement habitat came into effect.
Amendment 3 would deliver on the OEP recommendation to rectify that part of clause 52 and prevent such harm before mitigation, which is not intentional, I hope, but could arise accidentally if we do not adopt amendment 3. It would require Natural England, when setting the content of an EDP, to set a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures, guided by the principle that gains for nature should come in advance of harm from development. When Natural England is of the opinion that harms to an environmental feature are irreversible, it would have to ensure through the timetable that a boost to conservation status had been achieved before harm from development occurs.
I stress that the irreversible harm element would likely only apply in a small minority of cases when the most threatened habitats or species populations face possible destruction from harm coming before mitigation. In most cases, the amendment would simply mean that Natural England would be required to show careful consideration of how it would be ecologically best to sequence conservation measures when drawing up an EDP, prioritising up-front environmental gains. In sum, the amendment is a constructive effort to resolve a key threat to nature identified by the OEP itself. I very much hope the Minister will accept it.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise that the amendment is a constructive attempt to highlight an issue that the OEP highlighted to us. I make the broad point again: we are carefully considering the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection and will continue to work with the sector and parliamentarians to deliver on the intent of the Bill in this area. We have been very clear on the intent of this part.
The amendment seeks, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just outlined, to require Natural England to produce a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures and additional requirements to secure environmental improvement in advance of development coming forward. While recognising the good intentions behind the amendment, the Government are confident that the legislation strikes the right balance in securing sufficient flexibility around the delivery of conservation measures, alongside safeguards that ensure conservation measures deliver an overall improvement for nature.
Ellie Chowns
How can the Government have that confidence when the OEP says that they should not?
Matthew Pennycook
It is worth reading the OEP’s letter in full. It broadly welcomes the overall thrust of the Bill in this area. We will reflect on and respond to the concerns it has highlighted. We want to ensure there is confidence that this part of the Bill can deliver on those objectives—that win-win for nature. If the hon. Lady will let me set out how different elements of the Bill might provide reassurance in this area, she is more than welcome to follow up and intervene.
The legislation is clear—we will come on to debate this—that the Secretary of State can make an EDP only when they are satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That test would not allow irreversible or irreparable impact to a protected site or species. It would allow Natural England, the conservation body for England, to determine what the appropriate measures are for bringing forward an EDP and how best to bring them forward over the period of the delivery plan.
We will come later to Government amendment 97, which in part deals with this issue by introducing a timeframe to the overall improvement test. It would mean that in applying that test, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the negative effects of development will be outweighed by the conservation measures by the end date of the EDP.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister has tabled amendments 95 and 97, but is that the sum total of the Minister’s response to the OEP’s advice? Those amendments do not, by any means, address the thrust and specifics of that advice. What further response does the Minister intend to make in response to and recognition of the OEP’s advice?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met.
I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area. There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes.
In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55. That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.
Luke Murphy
The Committee should hear exactly what the Minister has said: he and the Government are reflecting on what the OEP has said. It is only seven working days since the OEP sent its letter, so to rush forward with a full response now would be foolhardy. It is right that the Government reflect on it and we should accept the Minister at his word, given that he has strongly made clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is only seven days. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire might expect Government to move quicker than they do, but they do not. It is right that we take time to reflect properly on whether the Government agree that some of the points the OEP has made are valid—we are allowed to have a difference of opinion—and that we should respond in an appropriate way, or whether the Bill as drafted on the particular points made is sufficient. We are reflecting on those points.
Ellie Chowns
I have seen comments from a number of environmental NGOs that were upset with how their previous comments had been taken out of context and used to indicate support for the Bill in a part of it that they do not feel so strongly supportive of. I have also heard feedback from environmental and nature protection NGOs that are frustrated with the fact that there was not a huge amount of consultation, or the formality of consultation that there could have been.
I genuinely do not want to get into a “He said, she said” debate or anything like that. I encourage the Minister gently to recognise the seriousness of the critique and the concerns that have been expressed. The Minister has said that the status quo is not working and that we need to change it. Amendment 3 proposes a further improvement; it is not a wholesale chucking out of absolutely everything in the Bill. A genuine attempt to strengthen this particular aspect of the Bill is being proposed in respect of the timing of measures under EDPs, recognising that given how nature works, it is important that the improvement comes before the destruction. That is all the amendment is about.
Matthew Pennycook
I say it once again for the record: I have understood the hon. Lady’s point. I will reflect on it, in the spirit of this Committee as a whole. I have sought to take points away when they are well made, and to give them further consideration.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is being characteristically generous with his time; I wish we had more. There are genuine concerns about the timetabling of the measures. I invite him to confirm that the Government are considering how to tackle the issue of ensuring that measures are taken in a timely fashion. That appears to be what he is saying, and I am encouraging him.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not going to provide the Committee with a running commentary on the Government’s internal deliberations in response to the OEP’s letter. I will not do that today. I totally understand why hon. Members are trying to draw me on the point, but I am not going to do that. I have set out the Government’s position, and I have made it very clear that we will reflect on the letter and on the points made today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Other requirements for an EDP
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I am conscious that the Government have asked to extend the sitting beyond 5 o’clock, and we have already reached that point. I am also conscious that there will be votes in the main Chamber. Since you have been sitting here for three hours, I am minded to give you a short break. The votes are coming at about 6.20 pm, so I suggest a 10-minute break. Come back here for 5.15 pm.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 15th May 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but bottled water is available.
Clause 55
Making of EDP by Secretary of State
Amendment moved (14 May): 97, in clause 55, page 88, line 6, leave out from “if” to “on” in line 8 and insert—
“, by the EDP end date, the conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the EDP development”. —(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment makes it clear that the “overall improvement test” (required by clause 55(3)) will be passed only if the conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the development on or before the EDP end date. It also makes a drafting change to clause 55(4).
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.
This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.
Amendment 14, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, after “sufficient to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that conservation measures within Environmental Delivery Plans significantly outweigh any negative effects of development.
Amendment 20, in clause 55, page 88, line 9, at end insert—
“(4A) An EDP does not pass the overall improvement test—
(a) where the environmental features affected are qualifying features of a European site, European marine site, European offshore marine site or a Ramsar site, unless—
(i) the Secretary of State is satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant site from the delivery of development to which the EDP applies, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with the same standard of confidence as if the EDP were being assessed as a plan or project under Regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017;
(ii) it has not been possible for the Secretary of State to be satisfied under sub-paragraph (i) but the provision of measures to offset any unavoidable harm to the relevant features significantly outweighs the negative effect of the development;
(iii) there is an overriding public interest in permitting the EDP to be made and no alternative approaches to meeting the public interest that would result in less harm to the relevant site;
(b) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that Natural England has demonstrated that all reasonable opportunities to avoid or minimise negative effects caused by development within the scope of the EDP have been taken;
(c) unless Natural England has demonstrated that—
(i) any measures to avoid or mitigate negative effects caused by development will be delivered and functioning prior to any such negative effects occurring, and
(ii) any proposed compensation measures will be delivered to prevent any irreversible harm to the conservation status of relevant ecological features.”
This amendment outlines when the Secretary of State must find that an EDP does not pass the overall improvement test.
Government amendment 98.
Clause stand part.
Clause 56 stand part.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.
I was speaking to this group of measures at the tail-end of yesterday’s sitting. I discussed clause 55, I spoke to the purpose and effect of clause 56, and I mentioned Government amendments 97 and 98. I will now turn to the other amendments in this group, beginning with amendment 119, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, which seeks to amend the threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan.
Amendment 119 speaks to the shift from site-by-site assessments to our strategic approach. In developing an alternative to the existing system, we need to recognise that a strategic approach that covers a potentially large amount of development over a number of years is a materially different proposition from assessing the impact of a single development. We must therefore approach that proposition in a different way. Put simply, we cannot be as unequivocal about outcomes as we would be on a site-by-site assessment basis.
The drafting of the clause reflects that, as it would not be appropriate to replicate the approach applied to assessments of individual sites. Instead, the Bill provides a wider package of safeguards, such as appropriate monitoring, the ability to deploy back-up measures and the ability to amend environmental delivery plans, to ensure that plans deliver the positive outcomes over the plan period.
That is also why clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. It is also why clause 52(2) requires a draft environmental delivery plan to set out why the conservation measures selected are “considered appropriate” to meeting that goal.
As we have said since the Bill’s introduction, it is about delivering more for nature, not less. As I said in a previous sitting, we are therefore carefully considering the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection and its support for the intentions of the reforms. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will in time agree not to press amendment 119.
Amendment 14 seeks to introduce a new threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan. Again, in developing the new approach, we have always been clear that the nature restoration fund will deliver more for nature, but that is not a substitute for wider action to support nature recovery. While it is right that we seek to do more and to outweigh the impact of development, we must ensure that we are not asking developers to contribute more than their fair share. That is not a check on ambition, but an acknowledgment that positive results can be realised only if environmental delivery plans are a viable option for developers.
The test in clause 55(4) ensures positive outcomes, but it cannot be set at a level that would make it impossible to bring forward an operable environmental delivery plan—that would be a lose-lose situation for the economy and for nature. Again, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not press amendment 14.
Finally, I turn to amendment 20, also tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. This amendment seeks to amend the operation of the overall improvement that the Secretary of State must consider before making an environmental delivery plan. As I have already clarified for the Committee, the nature restoration fund will provide a different route for developers to discharge existing environmental obligations. In establishing this new approach, it is necessary to depart from existing process.
As I have outlined, the new approach will go further than the existing system, which requires measures only to offset harm to achieve neutrality. By taking this new approach we will deliver more for nature, not less. Although the Bill does not require a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy, we believe it nevertheless effectively maintains that hierarchy, as does the chief executive of Natural England, who gave oral evidence to the Committee.
Moreover, the flexibility that the Bill provides in respect of the hierarchy will be used only where Natural England considers it appropriate, in line with the overarching objective of delivering better outcomes for the relevant environmental feature over the course of the environmental delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and tether the nature restoration fund to the existing status quo that we know—I emphasise that again—is not working for our sites and species.
I also emphasise, however, that I understand the importance of ensuring that the flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided. I very much understand the concerns about the certainty of outcomes. We want everyone to be confident, so I am open to considering ways to underpin that confidence in a way that still allows the model to work as we want it to and as it needs to; my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also asked yesterday what more the Government might consider in that regard. With that explanation, although I know further debate is forthcoming, I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not moving her amendment.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his comments. He emphasised that his intention in the Bill is to continue to protect nature at the same level, but differently. He emphasised a different but not worse approach. I share his desire to ensure that even if it is different, it is not worse, but I am concerned about the way the Bill is framed.
In clause 55, we are really getting to one of several cruxes of the matter. The Secretary of State’s environmental statement on the front of the Bill states:
“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”
A completely different opinion is expressed, however, in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection, whose people know about this issue. I am glad that the Minister said yesterday that he is considering very seriously what the OEP said; I read the letter again in detail this morning—it is really hard-hitting.
The Minister points out that Natural England thinks there is no problem with the application of the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not the opinion of the Office for Environmental Protection. Given that Natural England will effectively have a conflict of interest under the Bill’s provisions, we need to pay serious attention to what the OEP says. I very much look forward to his promised comprehensive response to the OEP’s advice.
Amendment 20 is essential to ensure that the overall improvement test applied to EDPs, which is mentioned in clause 55, is robust, scientifically grounded and consistent with domestic and international environmental law. It is about making sure that when we talk about overall improvement, we really mean it—not on paper, not in theory, but in reality.
Amendment 119 makes a simple but essential change. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as set out in the OEP’s advice, there is a high degree of certainty established in statute and case law that environmental standards will be maintained beyond reasonable scientific doubt. In the overall improvement test in clause 55, however, conservation measures need only be “likely” to ensure that the environment is maintained. That leaves huge leeway for ministerial subjectivity, and it opens the door to damaging development. It is a clear regression in environmental law. Again, that is emphasised very clearly by the OEP, which states that the test in clause 55
“would be considerably more subjective and uncertain than under existing environmental law.”
How is that compatible with the statement on the front of the Bill? It cannot be.
Given that the Minister has assured us that it is not the Government’s intention to weaken environmental protections, amendment 119 would fix the loophole by replacing the words “are likely to” with the word “will”. That would mean that an EDP would require an objective test that conservation measures will achieve an overall improvement.
This amendment is not about gold-plating; it is simply about matching the level of certainty that currently exists in law and assuring the House that environmental protection will be maintained. I would be deeply worried if the Bill passed as it stands, with the weakening in certainty, because that would clearly be contrary to the Government’s statement on the front of the Bill.
Amendment 20 sets the minimum legal and scientific thresholds that must be met before an EDP can be said to pass the overall improvement test. Again, the advice from the OEP is very robust—there needs to be scientific certainty. Amendment 20 would specifically introduce safeguards when protected nature sites are involved, such as European sites, Ramsar wetlands and other internationally important conservation areas.
Amendment 20 would ensure that the Secretary of State must apply a standard of evidence equivalent to the rigorous integrity test under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This is not new law; it is a reaffirmation of the protections that have guided habitat conservation for decades, ensuring that there is no regression, as per the Environment Act 2021. The amendment is absolutely necessary, otherwise clause 55 risks watering down the existing protections.
Let us not forget what is at stake here. The UK has 658 designated special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites across the four nations. They include places of global ecological importance— the Norfolk broads, the Severn estuary and the north Pennines—and places that are very dear to my own heart, such as the River Wye and its catchment. These places support rare and endangered species, and are central to our commitments under the Bern, Bonn and Ramsar conventions. However, many of them are already in unfavourable condition. Natural England’s latest data shows that only 38% of England’s sites of special scientific interest are in favourable condition and many of those overlap with European sites.
This amendment would provide three layers of safeguards. First, it says that an EDP cannot be approved if it would harm the “integrity” of a European or Ramsar site, unless that harm is either fully avoided or meets the high bar set under existing habitat regulations. Secondly, it would require Natural England to demonstrate that “all reasonable opportunities” to avoid or minimise harm have been taken.
Thirdly, the point about the mitigation hierarchy is really important—we will discuss it again when we debate a future clause. It is a key concern for the Office for Environmental Protection and all who care about nature. The mitigation hierarchy means that we avoid environmental harm before we go to mitigation or offsetting. The problem with EDPs, as they are set out under part 3 of the Bill, is that they shift straight to offsetting. As I tried to explain yesterday, some things cannot be offset; irreplaceable habitats cannot be offset.
In addition, unless we are certain that offsetting is done in advance and that the habitat is linked to the one being destroyed, that could lead to the inadvertent destruction of species—for example, dormice, as I said yesterday. It is important that the Bill strengthens the commitment to the mitigation hierarchy and that that strengthening is written into the Bill, as well as ensuring that the overall improvement test is compatible with the existing level of protection under existing environmental law.
The expert advice of the OEP directly supports the points that I am making. It concluded that the overall improvement test, as currently drafted, would weaken existing legal protections, and has consequently called for amendments to ensure that the test aligns with environmental law and principles.
We also need to ensure that the UK remains compliant with international and trade obligations. Under the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, we are bound not to weaken environmental standards in ways that affect trade or investment. Removing or diluting protections for SACs and SPAs through a vague or permissive improvement test could fall foul of that requirement and expose the Government to legal challenge.
Fundamentally, the amendment also reflects the will of the public. More than 80% of people support strong legal protections for nature sites, even when development is proposed. I fully agree with the Minister’s articulation of the view that development does not have to come at the expense of nature—it is absolutely possible to build the houses that we need in a way that respects and indeed improves nature protection—but we can do that only if the legal framework ensures that development takes place in that way. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the clear weakening of environmental protections, as outlined in the current drafting of the Bill, will lead to the opposite of what the Government say they want to do on the front of the Bill.
These two amendments do not prevent development. They simply ensure that development is compatible with the integrity of our most protected sites, give effect to long-standing legal protections, uphold the Office for Environmental Protection’s recommendations, and ensure that the overall improvement test is not a loophole but a genuine environmental safeguard. I strongly urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support both amendments if we are serious about development going hand in hand with nature protection.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Some points have already been made on the underlying point of amendment 14, so I will be reasonably brief, but clause 55 goes to the heart of the overall improvement test and is crucial to the structure of the Bill.
In many ways, amendment 14 has a similar target as amendment 20, but I would argue that it is more in the spirit of the Bill and how the Government are going about it. Amendment 14 would require that the conservation measures within an EDP would “significantly”—it would add that word—outweigh the negative effect of development.
Clause 55 sets the overall improvement test that an EDP must pass before the Secretary of State can approve it. At the moment, in order to pass, the conservation measures in the EDP must be
“likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect, caused by the environmental impact of development”.
As the Wildlife Trusts has argued:
“The lifting of the bar to ‘significantly outweigh’—
through this amendment—
“is needed to secure a level of gain for nature capable of meaningfully improving conservation outcomes.”
That approach aligns explicitly with the Government’s stated intentions for the nature restoration fund. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government factsheet describes the proposed system as being a
“marked change from the current approach which, at most, requires development to offset its impact and no further”—
on that, the Minister and I are agreed. Instead, the Government say the approach will deliver
“a positive contribution to nature recovery”,
but saying “likely” to outweigh simply will not deliver that marked change, as “likely” is neither a high bar nor a strong test.
The higher bar of “significant improvement” that we propose is also in line with well-established environmental law. The Environment Act 2021, for example, is notable; now four years from receiving Royal Assent, its use of the robust benchmark of “significant improvement” has not experienced a single legal challenge. There is no reason to expect that any would arise from applying that test in this EDP legislative framework.
An EDP that passes that high bar and is made by the Secretary of State would, by definition, be environmentally robust as a result, and less vulnerable to a legal challenge than one that passes only the lower bar currently in the clause. It is in everyone’s interest that the EDPs deliver the promise of positive contributions and that step change—that marked change—the Government have stated they intend to achieve.
Finally, if we are not raising the bar through this amendment, can the Minister explain, in his summing up, why the wording is only “likely” to outweigh? Why not use “will”, as the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire proposes, or “significantly” outweigh, as in our amendment? Those who are familiar with the habitats regulations will know that the test there is that “no reasonable scientific doubt” should exist. There is a marked difference between that established approach and the current wording in the Bill, which is not simply strong enough.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I acknowledge that this is an important part of the Bill and that some organisations have expressed concerns about the matter. I agree with the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Taunton and Wellington pointing out what the OEP has said about this part of the Bill, but we should acknowledge that what the Minister said yesterday and his speech today could not have been clearer: the Government are reviewing and reflecting on the OEP’s advice, and they have set out their incredibly clear intention to ensure not only that nature is not worse off, but that it is better off as a result of the Bill.
The Minister has been crystal clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice. The latter came through seven working days ago yesterday. We are now on the eighth working day since it provided its advice. I urge colleagues to take the Minister at his word and to allow the Government to respond to the OEP. If colleagues across the House are not content with their response, that can be dealt with on Report, but we should take the Minister at his word when he says that the Government are taking the OEP’s comments incredibly seriously and reflecting on them.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, although I do not expect hon. Members to just take me at my word; I think they should both interrogate the Bill and the provisions and reflect on my further comments. Although I caveat everything by saying that we are grateful to the Office for Environmental Protection for its recent advice and its support for the intention of these reforms—let us be clear: it supports the intention and we are carefully considering its advice —we are clear that this approach will deliver more for nature, not less. The important thing is that those improved outcomes—and they are improved outcomes; we are not talking about merely maintaining the status quo—can be achieved only if we are willing to do things differently. That is why the Bill establishes an alternative to existing processes, but only where that will lead to better outcomes.
I should make a brief comment about Natural England, as the other body that will be involved in the design and implementation of environmental delivery plans. It is slightly unfair, if I may say so, for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to suggest that there is a stark conflict of interest here. As I have said in previous sittings, Natural England has the expertise and ecological skills to make the right judgments. It will put in place suitable propriety barriers to ensure that it can act effectively as both an advisory body and the body tasked with preparing, designing and implementing EDPs.
Ellie Chowns
I have a genuine question and concern. Under the Bill, Natural England has responsibility, as advisers, preparers, developers and deliverers, to implement the EDPs, and it is also judge and jury on the effectiveness of EDPs and whether they are doing the job that they are intended to do. That is a lot of functions to give to one body. There are not checks and balances within that system. This is no comment on the expertise and commitment of Natural England. I am certain that everyone working for that body shares my and the Minister’s desire to see the natural environment thrive and improve, but the reality is that the Bill’s structure and the responsibilities that it gives to Natural England span the full gamut, from implementing to checking, and that is effectively a conflict of interest, is it not?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think it will be, for the reasons I have given: suitable propriety barriers will be put in place and the House will be able to take a view on whether those are sufficient. I would also slightly push back on the idea that Natural England is judge and jury when it comes to EDPs. The Secretary of State has responsibility for judging whether an EDP meets the outcomes test on the basis of advice from Natural England.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a bit of progress, then I will be happy to give way.
Hon. Members may say that those safeguards are not sufficient, but we trust elected Members in ministerial capacities to exercise their judgment, in line with the ministerial code and taking into account their obligations under both international and domestic law. We trust them to do that. If hon. Members take issue with the basic fact that a Secretary of State can exercise judgment, then we disagree.
Ellie Chowns
I have two points. The first was raised by the Office for Environmental Protection in its advice. I was going to come to it when discussing clause 58, because it is specifically about the amendment of EDPs. Only Natural England and the Secretary of State get to decide if an EDP should be amended. There is not even any requirement for consultation. There is no mandatory requirement to assess whether an EDP is doing its job. If we are to trust Natural England and the Secretary of State to do that, when they will both have an in-built interest in declaring that an EDP is doing its job, there is no mechanism for ensuring that an EDP is actually meeting the outcomes that are envisaged.
The Minister asks us to trust in the good judgment of the Secretary of State, but I remind the Minister that previous environmental Secretaries of State—who would, under these provisions, have been expected to make these decisions—include Liz Truss from 2014 to 2016, Owen Paterson from 2012 to 2014, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and Thérèse Coffey. Those are not people who necessarily share the Minister’s espoused commitments, and not necessarily people who everybody who cares about nature protection might automatically trust to make important and sensitive judgments about whether environmental protection is taking place.
The entire point of a Bill—we talked about this in a previous sitting—is that it sets out what has to happen and why, because we cannot simply trust whoever happens to be in the seat of Secretary of State to always do the right thing. That is why we have law. I beg the Minister to recognise that we cannot simply trust the judgment of whoever happens to be Secretary of State for the next however many decades. The Bill must be written correctly, so that it embeds environmental protections and does not leave the door open for activity contrary to the Minister’s stated aims.
The Chair
The Clerk is frowning at me and saying that the hon. Lady’s contribution was a little overlong for an intervention, which is usually on one point. It sounded a bit speech-like.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady tempts me down a path of commenting on past Secretaries of State—I would enjoy that, but I will not do it. She is absolutely right that we must ensure that this legislation can be exercised appropriately by any Secretary of State, whoever they might be, in years to come.
Where the hon. Lady and I slightly differ is on what legislation is required to do in all circumstances. We rely on Ministers to exercise their judgment in line with the relevant legislation and other obligations, for example on call-in decisions that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in my Department are asked to make. They are judgments. They are exercised on the basis of a recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate, and of the relevant material considerations, but a judgment is still exercised. We are saying that the Secretary of State has to exercise a judgment on the “overall improvement test” but on the basis of advice from Natural England, once consultation has been carried out.
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned, clause 55 gets to the heart of this approach. We are reflecting on the points made in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection. I want to set out why we feel our approach is right, and that the necessary safeguards are built in. I will deal briefly with the amendments in turn, starting with 119.
Changing “are likely to” to “will” would require a greater deal of certainty from the Secretary of State before they would be able to make an environmental delivery plan. That does get to the heart of the difference in approach. In moving away from a site-by-site assessment to trying to improve outcomes for nature in the round, over a wider geographic area, we have to move away from a time period in which those conversations, or offsets, can be delivered on those sites specifically. By its very nature, the approach requires a degree of, if you like, gazing into an as-yet-unknown future. The test of “likely” makes that difficult to achieve.
Matthew Pennycook
I will finish this point first.
That is why there are safeguards built into the process in terms of monitoring, the backup measures that can be taken in terms of amendment or revocation, and the ultimate judgment made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice on whether the EDP is having the relevant outcomes. We cannot, unless we are determined not to attempt this approach in any way, apply near-impossible tests for an EDP to meet.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I have total sympathy with what the Minister is saying, and understand the point that the Member for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is seeking to address. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons from section 106 is that, in many cases, funds end up being returned to the developer, as it is impossible to spend on the mitigation because of the specificity for which it is provided?
The Opposition agree with the Minister that there will be occasions when, in the view of the Secretary of State or Natural England, it is impossible to build the specified badger, bat or newt mitigation on a specific site, and that it would be better to spend that money somewhere else to create a better overall environmental benefit. It is therefore important to provide for that flexibility in the legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister makes my case for me, because we want to allow Natural England to have that flexibility.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady will let me respond to this point, I will then address her point.
It is precisely that flexibility that we want to allow Natural England to use, because over that wider geographic area, it can look at which conservation measures, in the round, will have the most impact, rather than costly gold-plating, which happens now in certain circumstances— I will not repeat the individual cases, but we hear about them in the press a lot—and often leads to bad outcomes, and which flows from the site-by-site assessments that must take place.
What gets to the heart of the approach, and is the reason why some of these amendments are deeply problematic, is that, under this approach, we cannot be as unequivocal as we can currently on the basis of individual site-by-site assessments. There needs to be the opportunity to take a forward view as to what will have the likely effect of having an overall benefit for nature in the round across the EDP area.
Ellie Chowns
With respect, I do not think that the point made by the shadow Minister does make the Minister’s case for him, because it was about taking a site-by-site approach, which is not a good analogy here. We already have capacity under existing environmental law to take a district-wide approach—for example, district-level licensing for newts. I am not opposed to that at all; it is a very good idea. That is not the issue here; the issue is the degree of certainty.
If the Minister maintains his position that EDPs must only be subject to an “are likely to” test, how is that compatible with the absolute certainty on the front page of the Bill that it will not result in any decline in environmental protection? How can lots of “are likely tos” add up to the certainty that the Secretary of State sets out on the front page of the Bill? They simply do not.
Matthew Pennycook
We think the Bill provides that certainty, which is why the Secretary of State felt able to make that statement, but—this is really important— while the hon. Lady has clearly indicated that she, like us, is unhappy with the status quo, and while I think she recognises the limitations of the impact we can have in terms of beneficial nature outcomes using the current, individual site-by-site-assessment basis, her amendment 20 would, in practice, result in the continued need to assess development on a case-by-case basis and would require conservation measures to address the specific impacts of each development. It does not provide the necessary flexibility that will lead to better outcomes for nature, while at the same time unlocking development and allowing it to be accelerated.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give someone else a chance, but I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister; I will give him an opportunity to move on to our amendment 14, which I hope he agrees is in the spirit of that approach. I sympathise with the point made by the shadow Minister, and I understand the qualitative difference with a site-by-site approach, in which outcomes may more easily be predicted than in a nation-wide or region-wide approach. Does the Minister agree that wording that retains “are likely to” but introduces “significantly” raises the bar in a way that is in tune with the Government’s approach in the Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Without in any way denigrating the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a subtler way of attempting to constructively suggest how the Bill might be improved, but we still think it is problematic, for the following reasons. It would apply a higher threshold to the improvement test in clause 55 —namely, that measures are likely to be sufficient to “significantly” outweigh the negative effect of development.
The addition of “significantly” into the improvement test would mean that measures would need to be likely to significantly outweigh the negative impact of development, and that would require more than a marginal improvement. It would also introduce uncertainty as to what could be classified as “significantly” outweighing the negative impact—as well as, I might add, an associated risk of legal challenge.
In that sense, in seeking to press EDPs to deliver far in excess of the impact that arises from development, amendment 14 risks undermining the efficacy and placing an undue burden on developers, notwithstanding the legal risk I have just mentioned.
Gideon Amos
Does the Minister know that the same “significant” test under the Environment Act 2021 has not been subject to a single legal challenge?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure how comparable they are. We are very mindful—this is something I was aware of before becoming a Minister, but it has certainly been brought home to me since—of the impact of specific wording in legislation. It is incredibly important.
In the interests of moving on, Dr Huq, I will probably finish here. I think we have had an extensive debate.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way to the hon. Lady one last time, then I will address the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington.
Ellie Chowns
It is important: the whole point of Committee is to look at the detail and really get to grips with it.
Replacing “are likely to” with “will”, as my amendment seeks to do, would not make it necessary to conduct a site-by-site assessment. It relates to the wording that clause 55 applies to the EDP overall. It is about the degree of certainty that an EDP will deliver—that a habitat-wide approach to delivering environment improvements will deliver—as in subsection (5), in relation to
“the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply”.
With respect, the Minister said a few minutes ago that the amendment would effectively take us straight back to a site-by-site approach. That does not apply here.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that this legislation will result in not just the maintenance of, but an improvement in, environmental protection while pursuing wording that explicitly and significantly weakens environmental protection. That is the point that the Office for Environmental Protection makes, it is the point that a number of nature protection non-governmental organisations have made, and it is contrary to the Minister’s stated intentions for the Bill, and contrary to what the public want. We can have development and nature protection together, but only if the legislation specifies that it must happen, not that it may possibly happen.
Matthew Pennycook
To be clear, in assessing that the amendment in question would result in the need for continued assessment on a site-by-site basis, I am referring to amendment 20. I am absolutely certain that that is what it implies. Amendment 119, which I think the hon. Lady has just spoken to—there is a slight risk of conflating the two—is problematic for other reasons. As I have said, it introduces an inappropriately high bar that will, in effect, make it incredibly difficult for the Secretary of State to meet the test.
There is, as I have said, a necessary degree of future gazing here, in terms of the change in approach. I certainly do not want to curtail debate, but I do want us to debate the other clauses in the Bill. I think I have firmly set out the Government’s position—why we think the Bill does achieve the very clearly stated intentions that we have set out—but I go back to the fact that we are very cognisant of the concerns in this area. We want to ensure that sectors have confidence in the operation of environmental delivery plans, and that is the reason— I am more than happy to debate it with the hon. Lady outside the Committee and at later stages of proceedings on the Bill—why we will reflect on the very specific points that the OEP has made on a number of clauses.
Amendment 97 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.— (Ellie Chowns.)
This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 57, page 88, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) at five yearly intervals, a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 127, in clause 57, page 89, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) what impact the EDP has had on the local economy and community of the relevant area.”
Clause stand part.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq. I am also pleased to see everyone here this morning on the Committee.
Last night, after buying the Minister a coffee to keep us going, I promised to buy one for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I declare that I did intend to stick to that promise—
Paul Holmes
—but the hon. Member was not in the café. He has nicked my joke; I was about to say that I hope that that does not go on a focus leaflet somewhere as a broken Tory promise. It takes two to tango.
Paul Holmes
Missing in action and not winning here. I know that the Minister is very keen that we expedite this Committee today because of the semi-final play-off with Charlton tonight. I hope that his team does well in that, because we would like to invite him down to the Den to watch a match between Millwall and Charlton, if Charlton are promoted. The Minister is always welcome down to the Den.
I turn to amendment 126, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). We absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiments on EDPs, and we wholeheartedly agreed with the majority of what he said on the previous clause. We accept that EDPs will be a step change in environmental delivery across the United Kingdom.
One of our concerns, and the reason why we tabled amendment 126—I will come to amendment 127 in a minute—is that at the moment the legislation says that there will be two reviews into the EDP: one at the mid-point and one at the end. We simply want to see whether the Minister would entertain the idea of review periods at five-yearly intervals and a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period. That is for a number of reasons.
First, with only two reports—one at the mid-point and one at the end—there could be long gaps during which important issues or shortcomings in implementation go unaddressed. In rapidly evolving environmental contexts, more frequent reporting would allow for timely adjustments and a greater responsiveness to emerging challenges. What would happen under the current proposals if a mid-term report showed a failure to deliver in conservation outcomes? Also, are the two required reports sufficient for long-term monitoring and public accountability?
We have a slight concern that the clause does not seem to specify the content or required level of detail in those reports. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate slightly on what he and the Secretary of State would expect in terms of the detail when a report is published. It is also important to state that although the Bill will have to meet equality legislation, it does not meet the standard for public accessibility or independent review. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. Without these safeguards, the report could become a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful tool for transparency and continuous improvement.
I turn briefly to amendment 127, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. Given what the Minister said in our discussion of the last clause about the impact that the wording will have on legal definitions and measurements if those were to be challenged, I do not intend to press amendment 127 to a vote. We think that the wording
“the local economy and community of the relevant area”
is not defined enough, so we will have to look at whether we need to tighten it up, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the language in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. But I would like to press amendment 126 to a vote.
On amendment 127, I hope the Minister will say something about community benefits and the local economy in the relevant area. I hope he looks favourably on amendment 126, which stipulates more transparency and a clearer guideline for the process of reviewing EDPs. I look forward to his response.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me start by setting out our overarching intentions behind clause 57. Once an environmental delivery plan is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures put in place and report on its progress. It is vital that key information, such as the performance of conservation measures and remaining development capacity under the environmental delivery plan, are made available. That is why clause 57 sets out that, as the shadow Minister just said, Natural England must publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period: once covering the period from commencement to its mid-point, then a second report covering the mid-point to the end date. The reports must be published no later than two months after the period the report covers, and Natural England may publish reports at any other time.
The reports are intend to demonstrate how an environmental delivery plan is progressing. They must cover specific topics—I hope this gives the shadow Minister some reassurance—including how much development has been agreed to, how that compares to the total amount of development that could be agreed to, what conservation measures have been implemented and the effect that they are having. The report must also specify the amount of money received through the levy and whether that is in line with expectations. That transparency will ensure that proactive steps can be taken if an environmental delivery plan is underperforming, and it will allow the Secretary of State to consider amending an environmental delivery plan to accommodate continued demand. I will come to clause 58 shortly.
Those reporting requirements are also important to ensure transparency as to whether delivery is aligning with the expected costs, and how the levy is being set and spent. By legislating for appropriate levels of reporting, we are ensuring that developers, local communities and environmental groups will be able to continue to engage with environmental delivery plans across their lifespan, ensuring they can be adapted as needed.
Amendment 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, seeks to require Natural England to publish a report at five-yearly intervals that covers the previous five-year period of an environmental delivery plan. I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that Natural England appropriately monitors the performance of the conservation measures put in place and reports on the progress of the environmental delivery plan. However, as drafted, clause 57(1)(a) and (b) already provide adequate safeguards by requiring appropriate levels of reporting. Under the existing drafting, Natural England is required to produce reports for each EDP. As I have set out, the first report will cover the start date to the mid-point, and the second will cover the mid-point to the end date of the plan.
As the maximum length of an environmental delivery plan is 10 years, the latest a report will be published is in year five, and then year 10. As such, the proposed requirement to provide a report every five years would not add further value. Where the duration of an environmental delivery plan is less than 10 years, a prescriptive timetable for reporting could create duplication. However, we recognise the need to ensure that Natural England can tailor reporting, which is why clause 57(3) allows it to publish a report at any other time.
On amendment 127, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, the Government share his desire to ensure that EDPs make a positive impact on the regions they cover, but we are clear that they should be judged first and foremost on their delivery of the environmental outcomes they are designed to achieve. That is why the legislation focuses on reporting on the environmental performance of EDPs. However, through subsection (6), the Secretary of State can publish guidance that Natural England must consider when producing a report. That gives the Secretary of State the ability to introduce new elements of reporting where appropriate.
The core focus of these reports is to provide the Secretary of State and the public with confidence that an EDP is providing the necessary environmental benefits to bring about an overall positive environmental outcome. Adding a new metric to cover the impact on the local economy and community, we believe, risks extending the scope of reporting and losing focus on the core objective of these reforms. Local economic benefits would, to a degree, be covered by the existing requirement to report how much of an EDP’s development capacity has been utilised. With that explanation, and the assurance that I always give the shadow Minister that I will go away and reflect on whether the wording is the best it can be, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister, as always, for his clarity on the amendments. He has said many times in Committee that he will be reflecting; I hope that he finds time to do things other than reflect. Given his assurances, I will have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley so that he might have a proper look at where in the Bill the timescales are already set out; that may be a lesson for cross-shadow ministerial working in the future. Given the Minister’s assurances, I will not press the amendment; as I have said already, we are content with what he said on amendment 127. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Amendment of an EDP
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 58, page 89, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 15, in clause 59, page 91, line 14, after “to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that the actions of the Secretary of State must carry out when an Environmental Delivery Plan is revoked to significantly outweigh the effects of development in respect of which nature restoration levy have been committed to be paid.
Amendment 128, in clause 59, page 91, line 18, at end insert—
“(7A) Where the Secretary of State revokes an EDP, the Secretary of State must also seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”
Clause 59 stand part.
Government new clause 66—Compulsory purchase powers: Secretary of State.
Government new clause 72—Revoked EDP: powers of Secretary of State etc to enter and survey or investigate land.
Gideon Amos
It is with great excitement that we move on to another clause. I will speak briefly, but this is an important amendment. In the same way that protests from developers, in another part of the planning system, about viability end up affecting the outcomes of planning applications by, in particular, reducing social housing numbers, we are concerned that protests from developers could lead to calls to change EDPs. If EDPs are to be changed—this is a very simple point—that should not mean a reduction in the environmental protection therein.
Amendment 15, also tabled in my name, is in line with our amendments 14 and 11, to which I have already spoken, which were about strengthening the environmental tests. The Government have made it clear that they seek to achieve a win-win here, but in our opinion that will not happen without that additional wording and strengthening.
We have heard from the Minister that his point of reference, like ours, is to improve the status quo. At the moment, we are not convinced that the status quo will be improved. I am grateful to him for being extremely generous with his time on all the clauses by accepting numerous interventions, and for his assurances that he will reflect. I am sure that he will do so, but for such a, dare I say, common-sense amendment—that changes to an EDP should not mean a reduction in environmental protection—he might do even more than reflect: perhaps reflect positively on it. We feel that the amendment is entirely pragmatic, sensible and difficult to refute, although no doubt attempts will be made to do so.
Ellie Chowns
Will the Minister explicitly address the concerns expressed by the OEP, in its advice on clause 58, about the fact that there is no requirement to consult? The Secretary of State “may direct” Natural England to consult on an amendment, but does not have to. There is also no mandatory requirement to initiate a review or to update an EDP if there is evidence that it is failing to achieve its intended effects.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to amendment 128, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley—let us hope this one goes slightly better.
We understand the reason for clause 58 and for outlining the provisions for amending an environmental delivery plan. The clause clearly lays out the process the Secretary of State must go through to amend an EDP, which they may do either on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England.
The reason why my hon. Friend tabled amendment 128 is that, in some cases, the Secretary of State may choose to revoke an EDP. We will come to compulsory purchase orders later, but we would like to tighten up the wording of the Bill, so that when an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a CPO for the purposes of that EDP to the original owner.
Will the Minister outline his thoughts on those proposals, which relate to cases where land has been CPO-ed and what happens to it afterwards? I hope he will see amendment 128 as a minor adjustment to the Bill and that he will give me some satisfactory answers, as he has this morning. We support the clause in general, but we just seek to tighten the language.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me set out for the Committee the intentions behind the clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to amend environmental delivery plans in specific circumstances, where it is necessary to do so, and lays out the process that must be gone through.
The ability to amend may be required, for example, to reflect new environmental information or to extend an environmental delivery plan to accommodate additional development. The Secretary of State may amend on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England. It is right that environmental delivery plans can be amended, but our intention is that, where development has already contributed to the environmental delivery plan, any future amendment does not expose such development to requests for additional funding.
In providing a power to amend, we have also included proportionate requirements to consult on amendments. Crucially, however, in making an amendment to an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will be bound by the same overall improvement test and will need to be satisfied that the conservation measures in the amended plan are likely to sufficiently outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature.
If the Secretary of State wishes to amend an environmental delivery plan, other than to amend only the charging schedule, they may first direct Natural England to consult on the environmental delivery plan as proposed to be amended. That allows environmental delivery plans to adapt and reflect changing circumstances, while ensuring that they are subject to sufficient scrutiny and oversight.
Turning to the amendments, I will begin with amendment 11, as set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concern he highlights that, in a certain scenario, an amendment could be made that reduces the environmental outcomes and lowers the amount of protection. There are of course many important reasons why an environmental delivery plan may need to be amended, but we recognise that that ability to amend needs to be carefully considered. That is why existing clauses already offer a number of safeguards.
The central safeguard is that, where amended, an environmental delivery plan is still required to pass the overall improvement test. That means that, when amending an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on that environmental delivery plan.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
To clarify, if lots of environmental delivery plans are amended, who checks that Natural England and the responsible bodies in this process recommend the right things in the first place? I assume that we do not expect loads to be amended, but if plans consistently need amending because they are not producing the environmental benefits and the protection of nature they set out to, who will look overall at how many are amended in totality?
Matthew Pennycook
It will be for Natural England to determine what conservation measures are in place. There are reporting requirements on Natural England in terms of the overall body of EDPs. On the flexibility that is required—this speaks directly to the amendment from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would be able to reduce the number of conservation measures provided without reducing the development capacity of the plan, as that would not meet the overall development test. But there may be circumstances where the development capacity and the environmental conservation measures need to be reduced, and we need scope to be able to amend plans.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire pressed me to refer to the concerns highlighted by the OEP about there being no requirement to consult on amended EDPs. As I have said, amendments to EDPs could be for a variety of reasons and could be extremely minor. In such cases, it would not be appropriate to require a consultation in every instance. Instead, there is provision for the Secretary of State to direct Natural England to consult on an amended EDP where expertise is required to inform its decision on the overall improvement test—for instance, if there is a material change to the development included or the conservation measures proposed. We think that that is a more proportionate and tailored approach to different EDPs.
Ellie Chowns
Where in clause 58 does it specify that consultation should or should not happen? I cannot see it.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily write to the hon. Lady on where that is set out but, as per previous debates, I will not pre-empt our reflections on the OEP- specific points.
I again make the general point that, through regulations and guidance, further detail on many aspects of the Bill will be brought forward. However, the central point is that we do not think that it is proportionate or effective to require consultation on every amendment to an EDP, which in some cases could be very minor.
The central safeguard here is the overall improvement test that an EDP is required to pass. That means that when amending an EDP, the Secretary of State would not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on the EDP in the first place.
Paul Holmes
I am just trying to be helpful. Clause 58(4) clearly sets out the process where a Secretary of State directs Natural England to consult, and the detailed consultation procedure is set out in clause 54. We have had a big debate on consultation procedures, which are not necessarily what we would like in other clauses of the Bill, but consultation is clearly set out in clause 58(4).
Matthew Pennycook
It is the Chair’s job to say so, but I do not think the hon. Lady can intervene on an intervention. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. It would not be the best use of our time if I were to flick through the Bill while on my feet and attempt to find the relevant subsection. I will happily write to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to set out how the requirements in clause 58 operate.
In designing the legislation, we have sought to avoid situations where the Secretary of State would be forced to revoke an environmental delivery plan where it would still meet the test of securing better outcomes for nature. A practical example of where it would be right to allow such amendment is where an EDP has proposed conservation measures to cover more development than is subsequently expected to come forward. There may be instances where the level of development is reduced, and then it may be appropriate to amend the EDP. In such circumstances, it would be right to amend and to reflect the reduction in the scale of development covered and the corresponding conservation measures. Amendment 11 would prevent that and would force the Secretary of State to revoke the environmental delivery plan or to keep the inaccurate plan in place.
In the event of a substantive change to the environmental delivery plan, both a public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State would be required. That would give the opportunity for environmental groups and local stakeholders to have their voices heard, and for Natural England to present evidence that provides assurance that the overall improvement test would continue to be met. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 59 establishes the process for revoking an environmental delivery plan, and the circumstances under which the power will be used. When the Secretary of State approves and makes an environmental delivery plan, they are taking a decision at a specific point in time. However, we recognise the need to retain the ability to revisit this decision if necessary and ultimately to revoke an environmental delivery plan if the overall improvement test is no longer met.
Lewis Cocking
On a point of clarity, if the nature recovery strategy includes land or a scheme that is not next to or near the development where the developer has paid into creating that nature recovery strategy, who does the Minister intend to consult when these plans are changed? The people where the proposed nature site is, the residents of the development that contributed to it or both?
Matthew Pennycook
As I set out, there is a requirement to go out to public consultation when significant amendments are made. That would be a general consultation, in the sense that we are moving beyond a site-by-site assessment. Again, it is for Natural England to set out how the EDP will function across the whole area. To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, we do not think there is a requirement to consult in every instance, when some changes could be minor.
If an overall improvement test is no longer met, revocation is of course an option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach that point. Those safeguards include the ability to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance of the primary conservation measures, and the option to amend an environmental delivery plan or to reduce the capacity of development under the environmental delivery plan.
If, however, a decision is reached to revoke an environmental delivery plan, the legislation is clear on two fronts. First, development that has relied on the environmental delivery plan prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. Secondly, the Secretary of State will consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features, where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation, is suitably addressed. That will provide certainty for developers that they can rely on environmental delivery plans, and certainty for local communities and environmental groups that the environment will be protected in all situations.
That links to Government new clause 66, which provides the Secretary of State with the power to make a compulsory purchase order in fulfilling their obligations when an environmental delivery plan is revoked. To deliver any appropriate conservation measures, it may be necessary to utilise powers of compulsory purchase. The new clause provides the Secretary of State with the necessary powers to ensure that they can fulfil that duty as part of the wider package of safeguards that underpin this new approach.
Similarly, Government new clause 72 ensures that the Secretary of State can take the steps necessary in the event of revocation, by granting them powers of entry when they are delivering conservation measures where an environmental delivery plan has been revoked. We recognise that such powers should be provided only with appropriate constraints, which is why the clause includes appropriate safeguards. With that explanation, I commend clause 59 and the new clauses to the Committee.
I should also touch on amendments 15 and 128. Amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would raise the threshold for the actions the Secretary of State must take on revocation of an environmental delivery plan. The safeguards I have just outlined already ensure that we secure positive environmental outcomes. In seeking to require the Secretary of State to take actions to “significantly” outweigh the impact of development, the amendment, as per previous debates, would place an undue burden on the state to go beyond the overall improvement that sits at the heart of this new approach and that already delivers more than the current system. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently reassured on those safeguards and will not press his amendment.
Amendment 128 was tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and I hope that, in this instance, it is at least coherent internally, even if it is not aligned with the measures in the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to seek to return land obtained through compulsory purchase orders, in the event of an environmental delivery plan being revoked.
The important point to stress is that nothing in the legislation would preclude the return of surplus land to former owners, their successors or sitting tenants in accordance with the Crichel Down rules. However, it would not be appropriate to require the Secretary of State to return that land to its former owner whenever an environmental delivery plan was revoked. The land would not be surplus if it were needed to secure conservation measures that may be necessary in the event of revocation. The amendment would reduce the ability of the Secretary of State to use land already secured under the environmental delivery plan to fulfil their obligations in the event of the EDP being revoked. With that explanation, I hope the shadow Minister will agree not to press his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate the Minister’s explanation. He addressed a number of the points in our amendment, including that an EDP should not be amended to reduce the amount or extent of conservation measures. He explained that in circumstances in which there is a reduction in development, there might be a need to reduce the amount or extent of such measures. I do not feel that he addressed the need to make sure that the impact of conservation measures is protected. We feel that it is common sense that changing an EDP should not lead to a reduction in the impact of conservation measures proportionate to the amount of development going ahead.
The Committee will be delighted to hear that, in the interest of getting on to other clauses, I will not press the amendment to a vote, but we feel no less strongly that it is an important amendment, and we will reflect on its wording and maintain our interest in the topic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to amendments 15 and 128 to clause 59, which have already been debated. Does anyone wish to press either amendment to a vote?
Paul Holmes
No, Dr Huq, but on the assurances that the Minister gave in relation to amendment 128, which he said he expected we would take in the spirit in which he intended them, let me say that we will seek further clarification from him on CPO.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Challenging an EDP
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause sets out the approach to challenging an environmental delivery plan. As the obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, we recognise that it is important that EDPs are subject to appropriate scrutiny. Earlier clauses provided for consultation in respect of EDPs, and clause 60 provides a route to challenge them.
The route of challenge enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published. The same six-week period for judicial review is available following any decision by the Secretary of State not to make an EDP or to amend or revoke one, or when the Secretary of State has decided not to amend or revoke an EDP.
The decisions of the Secretary of State and Natural England in preparing EDPs must be subject to scrutiny, and the clause sets out a clear, time-bound mechanism for parties to question those decisions. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that explanation of the clause. We have tabled no amendments, but we do have some questions for him.
We welcome the Government’s recognition that there should be the right to challenge an EDP—that is perfectly sensible and we appreciate it—and we welcome the fact that an EDP can be challenged by judicial review. We have all seen examples in our constituencies of large-scale projects in the planning system; in my area, although I disagreed with the people who were against an extension of Southampton airport’s runway, they had the right to go to judicial review. We also see—I declare an interest given what I said on Tuesday about Hamble quarry —communities wanting to assess whether they can take cases to judicial review. We absolutely welcome that provision in clause 60.
However, we have a concern about the six-week window. The Minister will know—and we have all seen these cases, for good and bad—that people who may want to bring a judicial review, or at least investigate one, cannot always afford it. They are not always well-organised or large-scale businesses with the resources to afford that very expensive and complicated process. We are concerned that such a short window may hinder meaningful access to justice, particularly for local communities, smaller organisations, or individuals or charities, which may lack the resources or legal expertise to respond quickly enough. I know that this is in legislation, but is the Minister confident that the six-week window is sufficient, given the potential complexity of EDPs, and will he look at reviewing it or consulting interested parties on it?
We have been very clear that we expect robust public engagement and clear communication obligations. Especially on something as substantial as an EDP, and bearing in mind the charities or small activist groups that may be affected by it and that may, whether we back the principle of EDPs or not, have genuine disagreements, I invite the Minister to outline his thoughts on the six-week period.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate why the shadow Minister raises that point. I am confident, for the following reasons. A six-week timeframe to challenge an EDP is in line with similar legislation on plan making. For example, the statutory consultation period for local plans is six weeks, as set out in regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. We think it is an appropriate timeline, and there is precedent. We are trying to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for an EDP to be challenged when it is made, amended or revoked—in all the circumstances that I set out—and not making the period so long that it will not allow for EDPs to be prepared and implemented as swiftly as possible, which is obviously the objective of the Bill. I hope that, on that basis, the shadow Minister is reassured.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 15th May 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I heard that we made good progress this morning. That is positive encouragement that we will get through the agenda at pace.
Clause 61
Commitment to pay the nature restoration levy
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 61, page 93, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) Natural England may only accept a request if Natural England is satisfied that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy, including by seeking to avoid harm to any protected feature.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ means the following principles to be applied by local planning authorities when determining planning applications—
(a) that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
(b) that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted, with the only exception being where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
(c) that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
(d) that development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported, while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature where this is appropriate.”
This amendment outlines the occasions when Natural England may accept a developer’s request to pay the development levy rather than the developer having to go through existing processes under the Habitats Regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Schedule 4.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse.
The amendment relates to the mitigation hierarchy. As previously, I refer to the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection, which called particular attention to the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy in the wording of the Bill. The OEP advice to Government mentioned that specifically in relation to clause 50. My amendment relates to clause 61, but it refers to precisely the same issue.
The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that delivers for nature and for development. It has done so for many years. The omission of the hierarchy from environmental delivery plans will therefore undermine their effectiveness as a means of delivering nature recovery and smooth development progression. The Minister has been at pains to reiterate his view that nature protection and development can happen hand in hand. I completely agree, but if the mitigation hierarchy is removed entirely—as, in essence, it is by the wording of the Bill—unfortunately that will not happen.
To be specific, the mitigation hierarchy directs development plans to prioritise actions to avoid harm to nature first, then to minimise harms and, as a last resort, to compensate for the impacts of development on biodiversity. The hierarchy is avoid, minimise and mitigate, and compensate or offset.
The “seeking to avoid damage first” principle is enormously important for nature. Natural habitats and species populations take a really long time to build up; some damage can take decades to be replaced or repaired by mitigatory action. I have already spoken about irreparable habitat damage. Such damage to what is known as irreplaceable habitat, and the species that rely on it, cannot be repaired.
For example, ancient oaks grow over hundreds of years to create complex ecosystems with species that have evolved alongside the oaks and need those ecosystems to thrive. Research suggests that 326 species in the UK can only survive on established and ancient oak trees, so the destruction of an ancient oak, such as the one tragically felled in Whitewebbs Park in Enfield a few weeks ago, or—even worse—of a whole swathe of ancient woodland, means the destruction of the only home possible for reliant species in that area, in effect signing their death notice. Any replacement woodland would take centuries to become an ancient woodland ecosystem, even if the conditions were perfect. That delay is so long that species cannot survive it, making the replacement effectively redundant.
Without the mitigation hierarchy, there is no decision-making framework to prioritise avoidance of such fatal damage to irreplaceable habitats such as ancient oak woodlands or to other habitats, and of threats to the future of reliant species. That gap in the framework causes problems for development as well as for nature. The famous bat tunnel, mentioned previously, in part stemmed from a High Speed 2 failure to apply the mitigation hierarchy properly at the start of the process, at the point of design. Had that hierarchy been applied early and in full, avoidance to damage to an ancient woodland, home to a large number of threatened species, including the extremely rare Bechstein’s bat, would have been prioritised—avoidance would have been prioritised—preventing the need for clumsy attempts at mitigation measures such as the tunnel.
Swift and effective use of the mitigation hierarchy at the start of a proposal can nip development problems in the bud. Given the effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy as a development planning tool, therefore, it is deeply concerning that clause 61(3) will, in effect, disapply the mitigation hierarchy from environmental delivery plans. That was confirmed in a recent answer by the Housing Minister to a parliamentary question, where subsection (3) was described as enabling a “flexibility to diverge” from the mitigation hierarchy.
Departure from the mitigation hierarchy risks environmental delivery plans, permitting the destruction of irreplaceable habitats and causing damage to other habitats and reliant species. It also threatens bumps in the road for EDPs as a development progression mechanism and, if EDPs permit measures that would destroy irreplaceable habitats, they will lose the confidence of nature stakeholders and local communities and be more open to challenge, potentially to the extent of a replacement being required and development delayed across whole areas.
My amendment would head off those risks by applying the mitigation hierarchy to EDPs, just as it applies to other planning decisions under paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework. It would instruct Natural England to accept an application to pay a nature restoration levy for a development only if the developer has first taken reasonable steps to apply the mitigation hierarchy.
The requirement to demonstrate consideration of the mitigation hierarchy created by my amendment would not be a heavy one. Compliance with the requirement could be demonstrated by the developer explaining how development proposals have been informed by efforts to prioritise the avoidance of harm to environmental features.
As part of the explanation, the developer could, for example, propose planning conditions being used to secure onsite measures to reduce harm, such as including green infrastructure; many developers will already be looking to integrate these features anyway because they recognise the wider health and wellbeing benefits that green infrastructure in developments can deliver. The use of the words “reasonable steps” in my amendment would also help to ensure that developers’ consideration of how to apply the mitigation hierarchy would not be onerous. The amendment has been drafted in an effort to reinforce commitment to the mitigation hierarchy without creating unreasonable expectations.
The consideration of the mitigation hierarchy would be a matter of factoring in environmental considerations and efforts to avoid irreparable damage into early development plans and demonstrating to Natural England that that has been done, rather than any lengthy assessment process. Much of the work should already have been considered and recorded as part of the initial process of identifying development sites, designing a development and assessing biodiversity net gain requirements.
The amendment also provides an extra degree of protection for the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats, about which I have already spoken in this Committee, by allowing levy payment requests to be accepted for developments that would damage these rare sites and habitats only when there is an overriding public interest for the development to proceed. That would apply to only a very small number of developments, as the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats are sadly small in number and, as I have emphasised, irreplaceable. There is a reason why the mitigation hierarchy has been used since the 1980s—almost my entire life—as a decision-making framework in UK planning and why it still has a central place in the revised NPPF: it works for nature and development alike.
The amendment would ensure that EDPs benefited from the mitigation hierarchy as other parts of planning do. It would ensure that they were able to catch and delay costly development mistakes before they happened and prevent EDPs from becoming a rubber stamp for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats. I call the attention of the Committee and the Minister to page 5 of the annexe to the Office for Environmental Protection’s advice to us. It emphasises that
“Mitigation hierarchies are an important component of existing environmental law”
and calls attention to its concern that the effect of the current drafting of the Bill could allow a protected site to be harmed in a way contrary to existing environmental law and the stated purpose of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will warmly consider my amendment.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a privilege to continue to serve the Committee with you back in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The mitigation hierarchy is incredibly important. In fact, the Liberal Democrats were aiming to put down an amendment very similar to this one, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire beat us to it—congratulations to her on that.
Clearly, the mitigation hierarchy is an important feature of the playing system, which has endured for a long time. One of the principal concerns with EDPs is that they will not ensure that oversight measures are taken first and foremost. The principle of “first do no harm” must guide everything we do in protecting the environment and in dealing with development that may affect the environment. We will support the amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse; welcome back to the Committee. Good afternoon to all colleagues.
We are generally supportive of clause 61; I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but I would like to speak to clause 61 stand part. Although the clause introduces a streamlined mechanism for fulfilling environmental requirements, it raises several questions that I shall put to the Minister on some of the detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner may have some specific questions too.
First, the discretion given to Natural England to accept or reject a developer’s request lacks clarity. There are no outlined criteria or standards for decision making, which could lead to an inconsistent or opaque outcome. I ask the Minister: what criteria will Natural England use to accept or reject a developer’s request to pay the levy? Does he think there needs to be more specificity in the accompanying regulations, if not in the Bill?
Secondly, although the clause references charging schedules and payment phasing, it does not address how those charges are calculated or whether they reflect the environmental impact of the development. Could the Minister assure the Committee—not necessarily today or in the legislation—how he will provide more specific details on the charging regime? Without that, there would be a risk of turning the levy into a transactional tool rather than a meaningful mechanism for ecological restoration. Additionally, there is no mention of how Natural England will ensure that payments are effectively translated into real conservation outcomes. Without clearer safeguards, the process could be perceived more as a pay-to-proceed option than as a robust tool for environmental accountability. If the Minister could provide some specifics on those two main points, we would be content to support clause 61.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I wanted to set out briefly the views of the Opposition, in addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has said.
Recently, we listened to views from those with specialist experience in this context. There are a number of ways in which issues about biodiversity net gain and protected species may feature, with the relevant protections, as a consequence of the legislation. Although amendment 54 sets out some reasonable points, it does not address them sufficiently. In particular, there is potential scope to bring some of it within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provisions, which would enable in many cases more effective enforcement powers than under the existing habitats regulations.
We acknowledge the Minister’s point that it will be important for those responsible for biodiversity net gain and for considering the mitigation hierarchy to be able to deploy the resources that flow from these different types of agreements in a way that reflects the broader national responsibility, rather than a site-by-site basis. That additional flexibility would be required, and we are therefore likely to seek further amendments later in the Bill’s passage that address the specifics of those concerns.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Let me respond first to amendment 54, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. I will then turn to clause 61 and schedule 4. The hon. Lady’s amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which Natural England can receive a nature restoration levy payment in respect of an environmental delivery plan. She made a number of points about the mitigation hierarchy and irreplaceable habitats. I will not repeat the debate we had on a previous clause in relation to existing protections in national planning policy, which will still have effect for irreplaceable habitats.
On the mitigation hierarchy, we share her and the OEP’s view: it is a very important component of environmental law. Natural England will always want to consider the mitigation hierarchy when it is developing EDPs. We anticipate that Natural England will still prioritise avoidance and reduction of environmental harm in the first instance, not least because it is likely to deliver the best environmental outcomes at the lowest cost for developers. However, we do not believe that it should always apply.
The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to sub-optimal outcomes, and where money could be spent in a far more effective way to achieve better outcomes for nature. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we have been very clear about this point: it is the Government’s view that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy. As I have said, that is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England. There is flexibility built into the Bill, which we need.
Ellie Chowns
I have two points. The Minister has claimed that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy. Can he point to where that is stated in the Bill? I cannot see it; I have just checked back on clause 53, which deals with the preparation of EDPs, but it is not specified. Where is it specified in the Bill that it maintains the mitigation hierarchy?
Secondly, with respect, there are not only two options here—either to support the Bill exactly as it is written or to support the status quo. I am trying to table constructive amendments to the Bill, recognising what the Government seek to do and their stated aims of ensuring that development and nature protection go hand in hand, and that nature protection is enhanced at the same time as enabling development. I am not necessarily opposed, in principle, to area-wide and strategic approaches—I have already given credit to district-level licensing for newts and similar things that are already happening.
However, my concern is that nowhere in the Bill does it say that the mitigation hierarchy is preserved—nowhere in either clause 61 or clause 53, or anywhere else, is it preserved. It is not just me who says that; the OEP and many nature protection organisations are deeply concerned about the issue. I am proposing a constructive mid-point in my amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me make a couple of points in response. I did not state that a particular clause in the Bill, “effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy”; I said that that was the Government’s belief as to the effect of the Bill, and it is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England.
We have been very clear that our approach requires flexibility to diverge, and this is where I would gently challenge the hon. Lady. It is all well and good for her to say, “I agree with the objective of a win-win for nature and development.” We can all agree with that. I am challenging her as to where she agrees with the fundamental requirements of how our strategic approach will operate. On this particular amendment, I would make the point that in reinstating as it does—
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way again; I will make some progress. In reinstating as it does the requirement for site-by-site assessments before a levy could be accepted, the amendment is contrary to that strategic approach and would hamper it. In proposing a strategic approach, as I have said before, we have been careful to ensure that this is taken forward only where there is a clear case that the benefits of the conservation measures under an environmental delivery plan outweigh the negative effect of development.
That is precisely why clause 50 requires Natural England to set out the negative effect of the development to which the environmental delivery plan applies, alongside the conservation measures that Natural England will take to address the environmental impact and contribute to an overall environmental improvement. Only when it is satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development can the Secretary of State agree to make an environmental delivery plan.
In establishing an alternative to the existing system, as I have said, the Bill intentionally allows for a more strategic approach to be taken to environmental assessment and flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. Without that flexibility, it will not operate as intended.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way, but the hon. Lady can make a further contribution. However, this will be only where Natural England consider it appropriate and would deliver better outcomes for nature of over the course of a delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and undermine the purpose of these reforms, which is to maximise the impact of measures at a strategic scale. We are confident that this more strategic approach to the assessment of negative effects and delivery of conservation measures strikes the right balance and will result in better outcomes. As I said, and am more than happy to continue to repeat, I understand the importance of ensuring that this flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided wherever possible. I am giving further thought to ways to underpin that confidence.
Clause 61 establishes the framework that will allow developers to pay the nature restoration levy, setting out the process by which developers can make a request to Natural England to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of their proposed development. If accepted by Natural England, the developer will then be committed to make the relevant payment, as set out in the charging schedule that will be published as part of the environmental delivery plan.
The clause then sets out how the making of that payment affects the developer’s environmental obligations. For example, the legislation makes clear that the commitment by a developer to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of an environmental delivery plan addressing nutrient pollution removes the need for the developer to consider the impact of the development on an environmental feature in respect of nutrient pollution. Where payment of the levy is made mandatory by an environmental delivery plan, the clause removes the ability of a developer to discharge the relevant environmental obligation in any way other than through the payment of the nature restoration levy.
In those circumstances, Natural England must set out the reasons why it considers it necessary to mandate the payment of the levy under the EDP. That will form part of the consultation on the draft EDP, and has been included to address situations where the environmental outcome can only be achieved with payments from all relevant developments, or where failing to capture payments from all relevant developments would render the EDP economically unviable. The nature restoration levy is central to our new strategic approach, ensuring that Natural England can secure funds to deliver conservation measures and to provide certainty to developers that the making of the payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.
I will come back to the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, as I have given a commitment in relation to previous clauses on their points about the interactions between the provisions in this Bill and those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is a very complex matter, and we will set out more detail where we have it.
In general terms—I say this with the proviso that regulations will bring forward further detail on how the levy will operate—the request and the payments are intended, essentially, to meet the scale and type of development that the EDP relates to. They cannot just be made on the basis of the discretion of what Natural England decides it wants. They have to relate to the conservation measures being put in place. We do, however, want to get the balance right between levy rates that ensure that development is economically viable—otherwise the EDP will not come forward in some instances—and not setting a rate that allows for gold-plating of projects, where that is not required. We will discuss that in more detail on future clauses.
I turn to schedule 4. In establishing the nature restoration fund, there is a need to provide legal certainty on how the new approach interacts with existing environmental requirements. Critically, there is a need to establish that where developers make a payment to the nature restoration fund, that relieves the decision maker of any obligation to consider the impact on the environmental features that the EDP addresses, as those obligations will now be discharged on a strategic scale by Natural England.
Schedule 4 achieves that by making clear that for each environmental feature identified in an EDP, be it a protected feature of a protected site or a protected species, the paying of the nature restoration levy removes many of the requirements for the developer under existing legislation. For example, where an EDP covers the impact of nutrient pollution on a protected site, and a developer pays the nature restoration levy, they will no longer be required to consider that environmental impact through wider environmental assessments. Similarly, where a protected species is identified as an environmental feature under an EDP, the making of a levy payment will mean that the developer will benefit from a deemed licence based on terms set in the EDP, which removes certain associated requirements for the developer under existing legislation.
Crucially, the legislation is clear that the making of a payment will only be capable of addressing the environmental impact on the protected features covered by an EDP. Although we expect coverage to build up over time, it is only right that the discharge of environmental obligations is limited to the matters addressed in the environmental delivery plan. Therefore, if the development has other environmental impacts that are not covered by the EDP, they will continue to be assessed in the usual way.
It is important to stress that the removal of the need for the developer to meet those environmental obligations will apply only when Natural England has sufficient evidence to draft an EDP, the Secretary of State has concluded that the EDP is sufficient to outweigh the impact of development, and the developer has committed to making the necessary nature restoration levy payment. Given the targeted nature of the changes to the regulations and Acts, and the need to provide legal certainty for the nature restoration fund to operate, I commend clause 61 and schedule 4 to the Committee.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister asserts that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not set out anywhere in the text. The words “mitigation hierarchy” appear nowhere in the Bill. The word “mitigation” appears four times, always in relation to climate change. The word “avoid” appears only once, in relation to unavoidable delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the word “harm” appears only once, in relation to commercial interests. If the Bill does not say anything about the mitigation hierarchy, mitigation or avoiding harm in relation to nature, how can the Minister claim that it upholds the mitigation hierarchy?
Amendment 54 specifies that a developer needs to demonstrate taking
“reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy”.
The Minister emphasised his desire for the legislation to have flexibility. My amendment offers that flexibility; his Bill offers no support for the mitigation hierarchy. For that reason, I will not withdraw the amendment, because it is fundamentally important. I would like to press it to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
Briefly, it is worth my putting on the record the following so that the Committee is clear about the Government’s position. The mitigation hierarchy is still a requirement of the national planning policy framework. It is established through that, and it continues to operate. But we think—I have been very honest about this—that the new approach in the Bill requires flexibility, where appropriate—
Matthew Pennycook
No—the amendment is entirely at odds with the purpose and intent of clause 61, which is to disapply the requirement for assessment of environmental impact of a feature covered by an EDP once the development has committed to pay the nature restoration levy. In our view, therefore, the amendment would fundamentally undermine the operation of our approach, and for that reason we cannot accept it.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. I think we have heard both sides very well, loudly and clearly. We need to push on because we have been discussing this one amendment for nearly half an hour. It is important that we now come to a decision.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 92, Clause 62, page 93, line 42, leave out from “features” to the end of line 2 on page 94 and insert—
“are funded by the developer.
This amendment would define the purpose of the nature restoration levy as being that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features should be met by developers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 70 stand part.
Ellie Chowns
I will try to speak briefly. Amendment 92 is particularly important considering the conversation that we have just had about my previous amendment. Effectively, the nature restoration fund offers the opportunity for developers to buy the right to pollute in one location if that money is used to create habitats or support remedial action in another location. But clause 62, as it is currently drafted, makes the payment into the NRF subject to a viability test, which undermines the polluter pays principle, which is one of the fundamental environmental principles to which the Government are supposed to be sticking.
The amendment reinforces the polluter pays principle. It is a well-established environmental policy doctrine endorsed by international agreements, numerous national frameworks, and the Government’s own environmental principles. It asserts that those who cause environmental degradation should bear the costs associated with its mitigation and restoration.
Removing the economic viability constraints means that, in principle, a developer could make their own assessment of whether paying into the NRF would undermine their capacity to pursue a development. Therefore, the viability caveat undermines the environmental goals. It dilutes the effectiveness of the nature restoration levy by tethering it to this ambiguous economic viability standard. It is a subjective and, frankly, developer-biased filter that might lead to inconsistent applications of the levy or weakened environmental commitments in the face of commercial pressures, and in so doing, could prioritise short-term developmental gains over long-term ecological resilience.
Allowing economic viability to act as a limiting factor to the NRF creates a dangerous precedent, because it implies that environmental restoration is, in effect, a negotiable, secondary or optional cost that could be trimmed if profit margins are tight. Again, that would surely not be compatible with the Government’s stated aims for establishing this policy approach. Frankly, in the context of a rapidly escalating biodiversity crisis, the approach is both irresponsible and unsustainable. I warmly encourage the Minister, yet again, to consider my helpful amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to amendment 92, which, as she set out, seeks to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to consider economic viability when making regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. We believe that it is important to consider viability in the setting of that levy, because excessive costs will mean either that developers will not want to pay into the nature restoration fund, or if they are forced to, that less development will come forward. This will be a particular issue for small and medium-sized housebuilders. Without developers paying into an EDP, the conservation measures that it sets out will not be delivered.
The hon. Lady’s amendment also includes the aim of establishing a requirement that all conservation costs are funded entirely by the developer. Introducing requirements that all funding for conservation measures come from developers will also undermine Government’s ability to step in and provide funding should conservation measures not deliver the necessary effect. That is likely to lead to an increased cost for developers, or to force them to avoid using an EDP and to rely on existing systems that do not provide the same benefits for the environment as the nature restoration fund. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Lady’s amendment.
Clause 62 is essential to the operation of this new strategic approach. It will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. I therefore commend it as currently drafted to the Committee.
As hon. Members will be aware, clause 70 will allow the Government to provide guidance to Natural England on the operation of the levy. It enables the Secretary of State to give guidance in relation to any matter connected with the nature restoration levy, and provides that Natural England, or any other public body to which such guidance is given, must have regard to it. Such guidance will provide clarity as to the operation of the nature restoration levy and speed up implementation. For those reasons, I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister’s response indicates that he believes it is reasonable to expect the Government, and therefore essentially taxpayers, to bear the costs of environmental damage caused by developers. That is surely not reasonable. How will the structure set out in the Bill work, be viable, protect nature or indeed improve it—the Minister has said he seeks to achieve that—if it does not specify that developers must bear the costs of remediating the damage that development does? Under his proposals, the taxpayer would be left on the hook for the costs of that. Under my proposal, the polluter pays principle, that well-established principle in international and domestic law, would be maintained, so I would like to push the amendment, my last on the clause, to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 129, in clause 64, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.”
Clause 64 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 63 forms part of the wider group of clauses that provide the necessary powers to make regulations governing the operation of the nature restoration levy. The clause specifically deals with issues of liability and provides regulation-making powers to set out who is liable to pay the nature restoration levy and when that liability arises. Given the breadth of environmental circumstances and types of development that may be covered by an environmental delivery plan, the detailed operation of the levy is best addressed through regulations, with the powers to make regulations suitably constrained. Technical matters of liability, such as the withdrawal and cancellation of liability, will be set out in the regulations, with the clause providing the relevant powers. To provide certainty and clarity to developers, those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 64 is another limb in the group of clauses that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. In particular, the clause provides the powers to make regulations in respect of how Natural England calculates and sets the nature restoration levy. Those regulations will, for example, frame how Natural England determines the cost of conservation measures to address the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature and the subsequent levy rate for developers. In doing so, regulations made under the clause will ensure matters of economic viability form part of the setting of rates under the charging schedule.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concerns? When developments are proposed, there are obviously negotiations under section 106. Although I agree with the principle of the levy, I do not want developers to move money from other 106 obligations —healthcare, roads and education—into it. Has he given any thought to how we can prevent that from happening? This levy should be additional, rather than cutting the pie in a different way.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In the correspondence I will send to the Committee, I am more than happy to try to give hon. Members a sense of how the provisions in the Bill do or do not interact with the existing developer contribution system. However, section 106 agreements are a very different proposition from what we are discussing. We are talking about a nature restoration levy payment, managed by Natural England and directly for use on conservation measures that form part of an EDP. So section 106 is an entirely separate issue.
I recognise—I think this is the hon. Gentleman’s point—how issues of viability will be addressed in the calculation of the levy payment. What I would say to that is that this is a regulation-making power; the regulations will come forward with further detail, and we have made them subject to the affirmative procedure. We will have further debate in the House on the technical detail of how those regulations look when they are published. This is just the regulation-making power that will allow the levy to be charged. On that basis, I hope I have somewhat clarified the issue.
David Simmonds
This is a slightly technical question, but what consideration will be given to regional and local variation in the levels of cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne highlighted the point about the interaction with section 106, which the Minister has accepted. One of the calculations under section 106 is child yield, which reflects the number of children we would expect in a development. Through the formula, that produces a payment in respect of the cost of provision of school places. Clearly, that cost will vary significantly depending on which part of the country the development takes place in. I would like to be confident that if, for example, a developer undertakes development in a very high-cost area, we will not see a significant corresponding reduction in the environmental yield from such a negotiation, and that viability will not, in practice, become such a barrier that developments do not go ahead or we end up forgoing the expected yield in some of these crucial areas in order to make housing viable.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention. I will say two things. First, I again slightly caution against reading section 106 agreement provisions directly across into the clause we are debating. Secondly, the point he makes about regional variations in viability challenges is a good one, and it will, I am sure, be one of many issues the regulations have to consider. However, the full detail of those regulations will be forthcoming in due course, once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
As I said, clause 64 and the regulations that flow from it will play an important part in ensuring that the setting of the levy reflects the appropriate administrative costs in connection with the environmental delivery plan, as well as ensuring that processes are integrated wherever possible. In addition, the clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that the nature restoration fund is capable of accommodating different approaches to the setting of charging schedules—a point that relates to the discussion we have just had. That will ensure that environmental delivery plans can, where appropriate, deploy different approaches to calculating the levy rate—for example, reflecting the fact that some environmental issues are better considered on a per-dwelling basis, whereas others may benefit from calculating the levy based on the footprint of the development. In designing the measures, we have sought to ensure that we have the flexibility to tailor our approach to the unique circumstances on the ground as they pertain to each individual EDP.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, may address amendment 129 in due course, but I will turn to it now. The amendment, which was again tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would prevent Natural England from including the cost of acquiring land when considering the nature restoration levy rate that developers will be required to pay. The nature restoration fund model will need to operate on a full cost recovery basis, as we have discussed, so excluding the cost of land from the levy price paid by developers would shift the burden of developers’ financial responsibilities to the state.
Under the existing system, developers are required to meet the cost of mitigation measures, which would include the cost of purchasing the land. That is the situation as it stands. That shows that the capital cost of land is not an additional cost that is being added on to developers. If land purchase could never form part of a levy-funded environmental delivery plan, Natural England would be required to rely on other measures, which may be more expensive and less effective in addressing the impacts of development. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press his amendment, and I commend both clauses, as currently drafted, to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful the Minister for his comments on amendment 129. All I would say to the Minister in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley is once bitten, twice shy.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 63. The clause delegates significant discretion to the Secretary of State, without setting out guiding principles or safeguards. Although the Minister said that regulations will be forthcoming—I am grateful to him for confirming that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure—there remain some important unresolved issues in the Bill. That includes how liability will be shared in complex developments involving multiple parties, or how the timing of liability will interact with project phasing and financial planning.
Without that clarity, there is a real risk of legal uncertainty for developers and of inconsistency in enforcement. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind when the Bill receives Royal Assent and he goes away to look at regulations for affirmative scrutiny in this House. A more robust approach would involve the Bill at least outlining the key principles that will to guide the development of the regulations, ensuring that they are applied fairly, consistently and with due regard to the practical realities of development delivery.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree—he is making this point very clearly—that the risk with this process, and with the lack of clarity around the process behind the regulations, is that it will increase the number of permissions being delivered that are not viable? Essentially, all the money is coming from the same pot, and the developer will say to the local authority and Natural England, “You can have the kids or you can have the bats, but you can’t have both.” If the developer has to pay for both, the scheme becomes non-viable. We will simply end up with more units that cannot be built.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I entirely agree with him, which is why, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we make a dream team that is in fast competition with the Minister. He should watch this space—it is four years and counting. [Interruption.] I am joking with the Minister.
What I would say to my hon. Friend is that that is the key reason why we have concerns about clause 63. We understand the Minister’s intentions, and we will not press the amendment to further complicate the clause. However, we are concerned that the lack of clarity in the Bill could, in a very complex EDP involving multiple parties, damage the clause’s intent to enhance environmental protection. The number of planning permissions going through could increase, but the end result would actually be that the delivery was not there. That is a key area where the Minister needs to look at strengthening the wording in the Bill. That aside, we will not push our amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me make a couple of comments in response. First, I understand the point that has been made, but a fair amount of the detail will come through regulations. The House will have an opportunity to scrutinise those, and they will, as I said, be under the affirmative procedure. Secondly, to refer the shadow Minister back to clause 62, I think issues such as phasing and complex development are dealt with in subsection (2).
My other, wider point goes perhaps not to the kids in schools, but certainly to the species that existing arrangements are designed to provide for. Developers are already paying a separate type of fee to discharge their environmental obligations. The Bill proposes a smarter way of doing that, and the levy will proceed on the basis of that smarter way to discharge those obligations.
I have not had the chance to say this, and it is worth doing so, but it is the Government’s clear intention that the aggregate cost of conservation measures to developers under an EDP is no greater than it is under the status quo for existing mitigations. The Government’s intent is not to charge developers more. This is a more effective, strategic and efficient way to discharge existing environmental obligations on a strategic scale. However, further detail will be forthcoming.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Appeals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 65 will allow a right of appeal in relation to the calculation of the amount of the levy payable by a developer. As environmental delivery plans include charging schedules, which can set out the levy rates for different types of development, there is a need to ensure that there is a route for developers to appeal if they believe that the levy payable has been miscalculated. Crucially, the levy rates will be part of the draft environmental delivery plan, which will provide clarity as to the cost for developers, but we want to ensure that if developers believe that the rate has been miscalculated, they have a right to appeal. The appeal process will be set out in regulations, and the clause provides the detail of what those regulations may include. This is a simple and straightforward clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I have a brief question. I understand that the Minister wants to bring forward regulations backed by the affirmative procedure, and that is welcome. I am slightly concerned by the wording in subsection (3):
“In any proceedings for judicial review of a decision on an appeal, the defendant is to be such person as is specified in the regulations (and the regulations may also specify a person who is not to be the defendant for these purposes).”
I seek reassurance from the Minister that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, he will err on the side of being liberal about who can bring an issue to judicial review, and that he will not seek to restrict a category of person from taking such actions. I would be grateful if he could give that assurance.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate—as, no doubt, the development sector will—the hon. Gentleman’s concern for developers and the right of appeal. I do give him that commitment. I will go away and think about the point he raises.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Use of nature restoration levy
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 66, page 96, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.”
The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 130, in clause 66, page 96, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations may not permit Natural England to spend money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy for the purposes of acquiring land through a Compulsory Purchase Order.”
Amendment 131, in clause 66, page 96, leave out lines 40 and 41.
Amendment 10, in clause 66, page 96, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “will”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure.
Amendment 132, in clause 66, page 97, line 6, leave out “use” and insert “return”.
Gideon Amos
I will be reasonably brief—the Committee will be pleased to know that I have been striking sections out of my speaking notes as the Committee days wear on. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Louder!
Amendment 9 would ensure that funding was available up front from the nature restoration levy and to provide mitigation on development sites. It is important, in terms of the effectiveness of any mitigation provided, that it happens up front, and not later on or after works have happened.
In terms of nature and biodiversity, the UK is one of the most depleted countries in the world. One in six species is threatened with extinction. In partnership with our pump-prime funding amendment—amendment 6 to clause 67—the amendment seeks to ensure that the levy, upon receipt by Natural England, is used as soon as possible, in order that the nature recovery fund can go some way towards ensuring that overall species abundance is increasing, rather than decreasing, by 2030. It would not be legitimate for money to sit unused in Natural England’s coffers when there is an ongoing crisis and action urgently needs to be taken.
Amendment 10 is consequential on new clause 18. It would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure—it “may” be reserved, but again that is very uncertain. That funding needs to be there and it needs to be protected. In line with our amendment to ensure that the nature restoration fund levy is not unreasonably delayed, amendment 10 would ensure that the money is put to use as soon as is reasonably practicable and is reserved for planned future expenditure.
Paul Holmes
We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives.
Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits.
Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me work through each of the amendments that have been tabled and spoken to. I will start with amendment 9, which was tabled and set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that funds gathered through the nature restoration levy be spent without unreasonable delay.
An environmental delivery plan will have had to meet the overall improvement test, as we have debated at length, to have been made. In designing the conservation measures in an environmental delivery plan, Natural England will have been aware that delivering measures at the earliest point in time is usually the easiest way to achieve that outcome. However, the appropriate timing to deliver a conservation measure may depend on the specific circumstances of each case and the nature of the conservation measures that represent the best outcomes for the environment in the view of Natural England, as the body preparing the EDP. Natural England’s discretion in these determinations should not, in our view, be unduly restrained by an obligation to spend money quickly, rather than well and effectively, to achieve the outcomes under the EDP. There is an option for Natural England to establish—
Matthew Pennycook
Both may well be possible in some instances, but may not be in alignment in others. We our principally concerned that money is spent well on the most effective conservation measures to achieve the best outcomes for nature. There is of course an option for Natural England to establish some mitigation measures prior to development starting.
Furthermore, the Bill contains provisions requiring National England to report on its progress, to ensure that there is transparency over how money secured through the levy is being used. We discussed that in a debate on a previous amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, which had overlooked the fact that EDPs have a set timeframe. The shadow Minister will know that EDPs are required to be reported on twice over the EDP period. It is worth making the point that Natural England must also publish annual reports setting out how it is spending the money received via the levy and the effectiveness of any EDPs. That requirement is a minimum and, as we have discussed, Natural England may publish reports at any other time. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley was particularly concerned about a situation where, in order to fulfil the requirements of the EDP, the compulsory purchase of land that had specific characteristics would be necessary. Therefore, that would potentially drive a very significant increase in the value of the land because it was the only way in which that EDP could be fulfilled, and that would significantly increase the cost to the public purse. What measures does the Minister have in place to ensure that where that type of situation arises—because, for example, there is a blanket bog or a particular type of pond that is required to fulfil the EDP—it is delivered at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer?
Matthew Pennycook
I think I understand the shadow Minister’s point. Obviously, the normal process for compulsory purchase would apply. We will come to CPO provisions later. If I have not covered it, I am more than happy to go into further detail at that point.
As I have set out, in order for an environmental delivery plan to be made, there must be sufficient certainty that the conservation measures are deliverable to allow the EDP to pass the overall improvement test. The possibility of using compulsory purchase where other options are not available is, in our view, essential to the operation of the nature restoration fund. That does not change the fact that, in practice, compulsory purchase will always be the least preferred delivery option, with a negotiated procurement of land use or management changes being the natural starting point, wherever those are required.
While talk of compulsory purchase can raise concerns—I understand those, and we debated them on Second Reading —we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income. We will debate Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers more fully when we reach clause 72. Given the environmental and practical need for these limited powers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to amendments 131 and 10, which seek to remove the ability for regulations to make provision for Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure. By removing the circumstances in which Natural England can reserve money for future expenditure, the amendments would limit the flexibility for Natural England to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and would prioritise haste over environmental outcomes. In our view, they would also restrict Natural England’s ability to plan for unforeseen circumstances and allow money to be made available to react to changing circumstances.
The Bill provides a number of additional safeguards to the use of the nature restoration levy, which will ensure that money is spent effectively and transparently. I will set those out when we reach the debate on clause 66. Natural England will, of course, not wish to unnecessarily delay the procurement of conservation measures once levy funding is received, and preventing prudent financial management would not assist it in that endeavour. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Members will agree not to press their amendments.
I turn finally to amendment 132, in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. This would require any unused funds to be returned to developers where an EDP no longer requires funding. We recognise that a requirement for Natural England to return any unused funds could reduce the cost to developers. However, we do not expect Natural England to be left with significant residual funds at the end of an EDP. Natural England will be encouraged to ensure that the costing of conservation measures is clear from the start and, as I have said, subject to consultation.
In the event that there are unspent funds that are not required to secure the conservation measures under the EDP, those funds will be directed towards additional conservation measures and securing additional positive environmental outcomes. Should the EDP period elapse before the outcome is achieved, the funds will continue to be invested until the required environmental outcome is achieved.
In addition, any system of dividing up and returning residual funding would risk making environmental delivery plans more expensive and would distract Natural England from focusing on developing and delivering them. It is important to emphasise again that developers are not paying for specific conservation measures on a site-by-site basis. They are providing a contribution to secure the package of conservation measures required across the EDP geography to outweigh the impact of development covered by the plan. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I note in particular the Minister’s concern about proceeding with undue haste—I am sure that that is the furthest thing from the mind of this Committee. Without wishing to proceed with undue haste, I suggest that he is imputing to our amendment words that it does not contain. He is suggesting that it would deprioritise effectiveness and prioritise timeliness over the measures taken being effective. However, our amendment actually says “not unreasonably delayed”, which is well-known legislative wording. It does not prevent things being done well and, if not with undue haste, in a timely fashion.
We believe that the amendment is eminently sensible. I believe in it as strongly as I did when I stood up a few minutes ago.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me give the hon. Gentleman further reassurance. There are two things. First, we genuinely do not believe that that line would strengthen the legislation in any way, in the sense that it is ambiguous and would be an additional expectation on Natural England. More importantly, it is likely only to limit Natural England’s options in bringing forward the conservation measures under EDPs. I will give him an example: it would make it more difficult to do things such as pooling levy payments to fund larger-scale, more beneficial interventions over the EDP geography. I ask him to reconsider on that basis.
Gideon Amos
As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I would argue that it is possible to carry out the actions that he described without unreasonable delay, which is what our amendment seeks. The Government cannot have it both ways: on the one hand, it is ambiguous; on the other hand, it would definitely mean that timeliness is to the detriment of the quality of the actions. I do not think those two arguments stack up.
I believe in the amendment as strongly as I did a few minutes ago. However, in the interest of the progress of the Committee, and based on my understanding of maths, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 66, page 97, line 13, leave out “separately” and insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in clause 66, page 97, line 17, after “money” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 25, in clause 66, page 97, line 18, after “report” insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on expected charging collection and use of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 26, in clause 66, page 97, line 24, after “paragraph)” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on money passed to another public authority.
New clause 18—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.
(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).
(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—
(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and
(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”
This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.
Gideon Amos
I will spend a few moments on these amendments, because they concern the important oversight body, and I will speak to them together, so Committee members need not fear—I do not have five separate speeches. I know how disappointed they will be.
The amendments are about an independent oversight body for Natural England. As the Bill stands, the effectiveness of the environmental outcomes will be determined solely by the effectiveness of Natural England in administering its own EDPs and its nature restoration levy. That is a large amount of power and responsibility, and it requires a system of monitoring and evaluation.
A single public body should not be able to evaluate its own actions without independent scrutiny. As drafted, the Bill would ensure that Natural England would be the regulator, fundholder, implementer and monitor of the nature restoration fund without any independent oversight. This is a very important part of the Bill. The lack of external oversight risks weakening the accountability of the system. Independent oversight is essential to ensure impartiality, manage conflicts of interest and guarantee effective use of the funds.
Without criticising the hard-working staff at Natural England, there are already serious concerns about the organisation’s ability to meet its obligations. It is under-resourced and overstretched, with its budget declining 72% in recent years. It is struggling to fulfil its statutory duties. Some 78% of sites of special scientific interest have not been monitored in the last six years. In the biodiversity net gain credit scheme administered by Natural England, the total income from statutory credits was £247,000 last year, while the projected administrative costs were £300,000, surpassing the income and resulting in no actual conservation from the scheme.
Frequently, other Government levies, such as the water restoration fund and the community infrastructure levy, have been historically underspent and badly managed. Lessons from those past failures must be incorporated into the new levy system. Natural England’s district-level licensing for great crested newts has also faced delays and unclear outcomes. The Government have already committed to an extra £14 million to Natural England—we Liberal Democrats thoroughly welcome that—to increase capacity to develop an initial tranche of priority EDPs. However, this is question not just of funding and resourcing, but of using the funds effectively. Ensuring that the money is spent well, in the words of the Minister a few minutes ago, is incredibly important. If he is committed to that, there should be independent oversight so that the public scrutiny and transparent reporting mechanisms essential to building trust in the system are in place.
I emphasise that this is not a criticism of Natural England. It is a way to make sure that Natural England is resourced and empowered properly to fulfil the major and significant responsibilities given to it in part 3 of the Bill.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I offer some brief remarks to complement the excellent ones of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in support of new clause 18.
The new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the proposed nature restoration levy. We know from testimony to this Committee that we as a country have not prioritised nature and fully understood the importance of protecting habitats. Although we cannot correct those mistakes, it is important that we look to the future, in terms of nature restoration, to bring back what we had. Not only is that crucial for a healthy planet by helping to mitigate climate change, but there is a benefit to human wellbeing. Restoring natural ecosystems can enhance food production, improve water quality and quantity, reduce flood risks, and offer socioeconomic benefits such as tourism and sustainable jobs.
As my hon. Friend said, this is not about criticising Natural England but about recognising two things: first, Natural England is resource-constrained; and secondly, there is quite a lot of evidence from around the world that schemes intended to offset carbon emissions or promote nature in other forms can, if not properly scrutinised, often not achieve their intended benefits. I do not question the Government’s intentions with the proposals, but it is important that the nature restoration levy does not end up being greenwash.
We see so many examples of that. I was bewildered by a LinkedIn post a few years ago in which some people were applauding an intercontinental airline that was expanding its services for its commitment to the environment by eliminating plastic cutlery on their planes—talk about throwing a tiny starfish into an ocean. It is very important that we do not make such mistakes with the nature restoration levy. I hope that the Government will consider our new clause 18 to ensure that Natural England receives the independent oversight that it needs to discharge its objectives fully.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank hon. Members for setting out the rationale for this group of proposals so clearly. From memory, we have already discussed at length, on a number of clauses, the resourcing issue for Natural England. To be clear—I have been candid about this—in setting up the nature restoration fund, we are asking Natural England to do a lot. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington referenced the £14 million allocated in the Budget to its work in this area.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for the Government’s response to the proposals. I can only restate some of the concerns we have about potential conflicts of interest in relation to Natural England administering, collecting and spending the money, and judging its own effectiveness. The fact that the Secretary of State is the only arbiter above it would not necessarily bring confidence to those who are most concerned about the natural environment.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire reminded us of a cast list of former Secretaries of State for the Environment. I am a little older, so I remember another one: Nicholas Ridley. Or let us think about the future: perhaps there could be a Secretary of State from the Reform party—goodness me, wouldn’t that be a prospect? What reassurance would that provide on regulating and overseeing the effectiveness of the nature restoration fund, the levy, the spending of the levy and the actions of Natural England?
For such a broad range of significant Government functions, and the significant spending of public money, it makes eminent sense to have an oversight body. It might add somewhat to the cost, but, in our opinion, that cost should be borne by developers. It is a worthwhile amount to be spent for a small regulatory function. We wish to press that point further, because it is an important way of strengthening the system, making it more robust and giving it more integrity in delivering its outcomes.
Matthew Pennycook
May I leave the hon. Gentleman with a point to reflect on? Natural England already undertakes a range of duties and makes interventions in support of positive nature outcomes, not least in terms of nutrient pollution, which we have discussed. It cannot do that through the approach we are talking about. Oversight of that is provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that would remain in place. I ask him to reflect on the existing situation as it applies to Natural England, and how its very beneficial work is overseen at present.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond to our concerns, but, as I said, such a concentration of functions so closely related to each other—establishing the EDP, collecting and spending the funds, and monitoring its effectiveness—in what is a single system surely requires some separate oversight, rather than relying on future Secretaries of State. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
We have debated various amendments to clause 66, so I will be brief. I will just put on the record the Government’s case for the Bill.
The clause sets out that Natural England must spend money received through the nature restoration levy on conservation measures. More detail may be specified in regulations, as I have said, including the conservation measures that may be funded, maintenance activities and what can be treated as funding. In allowing Natural England to receive levy payments, it is vital that the payments are used to fund conservation measures that address the impacts of development on the environmental feature or features in relation to which the levy is charged. That is critical not only to ensuring that the impacts on the environmental feature are properly addressed, but to giving developers confidence that their contributions are not being used to replace wider action to restore nature. Such fairness is central to this model.
In designing the nature restoration fund, we have had to account for a range of circumstances that could arise. For example, it may be necessary to allow Natural England to use money received through the levy to reimburse actions already taken to prepare for anticipated environmental impact. Similarly, there will often be circumstances where it is necessary to make sure that funding is sufficient to extend beyond the end date of the EDP to ensure that conservation measures put in place are properly maintained for the appropriate time period.
The clause provides for such possibilities through subsection (4) and will support the delivery of the package of regulations that will underpin the nature restoration levy. The clause also ensures transparency on how levy payments will be used. That is why subsection (3) will require Natural England, through regulations, to publish a list setting out the various types of conservation measures that it may seek payment for and the procedure for doing so. The regulations will also be able to restrict Natural England’s spending of money received via the nature restoration levy on certain other activities.
The measures are further supported by subsection (5), which allows regulations to specify monitoring and reporting practices that Natural England must take, including that it accounts for money received via the levy separately from its other funding sources. That is an important point. Importantly for developers, such transparency will mean that when it comes to reviewing the charging schedule, they will be able to understand clearly not only what they have been asked to contribute, but how it will be used. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Collection of nature restoration levy
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 67, page 97, line 35, leave out from “levy” to end of line 38 and insert “.
(4A) Provision under subsection (4) must include a condition that the nature restoration levy must be paid before development begins.”
This amendment would require that the nature restoration levy is paid before development begins.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 68 stand part.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 6, which would require that the nature restoration levy is paid before development begins rather than during or after. The reason for that is simple. For the nature restoration levy to be effective, it needs to be paid before development begins to allow maximum benefit. As many of us will have experienced with new developments in our constituencies, current arrangements in relation to section 106 and other measures often mean that developer contributions are made during development, and indeed sometimes they have to be chased up for many years after. I am told that there is an old adage—I must confess that I had not heard it before I was given these notes—that the best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, and the second-best time is now. For any Members who are as curious as I was about where that came from, apparently it was from a town councillor in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1960s called George W. White.
Regardless, many of us will know from our constituencies how important trees are to our communities. For example, in Didcot we have Geoff Bushell, a community tree champion who worked during the pandemic to categorise some of the oldest trees in Didcot. A local artist called Linda Benton illustrated a book documenting them, and an East Hagbourne poet, Roger Phipps, created a poets’ trail to pay tribute to them. That is just a symbol of how important nature and trees are to our communities, and why it is so critical to get this bit of the Bill right.
If we are to prioritise nature, make biodiversity net gains and realise the advantages to climate adaptation, the plans and projects associated need to be delivered at pace—a phrase we seem to be using frequently on this Committee. Developers should be made to pay the levy before development begins. The alternative is that it is paid at various intervals throughout, but that could make it much harder to manage, because works and projects would be unable to start until a critical amount had been reached, which for some developments could be years or decades down the line. Meanwhile, nature in the area will have been destroyed.
The Wildlife Trusts have made it clear that the so-called pump-priming of Natural England to deliver environmental delivery plans, as promised by the Minister on Second Reading, is critical. If EDPs are well resourced from the start, they will be able to deliver some gains for nature at pace, especially where it is critical that gains come before damage. A well-funded EDP workstream will be more capable of sequencing conservation measures in a way that delivers for nature without causing significant delays to development plans.
In a guide to the Bill that was published on its introduction, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government promised certainty that the conservation measures proposed under an EDP would outweigh the negative effects of development. Without provision for the timing of conservation measures, many of which will be delivered through the proper funding of nature restoration levies up front, we will not be able to achieve our goal of protecting our most threatened environmental features.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have asked the Minister to be more specific about the proposed regulations, and I am looking forward to scrutinising them. However, I still think amendment 6 is very broad, including the language about how the
“levy must be paid before development begins.”
To help my colleagues and me, it would be useful if the hon. Gentleman elaborated on whether that will be the day before development begins. Can he set out what “before” actually means? It is a very broad term.
Olly Glover
The shadow Minister asks a valid question, and, as with a number of details in the Bill, further thought will be required about mechanisms for how things should work. But we think that it is possible to give the definition that he asks for, and that that should be done in specific agreements around nature restoration levies associated with relevant developments. It should be made clear that the value that will be paid into them should be paid up front, rather than during or after.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful for the useful clarification.
I rise to speak to clauses 67 and 68. As I have outlined to the Minister, we are concerned that a number of these clauses in the 60s—if I can refer to them as a group—are very broad in scope. The Minister will say to me that we will come on to scrutinise that, and he has confirmed that the affirmative process will apply. I fully accept that, but it concerns me that the broad brushstrokes in the Bill do not have meat to their bones.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, has made a genuine point about democratic accountability and oversight. In a previous amendment, it was proposed that an independent body should be overseeing some of the actions in Natural England. I gently say to the Liberal Democrats that it is clear from this group of clauses that Natural England is being supervised, instructed and scrutinised by the democratically elected Secretary of State. So two clear bodies, if I can call the Secretary of State or their office a body, are providing scrutiny. It would be a very dangerous precedent to legislate to essentially protect the public from a democratically elected Secretary of State, just because somebody is fearful about where they come from, what party they represent or their policies.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is setting out the concerns eloquently. The Minister was clear earlier that the Government’s expectation is that this system will raise no net additional funds compared with the existing one, so the cost to the developers will be no different. The implication is that there will be no significant additional resource, if any, for Natural England to deploy as a result. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that that raises a serious question about its capacity to do the work that is outlined in the Bill?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We heard evidence from the chief executive of Natural England, and in case she is listening, I say again very clearly that I make no imputation about the way she or the organisation are doing their job, but the language that she used was very loose. Without that financial certainty, there is a question about whether the organisation will be able to cope with all the responsibilities that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, the Minister has also admitted—if he wants to intervene, that is fine—that no additional funding means that Natural England will be relying on the spending review even more than we thought at the beginning of the evidence session.
Matthew Pennycook
I am shaking my head, for the following reasons. I have made it clear that the nature restoration fund will ultimately work on the basis of full cost recovery. To be clear, these are costs for introducing compensation measures and discharging environmental obligations that Natural England at present does not handle; developers do them on a site-by-site basis. Although I do not underestimate the resourcing challenges across Government, the full cost recovery for the service provided will not impact on Natural England’s wider work. There will be full cost recovery for the preparation and delivery of environmental delivery plans for Natural England. I hope that that addresses the matter.
In that sense, I do not think the shadow Minister is right to say that we are giving Natural England an additional responsibility, on top of its existing responsibilities, outside the provisions of the Bill here, for which full cost recovery will apply. There is a specific, direct link with the levy that is going to be raised.
Broadly, I say to the shadow Minister—I am just flicking through the explanatory notes—that he has challenged me, and I accept the challenge, that there is not enough specificity in the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I have committed to regulations coming forward under the affirmative procedure. If he could go away and help my reflection by guiding me to another piece of legislation that has included the specificity around regulation-making powers that he would like to see, that would very much aid my deliberation.
Paul Holmes
I am a very aspirational, can-do, go-getter politician—[Interruption.] Yes, it is everyone else who needs to say that. I am willing to sit down with the Minister and guide him in any way I can—perhaps over a double espresso—to make sure that the gist of what the Bill seeks to achieve is matched in the specificity about what is required in regulations. I do not think I am being ungenerous to the Minister; I have accepted that he has been very good in saying that we will consider them under the affirmative procedure. But as we discuss the key driving force behind the Bill, we seek reassurance on some of the unclear elements of Natural England’s responsibilities.
The Minister, who is driving this legislation forward, could indicate to the Committee verbally or in writing afterwards where he will give more specifics on enforcement action, on costs, on raising powers and on other things. I am not being mean to him; I am just saying that if he spent years writing this while he was shadow Minister, he should know what he wants Natural England to do now that he is Minister. I have full confidence that he can do that, and I cannot be any more complimentary to him than I have been on this Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
As complimentary as the shadow Minister is being about me, I think it is a stretch—even for someone such as myself, who has lived and breathed this for years—to have been setting out while in opposition the fine details of collection for nature restoration levy regulations forthcoming. That is a level of detail that I did not get into, and would not be expected to, and that the House can consider when those regulations come forward.
Paul Holmes
If the Minister has lived and breathed this for the many years for which he has wanted to write this legislation, and he has then got to the dizzying heights of a red box and a ministerial desk, he should know what he wants to do—
The Chair
Order. Much as a bit of banter is fun, we need to get on with getting through the agenda for today.
Paul Holmes
At the insistence of the general noise coming mostly from Government Members, I will plough on. The serious point behind what I was saying is that the Conservatives, alongside the Liberal Democrats, do have some concerns about the regulations and the responsibilities of Natural England.
On clause 68, we welcome the ability to make payments in instalments or in forms other than money. That provides some adaptable and accessible elements for developers. However, we worry about the overburdening of other public bodies that might be asked to pay into this fund. We would argue that some of the process is not clearly defined. On enforcement, the clause lacks specifics regarding the consequences for late or failed payments. Additionally, it does not address how flexibility will be built into the enforcement process for developers. We think that developers deserve clarity about that.
Although we had a brief moment of levity earlier, there is a serious point about the responsibilities. We hope the Minister will be able to respond to our concerns.
Ellie Chowns
I will be brief. I strongly support amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Accepting the amendment would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about enforcement, late payment and so on. Let us adopt it.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington argued, amendment 6 is designed to ensure that developers pay the nature restoration levy before a development can progress.
The timeline of payment has been carefully considered by the Government, and the payment and timing of the levy will be agreed as part of the wider process of planning consent, and before development can progress. However, in developing the legislation, we recognise that EDPs will cover a broad range of circumstances, so there is a need to allow the payment of the nature restoration levy to be tailored to reflect the type and scale of development in each instance. For example, this would allow large, multi-phased developments to pay in line with development milestones, as opposed to there being a requirement for the total levy to be paid up front. That will ensure that the environmental delivery plan is a viable option for developers, which in turn will ensure that we are able to deliver the improved environmental outcomes through the nature restoration fund.
Clause 67 already allows regulations to be created regarding the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, allowing a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. If we took an overly prescriptive approach to the payment of the levy, we would risk reducing the overall impact of the new approach and driving more developers into using the existing process, which delivers less for nature, as we have argued previously. Having given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Clause 67 establishes a requirement for nature restoration levy regulation to include provision relating to the collection of the levy. It also stipulates further provisions, including matters such as when and how the levy is to be paid. The regulation-making powers in the clause are vital to ensure that the levy can accommodate different scenarios, such as enabling other public authorities to collect the nature restoration levy on behalf of Natural England, and to provide for refunds in case of overpayment.
Importantly, and as I have just set out, the regulations also allow for the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. We believe that that is the most appropriate mechanism to secure collection of the levy and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.
I turn finally to clause 68, which continues to build the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy and ensure that effective enforcement procedures are put in place. Ensuring that levy payments are properly captured is vital to ensuring that Natural England is able to deliver the conservation measures required under the EDP, in order to secure the necessary positive environmental outcomes.
As the levy is the way in which the EDP is funded, it is vital that mechanisms are available to Natural England to enforce payment when a developer has breached their commitment to pay the levy. Although we expect the vast majority of developers to engage with the new process in good faith, non-payment of the levy could result in insufficient funding being available to address the environmental impact of development, which is unacceptable. That is why clause 68 sets out that regulations must include provision relating to enforcement of the levy, with consequences for late or failed payment. It also sets out that regulations may include provisions around penalties and charges, granting enforcement powers such as powers of entry, information collection and prosecution, and provisions regarding replications of existing tax enforcement measures and appeals.
It is important that there is effective enforcement of the nature restoration levy. I have taken up the challenge put by the shadow Minister. I hope that he comes forward with further detail. As a former shadow Minister who has sat in the hon. Gentleman’s place while considering many pieces of legislation, I would argue that these regulation-making powers are sufficiently detailed. I count 13 subsections under clause 68, for example, with further detail in regulations to come. On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to Committee members for responding to our amendment about payment of the restoration levy up front. The Minister raises the objection that it might prevent multi-phase payments. In response to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made very clear that the intent of our amendment is to ensure that works occur up front, at the early stage, and that funds are there to make that possible.
I recognise that, for the Minister, resisting amendments is the order of the day, week, month and all the rest of it, but I did hear him refer to regulation. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we earnestly hope that those regulations will take account of the principles that we have advanced in this amendment—that funds should be provided up front and early enough for mitigation works to happen early in the process. We will be looking carefully: if that occurs, we shall be very pleased to have had raised those issues in this debate. We shall be watching the regulations carefully. Given the assurance that regulations are coming forward, which we hope will achieve the objectives of our amendment, we will not seek to push it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Compensation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 69 is a further building block in the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. Whereas regulations made under clause 68 will enable Natural England to take enforcement action to address non-payment of the nature restoration levy, clause 69 ensures that, where appropriate, any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of such enforcement action will have a route to compensation.
The compensation process, including when and how a claim for compensation can be made and how the amount of compensation will be determined, may be set out in regulations, with the clause providing the framework for that process. Through the development of a new system, we intend to guard against such circumstances, but it is only right and prudent to provide for them. For that reason, I commend the clause to the committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Administering and implementing EDPs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 73 stand part.
Clause 74 stand part.
Government new clause 65—Transfer schemes in connection with regulations under section 74(1).
Government new clause 67—Power to enter and survey or investigate land.
Government new clause 68—Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land.
Government new clause 69—Powers of entry: further provision.
Government new clause 70—Powers of entry: compensation.
Government new clause 71—Powers of entry: offences.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 71 sets out the broad functions of Natural England in respect of the nature restoration fund. As will have become clear from earlier clauses and previous debates, Natural England will administer environmental delivery plans; that is, it will do everything required to prepare the documents themselves, as well as take them through the processes of consultations and scrutiny before they are made by the Secretary of State. This will include its administrative responsibilities in monitoring and preparing reports on an environmental delivery plan’s progress.
Natural England will also be responsible for securing the delivery of the conservation measures necessary to implement what is set out in the environmental delivery plan, to ensure that it meets the necessary overall improvement test, and delivers positive outcomes for nature. This clause makes it clear that these functions may include the development of land, for example, to create a certain habitat to improve the conservation status of a protected site.
There will be instances where it is more prudent, cost-effective or timely for another body, whether public authority or private business, to carry out certain measures, so the clause gives Natural England the ability to pay another person to take conservation measures. That will ensure that Natural England can work with other providers where needed to ensure the timely and effective delivery of conservation measures, and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.
Throughout the development of the nature restoration fund, we have been clear that that Natural England must have the appropriate powers to deliver on the ambitions of the reforms. That is why we have tabled Government new clauses 67 to 71, which will ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry to survey or investigate land. That will allow Natural England to conduct surveys, take samples, or conduct any exploratory works necessary to produce an environmental delivery plan or deliver conservation measures.
We recognise that such powers should be provided only with appropriate constraints. With that in mind, the powers are not exercisable to enter a private residence and entry must take place at a reasonable time. Where land is occupied, Natural England or the Secretary of State must give at least 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, unless the occupier of the land is a relevant statutory undertaker, where the notice period is 21 days.
If, in seeking to exercise powers of entry, Natural England has been or is likely to be denied entry, the amendments also provide for the courts to issue a warrant to enter land. They create two relevant offences relating to the power of entry: intentionally obstructing a person acting in exercise of this power, and disclosing confidential information obtained in the exercise of a power of entry for purposes other than those for which the power was exercised. These powers are crucial to ensure that Natural England is able to carry out its functions effectively, and for those reasons I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Clause 73 provides that, as well as preparing environmental delivery plans, Natural England must produce an annual report on the exercise of its functions in respect of the nature restoration fund. As previously set out, environmental delivery plans have a dual purpose in facilitating the development the country needs to meet its ambitious goals for housing and growth, while contributing also towards the restoration of our natural environment. Given the central role environmental delivery plans will play, it will be important that the Secretary of State, as well as the public and Parliament, are provided with regular information across a range of matters relating to the plans. Clause 73 establishes an appropriate proportionate requirement for Natural England to prepare an annual report to fulfil this purpose.
The Secretary of State will prepare guidance with further detail on how the report should be prepared, with this clause setting out core matters that the report must include, such as where environmental delivery plans are in place, and an assessment of each one that is in force. This report will be published and laid before Parliament so that it can receive appropriate scrutiny from all hon. Members. This is an important step to ensure transparency and to provide information to support the ongoing delivery of EDPs, as well as the design of future environmental delivery plans. For these reasons, I commend this clause to the Committee.
Turning to clause 74, Natural England has a central role to play in preparing and implementing EDPs and is already planning how to deliver the first tranche. However, as we have discussed, circumstances may arise in which it is prudent or necessary for another body to assume some or all of Natural England's functions in this space. Clause 74 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make the necessary changes to allow another public body to exercise the same functions as Natural England in respect of environmental delivery plans. That includes the ability to confer powers granted to Natural England under part 1 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 on an alternative body for the purpose of administering and implementing EDPs. In designating an alternative body, it may also be necessary to transfer certain rights, assets and liabilities from Natural England for those functions to be carried out. Government new clause 65 provides the mechanism for doing so.
Throughout these clauses we have sought to ensure the nature restoration fund is fit for purpose today, but also able to adapt to changes in the future. It is on that basis that we have proposed the inclusion of a power to designate another body to exercise the functions of Natural England. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I put the question, I would like to make hon. Members aware that we have now debated clauses 73 and 74, on which I will put the question later today. We have also already debated new clauses 65 and 67 to 78, on which a question will be put at the end of proceedings next week.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Power to acquire land compulsorily
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 72, page 101, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to land which is, or forms part of, a legally occupied dwelling or a private garden.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 112 to 118
Schedule 5
New clause 107—Return of compulsorily purchased land—
“(1) Natural England must return land acquired under a compulsory purchase order to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased where the following conditions have been met—
(a) the owner of the land has refused to agree to a contract offered by Natural England;
(b) any works specified under the contract have been undertaken on behalf of Natural England and relate to an environmental development plan;
(c) a compulsory purchase order has been made by Natural England in relation to the land; and
(d) the cost of work undertaken on the land by Natural England exceeds the value of the contract offered by Natural England to the owner.
(2) When returning land under subsection (1), Natural England must not—
(a) impose any charge on, or
(b) require any sum from,
the person from whom the land was compulsorily purchased.”
Paul Holmes
You will be pleased to hear, Mrs Hobhouse, that I will be very brief. I just want to ask some questions and speak to amendment 150 and the clause. I will also speak to new clause 107. I will listen to the Minister’s answers before deciding whether to divide the Committee on the amendment.
We know that clause 72 gives Natural England the power compulsorily to acquire land, including “new rights over land”, subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State. Although this provision ensures that Natural England can secure the necessary land for environmental conservation and restoration projects, the use of compulsory land acquisition raises several concerns. The Minister should not be surprised to hear that, because we have raised them before.
First, compulsory acquisition can have significant social and economic impacts on landowners, potentially displacing communities or affecting livelihoods. A clear and transparent process must be in place to ensure that landowners are fairly compensated and that their interests are adequately considered, yet the clause does not specify the conditions in which the compulsory powers will be exercised, which could lead to concerns about the fairness or necessity of such actions.
The requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State introduces an additional layer of oversight that might provide a safeguard against the misuse of these powers, but the clause would benefit from more detail of the criteria and process for granting authorisation, to ensure that the Secretary of State's decisions are transparent, accountable and based on clear, consistent guidelines. Without such clarity, there is a risk of arbitrary or inconsistent use of compulsory acquisition powers. That is notwithstanding the defence that I gave, believing that the Secretary of State should have those powers in earlier clauses.
The clause also does not address potential challenges from landowners or local communities affected by the acquisition, such as disputes over compensation or the environmental justification for land use. It would be beneficial to outline a clear appeals or mediation process to resolve such issues, which I know we come on to later in the Bill. Overall, while the power to acquire land may be necessary for some conservation efforts, careful safeguards are required to avoid potential negative consequences and to ensure that the power is exercised appropriately and fairly.
Amendment 150 stands in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. I would not say this is a probing amendment, but will the Minister clarify the parameters on the exercise of a compulsory purchase order when it comes to
“a legally occupied dwelling or private garden.”?
We do not expect him to completely eradicate the use of such an order, but we would appreciate his guidance on where the regulations point in respect of when Natural England should and could be able to take private dwellings in a CPO process.
Turning to new clause 107, I note, in the interests of transparency, that I do not think we will move the clause, but we want to press the Minister as we remain concerned about compulsory purchase. We believe that compulsorily purchased land should be returned to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased if certain conditions are met. Those are that
“the owner of the land has refused to agree to a contract offered by Natural England”—
that gives power to the individual—
“any works specified under the contract have been undertaken on behalf of Natural England and relate to an environmental development plan…a compulsory purchase order has been made by Natural England in…relation to the land; and…the cost of work undertaken on the land by Natural England exceeds the value of the contract offered by Natural England to the owner.”
I hope the Minister sees why we have tabled the amendments. I am not being obtuse, Mrs Hobhouse, in not saying yet whether we will push them to a vote. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them, but as soon as we have, we will give you a steer.
Matthew Pennycook
I understand why the shadow Minister has sought to press me on this point, as I hope I have conveyed on previous clauses where we have touched upon compulsory purchase. We expect Natural England to use compulsory purchase orders as a last resort, and subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight. It will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. I hope I can reassure him up front that Secretary of State oversight of the CPO process, as it applies through the nature restoration fund, is the same as in the existing process. Schedule 5 makes it very clear that the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies.
More generally, clause 72 provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land. As we have set out throughout this sitting, to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy, it is vital that Natural England has the necessary powers to secure and implement the conservation measures needed to protect the environment and enable Britain to get building. Although it is necessary to equip Natural England with those powers to ensure conservation measures can be delivered, they can be used only if the land is required for the purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an environmental delivery plan, where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.
As a further safeguard, the use of those powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. Equipping Natural England with compulsory purchase powers is not unusual or novel. I sought to address that point on Second Reading. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, and Natural England can already make compulsory purchase orders in some circumstances.
Clause 72 is supported by schedule 5, which applies the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and makes necessary modifications to compulsory purchase compensation legislation to accommodate these changes. Government new clauses 112 to 118 support this approach to compulsory purchase by making a number of technical amendments to ensure the operability of the new powers. That includes protections in respect of the use of CPO powers where the use of them may affect those carrying out statutory functions.
Finally, the package of amendments removes certain terms that are a hangover from outdated regulations and makes adjustments to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 to allow for powers of entry where notice has been given. As the Committee has already heard, the Government have taken a cautious approach to extending compulsory purchase powers but are clear that they need to be available in the context of the nature restoration fund to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure conservation measures are delivered.
I turn now to amendment 150, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), which would restrict Natural England from utilising compulsory purchase powers for land that forms part of a dwelling or private garden. If I heard the shadow Minister correctly, it is a probing amendment, but I am more than happy to provide him with some further detail on the Government’s position. We agree that it will be crucial for the use of compulsory purchase powers to be appropriately constrained. That is why we have made sure that the current clauses provide that these powers can be used only where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.
That is supported by the further safeguard that the use of the powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State, which will include considering whether the public interest benefits of the acquisition justify interfering with the private rights of those affected. It is highly improbable that conservation measures in private gardens could form an ecologically essential component of an environmental delivery plan. I do not say it would be impossible, but it is highly improbable.
Any restriction, however, of the use of the power where land contains an occupied dwelling or forms part of a private garden would be an unusual restriction on CPO powers, and would introduce unnecessary risks of complexity and delay when they are exercised. Any private dwellings will already benefit from additional protections, as I am sure the shadow Minister will know, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. For that reason, and the existing safeguards within the Bill itself, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the right hon. Lady’s amendment.
Finally, I turn to new clause 107, which would provide for circumstances where Natural England must return land that has been compulsorily purchased. In providing Natural England with new powers to acquire land through compulsory purchase, the Government have been at pains to ensure that the powers operate with effective safeguards, as I have said, and are in line with the wider approach to compulsory purchase. As raised elsewhere in the debate, we are clear about the need to ensure that Natural England can, where appropriate, use such powers to secure land to deliver conservation measures.
The new clause would undermine the efficacy of the proposed targeted powers by requiring land to be returned, at a loss to the taxpayer, where Natural England had to spend more money on conservation measures than the original contract price offered to the landowner. That would leave a hole not only in the public purse but in the environmental delivery plan in question, which would need to secure additional land to implement additional conservation measures that would have been secured on land now returned to the original owner.
We share the desire of the shadow Minister to see the effective use of the powers—that is why the safeguards are in place—but I hope that, with that explanation, he will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
We are satisfied with and appreciate the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Compulsory acquisition of land under Part 3: supplementary provisions
Amendments made: 112, in schedule 5, page 148, line 36, at end insert—
“5A (1) Paragraph 3(2) does not apply to—
(a) any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking,
(b) any apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers for that purpose,
(c) any right conferred by, or in accordance with, the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network, or
(d) any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of any such network.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘statutory undertakers’ means persons who are, or are deemed to be, statutory undertakers for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and ‘undertaking’ is to be read in accordance with section 262 of that Act (meaning of ‘statutory undertakers’).”
This amendment secures that the things mentioned in the inserted paragraph 5A are not affected by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which would otherwise provide for their extinguishment or acquisition when land is compulsorily acquired under clause 72.
Amendment 113, in schedule 5, page 152, line 10, leave out “or restrictive covenant”.
This amendment and amendment 114 remove erroneous references to a restrictive covenant from paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 11 relates only to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72.
Amendment 114, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, leave out “or enforcing that covenant”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 115, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, after “sections” insert
“11A (powers of entry: further notices of entry), 11B (counter-notice requiring possession to be taken on specified date),”.
This amendment secures that the modification of section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 made by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 affects sections 11A and 11B of that Act, as well as sections 12 and 13.
Amendment 116, in schedule 5, page 152, line 29, at end insert—
“New rights: application of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981
13A The Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (‘CP(VD)A 1981’) applies to the compulsory acquisition of new rights under section 72—
(a) with the modifications specified in paragraph 13B; and
(b) with such other modifications as may be necessary.
13B (1) The modifications of CP(VD)A 1981 referred to in paragraph 13A(a) are as follows.
(2) References to CPA 1965 are, in appropriate contexts, to be read (according to the requirements of the particular context) as referring to, or as including references to—
(a) the right acquired or to be acquired; or
(b) the land over which the right is, or is to be, exercisable.
(3) References to CPA 1965 are to be read as references to that Act as it applies to the compulsory acquisition of a right under section 72.
(4) Section 8(1) (vesting, and right to enter and take possession) is to be read as securing that—
(a) a general vesting declaration in respect of any right vests the right in the acquiring authority on the vesting date; and
(b) as from the vesting date, the acquiring authority has power, exercisable in the same circumstances and subject to the same conditions, to enter land for the purpose of exercising that right as if the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b) of section 8(1) had arisen.
(5) Section 9(2) (right of entry under section 8(1) not exercisable in respect of land subject to certain tenancies unless notice has been served on occupiers of the land) is to be read as requiring a notice served by the appropriate authority under that provision to refer to the authority’s intention to enter land specified in the notice in order to exercise the right.
(6) In section 10(1) (acquiring authority’s liability on vesting of the land), the reference to the acquiring authority’s taking possession of the land under section 11 of CPA 1965 is to be read as a reference to the authority’s exercising the power to enter the land under that provision as modified by paragraph 11 of this Schedule.
(7) Schedule A1 (counter-notice requiring purchase of land not in general vesting declaration) is to be read as if—
(a) in paragraph 1(1), for ‘part only of’ there were substituted ‘only the acquisition of a right over’;
(b) paragraph 1(2) were omitted;
(c) references to the land proposed to be acquired were (subject to paragraph (e) below) to the right proposed to be acquired;
(d) references to the additional land were to the house, building or factory over which the right is proposed to be exercisable;
(e) in paragraphs 14 and 15, references to the severance of land proposed to be acquired were to the acquisition of the right; and
(f) in paragraph 15, after ‘in addition to’ there were inserted ‘or in substitution for’.”
This amendment secures that the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72, subject (a) to the specific modifications in paragraph 13B (designed to secure that certain provisions of that Act work correctly in relation to that case and (b) any other modifications necessary to secure that result.
Amendment 117, in schedule 5, page 152, line 32, leave out
“with the necessary modifications, in”
and insert “—
(a) with the modification specified in paragraph 15, and
(b) with such other modifications as are necessary,
in”.
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 secures that the enactments relating to compensation for the compulsory purchase of land apply to the acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72 with the modifications necessary to make them work correctly in relation to that case. The amendment makes clear that the modifications include the particular modification of the Land Compensation Act 1961 set out in the new paragraphs 15 inserted by Amendment 118.
Amendment 118, in schedule 5, page 152, line 35, at end insert—
“15 Section 5A (relevant valuation date) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be read as if for subsections (5A) and (5B) there were substituted—
‘(5A) If—
(a) the acquiring authority enters on land for the purpose of exercising a right in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as modified by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025),
(b) the acquiring authority is subsequently required by a determination under paragraph 13 of Schedule 2A to the 1965 Act (as substituted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) to acquire an interest in the land, and
(c) the acquiring authority enters on and takes possession of that land,
the authority is deemed for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) to have entered on that land when it entered on that land for the purpose of exercising that right.
(5B) If—
(a) a right over land is the subject of a general vesting declaration,
(b) by virtue of paragraph 11(2) or 16(2) of Schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the declaration has effect as if it included an interest in the land, and
(c) the vesting date for the right is different from the vesting date for the interest in the land,
the first of the vesting dates is deemed for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) to be the vesting date for the whole of the land.’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment sets out a modification of section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 as it applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72. The amendments ensure that section 5A works correctly in relation to its application to the acquisition of such new rights.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Duty of co-operation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 76 stand part.
Government amendments 103 and 104.
Amendment 121, in schedule 6, page 157, line 34, leave out paragraph 41.
Government amendments 105 to 111.
Schedule 6.
Clause 77 stand part.
Government amendments 99 and 100.
Clause 78 stand part.
Government new clause 73—Application to the Crown.
Matthew Pennycook
Environmental delivery plans will, by their very nature, cross administrative boundaries and require input from a wide range of actors from across the system, be they local authorities, regulators or other public bodies. It is vital that Natural England can rely on their support and input to develop and implement environmental delivery plans.
Clause 75 will establish a stand-alone duty to co-operate in respect of environmental delivery plans to ensure that relevant public bodies and public authorities engage and co-operate with Natural England. The duty will require such public bodies in England to provide reasonable assistance to Natural England and have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty needs to be complied with. Of course, we recognise that such bodies will want to proactively engage on such matters, but a legislative duty will provide reassurance to local communities, environmental groups and developers that all parts of the system will work together to ensure that the plans can be put in place and properly implemented. The clause provides an important safeguard to ensure that all parts of the public sector work together to design and deliver EDPs.
Clause 76 relates to Ramsar sites, which I am sure hon. Members are aware are wetlands of international importance designated under the convention on wetlands. In England alone, these amount to over 300,000 hectares of land. To date, in England, these sites have been given the protection of the habitats regulations assessment process, through policy as set out in the national planning policy framework and in Government guidance, rather than through legislation.
To support the effective operation of the nature restoration fund work, we propose to place protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing, with clause 76 providing for Ramsar sites to be treated in the same way as European sites under the habitats regulations assessment process. Obligations relating to Ramsar sites will therefore have a legal basis, allowing environmental delivery plans and payments into the nature restoration fund to cover the impact of development on Ramsar sites. That is important, given the importance of the sites, and will mean that, going forward, such sites of global importance can benefit from the environmental uplift secured through an environmental delivery plan.
In order to ensure the operability of the nature restoration fund, schedule 6 makes various necessary amendments to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Part 1 of the schedule places the protection of Ramsar sites, the country’s most important wetlands, on a statutory footing. That will apply the statutory protections of the habitats regulations assessment process to Ramsar sites, mirroring existing policy requirements set out in the national planning policy framework and national guidance. That approach will not only strengthen protections but ensure that Ramsar sites can be adequately covered by EDPs.
Part 2 of schedule 6 makes various minor and consequential amendments to the Acts I have mentioned. In respect of the Protection of Badgers Act, those are to allow for the granting of a deemed licence, which can cover the activities necessary to allow development and to implement an EDP. The amendments also provide for greater alignment with licences granted in respect of other species. This part makes further amendments to provisions on wildlife licensing, again to ensure workability with an EDP.
Part 2 of schedule 6 also excludes the preparation of EDPs and the implementation of conservation measures from the requirement to produce a strategic environmental assessment and the requirement to conduct an assessment under part 6 of the habitats regulations. Similarly, the schedule excludes the application of regulation 9 to the exercise of those functions. That approach reflects the fact that we have embedded the requirements in the process of the environmental delivery plan itself. For example, EDPs will consider alternatives, conduct robust public consultation, and carry out appropriate monitoring and reporting. By their very nature, EDPs will result in better outcomes for nature, but will do so by adopting a different approach, as we have discussed at length.
Amendment 121 will be set out in more detail by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It seeks to remove the Government’s consequential amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Government recognise that badgers are an iconic British species and have already started immediate action to bring an end to the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. Our consequential amendments to the Act under schedule 6 to the Bill will ensure that the nature restoration fund is operable for badgers. As part of the fund, we are ensuring that any licences granted as part of an environmental delivery plan in respect of badgers will be in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Without the changes, environmental delivery plans could not be put in place to address the impact of development on badgers.
In developing the new model, it is vital that Natural England is empowered to achieve the best possible environmental outcomes. That is why schedule 6 also gives Natural England the necessary range of tools to undertake conservation measures that support badgers. We will be guided by the evidence and Natural England’s expertise on which species are best suited to strategic approaches and how to apply the new tools. At this stage, however, we need to ensure that the legislation remains capable of supporting badgers. Given that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will not move amendment 121.
I turn now to clause 77. In establishing the new system, the Government have been mindful of the appropriate role for Parliament in scrutinising regulations made in respect of the nature restoration fund. In drafting this clause, we sought to secure the appropriate parliamentary procedure for the making of regulations under this part of the Bill, which must be made by statutory instrument. As with all Bills, we have tailored the approach to reflect the significance of the regulations, with the most important being subject to additional scrutiny through the affirmative procedure.
With that in mind, regulations relating to the nature restoration levy, regulations relating to the designation of a delivery body other than Natural England, and regulations making consequential amendments that amend an Act of Parliament will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Any other statutory instruments containing regulations that are made under this part will go through the negative procedure. They will therefore become law unless there is an objection by either House of Parliament in the form of a resolution to annul. We think that strikes the right balance and makes the best and most appropriate use of parliamentary time. For that reason, I commend clause 77 to the Committee.
Finally in this group, I turn to clause 78. In establishing the nature restoration fund, the legislation relies on a number of terms and phrases that define the core features and operation of the model. This clause acts as a reference list, bringing together the various definitions used in this part of the Bill. This clause is designed to assist the House and the public to navigate the clauses. Following introduction, we have sought to address minor issues in the drafting to ensure the effective operation of the statute book and to address any minor errors. Government amendments 103 to 111 make minor but necessary technical changes. I therefore commend clause 78 and the relevant Government amendments to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to our amendment 121. Our primary concern is that the Bill’s proposed amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 will, for the first time, introduce permission to kill badgers, in addition to the power to interfere with their setts. Badgers are a much-loved British species of wild animal, and one that humans have not so far managed to make an endangered species. That could change with the Bill’s broadening of the legislation. It is a significant change in the law, from a power to interfere with badger setts to a power to kill badgers—the word in the Bill is “kill”—where there is an “overriding public interest”.
In our view, “overriding public interest” is not a clear justification. There are other legal tests: for example, the test of
“imperative reasons of overriding public interest”
appears in the habitats regulations, and the test of a
“compelling case in the public interest”
appears in compulsory purchase legislation. The “overriding public interest” does not seem, to us, a clear test; it is in the eye of the beholder and could be justified by any particular development. If the provision is not going to be used to make development quicker, it is difficult to understand why it is needed, since current legislation provides for interference with badger setts. Such interference can, in any event, lead to the death of badgers.
I am tempted to say that this is not a black and white issue, but perhaps we cannot say that about badgers—I thought I would get that in before someone else did. Our concern is that the Bill would significantly weaken the legal safeguards. In this country, we have provisions to protect wild animals from being killed, and we Liberal Democrats do not understand why badgers are now to become an exception to that. Laws to prevent killing wild animals are an important part of our legislative system. Making badgers an exception is not something that we are able to support.
We also believe that the provision is unnecessary. Under the 1992 Act, a licence can already be obtained to
“interfere with any badger sett…for the purpose of any development”.
In this context, “interfere” means:
“As a registered user you can interfere with badger setts under this licence to carry out development work or stop badgers causing serious damage”
by “monitoring setts”, “evicting and excluding badgers” and “destroying setts”. I do not understand why that is not sufficient for a developer, and why they need to go out and kill them. It would seem more challenging and problematic to try to find badgers to shoot them, when all those powers already exist. In all the numerous development projects in which I have been involved—over more years working in planning and development than I care to remember—it has been possible to relocate and remove badgers. None of the applicants I represented, or any of those I listened to as a planning inspector, complained that they were not able to go out and kill badgers, or that they were allowed only to move and interfere with their setts. We therefore do not understand why it is necessary to introduce this power to kill badgers.
Paragraph 41 of schedule 6 also contains a provision to allow badgers to be killed to preserve “public health or safety”. Again, it is unclear why that is necessary, given that the current legislation already allows badgers to be killed
“for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease”.
If that power already exists, why do we need the new power? It seems unnecessary, and a distraction from the main purpose of the paragraph, which is to allow the killing of badgers for the purposes of development. For all those reasons, we do not feel that it is justified to introduce the power to kill badgers, which are, as the Minister himself said, a much loved British species.
David Simmonds
I had not quite appreciated quite how ill the Minister’s intentions were in respect of our black and white furry friends. It is clear that they have been singled out by the Minister for extra special hostile treatment in the Bill. That raises a more general point, which we referenced earlier in relation to our intentions to introduce debates on biodiversity net gain. As important as badgers are, we know that our countryside is home to hedgehogs, dormice and all manner of protected species of flora and fauna. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire spoke eloquently on the mitigation hierarchy earlier on, and we must ensure that appropriate protection arrangements are in place in that hierarchy. I know that the Minister will write to me on the powers in the Wildlife and Countryside Act and how they might be relevant in this context. We look forward to that.
I would like to address two points that arise from clause 75. The first is that, under an earlier clause, the Secretary of State acquires the power to designate another person to undertake the functions of Natural England; this clause makes specific reference to the duty to “co-operate with Natural England”, but it does not specify what happens when a third party may have been appointed. That would have relevance where there may be a conflict, perhaps in planning terms, between the appointed party’s intentions to undertake work in the delivery of an EDP and, for example, a local authority or other public body that is having to consider, under its duties and responsibilities, an application for the delivery of those in its area. It is important to be clear whether third parties that have been appointed are covered by the clause.
The second point relates to how that interacts with a situation in which the public body covered by the duty is opposed to the development that gives rise to the need for the EDP in the first place. It reminds me of my personal experience of the example of Heathrow airport. What happens if a local authority says, “In discharging our duty in respect of air quality, we are obligated to oppose this development in any way we possibly can”, but is then advised by the Government, “However, you are obligated to co-operate through the EDP in order to enable that development to go ahead”? Clearly, that is not something that our constituents would expect to happen. The clause would introduce a degree of moral hazard in any major infrastructure project. How will the Minister address those two issues?
The Chair
I can see Members looking for the reference to the killing of badgers. It is in schedule 6 on page 157.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in support of amendment 121, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will not repeat all the arguments that he made so powerfully in favour of it. It is clear that the amendment would mete out unnecessarily hostile treatment to badgers, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner pointed out. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to explain why the provision is needed, because it seems clear from the arguments that have already been made that it is not required.
Matthew Pennycook
I did address this in some detail—the intention behind these clauses has obviously passed hon. Members by—but I would just like to make very clear, for the Guardian article that will no doubt appear tomorrow, that I have no particular animus against badgers in whatever form. However, we need these amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. They bring badger licences granted as part of an EDP in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In essence, all we are trying to do is to ensure that the licensing approach is relevant across all relevant species. I am happy to write to Members with more detail. I really do think, and I say this with all sincerity, that their concerns in this area are unfounded. I am happy to set out more detail in respect of badgers specifically.
Gideon Amos
I understand that interference with badgers is sometimes necessary for development or perhaps for environmental measures, but can the Minister explain why the existing powers are not sufficient? These are powers that enable interference with a badger sett, which may indeed mean the badgers are killed, and the sett to be destroyed. All those powers are there. Why is it necessary to have the additional power to kill them?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member is right that those powers are there. The reason the new clauses are required is to ensure the operability under the nature restoration fund. To provide him with a little more detail, which I hope might be helpful, in respect of the Protection of Badgers Act the new clauses extend which prohibited activities may be covered by a licence to cover what will be needed for an EDP.
The new clauses also provide for a greater alignment between licences granted under the existing Protection of Badgers Act and those granted in respect of other species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. EDPs will set the terms of a licence, but we need these new clauses to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. As I said, I am more than happy to write to hon. Members to reassure them on this point, but I do think their concerns are somewhat unfounded and I do not think the interpretation they are placing on the Government is correct.
Lewis Cocking
As Broxbourne’s emblem is a badger, I would like the Minister to write to me so I can have some more reassurance that these powers will not be used unnecessarily.
Matthew Pennycook
It is late in the day, Mrs Hobhouse, and people are running away with themselves in various respects, but I do want to provide members of the Committee with as much reassurance on this point as we can provide as the Government. I will be able to set out the reasons I think their concerns are unfounded and why I think the interpretation they have put on these new clauses is not accurate, and why, for reasons of operability, we need to ensure they are in place. As part of that, I also commit to write to the shadow Minister on the specific and fairly technical series of questions he has put to us about public bodies in respect of clause 75. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Amendments relating to Part 3
Amendments made: 103, in schedule 6, page 156, line 35, leave out
“, as it applies in England and Wales,”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.
Amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 156, line 35, at end insert
“(see also section 95(1A) (extent of this paragraph is England and Wales only)).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.
Amendment proposed: 121, in schedule 6, page 157, line 34, leave out paragraph 41.—(Gideon Amos.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Tuesday 20th May 2025
(6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 May 2025 - (20 May 2025)
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Interventions are taken at the discretion of the Member who has the Floor and they should be short and pithy. Members may bob to make another speech if they want to speak at greater length.
Clause 79
Areas for development and remit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. We have now reached part 4 of the Bill, which concerns development corporations. Among other reforms, the Government are clear that boosting housing supply requires renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are statutory bodies established for the purpose of urban development and regeneration. They are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The four clauses in this part are designed to create a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for their operation.
Clause 79 strengthens development corporations by providing greater clarity and flexibility for them in terms of the variety, extent and types of geographical area over which they can operate. That will ensure that development corporations can be used to respond to site-specific challenges, without having to retrofit the scope of the project to match the development corporation model used. The changes are necessary to ensure that development corporations are suitable for modern development needs. They will enable delivery of more large-scale developments, including consented sites that have been stuck in the system for far too long. They will be vital to the delivery of new large-scale projects, such as the new generation of new towns to which the Government are committed.
Existing legislation provides for five types of development corporation. It is probably worth mentioning them to aid our deliberations: the new town development corporation, the urban development corporation, the mayoral development corporation, the locally-led new town development corporation and the new locally-led urban development corporation, which was introduced in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and is subject to the commencement of its provisions.
Clause 79 clarifies that new town development corporations can deliver urban extensions—expansions of existing urban sites—and that new town development corporations and urban development corporations can develop brownfield and greenfield sites. The clause also expands the remit of mayoral development corporations so that they can be used to deliver new settlements, including on greenfield sites, as well as urban regeneration projects. That will ensure that mayors have the right powers to deliver the range of places their communities need.
Finally, the clause creates maximum application and flexibility for new town development corporations by allowing separate, non-contiguous parcels of land to be designated for development, aligning NTDCs with the other development corporation models. A single new town development corporation will also be able to oversee the laying out of more than one new town site.
By making the legislative framework clearer and more flexible, the reforms will facilitate the use of development corporations and therefore unlock more sites for development, further supporting the Government’s growth mission and the delivery of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these measures to make development corporations fit for purpose. In my constituency, as members of the Committee may know, Ebbsfleet development corporation is building Ebbsfleet garden city. That experience shows how important it is that we align infrastructure delivery with housing growth to ensure that communities are supported from day one with everything that they need to live full and healthy lives. I welcome the clause. Development corporations outside Ebbsfleet, across the country, are an extremely important tool to get the right, well-balanced developments planned and built, so that they become communities. The clauses in part 4 give development corporations the flexibility to adapt, each one to a unique circumstance.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister to come back on if possible. First, given that development corporations are time-limited, what consideration has been given to the need for them to plan for their legacy, and to how their newly-built amenities will be catered for after closure, especially given the financial challenges faced by local government? Secondly, I know there is some desire in the sector for development corporations to have an explicit aim to provide upskilling and training for local residents, so that the economic benefits of their work can be shared across the local area. Have the Government looked at that, or might they consider looking at that in future?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. To be clear, the purpose of the clause is to ensure clarity around the remit and functions of development corporations. I understand his points about legacy and the wider contributions that development corporations can make, not least to construction and other skills areas. I am happy to take those up with him outside the Committee and to provide full responses on those points, but they are slightly outside the scope of this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Duties to have regard to sustainable development and climate change
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 80 seeks to ensure that all types of development corporation must aim to contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaption, and good design. The delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects is vital to boost the housing supply, as I just mentioned. We must ensure, however, that large-scale new communities are delivered sustainably, with care for our climate, and that they have good design and quality at their heart.
Currently, only new town development corporations are required to aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The current legislative framework does not require any development corporation model to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. Clause 80 will change that by amending current legislation to ensure that all development corporations must aim to contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and good design.
Through the changes, we will create certainty for local communities that development corporations working in their areas will put sustainable development, climate change, and good design at the heart of delivery. I commend the simple, straightforward and, I hope, uncontroversial clause to the Committee.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I want to express my absolute support for this clause. I chair the all-party parliamentary water group and the APPG for sustainable flood and drought management, and prior to my time in this place, I worked in the world of design and engineering around the climate, so this is an important issue for me. I support sustainable urban drainage systems, especially after this April and May, as it looks like we will have had the driest spring in 100 years. We need to consider what we are doing on developments about drought, with grey water recycling, and we need to look at how we address future flood risk and build resilience in new towns—and existing ones as well. I am happy to see this measure in the Bill.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I, too, rise to support this clause, but I note that here we will mitigate “and” adapt to climate change, whereas in the spatial development strategies, we will mitigate “or” adapt to climate change. Without wishing to nit-pick, I feel that point needs to be made.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not rehearse our previous debate, in which I was clear that the Government’s intention, and what the Bill delivers, on spatial development strategies does account for mitigation and adaptation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their support of this clause.
This clause is important because, in some cases, development corporations taking on planning powers will already be subject to such duties, but we know that not every development corporation will take on planning powers. Some will have a major role to play in development through master planning, for example, and we want to cater for all eventualities. It is therefore essential that development corporations are subject to the duties in this clause, independent of whether they take planning powers, to cater for the full range of uses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Powers in relation to infrastructure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 81 primarily seeks to standardise the list of infrastructure that development corporations can deliver to be in line with that of mayoral development corporations. The co-ordination of infrastructure with large-scale property development is essential. However, the current legislation is inconsistent concerning the types of infrastructure that different development corporation models can provide, creating unnecessary uncertainty.
In particular, the existing legislation sets out a long list of infrastructure that mayoral development corporations can provide, but the same list is not currently applied to new town and urban development corporations. Clause 81 addresses that by standardising the list of infrastructure that development corporations can provide. It also goes further in adding heat networks to the list. This recognises heat as a distinct utility, alongside others such as water, gas and electricity. The addition of heat networks will also empower development corporations in their aims with respect to sustainable development and climate change, a point that we have just debated.
Existing legislation also places unnecessary restrictions on new town development corporations to deliver transport infrastructure. Clause 81 therefore removes the restriction on new town development corporations so that they can provide railways, light railways and tramways. No other type of development corporation is subject to this restriction, and provision of sustainable transport systems is vital to delivering large-scale developments. These measures will ensure that development corporations are on an equal footing to deliver the infrastructure to unlock more sites and co-ordinate more housing infrastructure and transport in the public interest. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is good to see the Minister and all members of the Committee here again; I have déjà vu, but we are still happy, aren’t we? [Interruption.] “Speak for yourself,” the Minister says.
We generally welcome the powers in relation to infrastructure in clause 81. I particularly welcome what the Minister said about removing restrictions to deliver infrastructure such as trams. That is a welcome move to deliver for those of us who have had constantly had frustrations at the lack of ability to get that infrastructure, but I would like to ask a few questions. Having said that, I deem that the clause does not account for the varying needs and characteristics of different regions. Can he reassure the Committee about the effective standardisation that he is promoting?
We do not necessarily have an argument with it, but we would like to examine the checks and balances in the consultation element of what the Minister is proposing to ensure that there is not a one-size-fits-all model. Even though I know that is what standardisation aims to do, I hope he would accept that in varying regions, with the wants and needs of different communities, that may not be appropriate at all times. Will he outline the checks and balances and how that could be varied according to the needs of local communities? Other than that, the Opposition welcome the clause and the Minister’s commitment to infrastructure.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. I think it raises a slightly wider debate than the provisions of the clause and their purposive effect, but he raises a valuable point. Decisions to designate and grant powers to a development corporation must be made via regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation and are carefully made with consideration given to issues of oversight and governance. The particular model selected in a particular area will be chosen by the relevant parties on the basis that it is the model that best suits what they are trying to achieve.
I take the shadow Minister’s point about regional variation in the sense that all this clause does is standardise the list of infrastructure that can be provided by development corporations of all types, making it equal to the existing list that applies to mayoral development corporations. It is a simple simplification to ensure standardisation across the infrastructure that can be provided across all models.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Exercise of transport functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 82 seeks to introduce a new duty for relevant local transport authorities to co-operate with development corporations in the development and implementation of their plans, Too often developments are not co-ordinated with the transport infrastructure needed to service existing and new communities. That has detrimental impacts on quality of life, productivity and economic growth. Development corporations cannot currently take on local transport powers. As a result, there can be significant delays and barriers to delivering essential transport infrastructure, particularly where local transport authorities are unaligned with the plans of development corporations. Clause 82 will therefore place a duty of co-operation on local transport authorities to ensure that sites delivered by development corporations include the necessary transport infrastructure and are seamlessly integrated into the wider spatial plan for the area.
Local transport authorities must have regard to the plans of development corporations and co-operate in the development and implementation of their plans. Where that duty is not fulfilled—resulting, for example, in a failure to produce key outputs in an agreed timeframe or transport provisions being blocked and impacting growth potential—the Secretary of State will have a new power to direct relevant local transport authorities. Where the direction is not complied with, and as a last resort, the Secretary of State will have the new power to transfer specific transport functions from local transport authorities to the development corporation in question.
In addition to transport planning functions, the transfer may also include specific property rights and liabilities—for example, in instances where the development corporation needs to undertake upgrades to existing highways within its red line area. Any such transfer will be made by regulations and in relation to the development corporation’s red line area. The measures are intended to increase co-operation while ensuring that development corporations can ultimately deliver necessary transport infrastructure in a timely manner. I want to be very clear: our preferred approach is for the development corporation to work with the local transport authority in the first instance. The measures are therefore escalatory and will be used only as a last resort. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to transport infrastructure. We have had disagreements on other parts of the Bill that we have discussed in previous sittings, and no doubt we will in this afternoon’s sitting on the new clauses, but I think this part of the Bill genuinely tries to reform models to make sure that transport infrastructure, which is often controversial, is delivered. We welcome his commitment and foresight in that.
The clause aims to address, as we know, the co-ordination issues between development corporations and fragmented local transport authorities by placing the statutory duty of co-operation on the latter. Although the intention to improve alignment between housing and transport planning is welcome, I have a couple of questions about its practical impact and enforceability. None of the questions comes from a place of criticising or carping; they are to get genuine clarification for Opposition Members. By simply requiring transport authorities to “have regard to” and “co-operate” with development corporations, does the Minister not have a concern that the plans may not be sufficient to ensure meaningful collaboration? The terms are legally vague and may result in only minimal compliance. He has said that it is escalatory, but I wonder whether the clause needs to be slightly strengthened, in terms of “have regard to” and “co-operate”.
The clause stops short of granting development corporations any direct transport powers. That may be a fundamental disagreement between us, if the Minister does not believe they should have those powers, but we have a concern about the good intentions not being delivered on because of that collaboration and “having regard to”. Other than that, we welcome the clause, which will make a huge difference in delivering the fundamental change that we need in regional and local communities.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Jardine. I welcome the clause. In the area where I live in Warwickshire, public transport is woeful, which means that children and young people are left behind because they cannot access school and college facilities. It also means that people are reluctant to make a trip to the hospital because they simply cannot get there.
The clause means that young people can have aspirations for their future and live in communities that are connected. The powers will be very welcome in areas like mine where transport authorities seem reluctant to fulfil their functions. I really welcome it.
Jim Dickson
I also very much welcome the clause, which rectifies the fragmentation of housing and transport and therefore the inability to co-ordinate them. It will be hugely important to the new towns that the Government are planning in order to fulfil our housing targets.
I have one query for the Minister. The clause covers local transport authorities and their relationship with development corporations. Did he consider including a provision on the relationship between development corporations and national transport bodies such as National Highways? I can foresee situations in which co-operation between those bodies will be necessary to achieve the aims of the development corporation. In such a situation, would he use powers to ensure that National Highways co-operates with the development corporation, or at least broker the conversation to enable that to happen?
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the support for the clause that hon. Members have indicated. The integration of transport infrastructure and its timely delivery are essential to delivering large-scale urban developments, and that is what the clause will facilitate.
The shadow Minister and others asked me whether the wording is sufficient to deliver the objectives of the clause. I will reflect on that, as I always do, but we are clear that introducing a duty on local transport authorities to have regard to and co-operate with development corporations—this is our preferred approach in the instance—will facilitate co-operation. Each development corporation will respond to particular and localised delivery challenges, with differences in transport requirements for each development, so it is not possible to specify the nature of the co-operation required in all cases.
In practical terms, officials in my Department will support the development corporation to have those conversations with local transport authorities, try to get a shared understanding and resolve transport challenges in particular circumstances. As a necessary minimum, we will expect local transport authorities to engage constructively with the development corporation’s plans for transport delivery and not unduly block the delivery of transport infrastructure that is necessary to unlock growth in the red line area.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I support this clause on development corporations and transport. NHS and healthcare services in the new development corporations are also vital, so why did the Government not include a clause that would make local NHS trusts behave in the way that the Minister wants transport authorities to behave, so that development corporations cater for healthcare needs as well?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We just debated a clause about standardising the list of infrastructure that all development corporations can bring forward, but clause 82 addresses a specific gap in the legislation, which is that development corporations cannot have transport powers and are reliant on local transport authorities to bring them forward. I do not dismiss his point about wider infrastructure—we have debated it elsewhere, and I have taken on board the points that hon. Members have raised—but the clause addresses a specific issue and outlines a way of dealing with it. As I say, the preferred approach is co-operation in the first instance and working with the local transport authority in question.
The ability to transfer transport powers, which is available under the clause, is ultimately a backstop measure, and escalation via direction is an initial measure to address insufficient co-operation. The clause clearly sets out how the escalatory process will work, although it is worth saying that decisions to either direct or transfer powers will be taken on a case-by-case basis and applied only where there is good reason to believe that co-operation on the part of the local transport authority is not forthcoming and necessary transport infrastructure is not delivered.
We think that the backstop is necessary for cases where the local transport authority refuses to co-operate and is blocking necessary infrastructure that the development corporation requires for its urban regeneration and development needs. On that basis, I hope I have reassured hon. Members.
Paul Holmes
You may rule me out of order, Ms Jardine—I entirely expect that you might—but I want to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on health services. I know that it is not directly in the scope of this clause, but I want to explore the fact that, in many of our constituencies, integrated care boards, which, as the Minister will know, are locally responsible for the provision of health services, simply are not doing the work that is needed on demographic or infrastructure changes because of the silo-based approach to central and local government. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will go away and work with the Department of Health and Social Care—maybe other clauses could be included—on how we can bring that together and allow those health facilities, as well as transport issues, to be delivered?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. Hansard will correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that I have already given a commitment in that area, which I am more than happy to give again, on the following basis: to the extent that essential infrastructure and amenities, particularly those delivered via the existing developer contribution system, are not forthcoming in the manner required or in a timely manner, and where section 106 agreements are not being honoured, the Government are looking to take action to strengthen the existing system. There are two aspects to this. One is ensuring that local authorities are in a position to, on a fairly equal basis, negotiate with an applicant and get a good section 106 agreement. Then, there is the other part of the process, which is ensuring that the agreements entered into are honoured.
However, in some instances—I think I have recognised this in a previous debate—there is a co-ordination issue. I am interested in what more can be done and I am exploring that across Government Departments. ICBs are a good example—there have been examples in my constituency. In certain cases, it may be that the 106 agreement or other provision is not bringing forward the necessary—let us put it in very practical terms—GP centre. In other cases, as I hear from many hon. Members across the country, the 106 has facilitated the construction of the building, but there is a workforce challenge. That is a wider challenge for Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to address, which they are doing. I think that co-ordination can help us to address some of these problems.
To bring us back to the clause that we are debating, we are talking specifically about instances of a development corporation, either within the red line area or outside it where transport infrastructure is necessary to facilitate growth within it. We need a mechanism to ensure that co-operation occurs with the local transport authority. As I have said, judged on a case-by-case basis, in instances where the local transport authority in question is not co-operating, or where Government have good reason to believe that it will not co-operate, we need a measure to ensure that those powers are transferred or a direction is put in place. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Electronic service etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 83 to 92 relate to compulsory purchase and are designed as a group to improve the compulsory purchase order process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. As hon. Members will no doubt be aware—I am sure that they have read every word—the Government’s 2024 manifesto made a commitment to further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity and transport benefits in the public interest. That manifesto promised that a Labour Government would take steps to ensure that, for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission.
The Government’s reforms, which were outlined in the consultation published at the end of 2024, are necessary to deliver the housing and critical infrastructure that this country needs and to make it more attractive for the public sector to use its compulsory purchase powers to deliver development in the right places. That is the intent behind the clauses that we are debating this morning. To be clear, changes introduced in the Bill are not targeted at farmers or any particular landowners, and they make a limited addition to the existing power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, so it may apply to parish or town council CPOs facilitating affordable housing provision.
I made this point on Second Reading and I want to be clear: there is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principle of compulsory purchase—that it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. It will be for individual authorities to decide where it is most appropriate to use their CPO powers to deliver their schemes in the public interest. Taken together, the clauses will ensure that quicker decisions on CPOs can be made, the administrative costs of undertaking the process are reduced, and a better balance is struck so compensation paid to landowners is, as I have said, fair but not excessive.
Clause 83 amends the legislation underpinning the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules to allow the service of statutory notices to be undertaken by electronic methods of communication. Allowing CPO notices to be served on parties by electronic communication will ensure that the CPO process is modernised and made more efficient. Notices may be served by electronic communication providing the person receiving the notice has provided an address for such a service, such as an email address. Where an address is not provided, the existing methods of service—for example, by post—will remain. The default method for service of notices on public authorities will be electronic communication, providing the authority has specified an address for communicating about the specific CPO in question. The clause, which again I hope is uncontroversial, simply intends to modernise and speed up the compulsory purchase process and reduce the administrative costs, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I will take the tactic of discussing each clause relating to CPOs at a time, if that is all right with the Minister. I know he had to give an overview of clauses 83 to 92, but we would like to scope out some questions before coming on to new clause 52, which we will discuss under clause 88, where most of our disagreement comes from.
I understand what the Minister has said about CPO reform and not targeting farmers. However, the record of this Government’s relationship with farmers in other areas of policy has raised anxieties about agricultural land and the rights of farmers, and the amount of compensation that tenant farmers versus occupied land farmers will be offered. Some of the reforms that the Minister is making raise questions about the Government’s general campaign against farming and agriculture in this country, which we remain very concerned about in other areas of policy, but we will discuss those issues in a moderate and constructive manner when we debate later clauses.
Clause 83 concerns electronic services. We generally welcome any simplification and reduction in costs and administration; that is why I am a Conversative. However, we believe that the clause could still raise some implementation challenges. Public authorities are presumed to consult with an electronic service if they provide a relevant email or web address, but that assumption may lead to issues where authorities have multiple points of contact or emails go unattended, potentially causing delays or disputes within an effective service.
Secondly, the clause introduces a default presumption that notices are received the next business day after sending, but that might not hold in practice—for example, if the message is caught in a spam filter or fails to send due to technical error. There could be some conflicts and complications in some of the cases that the clause seeks to amend. The legislation could benefit from a clearer mechanism for confirming receipt to reduce uncertainty or legal challenge further down the line.
Moreover, although the shift to digital communication is welcome, the clause stops short of encouraging or mandating broader digital transformation across the CPO process. For instance, there is no mention of a centralised digital portal for tracking notices or verifying delivery, which could further enhance transparency and reduce administrative friction. Although modest in scope, the clause is a positive step towards a more efficient compulsory purchase regime, notwithstanding the concerns that we have about further reforms, but its practical success will hinge on thoughtful implementation, clear guidance and ongoing support for acquiring authorities and affected parties.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those fair and reasonable questions. I will provide a reassurance on the central mechanism by which we expect the Bill to operate. Electronic communication will become the default. Where parties do not agree to receive service of notice by electronic methods, or do not provide an electronic address for service, they will continue to receive notices by post, hand delivery or it being left at their address, so there is a clear mechanism for those who do not want to, or feel they cannot, receive such notices by electronic communication.
However, authorities will need to ensure that the electronic address given by recipients for service of notice is the one used when they serve notices electronically on that person. Where an action is triggered by the receipt of a notice under the CPO process, the legislation is clear that if notice is served by electronic communication, the notice will be taken to have been received on the next working day—“working day” is defined in the legislation. We will, of course, provide guidance for local authorities on best practice, and ensure that routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are maintained.
The central point on which we must be clear is that where parties have agreed in writing to receive service of notice by electronic methods, the burden of responsibility for responding to an action triggered by receipt of a notice will lie solely with the recipient. If they do not feel able to administer the process on those grounds, there is an option to still receive notices in the existing manner.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. Is this proposed to become the default across Government? In my experience as a magistrate, large numbers of people do not attend court. The rules essentially say that a notice is deemed served if it has been posted to a correct postal address of the individual concerned. Clearly, that could become more efficient in the days of electronic communication. However, are we going to find that there is a sufficiently consistent approach, especially in situations where there is a dispute between the landowner and those acting in pursuit of the compulsory purchase order, so that there are no misunderstandings by lawyers advising people about which rules apply under this specific legislation, as opposed to other legislation of which they also have experience?
Matthew Pennycook
I take the shadow Minister’s point. He tempts me to opine on digital communication strategy across Government, but it is too early in the morning to do that. Different Government Departments are taking forward reform in different ways. I recognise the point he makes. It may or may not interest the Committee that I am required to do jury service in the coming weeks, which the Whips have some issue with. I received electronic and postal notice of that jury service. Different processes are in different stages of reform.
We are very clear that, for this process, we want to move to default electronic communication, which has lots of administrative benefits, but we have made provision for those who do not feel that they can move, or want to move, to that type of notice. We will, as I have said, provide guidance for local authorities on best practice and ensure that routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are minimised. However, I will take the hon. Member’s point away. I am happy to share it with ministerial colleagues in other Departments. I think it is a fair challenge that the Government should ensure that, across the board, to the extent that they possibly can, they have a uniform approach to moving to electronic communication in instances where they want to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Required content of newspaper notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Although we are maintaining the requirement for notices on the making and confirmation of CPOs to be published in newspapers, this clause simplifies the information required in the description of land included in those newspaper notices. Instead of giving complete, detailed descriptions of land, authorities will be able to comply with the requirement by briefly identifying the land through stating its postal address or, where that is not available, briefly describing its location. This will mean that newspaper notices contain succinct and clear information regarding the description of land included in CPOs and not overly complex text, ensuring that they are easier to understand and making the CPO process more accessible. The simplification of information in this regard will deliver administrative cost savings for acquiring authorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
Again, we do not see the clause as particularly controversial, but we would like to ask some questions. Can I put on record, first, that I wish the Minister well with his jury service? We will see whether he is the living embodiment of being “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. I am sure that the Whips will love the fact that one of their Ministers is off-site—hopefully on Report so that we can get most of our amendments through.
As the Minister said, clause 84 aims to streamline the content requirements for newspaper notices related to CPOs by permitting either the use of a postal address or a general location description where a specific address is not available. The clause is expected to reduce administrative complexity and cost, which is a welcome step for authorities managing CPOs under tight timelines and budgets.
However, while simplification is beneficial, there is a risk that overly brief or vague descriptions could undermine transparency for affected landowners or the wider public. Newspaper notices remain a critical means of ensuring that individuals who may not be directly notified are still informed about CPOs that could affect them. If the language becomes too generic, individuals may be unaware that their land is included in an order, potentially limiting opportunities for objections or engagement.
The clause could benefit from safeguards or accompanying guidance to ensure that clarity and public accessibility are maintained, especially in cases involving rural land, undeveloped plots or where postal addresses are unclear. Moreover, the clause does not address whether digital platforms could supplement or eventually replace newspaper notices, which could further modernise the process while improving public access to information. Overall, the clause is a pragmatic reform, but we must strike the right balance between efficiency and the need for meaningful public engagement.
Has the Minister had any feedback from local newspaper industry representatives saying that they are concerned, given some of the ways in which these notices provide an income stream to a sector that is increasingly under pressure in being able to communicate with our local residents?
Matthew Pennycook
I again thank the shadow Minister for that fair and reasonable challenge. I recognise—as the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would—that the loss of local newspapers is very keenly felt in a London context. Blogs and other things have sprung up in their place, but this is definitely an issue. That is one of the reasons why we have determined not to remove the requirement to publish CPO notices in newspapers. We think that that does have benefits, particularly for members of the public who cannot access the internet, but we do think that a modernisation of the process is necessary.
This is not about reducing transparency; it is about making the administrative process more proportionate and more cost-effective. The key point is that the information contained in the newspaper notice will still give the location of the land and other information, and, importantly, as I have said, that will be complemented by information available in site notices affixed to the land in question, notices served on individuals, and information published about the CPO on the acquiring authority’s website—for example, electronic copies of the CPO, including a map and notices. The requirement to describe the land fully in these other notices is not changing. We are just trying to make more proportionate the information contained in the newspaper notice in question.
David Simmonds
I agree with my fellow shadow Minister that the Government are landing in the right place on this. It was a great frustration for many of us who served in local government that quite a few of those newspapers moved to being online-only, but maintained a print edition because that meant that they could charge the local authority £5,000 for putting a notice in that, if it was a lonely hearts ad or someone selling their car, would have been £25. The system has been abused at the expense of council tax payers for quite a long time, and this moves us a bit more to the right location.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I have said enough. There is no further information that I can provide on the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Confirmation by acquiring authority: orders with modifications
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 85 will speed up decisions on CPOs where no objections have been received. Currently, where a CPO is not objected to, the confirmation decision can be made by the acquiring authority, providing certain conditions have been met. One condition is that the CPO does not require modification—for example, to correct an error in the drafting of the order. That adds unnecessary delay and prevents authorities from taking earlier possession of land to deliver benefits in the public interest.
Clause 85 allows an acquiring authority to confirm its own compulsory purchase order with modifications, providing that they do not affect a person’s interest in the land. Where they do, it introduces the ability for acquiring authorities to confirm their own CPOs where modifications are required, providing that the modifications do not affect a person’s interest in a controversial way. Where modifications need to be made to a CPO— for example, to remove land from the CPO, or to correct a drafting error such as the wrong colour used on the map to identify land—the confirming authority will set out in a notice what modifications are required. Acquiring authorities will not be allowed to add new land into CPOs or exclude part of a plot of land from CPOs, as such changes could provoke objections. In those circumstances, the modification and confirmation of the CPO will still be made by the confirming authority.
The changes are intended to speed up the decision-making process for CPOs that have not been objected to, and to allow benefits in the public interest to be delivered more efficiently. They will be particularly helpful in situations where, as part of a wider land assembly exercise, an acquiring authority needs to exercise its compulsory purchase powers to acquire title to land in unknown ownership. Modifications that do affect a person’s interest in land are allowed, but only if the affected person gives their consent for the modification being made. For these reasons, the Government believe that the clause will enable the CPO process to better benefit the public interest.
Paul Holmes
Again, we welcome the Minister taking a pragmatic approach to streamlining the process. That would be useful to some elements of CPOs, with minor modifications. Although the clause is framed around efficiency, however, it raises some concerns about checks and balances. Even modifications deemed minor can have implications for how land is used or valued. Relying on the judgment of the acquiring authority alone may create a risk of oversight or perceived conflicts of interest.
The provision for consent from affected landowners offers a safeguard, but in practice, there may be power imbalances that undermine the voluntariness of that consent, especially if pressure to expedite delivery is high. Furthermore, the process for how affected parties are informed and how modifications are assessed as “non-impactful” remains vague. Without clear guidance or criteria, the risk of inconsistent applications across authorities is significant. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that specific issue. Although the goal of speeding up land assembly for public benefit is legitimate, greater transparency and procedural clarity is essential to ensure that the clause does not erode public trust in the compulsory purchase process.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that question from the shadow Minister. We are confident that the power will not be misused. The legislation will allow acquiring authorities to make minor modifications to CPOs in cases where they do not affect a landowner’s interests, other than with the landowner’s consent. We broadly consider that such modifications are non-controversial and will not provoke objections, but given the strength of feeling that the shadow Minister has expressed on the matter, I am more than happy to write to him to set out some further clarification of how we believe the process would operate, and why we do not think there is risk of misuse in the way that he fears.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
General vesting declarations: advancement of vesting by agreement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
These clauses introduce provision to allow more flexibility for taking possession of land subject to compulsory purchase. Currently, before an acquiring authority can take possession of land under the general vesting declaration procedure, it must give a minimum of three months’ notice to those with an interest in the land. Generally, this is to allow those who occupy or use the land time to relocate, move out or arrange alternative access. Clauses 86 and 87 introduce the ability for authorities to take earlier possession of land in certain circumstances.
Paul Holmes
I will make some brief comments on the clauses. On clause 86, we believe that the conditions under which earlier possession may occur, such as when land is unoccupied, unsafe or where ownership is unknown, are potentially valid, but they rely heavily on subjective judgements by the acquiring authority. For instance, allowing the authority to determine whether items left on the land are of significant value or whether the land is
“unfit for its ordinary use”
introduces a risk of inconsistent or contested interpretations. The exclusion of illegal occupation from the definition of occupancy is also fraught with complexity, particularly in areas where land may be informally used by vulnerable individuals.
Although the clause provides a process for effective parties to make representations, it does not establish an independent mechanism for appeal or review if the acquiring authority rejects those representations. That could weaken procedural safeguards and may leave individuals or communities with limited recourse. Furthermore, although the clause excludes partial acquisitions of buildings, the broader implications for owners of derelict or disputed property could be significant, particularly in urban regeneration contexts where such assets are common.
Overall, while the reform seeks to introduce efficiency, it must be implemented with caution to avoid undermining rights to property and due process. Stronger safeguards, such as independent oversight of early possession decisions and clearer statutory definitions, may be necessary to prevent potential misuse or unintended consequences.
On the surface, the provisions in clause 87 appear pragmatic: they enable willing parties to bypass the standard three-month wait under the general vesting declaration procedure, and instead agree to an earlier possession date no sooner than six weeks after the publication of the CPO confirmation notice. We accept that this could reduce delays in project delivery, particularly where landowners prefer a swift resolution, or where prolonged possession timelines would otherwise stall regeneration or infrastructure efforts.
However, the clause’s wider implications warrant attention. While this is an agreement-based route, the inherent power imbalance in the compulsory purchase context can make voluntary agreements feel pressurised. Landowners—particularly smaller ones or those with limited legal support—may feel compelled to agree to early possession without fully understanding their rights or the valuation consequences. The clause attempts to address compensation timing and valuation issues, but the technical nature of the provisions may still leave room for confusion or disputes. I look to the Minister for reassurance.
The exclusion of counter-notice rights in cases of partial early possession under schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 also weakens the landowner’s ability to negotiate fairly, as it removes a potential tool for resisting piecemeal acquisitions that may render the remainder of the property less viable. While efficiency is a legitimate goal, it must be weighed against individual rights and procedural fairness.
Overall, while the clause introduces a useful flexibility for streamlined land acquisition, it should be accompanied by strong safeguards, including clear guidance for landowners, transparent compensation mechanisms and accessible dispute resolution processes, to prevent coercion and ensure genuinely informed agreements.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As ever, I will reflect on his request for procedural fairness to be maintained, but in broad terms, I would say that abuses of the kind he suggests are highly unlikely. I am more than happy to provide him with further reassurance on that point.
Given that clause 87 is about undertaking the procedure in question by agreement, I think it is less controversial. On clause 86, it will be for the acquiring authority to be confident that the conditions for the use of the power have been met, and to objectively identify where it thinks that the conditions for the use of the power have been met. In doing so, it will be for acquiring authorities to respond to and defend against any disputes or challenges made on the use of the power.
Where the land includes a dwelling, the acquiring authority is empowered only to expedite the vesting of the land if the dwelling is unfit for human habitation within the well-understood meaning set out in section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, included within the power to take early possession of land or buildings is a safeguard to prevent the vesting of land from being brought forward where there is disagreement as to whether the land is unoccupied or is in a condition that it is fit for use, or where an occupant identifies themselves to the authority. As I have said, parties can make representations to the acquiring authority that those conditions have not been met, but ultimately, the decision as to whether they have or not remains with the acquiring authority. However, I am happy to reflect on whether there is a need for further safeguards in this area and to update the shadow Minister accordingly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Adjustment of basic and occupier’s loss payments
Paul Holmes
I do not know whether this is helpful clarification procedurally, but on this group, I would like to speak only to new clause 52 under the name of the official Opposition. We are happy not to press amendments 134 to 147 at this stage.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52—Alignment of basic and occupier’s loss payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.
(3) In section 33C (occupier’s loss payment: other land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.”
This new clause, being an amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1973, would align the occupier’s loss payments with the basic loss payments at 7.5% of the value of the party’s interest.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for not pressing amendments 134 to 147. I would not have been able to accept them for reasons I could have gone into at some length.
I will deal with the clause and then new clause 52, which the Opposition still wish to move. To ensure that compensation paid to those whose land is compulsorily acquired is fair, clause 88 makes changes to the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the framework for basic and occupier’s loss payments. Loss payments exist to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. They are valued either on the market value of a person’s interest or on an amount calculated by reference to the area of the land or buildings known as the “land amount” or “building amount”, whichever is the highest.
The market value of a freehold interest is often more than the market value of a leasehold interest held by an occupying tenant, which often has little or no market value. That usually results in occupying tenants receiving less compensation than owners. As occupying tenants bear the burden of having to close or relocate their businesses, the existing allocation of loss payments is poorly targeted. It unduly favours investor owners over occupying businesses or agricultural tenants who incur greater costs. The Government believe that to be unfair. The clause therefore amends the 1973 Act to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of occupiers.
Under our changes, we are increasing the land and buildings amount payments, which will benefit occupiers as that is the payment that they usually receive. That will better reflect the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to them through compulsory purchase, compared with investor-owners. It also ensures that the compensation regime is fair. To be clear, the reforms to the CPO process and compensation rules will not encourage the use of any particular type of CPO or change the fundamental principle that there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for use of a CPO.
The changes being made to the loss payments regime will benefit tenant farmers whose land interest is compulsorily acquired, as they will receive a fairer share of compensation to reflect the level of inconvenience that they experience from CPOs. The changes under the clause will not result in landowners being paid less than market value for the compulsory purchase of their interests.
The clause also simplifies the method of calculating the buildings amount for occupier’s loss payments relating to non-agricultural land by using the gross internal area method instead of gross external area, which we believe is more consistent with industry standards. The clause applies to England only, apart from the change to the method of calculating buildings amounts, since the Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPOs in Wales. I therefore see the clause as an integral part of ensuring that the CPO process is built on a fair and balanced compensation process, relative to the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to occupiers of land by a CPO. I commend the clause to the Committee.
I am more than happy to respond in due course, but will first turn briefly to non-Government new clause 52, which seeks to introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. The new clause would increase the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to, and place them on an equal footing with owners. Clause 88 already achieves, in part, what the shadow Minister is looking for: it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land in the way that the new clause seeks to do. The purpose of loss payments, however, is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase, and it is occupiers, rather than investor owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect because they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses.
As I said, the clause rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that that rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach. While the clause does some of what new clause 52 seeks to achieve, elements of the new clause are problematic for the reasons I set out. I am afraid I will not be able to accept the new clause, and I ask the shadow Minister not to move it.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that detailed assessment of the clause. Lord knows how long his speech would have been if we had referred to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) tabled. I thought I would spare the Minister that—and also spare myself having to explain them. We will table more amendments on Report.
As the Minister explained, the clause revises key provisions of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, particularly loss payments to landowners and occupiers whose properties in England are subject to compulsory purchase. The intent behind the changes is to ensure that compensation more accurately reflects the disruption and inconvenience caused to affected individuals.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about compulsory purchase and redevelopment and regeneration schemes. A significant regeneration scheme has been proposed in Basingstoke for the communities of South Ham and Buckskin by the housing association SNG. To say that the consultation with residents has been badly handled is an understatement. I have been calling for a complete reset of the project by SNG, which has fundamentally failed to take the community with it. It has lost the trust of many people, from its tenants to local homeowners and private renters. It must rebuild that trust. I have committed to working with residents to ensure that any plans benefit and have the support of the local community.
One of the key concerns of the community is the threat of widespread compulsory purchase. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the Bill will weaken the voice or say of residents involved in redevelopment or regeneration schemes, where CPO is involved? Can he also confirm that CPO should always be used as a last resort, that it must always be taken in the public interest, and that it will not change the compensation available to ordinary owner-occupiers and tenants involved in such regeneration schemes?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank all Members for their contributions. To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, I do not think that I can add much more to the very clear set of principles that have guided our approach in opening this particular part of the Bill. This is not particularly directed at the shadow Minister, but there has been a fair amount of scaremongering about what the compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill entail, which has not always been completely accurate—let me put it as gently as that.
In response to a number of the challenges, I recognise why the shadow Minister raised his point, and I addressed the point about the Welsh Government. Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPO in Wales, and therefore this clause applies in the way that I have set out. On the more substantive point, without getting into individual cases, I note the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made and I appreciate why he raised it, but he will also recognise why I cannot comment on specific instances of CPO use.
On the general principle of the Bill, I will say a couple of things to the shadow Minister. First, we are not removing the ability for landowners and occupiers to claim for a basic occupier’s loss payment. The Government consider it necessary to rebalance how loss payments are allocated between owners and occupiers to ensure—this is the guiding principle—that those who experience the most level of disruption and inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase are compensated fairly.
The shadow Minister pushed me to reassure him and to go away and reflect to ensure that the system has equal parity. We already have a two-tier system in place; there are differing rates for tenants and landowners. All we are seeking to do through this clause is rebalance the loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers for the reasons that I have given. Landowners and occupiers can still claim for loss payments in addition to claiming compensation for the market value of their land, disturbance costs and other reasonable costs incurred because of a CPO, such as legal and other professional fees.
We may have a principal difference of opinion here; however, on the substantive point, although we have a two-tier system already, we think that it is right to rebalance that two-tier system and weight it slightly more in favour of occupiers of land so that they are entitled to the higher amount of 7.5%, and owners of land to the lower amount of 2.5%. We think that is right, and for that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 52.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Home loss payments: exclusions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 89 amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 and introduces provision to exclude the right to a home loss payment in certain situations. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. We have just had a debate about a slightly different aspect of what the Government intend to effect by these provisions.
Under the current provisions, where property owners have failed to comply with a statutory notice or order served on them to make improvements to their neglected land or properties, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments may be excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. Clause 89 amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. The situations where home loss payments may be excluded will include where certain improvement notices or orders have been served on a person and they fail to undertake the necessary works.
Local authorities can expend significant resource and cost using CPO powers to acquire neglected properties to bring them back into use. Where property owners fail to undertake mandated improvement works to their properties, they should not be able to benefit financially through claiming a home loss payment. Non-compliance with improvement notices or orders can increase the costs to the public purse of bringing valuable housing resources back into use through use of CPOs. If memory serves, we had a short debate on empty homes and what more the Government can do, and I think that making changes in this area will help with that. Introducing provision for these circumstances will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers. It will support the delivery of more housing for communities. It also further ensures that the compensation regime is fair.
Paul Holmes
I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 90 amends the power to take temporary possession of land under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. Promoters of major infrastructure have indicated that their current consenting regimes provide flexibility for the taking of temporary possession of land, and should the 2017 Act power be commenced, that flexibility would be taken away. The clause sets out that the power for acquiring authorities to take temporary possession of land by agreement or compulsion under the 2017 Act does not apply in respect of: first, other express temporary possession powers provided for by other Acts; secondly, development consent orders made under the Planning Act 2008, and infrastructure consent orders made under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024; thirdly, orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The clause will enable the taking of temporary possession under the 2017 Act, without interfering with the process for taking temporary possession under development consent orders, infrastructure consent orders or transport and works orders. It will help ensure continued flexibility for the delivery of critical infrastructure, while paving the way for the taking of temporary possession under other regimes such as the CPO process and the New Towns Act 1981.
Paul Holmes
We do not have much to say on this clause, but it would be rude if I did not say something. [Interruption.] I know Government Back Benchers agree.
Clause 90 provides a targeted amendment to the temporary possession provisions under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, clarifying the scope of that Act’s powers in relation to other legislative frameworks. It stipulates that the temporary possession powers under the 2017 Act do not apply where other Acts such as the Planning Act 2008, the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 or the Transport and Works Act 1992 already contain express provisions for temporary possession. That clarification will ensure that there is no duplication or conflict between the different legislative regimes, thereby promoting legal certainty and administrative efficiency.
By explicitly excluding scenarios where other statutory mechanisms are in place, the clause avoids overlapping authorities and potential jurisdictional confusion. Moreover, it preserves the functionality of the 2017 Act for compulsory purchase orders under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and New Towns Act 1981, ensuring that those frameworks can continue to utilise the temporary possession powers where no alternative statutory mechanism exists.
Although the clause provides a cleaner legislative structure, it may also introduce complexity for practitioners who must now navigate multiple legislative sources to determine the applicable authority for temporary possession. That could increase the burden on acquiring authorities and landowners alike, particularly in large infrastructure schemes involving various enabling statutes. Overall, the clause serves a valuable purpose in harmonising the law, but may require careful guidance to ensure that its practical application does not create uncertainty or administrative hurdles. Although we are generally supportive, I look to the Minister to see whether he deems it appropriate to provide advisory guides and accompanying documents when the legislation is enacted.
Matthew Pennycook
It is important to make one point about the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, and then to reiterate the purpose and effect of the clause. The temporary possession powers in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 still need to be commenced. Before commencing those provisions, the Government must consult on regulations relating to the reinstatement of land, subject to a period of temporary possession.
The commencement of the 2017 Act temporary possession powers is an important reform, to which the Government are committed. However, scoping of the work required to prepare the necessary consultation and draft regulations is still under consideration. The clause is an important tidying-up measure, although I will reflect on whether we can do more through guidance to ensure that the process is as clear as possible for those participating in it. In certain cases, the 2017 Act will—inadvertently, to be fair to the previous Government—prevent the powers from being used to enable major infrastructure regimes.
We want those infrastructure regimes to continue under the current legal provisions granted to them for the taking of temporary possession of land, so we think it necessary to amend the temporary possession powers introduced through the 2017 Act: to disapply them for the consenting regimes I set out, to ensure that, when commenced, the 2017 provisions operate as intended and that this does not frustrate major infrastructure coming through the other consenting regimes. I do not think I can be clearer than that. The clause is fairly straightforward and simple, but I am more than happy to take away the shadow Minister’s points about guidance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Amendments relating to section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 91, page 131, line 17, at end insert—
“(za) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Subsection (2) also applies if an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order in relation to furthering the purposes of delivering housing targets set out in a local plan.’”
This amendment would provide that, where a compulsory purchase order is applied for to acquire land or property for the purpose of delivering housing targets set out in local plans, the prospect of planning permission being granted can be disregarded when calculating compensation (also known as “hope value”).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 86, clause 91, page 131, line 17, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.”
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Amendment 87, clause 91, page 131, line 18, at end insert—
“(ab) in subsection (5), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case this provision shall not apply.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 86.
Clause stand part.
New clause 108—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—
“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to amendment 2. Before I do, I would like to welcome the tone in which the Minister has presented the clauses in this part of the Bill. I recognise and understand the intention to clarify the CPO process and enable it to work better, and I particularly welcome our discussions on clause 88—the determination to ensure a fairer distribution between tenants and owners, for example.
Amendment 2 is intended to be fully in that spirit. It recognises the reality of our dysfunctional land and housing markets in the UK, that hope value plays a part in that, and that reforming hope value could unlock significant resources for the delivery of social and affordable housing. I understand that the calculation is that reforming hope value could free up £4.5 billion a year, which could enable us to build a third more social rented homes than had previously been intended. That would be very valuable.
Under the Land Compensation Act 1961, land owners can potentially claim the value of planning permissions that have not even been thought of, let alone applied for. I understand that land with planning permission is on average worth 275 times more than land without—really quite an extraordinary step change in land value. Reforms to address the issue are very much needed.
Under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, changes were made; the previous Government recognised that there was a problem. The 2023 Act allows hope value to be removed when a development is deemed to be in pursuit of public benefit, particularly affordable housing, health and education. It is a step in the right direction, but still requires the local authority to apply to the Secretary of State for permission on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 2 would simply clarify the situation and specify that when a local authority is compulsorily purchasing land to provide affordable housing, hope value can be disregarded. It is entirely in the spirit of previous reforms to the legislation. It clarifies the situation, and it avoids the potential for councils to be subject to challenge from developers on a case-by-case basis. It does that by clarifying that when the public benefit is being served—something that the Minister has repeatedly referred to—it is clear that hope value can be disregarded, because the public benefit from providing affordable housing is, in those cases, overriding. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to amendments 86 and 87 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). In tackling the issue of hope value, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill misses an opportunity when it comes to playing fields. The amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields by ensuring that when an acquiring authority uses a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility, hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable.
The amendments would enable hard-pressed local authorities to acquire playing fields for their local communities’ use at playing-field value, instead of at an overinflated hope value, to boost additional grassroots sports provision. Such a change would allow sites such as Udney Park playing fields in Teddington, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—they have lain derelict for more than a decade under private ownership—to be acquired for public use. There is a dire need for additional playing space in the area.
The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have access to high-quality sports and recreation facilities in their local community. Indeed, Sport England says that those spaces are key to physical and mental health, and to community links. According to a 2023 College of Policing report, such facilities can help to reduce reoffending, particularly among young people. Up and down the country, too many communities lack the necessary land and space to support young people and families, as well as the wider community, to enjoy sport and improve their physical and mental health. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support the principle of what is being proposed in clause 91 and what has been said about the need to allow authorities to acquire land without paying additional hope value or value of planning permissions not yet sought or granted. It is a long-standing issue, and debates on it go back a very long time indeed; I think it began with Lloyd George, who said that it should be the state, rather than landowners, that benefits when the state invests resources or increases the value of land from its own actions.
I support the clause as a Liberal Democrat—it was in our manifesto—but I should add that it does not represent a radical or enormous change; in fact, it was the position for a great many years. Following the second world war, the Pointe Gourde case established the principle that hope value would not be paid. As has been mentioned, it was only the Land Compensation Act 1961, exaggerated by further case law in the 1970s, that gradually increased the amount of compensation payable to landowners on the basis of planning permissions not sought or obtained—that is, hope value. As we have been discussing, that frustrates and stymies the delivery of social housing, which we all wish to see, and of other public development.
For all those reasons, this is a welcome clause and we definitely support it. On amendment 2, my understanding is that the clause would allow social housing to be delivered under the provisions of clause 91, but no doubt the Minister will clarify that. We will make our decision about amendment 2 on that basis.
Finally, this has been a long campaign by a number of people and organisations, including the Town and Country Planning Association. People such as Wyndham Thomas, a pioneer in this field, long argued for a change to the hope value provisions. The change, if it comes today, will do credit to those who pushed for it for so many decades.
Paul Holmes
For the Committee’s convenience, I note that we do not plan to speak to proposed new clause 108, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); I have just scribbled it out. We welcome some provisions of clause 91, but we have some concerns. The Minister will definitely come back to me and say, “But your Government made some reforms.” We know that, but the Opposition have some concern about the scattergun—I would not say “spontaneous”—approach to bypassing hope value, which allows its removal through a much more centralised and unfair system. As we said previously about some CPO provisions, we are concerned that the clause will be unfair on some people who are not well off or affluent.
However, overall the clause is a pragmatic and well targeted reform that aims to steer towards prioritising community benefits and affordability. We will look at it in more detail in later stages of consideration; the Minister knows that we will constructively try to reform the elements that we are concerned about. But we will not press proposed new clause 108, and are happy to let clause 91 through without a Division.
Matthew Pennycook
I will first respond to amendments 2, 86 and 87, then speak to clause 91 stand part, and finish by touching briefly on proposed new clause 108.
Amendment 2 was moved by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As she set out, it would amend clause 91 to expand the power, introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value. The amendment proposes expanding the direction power to CPOs that are delivering housing targets set out in their local plans.
The Government agree that there is a need to address issues around the payment of hope value, but I am unable to support the amendment. Sympathetic as I am to the greater use of hope value—mayors and local authorities around the country read Hansard closely, so I stress that the Government very much want an acquiring authority to utilise the powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—I cannot accept the amendment because its principal objectives can already be achieved with the existing direction power. That power has similar effects but, importantly, requires affordable housing to be part of any scheme reliant on CPO powers. We therefore do not believe that the amendment is required.
If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire wants to respond we can have an exchange on this point, but the power in question is used on a case-by-case basis according to the public interest. This Government, like the previous Government, are well aware of the need to meet the public interest test so that use of the power does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998, in a true, broader application. That is why the public benefit test is important and needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test, and apply it much more widely, is problematic.
Gideon Amos
It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed what I think he is saying: that the application of compulsory purchase under clause 91 could include compulsory purchase of land that will be used for social or affordable housing.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely can confirm that. If the hon. Member is interested, that was set out in the extensive debates on that power during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee. The public benefits to which the direction can apply are very clear: transport schemes but also affordable housing schemes. However, it would be judged on a case-by-case basis whether the amount of affordable housing provided, in each instance, was sufficient to meet that public benefit test.
The important point that I need to make is that the reference to the provision of affordable housing and other benefits is an important safeguard, to ensure that directions removing hope value could meet the public interest justification test and ensure that the use of the power would be compliant with human rights legislation. That is really important. Trying to draw the power too widely would fall foul of human rights legislation and we would not be able to use it in any case. That is why it has to be targeted at schemes that deliver in the public interest. That will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
The Government also have concerns that amendment 2 could introduce a change that could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest. We think that it could make the benefits delivered through use of the existing direction power less clearly identifiable and problematic for those reasons, so I will not be able to accept the amendment, although, as I say, I am sympathetic to the use of the direction in clear instances when a public benefit is at stake.
Although we have commenced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions only this year, to date no acquiring authority has used them; I suspect that is partly from the usual hesitancy about being the first mover and partly about ensuring that there are sufficient skills in the acquiring authority to use it. But the Government are very clear: we do want an acquiring authority, where appropriate, to make use of the power, although we cannot draw it more widely for the reasons I have given.
I turn to amendments 86 and 87. The amendments seek to amend clause 91 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs providing provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments also seek to introduce a change so that CPOs that provide sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.
While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we could all give our own examples of how much they are cherished and loved—we are unable to support the amendments. As I have said, the non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest. Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered would be less clearly identifiable. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendments.
I turn briefly to clause stand part. Clause 91 makes amendments to the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which we have just been debating, that allows authorities to include in their CPOs directions the removal of hope value from compensation, when that is justified in the public interest. First, the clause amends the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and provides that CPOs made with directions removing hope value may be confirmed by acquiring authorities where there are no objections to the relevant CPO.
Alongside that reform, the Government intend to publish updated CPO guidance to make clear their policy that the power for inspectors to be appointed to take decisions on CPOs under the 1981 Act can be used for CPOs with directions removing hope value. CPO guidance published by my Department sets out criteria that the Secretary of State will consider in deciding whether to delegate confirmation decisions to inspectors. The updated CPO guidance, reflecting the Government’s policy, will be published when we implement the Bill’s reforms following Royal Assent. The changes will speed up the decision-making process for CPOs with directions removing hope value and ensure that the process is more efficient and effective.
Secondly, clause 91 extends the power for CPOs to include directions removing hope value to CPOs made on behalf of parish or community councils under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972. That will allow parish or community councils, when seeking to deliver affordable housing in their areas, to acquire land without paying hope value compensation—again, when a direction removing hope value is justified in the public interest demonstrably and clearly. The change is intended to increase the viability of such schemes to deliver more affordable housing, which these communities desperately need.
Lastly, the clause amends the legislation to ensure that when CPOs are confirmed with directions removing hope value, the directions apply not only to the assessment of market value of land taken but to loss payments where the assessment of market value is a relevant factor. That makes it clearer that hope value will be removed from all heads of claim where market value is assessed. That provides for the consistent application of the principles for the assessment of the market value of land where CPOs are confirmed, with directions removing hope value. It also ensures that the compensation regime does not deliver excessive compensation where compulsory purchase is used to deliver benefits in the public interest.
I again make it clear that these reforms are not about targeting farm owners or any specific types of land or landowner. Neither do the clauses seek to change—returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke—the core principles of compulsory purchase, which remain. There is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. As I have said, it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. To deliver the homes and infrastructure we need, we must look to unlock land in the right places. These clauses ensure we have the correct tools to realise that.
Briefly, new clause 108, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, seeks to repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed, with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest. For that reason, I understand why the shadow Minister has at the last moment hesitated to speak to it. In essence, the new clause would remove the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest.
I disagree with the reforms made by Baron Gove—I think that is now the correct terminology—in a number of areas. He tainted his record in my Department very late on in the previous Government by abolishing mandatory housing targets under pressure from the so-called planning concern group, the ringleaders of which all lost their seats in any case. He did, however, introduce a number of very valuable reforms, one of which is that reform to CPOs. It is therefore absolutely right that we do not attempt—as the right hon. Lady clearly does, if not the shadow Minister—to remove it from the statute book.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being slightly unfair in saying that I have chosen not to speak to the new clause at the last minute; I had always intended not to speak to it because we are very collaborative on our Opposition Front Bench in deciding what we will and will not speak to. The Minister should know that there is always a good intention behind a new clause or amendment—in this case, to restrict the unfairness to some people.
The Minister should also not be surprised that the shadow Cabinet and shadow Ministers such as myself are assessing what happened under the last Government. We are looking back and, as we have said repeatedly, we are under new leadership. The Minister will know—in a basic constitutional lesson—that no Government is bound by the actions of its predecessor, and we are not bound by the actions of our previous leader. [Interruption.] They should not be surprised by that. They were always reviewing their successes under Gordon Brown and particularly the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). They have changed a lot of their views from what they used to say then. They have definitely changed a lot of what they thought when they were under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and were extolling the virtues of loyalty.
We will look to see how we can strengthen the provisions in the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and we will come back to it a further stage. The Minister should not always think that there is a conspiracy when I decide not to press an amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
It has been pretty dry going this morning on these clauses. For the purposes of entertaining the Committee, I just want to make sure I have understood the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
The Opposition are at liberty to change their position on any policy that the previous Government introduced, but they do not want to change policy in this area as they believe that the power is proportionate and necessary. However, the right hon. Lady still tabled the new clause to signal that they may be willing to come back to it at some point. Is that broadly right?
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being overly cynical. As he knows, our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said that there is a mainstream review of what worked and what did not work under the very successful Conservative Government that served for the last 14 years. What we are looking at going forward is whether we need a new approach to planning reform. That is exactly what the new clause was intended to probe.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
New powers to appoint an inspector
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 92 amends the process for the confirmation of CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981. Decisions to confirm CPOs made under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, such as housing and planning CPOs, can be made by inspectors on the Secretary of State’s behalf, but currently, confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act must be taken by the relevant Secretary of State. Clause 92 introduces a power for confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act to be delegated to inspectors, although the Secretary of State will retain the ability to recover decisions for their determination. This change will ensure the decision-making process for CPOs facilitating new towns is streamlined and consistent with the confirmation of other CPOs.
Clause 92 also amends the decision-making process for directions for the payment of additional compensation under schedule 2A to the Land Compensation Act 1961 where an acquiring authority has not fulfilled the commitments it relied on when it obtained a direction allowing it to acquire the land without hope value. The clause introduces a power for the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to take decisions on applications for additional compensation. This will ensure that the process for considering applications for additional compensation is more efficient and consistent with the approach set out in clause 91, which allows for the delegation of decisions on CPOs. The clause will make the authorisation process more efficient, resulting in quicker decisions.
David Simmonds
I just want to ask the Minister, in respect of the appointment of the inspector, what the Government’s thoughts are about the requirements for who that inspector would be. With reference to my fellow shadow Minister’s point on an earlier clause, one of the concerns is whether what emerges from this process will be a fair level of compensation, particularly in a constituency such as mine on the edge of London, where there is a lot of farmland—a lot of green-belt land—for which the occupiers will have paid a significant hope value premium to Parliament, sometimes decades ago. The same will be true in many potential development areas on the fringes of cities.
Clearly, it will be necessary that the inspector, who comes to a view about what an appropriate compensation payment is, has a relevant level of qualification. Again, does the Minister have a view about including a requirement for the inspector to have a relevant accountancy, surveying or other qualification that would enable them to discharge this function, or to secure the relevant advice, so that all parties can be confident in the decision that is made?
Matthew Pennycook
If the shadow Minister will allow me, I will come back to him in writing on the specific point of how the Government will ensure that the relevant inspector has the correct skillset to make the necessary decisions.
I think it is probably worth making two other points. First, how will the delegation of decisions to inspectors on CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981 be considered? The appointment by the Secretary of State of an inspector to make the decision on a CPO made under the 1981 Act will be considered against the delegation criteria published in the Government’s guidance on the compulsory purchase process.
Secondly, there is the important question of whether the decision on an application for additional compensation will be delegated to the same inspector who considered the original CPO with the direction removing hope value. In that regard, it is important to note that the timescales between the confirmation of a CPO with a direction removing hope value and the determination of an application for additional compensation will vary in each case. As such, it may be impractical for the inspector who considered the original CPO with the direction removing hope value to determine the direction for additional compensation, so we need that flexibility.
David Simmonds
I understand the point the Minister is making. The lessons learnt from the HS2 project is that this can become a very significant source of hardship for land occupiers. I think of a constituent in his 90s who has waited six years for the payment of compensation for land that has been occupied throughout that time by HS2 in pursuance of its project. There are ongoing debates about how this will be settled. Despite an agreed figure having been reached some time ago, payment was held up. If the Minister is not minded to introduce deadlines around that, he might wish to table amendments to that effect at a later stage. I am interested in what he has to say about that.
Matthew Pennycook
I note the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I will not comment on the specific case he raises, but I am keen to provide him with as much reassurance as possible about the skillset of inspectors, and that skillset being directly applicable to the types of cases they will be looking for in terms of compensation. On the practical considerations around the timescale of the process and other issues he has raised, I am more than happy to set that down in writing to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Reporting on extra-territorial environmental outcomes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
As the Government move to bring forward the new system of environmental outcome reports that will replace the EU processes of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment, it is necessary to make a minor amendment to the original drafting to ensure the new system can comply with relevant international obligations. Environmental outcomes reports provide the opportunity to streamline the assessment process while securing better outcomes for nature, but it is vital we start this journey with the right powers.
Clause 93 amends the power to specify environmental outcomes to ensure they can relate to areas outside of our national jurisdiction. This is to ensure that the new system of EORs can comply with, among other things, the UK’s obligations under the Espoo convention, which requires signatories to consider the potential transboundary impact of development. This measure will ensure that, as the Government progress with developing the new system of EORs, they will have sufficient powers to ensure the new system can adequately fulfil all our international obligations.
Paul Holmes
Before we receive a statement later from the Prime Minister, can the Minister outline whether any of the movements in this domestic legislation, which stem from the transitioning of EU-derived systems, will be affected by any Government deal made between the EU and the United Kingdom?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come back to the hon. Member on that point in writing, because it is important that I am precise on it. Obviously a series of obligations stem from the trade and co-operation agreement, and they are set out. This clause specifically attempts to ensure that the new system of EORs—legislated for through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—can, once it is brought into force, function in a way that is compliant with all our international obligations. I think members of the Committee would very much support that being the case. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I would expect the Minister to write to us; I would not expect an answer on the Floor of the Committee. What the Prime Minister is going to outline later is a detailed and holistic deal. When we talk about a change that is being framed within the context of transitioning from the EU-derived systems of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments—I have only read what is in the papers; I am sure the Minister has, too—any area that is encapsulated within that wider deal may affect this domestic legislation going forward, so I would appreciate his writing to us on that.
By expanding the geographical scope within that derived system, the clause allows for a more holistic consideration of environmental impacts, including transboundary and global effects, as the Minister has outlined, which are particularly relevant in an era of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other interconnected environmental challenges. The broadened scope may be seen as a progressive move, enabling regulators to take a more comprehensive view of environmental harm such as greenhouse gas emissions or marine pollution, which can extend well beyond national borders. It aligns with growing international expectations that environmental assessments account for broader spatial impacts, enhancing the credibility and robustness of the UK’s post-Brexit environmental governance framework, although that is potentially subject to change by the Government.
Although the clause strengthens the theoretical scope of environmental assessments, it does not clarify the practical mechanisms by which the likely significant effects beyond the UK will be evaluated or enforced. Without that clear guidance, the broader remit could become more symbolic than operational, risking inconsistencies in application. Bearing in mind the time, I would appreciate it if the Minister could briefly come back on those points, and then we would be content not to vote against the clause.
Matthew Pennycook
In speaking to the clause, I stressed that the purpose is to ensure that the new system of environmental outcomes reports introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which this Government are committed to proceeding with, is compliant with all our international obligations. I mentioned, for example, the Espoo convention. The UK is party to that convention, and thus all development must consider whether the project will have likely significant effects on the environment in other states that are also party to it. I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but this is a non-controversial clause that simply ensures that once we bring the new system into force, it is compliant with all our international obligations.
Gideon Amos
It might be helpful to point out that the Espoo convention—the transboundary convention—is not, although the shadow Minister referred to European obligations and transition, a European convention; it is a United Nations convention. It is therefore not related to Brexit. It is a convention signed under the United Nations commission. It is important that the clause addresses that.
The Espoo convention also reminded me of the training for inspectors point that the Minister made. I wonder whether the Government, given the clauses in the Bill, particularly the hope value clause we discussed earlier, would ensure that training of inspectors is brought up to date across the board to ensure that the provisions are properly applied. I declare an interest as a former inspector.
Matthew Pennycook
We value the hon. Gentleman’s expertise and insight. I would say two things. It is worth clarifying—apologies if I gave the impression otherwise—that it is for the upper tribunal to determine compensation cases, but I reassure the Opposition that when it comes to inspectors and their role in the CPO process, they have the necessary skillset. I will provide further reassurance on that point.
To the hon. Gentleman’s point on the Espoo convention, although I do not want to answer for the shadow Minister, it is right that, while the convention is not EU-derived, the new system of EORs will replace the EU-derived processes of EIAs and SEAs. I think that is the point that the shadow Minister was making. We want to ensure that the new system that replaces the EU-derived existing assessment regime is compatible with our international obligations, and nothing more.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 20th May 2025
(6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 May 2025 - (20 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Following a request, Members may now remove jackets if they are finding it oppressively warm.
We now come to the new clauses. I remind Committee members that Government new clauses are considered first, with other new clauses then being considered in numerical order, as listed on the amendment paper and the selection and grouping paper. Some new clauses may be grouped with others for the purpose of debate and some new clauses have already been debated during the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. When a new clause has previously been debated, it cannot be debated further when it is reached; Committee members should let me know if they wish to press it to a vote. We start with Government new clause 39, which was debated with clause 44.
New Clause 39
Surcharge on planning fees
“In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after section 303ZZA (inserted by section 44) insert—
‘303ZZB Surcharge on planning fees
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a surcharge to be imposed on a fee or charge paid—
(a) to a local planning authority in England under section 303(1) or (2),
(b) to the Mayor of London or a specified person under section 303(1ZA), or
(c) to the Secretary of State under section 303(1A), (2), (3) or (4A).
(2) Where regulations under subsection (1) provide for a surcharge to be imposed on a fee or charge paid to a person other than the Secretary of State, that person must pay to the Secretary of State the amount they receive from any surcharges—
(a) subject to such deductions, and
(b) at the times and in the manner,
as set out in regulations under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
(a) specify the level of the surcharge as a percentage of the level of a fee or charge;
(b) make different provision for different purposes, including setting different levels of surcharge for different fees, charges, cases or circumstances.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide that where the level of the fee or charge has been set by—
(a) a local planning authority under section 303(5A), or
(b) the Mayor of London or a specified person under section 303(5B),
the surcharge may be set as a percentage of the fee or charge that would be payable had the level of the fee or charge not been so set.
(5) The Secretary of State must list in regulations the persons whose relevant costs the surcharge is intended to cover (“listed persons”).
(6) In setting the level of the surcharge, the Secretary of State must have regard to the relevant costs of the listed persons, and must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), “relevant costs” means the costs of providing advice, information or assistance (including the provision of a response to a consultation) in connection with—
(a) applications,
(b) proposed applications, or
(c) proposals for a permission, approval or consent,
that are made under or for the purposes of the planning Acts and that relate to land in England.
(8) Regulations under subsection (1) may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons of providing advice, information or assistance in connection with the application, proposed application or proposal in respect of which the surcharge is imposed.
(9) Paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 303(5) apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under subsection (1), save that references to a fee or charge are to be read as references to the surcharge.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
The effect of this new clause is to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a surcharge on planning application fees. The surcharge must, if imposed, be set by reference to the costs incurred by bodies, listed in regulations, which provide advice in the planning application process, including by way of consultation responses.
Brought up, read the First time and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 42
Planning Act 2008: right to enter and survey land
“(1) Section 53 of the Planning Act 2008 (rights of entry) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (7).
(2) In subsection (1), for “Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State” substitute “An authorised person”.
(3) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) In subsection (1) “authorised person” means a person who is authorised in writing to exercise the power in that subsection on behalf of—
(a) a person who has made an application for an order granting development consent that has been accepted by the Secretary of State,
(b) a person who proposes to make an application for an order granting development consent, or
(c) a person who has been granted the benefit of an order granting development consent of a kind specified in subsection (1)(c).”
(4) Omit subsection (2).
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “authorised under subsection (1) to enter any land” substitute “acting in the exercise of a power of entry onto any land conferred under subsection (1)”;
(b) insert “and” at the end of paragraph (a);
(c) in paragraph (b)—
(i) for “any land which is occupied” substitute “the land”;
(ii) for “the occupier” substitute “every owner or occupier of the land”;
(d) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b);
(e) omit paragraph (c).
(6) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Notice given in accordance with subsection (4)(b) must include prescribed information.
(4B) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a person to use force in the exercise of the power conferred under subsection (1) if satisfied—
(a) that another person has prevented or is likely to prevent the exercise of that power, and
(b) that it is reasonable to use force in the exercise of that power.
(4C) The force that may be authorised by a warrant is limited to that which is reasonably necessary.
(4D) A warrant authorising the person to use force must specify the number of occasions on which the person can rely on the warrant when entering land.
(4E) The number specified must be the number which the justice of the peace considers appropriate to achieve the purpose for which the entry is required.
(4F) Any evidence in proceedings for a warrant must be given on oath.”
(7) After subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) Section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (costs) applies to the determination of a question referred under subsection (8) as it applies to the determination of a question under section 1 of that Act, but as if references to the acquiring authority were references to the person from whom compensation is claimed.”
(8) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 to the Planning Act 2008 (application of Act to Scotland: modifications of section 53)—
(a) after paragraph (za) insert—
“(zb) in subsections (4B) and (4E), the references to a justice of the peace were references to a sheriff or summary sheriff,”;
(b) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b);
(c) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) in subsection (8A)—
(i) the reference to section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 were a reference to sections 9 and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and
(ii) the reference to section 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 were a reference to section 8 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and”.
(9) In the Localism Act 2011—
(a) omit section 136(4);
(b) in paragraph 12 of Schedule 13—
(i) in sub-paragraph (2), omit “and (2)”;
(ii) omit sub-paragraph (3).”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This clause amends existing rights to enter and survey land in connection with development consent orders, to: (1) remove the requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State before entry, and (2) allow the use of force if authorised by a warrant issued by a justice of the peace.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At present, we know that it is taking too long for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects to prepare applications for development consent that are robust and ready for examination. Part of the reason is the time it is taking for promoters to gain access to the land to carry out surveys to understand its condition and status, to inform their assessments of the project’s environmental impact.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that applicants and landowners reach agreements privately on when land can be accessed and on any compensation necessary as a result of activities carried out by the promoter when surveying the land. However, we appreciate that such agreements cannot be made in every circumstance. While that is regrettable, it should not come at the cost of delaying the delivery of the critical infrastructure that this country needs.
In this new clause, I am making changes to provide a more efficient route to accessing land to carry out surveys for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects. These align with rights already available to, and often used by, DCO applicants under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The changes will give authorisation to promoters to access land on the premise that sufficient notice is given to landowners and occupiers, with regulations to be made requiring the specific information to be contained in that notice.
Should access be unreasonably prevented, promoters will be able to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to use force to enter the land and carry out the surveys required. The use of force that may be authorised by a warrant is limited to what is reasonably necessary to exercise the power conferred by the provision. The new clause is an important step change in speeding up the preparation stage of applications for development consent and ultimately the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It will come into force when the Secretary of State introduces the associated regulations.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I have a couple of queries. I understand the spirit of the proposal; when I was involved in this part of the planning regime, almost no applications came forward for the power to enter land because of the elaborate process involved, so I very much understand and welcome the spirit in which these changes are made.
However, I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a risk of going from one extreme to the other. The new clause would grant any person who proposes to make an application the power to enter land. We would be interested to know what provisos will sit around that. Can anybody simply say, “I am going to make an application” and therefore get an order to enter land? Do the Government envisage guidance or regulations on that aspect? Generally, however, we support the clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the reasons why the hon. Gentleman has raised those points; I have a couple of points that may provide him with reassurance. The provisions in section 53 will allow authorised persons to carry out surveys required in connection with the preparation of environmental assessments and habitats assessments. The entry powers being sought are for a very specific purpose.
As I said, the Government strongly advocate that applicants and landowners should first reach agreements privately when access is required. The problem that the new clause is trying to address is that that does not always happen. We want to ensure that, when necessary, there is a mechanism for applicants to be able to access land and carry out the requisite surveys.
When exercising the power conferred under section 53(1), authorised persons are required to provide the owner or occupier of the land with at least 14 days’ notice of their entry. Regulations, to come forward in due course, will specify certain information that the notice will contain. That information will include details of the negotiations that have been held regarding the entry, full details of the surveys to be undertaken and the rationale for undertaking them, and evidence that the surveys are required in connection with the NSIP in question.
To the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I say that access is required for specific purposes, notice will have to be given and regulations will be forthcoming that provide further details. In general terms, however, we absolutely want in the first instance for applicants and landowners to be able to reach agreements. We think that this power is required and proportionate for circumstances when that does not take place.
Gideon Amos
Those provisos on the regulations are helpful. They are important because to go on to someone else’s land without their agreement initially is a significant power. We agree with the Minister that it should be used only as a last resort, once all the alternatives set out in the guidance have been explored.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 43
Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders
“(1) Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008 (changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) Omit paragraph 2 (non-material changes to orders granting development consent) and the italic heading before it.
(3) In paragraph 3 (changes to, and revocation of, orders)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), omit “or paragraph 2 of this Schedule”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (5A), after “should” insert “, when considered in conjunction with any other changes already made,”.
(4) In paragraph 4 (changes to, and revocation of, orders: supplementary), after sub-paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) If a development consent order is changed in exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the development consent order continues in force.
(6B) If a development consent order is changed or revoked in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the change or revocation takes effect on—
(a) the date on which the order making the change or revocation is made, or
(b) if the order specifies a date on which the change or revocation takes effect, the specified date.
(6C) Except in a case within sub-paragraph (7), the Secretary of State must publish an order making a change to, or revoking, a development consent order in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
(5) In section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges)—
(a) omit subsection (5);
(b) in subsection (6)(b), for “notice of the change or revocation” to the end substitute “the order making the change or revocation is published.”
(6) In consequence of the amendment in subsection (2), omit—
(a) paragraph 4(6)(a) of Schedule 8 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
(b) paragraph 72(4) to (7) of Schedule 13 to the Localism Act 2011,
(c) section 28(2) of the Infrastructure Act 2015,
(d) paragraph 8(3)(b)(i) of Schedule 7 to the Wales Act 2017, and
(e) section 128 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.” —(Matthew Pennycook.)
This clause amends the Planning Act 2008 concerning changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent. The key change is to repeal the procedure for making non-material changes that is currently in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to that Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 43 will make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested. That will allow greater flexibility than the existing binary process. The current change process takes too long to deliver on the ground, and is putting developers off requesting changes that have the potential to improve design, reduce adverse environmental impacts, better meet community interests, reduce costs and speed up delivery.
The removal of the distinction between material and non-material changes will allow us to design a more proportionate single process for changes, the detail of which will be set out in new regulations. The new system will be commenced by the implementation of updated regulations. As such, there will be no impact on existing DCOs that are considering change applications in the immediate term, while the Government develop the new process alongside industry stakeholders. Transitional provisions will be included in the revised regulations to ensure an efficient transition to the new system.
The measure will support the Government’s growth and clean energy missions, giving certainty to developers, reducing cost risk and supporting faster decisions. It will ensure that we can deliver the critical infrastructure the country needs in the best form. I am grateful to the expert input provided by stakeholders through feedback on the limitations of the existing change process. Officials in my Department will continue to work with stakeholders and practitioners to refine the new process, and to ensure it delivers efficiencies and better supports the delivery of infrastructure across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements
“Omit the following sections of the Planning Act 2008—
(a) section 42 (duty to consult);
(b) section 43 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b));
(c) section 44 (categories for purposes of section 42(1)(d));
(d) section 45 (timetable for consultation under section 42);
(e) section 47 (duty to consult local community);
(f) section 49 (duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause omits sections of the Planning Act 2008 which currently require a person who proposes to apply for development consent to consult particular people about the proposed application, including prescribed bodies, local authorities, the local community and persons with an interest in the land in question.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 15—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction—
“(1) Where an application to develop affordable housing has been granted, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the reasons for the amendment include—
(a) the affordability to the applicant; or
(b) that providing such affordable housing would make the development unprofitable for the applicant.
(2) This section applies where the provision of affordable housing forms the whole of or a part of the proposed development.
(3) For the purposes of this section “develop” has the meaning given by section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”
This amendment would mean that, where a developer has committed in their initial application to providing a certain number of affordable homes, they would be prohibited from lowering that provision based on affordability or profitability.
New clause 25—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction (No. 2)—
“Where an application proposes—
(a) to develop more than 10 houses, and
(b) that at least 20% of the houses to be developed will be social housing,
no amendment to the amount of social housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would reduce the amount of social housing below 20% of the houses to be developed on the grounds of viability to the applicant.”
This new clause would prevent developers from seeking to reduce commitments to provide social housing on the grounds of viability.
New clause 55—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—
“In section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3ZZA) Subject to subsection (4), where a development includes the construction of 100 or more houses and has not begun within the applicable period, ownership of the land on which such development was permitted transfers to the relevant local authority on the expiration of the applicable period.””
This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, ownership of the land to which the permission applies passes to the relevant local authority.
New clause 60—Thresholds for affordable housing provision—
“Where an application proposes or is required to provide affordable housing, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would result in the amount of affordable housing to be developed failing to exceed the higher of—
(a) the relevant authority’s affordable housing threshold, or
(b) twenty per cent of the total amount of housing provided in the development.”
This new clause would place lower limits on the amount of affordable housing developments which intend to provide such housing must provide.
New clause 61—Additional business rates for developers not completing approved development—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, hold a public consultation on providing local authorities who exercise the functions of local planning authorities with the power to levy additional business rates on—
(a) land owners, and
(b) developers
who fail to complete the development of projects for which permission has been granted within a reasonable period.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the conclusion of the public consultation, lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a report on the findings of the consultation, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to those findings.”
New clause 76—No planning permission to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development—
“(1) A local planning authority may not grant consent for development where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “intentional unauthorised development”—
(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission;
(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.
(3) Where works under subsection (2)(b) are undertaken, the local planning authority may require relevant permissions to be obtained retrospectively.”
New clause 82—Duty to complete development of local infrastructure—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a Development Consent Order is made providing for, or
(b) a Strategic Development Scheme includes provision for,
the development of local infrastructure.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the developer must deliver the relevant local infrastructure in full.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but must include—
(a) schools,
(b) nurseries, and
(c) General Practice clinics.
(4) A duty under this section may be disapplied [by whom] with the consent of the relevant local planning authority.”
This new clause aims to ensure that commitments to provide local infrastructure such as schools and GP clinics, approved as part of a development, are permanent and legally binding.
New clause 83—Development of land for the public benefit—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a developer has entered into an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires the development of local community infrastructure; and
(b) such development—
(i) has not been completed, and it is not intended or anticipated that the development will be completed; or
(ii) has been subject to a change of circumstance which means that it will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose.
(2) Where this section applies—
(a) the relevant land remains under the ownership of the local planning authority;
(b) the local planning authority may only develop or permit the development of the land for the purposes of providing a community asset;
(c) the local planning authority must, when proposing to develop the land under subsection (2)(b), must consult the local community before commencing development or granting permission for any development.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“local community infrastructure” means a development for the benefit of the local community, including schools, nurseries, and medical centres.
“community asset” means—
(a) a public park;
(b) a public leisure facility;
(c) social housing;
(d) such other assets as the local planning authority may specify, provided that their development is to meet the needs of the local community.”
This new clause provides that land designated development as community infrastructure under a S106 agreement will not be returned to a developer to use for other purposes in the event that the original purpose is not fulfilled. It provides instead that land would remain under the control of the local planning authority for development as a community asset.
Ellie Chowns
New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I remind colleagues that I am the Member for North Herefordshire—always a cause for confusion. I will also speak to six other new clauses, three of which are intended to dissuade developers from engaging in land banking, and three to ensure that affordable housing targets are met.
New clause 1 would give the planning authority the power to decline future planning applications from a developer that had failed to use, or at least to make sufficient progress on, planning permission that they had already been given. This is designed to stop the practice whereby developers purchase land, get planning permission on it and do nothing with it. I think we all agree, on both sides of the Committee, that we need to expedite the building of affordable housing, so this is a proportionate and clear measure to support that. It relates to new clause 55, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. If such land is not built on, the land should transfer to the local authority, so that it can get on with doing the job instead.
New clause 61, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, suggests extending business rates for developers that do not build. Each new clause is designed to prevent the practice of land banking, to encourage developers to get on and build when they have been given planning permission.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I completely understand why the new clause has been tabled, and we support the premise behind it, but can I ask the hon. Lady for clarification? She may not know, and that is perfectly acceptable. Say an application went in for a nursing home, but the business went bust before the initial build out was delivered. If the developer wanted to change the application to allow it to build a block of flats, how would the new clause prevent that from happening? It is a genuine question, and I do not know what the answer is.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuine question. He highlights a case that arguably represents complexities that the Government employ lots of lawyers to fix. I do not think it would prevent a new clause such as this from progressing. The intention is to prevent land banking, and if lawyers need to tweak the language a little bit, so be it.
I will move on briefly to new clauses 15, 25 and 60, which are all about ensuring that affordable housing is actually built. New clause 60 would set a lower bound on the amount of affordable housing that was due to be constructed. New clauses 15 and 25 are intended to ensure that the affordable housing commitments that developers make in their initial applications are not subsequently chipped away at or eroded by arguments about viability.
Fundamentally, if there are issues around viability, the Government and local authorities should prioritise the building of affordable housing, not the safeguarding of developer profits. The new clauses are therefore intended to ensure that when developers commit during the planning process to building affordable houses, they stick to those commitments. I commend the new clauses to the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Gideon Amos
I rise to say a few words about new clause 1, but I will principally speak about our new clause 55, which is a mechanism to incentivise the building of housing developments that have lain unbuilt and undeveloped for three years.
On new clause 1, I am very sympathetic to the proposal made by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for North East Hertfordshire—we are only missing Hampshire—but, frankly, we prefer our approach. There is a long-standing principle in planning law that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration, and by and large we wish to stand by that. There is scope for the new clause to be used to prejudice particular applicants.
There is also a practical consideration. Land changes hands very quickly and, whoever owns it, different applicants can make applications. I am reminded of the famous case in Oxford of university students applying for a nuclear power station on Christ Church meadow, because a person can apply for anything on any land, whether they own it or not. In fact, the Town and Country Planning Association applied for permission for an airport on Maplin Sands, even though it was probably not going to be able to build it. Those bizarre examples demonstrate that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration.
Under new clause 1, a different applicant with a different name or a different agent of the same landowner could immediately come forward, so I have practical concerns about it. Our approach is to introduce a “use it or lose it” principle into the planning system. Specifically, where a development of 100 homes or more has been granted permission but not started within the applicable period—usually three years—the land will transfer to the relevant local authority. We expect that in those circumstances, the usual provisions of the Land Compensation Acts and the principles of fairness in compulsory acquisition, which I referred to in a previous debate, would apply.
We accept the principle that developers and house builders need a pipeline—a plan for their land—but three years is a significant amount of time. The recent moves to encourage the build-out of homes that have not been built have not succeeded. We have had a reduction from five years to three years in the lifespan of planning permissions, but there has not been a significant change in the build-out rate, so we need significant measures if we are to make these major schemes happen.
This is not about penalising people; it is about dealing with an issue that is clearly undermining our ability to tackle the housing crisis. Across the country, there are permissions for 1.5 million new homes that have not been built—13,000 in my authority area of Somerset alone. Those homes could house thousands of families. Research from TerraQuest, which operates the planning portal—not a particularly radical or out-there organisation —shows that a third of all homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Ten years on, that shows that unbuilt permissions are an enduring problem that needs to be tackled. If all those permissions had been built out, the Government would have hit their annual 300,000 homes target in eight out of the last 10 years, and yet the approach so far focuses almost entirely on allocating more and more permissions in the hope that that will result in more homes being built.
There is no lack of planning permissions; the problem is that developers are not building out the ones they already have, because the current system does not penalise delay. Two big things could be done to improve housing supply: funding social housing and funding infrastructure. If those things were funded in a range of areas around the country, there would be almost unlimited build-out rates on stalled sites.
Developers clearly, and I think reasonably and rationally, will only build out at a rate that sustains the price of their product and their viability. They have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, and they need to maintain the viability of their companies. So they will not build out at a rate significant enough to flood the local market with housing and depress the price. We cannot blame them for wanting to make a profit—that is what we expect them to do—but we need to fund social housing publicly, as it was funded in the past, to get out of that bind. That is why I believe we need a stronger lever than we currently have.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak to new clause 76, which is in my name.
This new clause seeks to probe the Minister’s thoughts about the success of local authorities in tackling and challenging the unauthorised development that has gone on. As he will know, the last Government made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration, meaning that planning permission could be refused, and there is a presumption that it should be refused, when development has taken place without consent.
I think it is safe to say that we do not think—many of us see this in our constituencies—that that is being enforced uniformly. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has an open case at the moment, and I am sure all of us, as elected MPs, have had such cases in the past. There is also an issue with unauthorised encampments. The new clause goes a step further by saying that if development has taken place without authorisation, the planning authority should not grant consent. This is a probing amendment because such provisions already exist, but there are many examples across the country of enforcement not taking place.
New clause 76 requires that no planning permission is to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development. It would provide a power to the local planning authority not to grant consent for development
“where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.”
It gives further detail about the meaning of “intentional unauthorised development”, which
“(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission”,
but
“(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.”
We have put in paragraph (b) to take account of householders who have undertaken small modifications—for instance, small extensions, walls or garden sheds—that in certain circumstances would need planning permission. We do not want to persecute or make the law come down hard on those who have made a genuine mistake. This is about larger unauthorised development. The reason for tabling the new clause is that we think the Bill should go further in restricting unauthorised development, and that we want local planning authorities to be able to enforce the powers they have through the legislative changes made by the last Government.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in the context of our earlier debate about hope value, it is important that this issue is addressed? For law-abiding citizens, nothing is more frustrating than someone carrying out an unauthorised development, potentially on a site in the green belt, as we have seen on a number of occasions, and then being able to regularise that by obtaining retrospective planning permission, when, had they applied lawfully to begin with, it would have been refused. That is an injustice in the planning system that needs to be addressed.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is right; I think that we have all seen that happen as Members of Parliament. It makes a mockery of the planning system when people—they know exactly what they are doing—retrospectively apply for permission and still reap the benefits. There was an example of this in my old constituency that involved removing trees that had tree preservation orders, in order to build on some land. Doing so destroyed that area of land, and it went completely against what should have happened. When the developer went to the local authority, it retrospectively granted planning permission, and the local villagers were outraged.
My hon. Friend is right: the new clause is meant to tackle those who know how to play the system. However, if someone has made unintentional changes to a house that could be covered under permitted development rights, but may go slightly beyond them, we would give local planning authorities the jurisdiction and authority to use their own minds in such cases.
I hope that the Minister understands why we are trying to probe him to see whether he can strengthen the Bill in relation to unauthorised development. He may have to write to me after the Committee—I am sorry to the officials for asking for another letter—about whether the last Government’s measures to give local authorities that power has worked and, if not, how we could work together to ensure that unauthorised development is stopped. We do not want to stop developments, but we think that there needs to be fairness in the planning system. People, who may not be well off, who want to make a planning application for their own home often find it a difficult experience when, just down the road, people are doing it willy-nilly whenever they want to. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. If he needs to write to me, that is absolutely fine.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak first to new clause 1, which seems to me, as someone who has worked closely with developers, ill thought out. It does not address the need to build more social and affordable homes.
Permissions that are granted, particularly on brownfield sites, often contain any number of conditions that are extremely difficult for developers to achieve—discharging conditions around environmental remediation and, for example, looking after bats or newts, which are common where I practise. There is also a lack of local authority staff competent to deal with section 106 agreements. Permissions are often granted to developers before they own the land, and there may be suitable tax reasons why people do not wish to sell the land until the following tax year. It is easy for those things to stretch over way more than three years, and sometimes up to five years. I am in favour of building more social homes, but the new clause would not achieve that objective. It also does not take into account the massive shortage of workers in the construction sector, the skills that we need or the shortage of materials, which has become even more acute in the past couple of years.
I also want to talk about new clause 76. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has entertained us for most of the day with minor matters, but his new clause would have an effect that he has perhaps not thought about. The majority of unauthorised planning that I saw in my practice was carried out by farmers who were not able to make enough money from farming their land, so very often diversified their large warehouse-type structures and started using them for small businesses—perhaps renting them out to local engineering firms and so on. After a period of 10 years, somebody would complain in the local village and they would then apply for an authorised use certificate, and nine times out of 10, it would be granted.
The impact of new clause 76—that unauthorised change of use—would prevent those people from developing new homes on their site or opening up more opportunities for new businesses. It needs more thought and attention, because the very people who would be impacted are those who the Opposition say that they stand up for. Very often, they will be farmers who are looking to diversify their property.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I wish to speak to new clause 25, which would, for developments of more than 10 houses, require that where 20% of those houses are to be developed for social housing, developers would not be able to reduce that amount below 20% over the fullness of time, as often happens today. We all seem to support the need for more social housing, but we have debated at length in Committee how best we get there.
In the interest of brevity, and conscious that we have more new clauses coming than the entire Dead Sea scrolls, I will keep my remarks concise. We in the Liberal Democrats feel that new clause 25 is necessary to hold developers account to that 20% quota for social housing, rather than being able to fritter it away. It relates to points that we previously made, that it would seem that without more regulation, market forces alone are not succeeding in delivering the social housing that we all recognise we need.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate hon. Members speaking to these new clauses. I recognise the worthy intentions that sit behind many of them. The Government certainly recognise the challenges of many of the issues that they touch on. It will not surprise Members that the Government will not be able to accept them, but I hope I can set out in some detail why that is the case.
Let me first deal with new clauses 1, 55 and 61, all of which relate in some way to build-out. All seek to improve the speed of build-out of developments by giving local planning authorities greater control and power where developments are not built out fast enough. New clause 1 seeks to introduce a power to decline applications based on outcomes of previous grants of permission. New clause 55 seeks to introduce a new mechanism for developments of 100 houses or more where, if permission is not used within an applicable period, the ownership of the land would pass to the relevant local authority.
I want to make clear to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that the Government agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. We want to see homes built out faster where they have consent, and I very much recognise—I say this as a constituency MP, as well as a Minister—the frustrations that stalled or delayed sites can cause to communities, particularly to people in communities who have gone through the process of putting in a view on an application. They have an application that they want to see come forward, and then the site does not develop.
The Government expect developers to do all that they can to deliver, but we do not think these new clauses are necessary to achieve that. In the case of new clause 55, which effectively involves the transfer of land to a local authority without compensation if planning permission is not commenced, we feel that would be disproportionate, not compatible with the European convention on human rights and would have a chilling effect on development, as it would create risks for developers that their planning permissions may not be implemented.
Instead, we are introducing new requirements for statutory build-out reporting by implementing the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 on commencement notices and development progress reports. That will provide local planning authorities and communities with greater transparency about the rate of build-out of developments and any delays that may occur.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Let me emphasise the point around viability and the impact of a precarious economic situation on developers’ ability to build. Does the Minister agree that the challenges for the private sector that he has set out also apply to local authorities? In estate renewal in London, for example, many have had to relook at the viability of that and have seen delays for a number of years because markets have changed and the land analysis has altered. It is a changing picture depending on the moment in time, and one that it is inextricably linked to the economic picture at the time.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right. If we are having a mature conversation about this, we have to recognise that economic circumstances can change and that the costs that developers are having to deal with—build material costs have increased significantly, particularly in London—are factors they do have to weigh in their judgments. On the other side of the coin, it is important, in strengthening the section 106 system, that we are ensuring local authorities can negotiate robustly on those agreements and that we hold developers to the commitments that they make. The Government’s intention is to do both.
Matthew Pennycook
I will, but I do not want to lead us down the path of a long debate on viability.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is talking about changes in viability. What does he say to councils that are in the position of having granted planning permission, had a viability assessment and agreed a 106, and the developer comes back a year or two later and says that they cannot do it and will have to put in a new planning application, have a new viability assessment and a new 106, but because the council has determined a planned application on that site, if it went to the planning inspector, there would be a lower bar for that development to get over? That is because the council has already accepted the principle of development on that site under the premise of one section 106 negotiation.
Does the Minister think that, on the second go, the developer should have to start from the beginning, have the same principles to get the development off the ground, and that the same higher bar should apply? At the end of the day it is the community that lose out from the community obligations that the developer is trying to get out of.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member tempts me into commenting on hypotheticals. I will instead say the following. There are two things happening here. We have to be aware of the ability for some existing mechanisms—section 73 applications are a good example—to be gamed in terms of viability to drive down the amount of public gain. I am aware of that, and I have been very candid about it. On the other hand, and correspondingly, if a permission such as the one he hypothetically mentioned is in place, I think that is testament to why it is so important that we bring forward measures on build-out transparency and have the powers to be able to say to developers, as the Government are saying to all developers, “If you’ve got a consent, then get on and build.”
The Government are making a variety of reforms to the planning system, which in any number of ways will provide for a more rules-based system, more certainty and will drive down development costs. We are firming up planning policy guidance and expectations. We are making it clearer and easier for developers to put in an application and we should reduce costs as well. Correspondingly, we can ask for more. We are bringing forward measures in fairly short order on build-out and we will turn on the LURA provisions that I have mentioned. On that basis, I ask for the new clauses to be withdrawn.
New clause 76, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, seeks to prevent those who have deliberately undertaken unauthorised development from obtaining planning permission retrospectively. The Government do not condone unauthorised development and are clear that anyone seeking to undertake development should first obtain planning permission where it is required. I therefore very much appreciate the sentiment behind his new clause. I recall debating with a shadow Secretary of State this particular matter in relation to Gypsy and Traveller camps, and I appreciate that across the House there is concern about the use of unauthorised developments.
However, the Government’s view is that there may be circumstances—I am happy to set this out in writing to the shadow Minister—in which unauthorised development, even if it is intentional, may be acceptable in planning terms or may be made so by the imposition of planning conditions. I say that only to make the point that we believe that there is a need for some pragmatism here and that such developments should be considered by the local planning authority. It is already the case that intentional unauthorised development, as he said, is a material consideration. It must be weighed in the balance when determining planning applications and appeals. That approach retains local decision making.
The Government obviously keep this matter under review. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister about the Government’s view as to whether the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities—they have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance—are being used, and if not, why not. I am also more than happy to share with him our understanding of how local planning authorities and inspectors are treating unauthorised development as a material consideration, as they are now required to do. I hope that, on that basis, I have provided him with some reassurance.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate the Minister’s being so open and genuinely—I wouldn’t say I didn’t believe him before—promising to go away and look at this issue. We would like to take him up on that; we will not press our new clause today, but there are conversations to be had further down the line on this topic. Will he just confirm whether his Department holds any statistics on how many unauthorised developments we are talking about? Is there is a reporting structure for local authorities, which may be held by the Planning Inspectorate? We would like to know how his Department is monitoring the number of unauthorised developments that are using the powers that were given to local authorities, if that makes sense.
Matthew Pennycook
What I can commit to—I feel the glares from my officials on me now—is this. If we have the information, I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister to give him a sense of, across the country, how local authorities are using their existing enforcement powers and the extent to which, although I think this will be difficult information for Government to track, local planning authorities and inspectors are relying on unauthorised development as a material consideration. I am thinking, for example, of inspectors allowing things on appeal that are unauthorised. If we have that information, I am more than happy to share it and to have that conversation with the hon. Gentleman.
Ellie Chowns
I thank all those who have contributed and the Minister for his very thoughtful responses. On new clause 1, I note the Minister’s assurances that existing mechanisms will be going some way, at least, to addressing the concerns I have raised about build-out, so I will not push it to a vote at this point. I will not push the new clauses on affordability to a vote at this point, either, because I will be speaking to new clause 3, which is specifically on this issue, but I will emphasise that when we are thinking about viability, we must remember that we have a huge crisis of a lack of affordable housing in this country. We do not have a crisis in developer profits—not at all.
I would like to cite to the Committee a paragraph from a report that I have just checked out:
“Since 2014, the largest housebuilders, and in particular the three largest housebuilders by volume (Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Persimmon…) have consistently reported supernormal levels of profitability, with gross profit margins reaching 32% and never falling below 17%”.
That is the reality of the crisis of excess developer profits that we face in the current housing market, and it is from independent academics. In that context, I think that it is incumbent on the Government and everybody to do everything possible to ensure that viability tests are not used as an excuse by developers to wriggle out of commitments to providing affordable housing. I am genuinely concerned that the provisions in existing law and in this Bill will still leave a huge viability loophole for developers. If in the next 10 years we continue to have those levels of supernormal profits on the part of developers, this Government will have absolutely failed all those who are struggling in the face of the housing crisis.
Matthew Pennycook
I think some of this will become evident in the fullness of time. There has been an implicit criticism of the Government at several points in Committee that we are entirely reliant on a market-led approach, and are happy with an entirely developer-led, market-led approach. That is not the case. We think that targeted reforms to the planning system are necessary, but we also absolutely believe that reform of our broken house building model is required. I have said on many occasions that we are overly reliant on a speculative development model that produces bad outcomes. Hon. Members across the Committee will see before too long other measures that the Government are bringing forward to both transform and disrupt that market in ways that are beneficial.
Matthew Pennycook
Well, the market does need to be disrupted, in the particular sense that we need new entrants coming forward, and small and medium-sized enterprises and community led-housing back in the game.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said, and I think he is right, that developers have a business model, particularly volume builders. Some are changing their business model and we would encourage change to those business models, but there is a particular model that relies on very high margins. I know the academic study that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire cited. We must and will reduce our reliance on that. We also must be careful about weighing in on viability in a way that would just stop house building coming forward in lots of cases, because that would ultimately help nobody.
A final point that I think is pertinent to this debate: I always find the nimby and yimby debate incredibly reductive, but I think that some who oppose development on the basis that they only prioritise social and affordable housing discount the fact that building homes of any tenure in localities assists people trying to access social and affordable rent. It all helps and it need not be one or the other.
Rachel Taylor
I think what comes across in some of the proposed new clauses, which is not the case in the Bill itself, is a punitive scheme for developers. What we need to do is work in partnership with smaller developers and community developers in particular, so that we can build out any number of different types of homes—whether they are apartments, bungalows, or small starter homes. All of those are important in the market and will help young people to feel that they can get on the housing ladder and not have to rely on living in their parents’ spare room until they are in their mid-30s.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a good point. To wrap this debate up, I think it is right that the Government seek to take forward planning reform in the way we have, and to streamline the planning process in a way that drops costs on developers where it is appropriate. Equally, we must be robust with developers. We want to put this mechanism in place and ensure that local authorities can negotiate section 106 agreements robustly. Where those agreements are entered into, we expect them to be delivered and we expect sites to be built out. As I say, hon. Members will not have to wait too long to see some of the changes that are not in existing law, but that the Government are bringing forward. On that basis, I hope hon. Members might not press the new clauses.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Review of the setting of local plans under the National Planning Policy Framework
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, review the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the setting of local plans.
(2) The review must consider in particular replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites within their areas which are necessary to meet—
(a) local housing targets, and
(b) the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” —(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the setting of local plans with a view to replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites which meet housing targets and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am reflecting on the comments that the Minister just made on the broken speculative model of development that we are currently stuck with. The new clause actually fits with amendment 2 to clause 91, which I spoke to earlier. Essentially, the new clause is asking the Government to review the way that local plans are set under the national planning policy framework, and specifically, to consider replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement in which the onus is on local planning authorities to identify sites in their areas that are necessary to achieve local housing targets and sustainable development. Currently, under-resourced and underfunded councils are forced to accept whatever ill-suited sites are offered up by developers. The pressure of meeting local housing needs often means that there is pressure to accept the sites that are offered rather than no sites.
The new clause does not force the Government to do anything apart from a review that specifically looks at redressing the power to identify which sites housing should be built on, and putting it much more in the hands of local planning authorities. That way they can take a genuinely strategic approach, rather than being at the mercy of developers’ initiatives, which may not be in the interests of the public.
Matthew Pennycook
New clause 2, which the hon. Lady has just spoken to, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. The purpose of the planning system is clear: to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The UN’s sustainable development goals are important to that. It is because of their importance that they are already addressed via existing planning laws, planning policy, guidance and processes.
The objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development is being delivered by the existing requirement to prepare local plans under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The national planning policy framework already contains policy on sustainable development with the presumption in favour of sustainable development at its heart.
National policy includes how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport including walking and cycling, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses and the community services and facilities needed. It recognises the importance to health, wellbeing and recreation that open space and green infrastructure provides, and is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need and seek opportunities for new provision. It also contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places, and sets out that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future.
The NPPF is also clear that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes. The framework must be given regard to in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The “call for sites” process ensures early engagement with landowners and land promoters to understand the availability and achievability of land identified to deliver sustainable development. The current process ensures consideration of the economic, environmental and social impacts of proposed sites for development, and how those contribute to a more sustainable future.
The important part here is that the assessment does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for development. It is the role of the assessment to provide information on the range of sites that are available to meet the local authority’s requirements, but it is for the local development plan, taken through with consultation with the local community—we definitely want more consultation with communities upstream in the local plan development process—to determine which of the sites in a “call for sites” are the most suitable to meet the requirements.
While I recognise the intentions behind it, the new clause would ultimately undermine the Government priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, which is the key mechanism that enables sustainable development and housing delivery to take place. Although I understand the spirit of the new clause, the Government oppose it, as these important matters are already being considered and addressed through existing laws, systems, national planning policy and associated guidance—which are obviously kept under review at all times. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
Ellie Chowns
I honestly do not entirely follow the Minister’s argument about this measure potentially replacing the work of local authorities in driving development plans, because that is specifically what the new clause is about. It is about putting more power in the hands of local authorities rather than in the hands of the developers. However, given that we have multiple other new clauses to get to, some of which I am especially keen on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Housing plans to include quotas for affordable and social housing
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.
(2) Where a national or local plan or strategy includes quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing, the plan or strategy must include justification for the quotas.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would require national and local housing plans to include, and justify, quotas for the provision of both affordable and social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 8—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.
(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.
New clause 26—Provision of Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes—
“The Secretary of State must, within 1 year of the passing of this Act—
(a) require 10% of homes delivered through the Affordable Homes Programme to be Older Persons Housing or Later Living Homes, and
(b) provide grant funding to support the capital costs of developing Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes.”
This new clause would support the capital costs of developing affordable and inclusive housing for older people and support the provision of adequate supply.
New clause 37—Local planning authority powers relating to new towns—
“(1) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a new town may—
(a) include any of the area of the new town as land to be developed in any local plan which covers a period between the designation of the new town and the completion of development,
(b) include in the local planning authority’s housing target any houses expected to be provided by or in the new town during the period covered by the local planning authority’s local plan, and
(c) include any housing expected to be provided by or in the new town in any consideration of the local planning authority’s 5 year housing land supply.
(2) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or more than 2,500 houses of a new town ma—
(a) disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance relating to the duty on local planning authorities and county councils to cooperate on strategic matters crossing administrative boundaries, and
(b) extend the area designated for the new town through its local plan process.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘new town’ means a town developed by a corporation under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981.”
This new clause would provide local planning authorities with the ability to include new towns in local plans and housing targets, and give planning authorities certain powers with regard to new towns.
New clause 48—Review of method for assessing local housing need—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property;
(b) basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local councils; and
(b) any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay before Parliament a report which summarises the evidence considered in the review and the review’s final conclusions or recommendations;
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities and other relevant bodies on how they should calculate and consider local housing need.”
New clause 49—New towns to contribute towards housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new houses, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
New clause 50—Local Housing Plans—
“(1) A local planning authority must develop a Local Housing Plan for its area for the purposes of informing its local plan.
(2) A Local Housing Plan must outline the number and type of homes—
(a) required, and
(b) proposed to be built,
in the authority’s area.”
New clause 75—Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development.
(2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”
New clause 92—Housing needs of ageing population—
“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”
Ellie Chowns
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, and I give the Minister notice that I am particularly keen on it. It would require any national or local housing plan to include and justify quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing.
To me, the new clause seems like a no-brainer, and a measure that we should already have, given that we have such a huge housing crisis, have had no coherent Government housing strategy over the last decade or more, and have no serious goal to end homelessness or deal with the social housing waiting list or affordability issues. I recognise that the Government are making some efforts in the legislation they are introducing. I am particularly excited by the Minister’s promise of disruptive measures to tackle some of the remaining problems in the housing market.
We absolutely have to build more homes for social rent. In the 10 years between 2014-15 and 2023-24, England built 2.2 million homes. Would anybody like to guess what percentage of them were for social rent? Only 3% of them were for social rent, which is the only tenure that is genuinely affordable to those on the lowest incomes. I recently saw stats about the changes in planning permissions in the last six months: 6% of the permissions granted in that time have been for social rented homes. It is nowhere near enough. We desperately need more homes for social rent.
Paul Holmes
I understand and agree that we need to build more social rented homes, but does the hon. Lady not agree that the figures she gave could be perceived as being slightly simplistic, because they do not take into account the regional variations in where housing lists and social homes are most needed? I accept that social rent made up 3% of the total, and permissions recently increased to 6%, but in areas such as Southampton, London, Basingstoke or big urban centres, the proportion will be dramatically higher.
Ellie Chowns
I would be more than happy to go through spreadsheets with the hon. Member, because I like a nice spreadsheet. Although the figures might be slightly higher in London, I do not think anybody would argue that there is therefore sufficient affordable housing in London, or anywhere close to sufficient.
Ellie Chowns
I am delighted that the hon. Member agrees. We can all agree that there is a crisis in affordable and social housing. Unless we set targets to tackle that at every level of housing planning, we will be guaranteed to fail to create the affordable and social housing we need.
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member recognise that targets were in place for a number of years, and that in most cases local authorities failed to meet them, not because of a lack of trying, but because market circumstances meant that viability did not work and planning permissions could not get through, and for a variety of other reasons? Targets do not, in and of themselves, drive delivery in the numbers we need in this country.
Ellie Chowns
I recognise that multiple factors drive the delivery of social and affordable housing—and, indeed, the achievement of any targets so to do—but what the hon. Member said is a bit inconsistent, because the Government have just introduced huge new housing targets based on an argument that we have to have targets for particular numbers in particular locations, no matter how well suited or otherwise they might be to the circumstances of the local planning authorities. Members cannot argue that housing targets are really useful at the level of overall numbers but not useful in relation to affordable and social housing, which is the point of crisis.
The Minister said, in his response to a previous new clause that I spoke to, that we need to recognise that building any sort of housing is helpful. I kind of get his point; I think he is trying to make a sort of “trickle up” point—that people can trickle up out of the most affordable housing and into more expensive housing, and that vacates the cheaper housing—but the fundamental problem is that we have nowhere close to enough genuinely affordable housing, by which I mean social rented housing, being built.
This is therefore a very reasonable amendment, simply asking that, at every level of housing plan—local and national—targets are set. It does not say what those targets should be; it just says that each plan should set a target for affordable housing and social housing.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member not agree that, in most local plans—if not all local plans that come forward; I took one through for Broxbourne when I was leader of the council—we do have targets for affordable and social homes? The reason lots of those do not get built out is because of the issues that we discussed earlier around viability. Just having a target does not necessarily deliver what she and I want to deliver: more social homes. We can have that target, but it is about the viability and the costs that developers try to get out of. That is why they do not get built.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Member for his point, which is actually exactly the same point that the hon. Member for Barking made, essentially—
Ellie Chowns
Yes—both singing from the same hymn sheet on this. I refer the hon. Member for Broxbourne to the answer that I gave two minutes ago to those comments: I am not saying that just setting a target for social and affordable housing will magic it up, and I am not denying that multiple factors impact on the delivery. In fact, I think the hon. Gentleman might be so gracious as to recognise that, in many of the previous measures—and ones coming up—that I have tabled to the Bill, I have been trying to address some of those issues, for example, in relation to hope value, restrictions on local authorities, and so forth.
I am not saying that the new clause is a magic bullet, and I welcome the fact that many local plans contain targets for affordable and social housing. I certainly do not think that just having the targets will ensure that they are achieved, but if the Government are to be consistent in their own rhetoric, that setting targets is important because it gives people something to aim for, then I very much hope that they will support the setting of targets for affordable homes, and particularly social rented homes, because that is where the crisis is in our housing supply. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak to new clauses 8, 26 and 92, just to introduce briefly what they do. New clause 8 is about coming up with a more sophisticated definition of what “affordable housing” is, taking into account local needs and circumstances, while new clauses 92 and 26 are about quotas, funding and the assessment of the housing needs of an ageing and older population.
I shall keep my remarks on new clause 8 concise, because the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has made many of the points that I would otherwise have made. I agree with her that there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance going on when those on the Government Benches express scepticism about the ability of targets for affordable and social housing to deliver progress, yet are adamant that targets for housing overall will do that. Perhaps the Minister will address that point in his remarks.
The key issue in terms of new clauses 26 and 92 is that the current definition of “affordable housing” is not considered affordable by many organisations. That particularly applies to people of an older age on a low income, who are still subject to many aspects of housing costs. It is not just me who thinks that the current definition of “affordable” is nothing of the sort. Shelter agrees, calling it
“unaffordable for those on average incomes”.
Similarly, Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have argued for affordability to be linked to local incomes, not market rates, and the Town and Country Planning Association also recommends local flexibility, stating in its housing guides that the 80% rule does not work in areas of high market distortion. Even the Labour-run Greater London Authority operates its own model, with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, introducing a new category of “genuinely affordable” rent, which includes social rent, London living rent and shared-ownership schemes, as a way of creating a better benchmark.
As mentioned previously in this Bill Committee, house prices in constituencies such as mine still reflect a distorted market in which housing remains inordinately expensive despite enormous housing growth. Residents would certainly benefit from local authorities’ having the power to set what is meant by affordable housing, taking into account local circumstances on issues such as wages.
We also need to be more detailed and thoughtful about how we go about the issue of our ageing population. This is not just about the older old in care homes and similar facilities; it is also about people becoming old. For example, 40% of homeowners and 60% of renters aged 70 will have moved into their homes since the age of 50. Those homes may suit them when they move in, but they may not suit them as they age and will need to be adaptable. That is something that local authorities and all of us need to consider a lot more.
Equally, 50% of renters aged between 45 and 64 have no savings, and many will struggle to afford their rent in retirement. The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that if current trends continue, the cost of housing benefit for older renters will increase by 40%, or an additional £2 billion per annum.
Thinking more carefully about how we provide for an ageing population, as these new clauses propose, would benefit not just those who are affected by the cost of housing, but the public finances, given the ever-increasing housing benefit bill that we will face if we do not take serious action and change our approach. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to new clauses 48, 49, 50 and 75, most of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—I do not know whether he intends to intervene or to speak after me, but he is more than welcome to do so, because he drafted the new clauses and can do them a lot more justice then I can.
These wide-ranging provisions would help strengthen the legislation. We tabled new clause 48 because we want to review the method for assessing local housing need. The current method does not adequately account for the type of home being built. For example, a family home can accommodate more people than a one-bedroom flat, and it should count for more because it goes further towards meeting a local area’s housing need. Under the current methodology, we often end up with the wrong stock being built and with people being displaced or having to move away from long-standing connections in their local area.
New clause 48 states:
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need…A review under this section must consider…how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property”—
as we have indicated, that should be based on demographics and local housing lists—
“basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit…In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult…local councils; and…any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and eloquent speech—far more excellent and eloquent than my contribution will be. Does he agree that one of the big concerns the Bill needs to address is the sense among some constituents that new housing development is not built for them or their community? We need to make sure that this debate is about homes, and that means we need greater subtlety and nuance in housing plans and the targets we set. It is not simply about delivering units—the dark towers we see in parts of central London, whose units are not available to or occupied by the local community—but about having a housing supply that reflects the needs of a particular place.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Who can say the Conservative party is divided when we have a bromance like this? My hon. Friend and I agree with each other all the time. He says that my speech is better than his, which is untrue, but he makes a serious point. The whole point of the Bill, and of our being here, is to ensure that housing is deliverable and accountable, and that it adapts to the will and the needs of local people. We are in Parliament and we stand for election predominantly to make our areas better and to leave the world in a better place, with people feeling better.
In my constituency, we have many four-bed and five-bed family homes. We also have a huge housing waiting list. Those homes cost £250,000 each. Of course, I aspire to being able to afford a house like that myself one day, but we need to ensure that the right housing is being built for people in Eastleigh and Fareham town centres. Often, they are displaced down the road to Southampton and Portsmouth, or to other areas of the country with which they have no connection. That is simply not fair. We tabled the new clause to see, first, whether the Minister agrees with it—I suspect he will do more resisting—and secondly, whether he will try to ascertain how we genuinely improve the method for assessing local housing need.
We had a brief debate about whether housing targets were warranted and whether people think they are good or bad. The Minister knows my position: I think they have been set for a particular reason, but that was a debate on a different clause. We want new towns to contribute towards meeting housing targets. As the Minister knows, new towns do not currently do that and are not included among those that can meet housing needs in local plans. New clause 49, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled, would change that to include new towns, for several reasons.
First, that would give certainty to constituents that once a local plan had been developed and proposals had gone forward for consultation, they would not be surprised by the Government’s suddenly announcing a new town. The Government are prone to doing that at the moment—I say that neutrally. When that happens, an area seems to have to take much more housing because the new town does not, on paper, contribute to the targets. I believe that, because new towns do not contribute to those targets, they suffer in terms of their services and infrastructure. The new clause would help with fairness in the system and with housing targets and planning. It is not nimbyism—I agree with the Minister that the terms yimby and nimby are reductive. To provide clarity for the consumer, as well as stability for local areas, the Government should make new towns contribute to housing targets.
The Minister should view new clause 50 as productive. If he is worth his mettle, he will see that. Its purpose is to require local authorities to have a housing plan for their areas to inform their local plans. The housing plans would cover types of home, demographics and first-time buyer homes. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the local housing plan
“must outline the number and type of homes…(a) required, and…(b) proposed to be built…in the authority’s area.”
That would strengthen local authorities’ and local people’s ability to have a say about what they want to be built for them in their areas.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and I had an interesting meeting with several house builders. The Government should embrace and look to expand retirement villages in local plans. People are getting older, and many older people prefer to stay at home, but the system is slightly broken in terms of service charges and the leasehold model. That is not working.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during a speech that is as eloquent as it is stylish. He makes a serious point. One change in the UK housing market is the collapse in the provision of small developers; something like 93% of homes are now built by very large housing providers. Particularly in pursuit of developing some of the smaller sites, in which the Minister has expressed a clear interest, we need to bring those types of development to market at scale. That is what new clause 75 seeks to do, and I hope that the Minister will—in a speech that will no doubt be equally eloquent and stylish as that of the shadow Minister—set out his thinking to ensure that that happens, so that the Bill does not become purely a charter for large developers while the huge number of smaller sites, which could deliver so much additional housing, are left undeveloped.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend raises a good point; in fact, we have tabled some amendments on targets regarding small and medium-sized enterprises. He is right that we must ensure that development is not just carried out by the usual large-scale developers; we must bring vibrancy into the sector and, more importantly, allow local authorities to make those decisions.
On retirement villages, the system does not work, but new clause 50 would allow local authorities to have the authority to focus on the demographics and first-time buyers. It would ensure that SME builders are allowed to be designated by the local authority to build those houses.
It is shameful that, for the first time in a long time, housing policy in this country does not have any incentives for first-time buyers. This point relates to the new clause, Ms Jardine. For the first time, we do not have incentives such as stamp duty relief or Help to Buy, so I hope that the Minister’s disruptive and radical solutions, which he teasingly announced, will include incentivisation. That would allow local authorities to say, “We have a lot of young people who should be entitled to be on the housing ladder; we want to put some first-time incentives into our local plans.”
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
On assistance for first-time buyers, is the lifetime ISA not still in operation?
Paul Holmes
Yes, the lifetime ISA is still in operation—the last Government brought it in—but it does not deliver the real numbers that we need, as the Help to Buy and stamp duty relief systems did. We brought those in, but they have been reversed.
Paul Holmes
Not yet. Those have been reversed by a lot of the things that this Government have done. For the first time, the sector does not have any incentivisation.
Paul Holmes
If he has a quote, then I am not giving way. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that the local housing plans that we are proposing must also include social housing. Local authorities need to put forward a proper housing mix.
Luke Murphy
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and apologise to the rest of the Committee—I do not have a quote. Under its new leadership, his party is reflecting on the policies of the previous 14 years, so given that he is making an argument about first-time buyers and SME builders, why did the number of SME builders in the UK catastrophically decline over the past 14 years while the average age of the first-time buyer increased?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman does not have a quote, but his intervention is still misguided. He fails to realise that under the past 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and the stamp duty relief, and 2 million homes for first-time buyers were built. This Government have not even shown that they have the aspiration to match that, because they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers’ getting on to the housing ladder.
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to, he can come for an appointment. By the way, we are under new leadership, and we are constantly reviewing our policies. We will be making announcements on the new products we will be bringing to people to fill the void that this Government have simply left for the first-time buyer.
Ellie Chowns
The hon. Member has issued a paean to Help to Buy, which at the time it was introduced was identified as a policy that would likely drive up housing prices and do nothing to address the real problems in the housing market. As I have repeatedly emphasised in this Committee, those problems relate particularly to affordable and social rent housing.
I have a quote for the hon. Member. A report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 concluded that the
“Help to Buy scheme…inflates prices by more than its subsidy value”
and does
“not provide good value for money, which would be better spent on increasing housing supply.”
It pointed out that it cost the taxpayer £29 billion—more than £29 billion—over a decade, and that cash should have been used, as I have said, to replenish England’s falling stock of social housing.
The London School of Economics has found that Help to Buy boosted house prices in London by 8%—just that policy boosted house prices in London by 8%— and it boosted developers’ revenues by 57%. Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not a panacea for the problems in the housing market that we face, and that investing in social rent housing should be our priority?
The Chair
Order. Before we go on, could we keep to these new clauses, please, because we are getting a little off-track?
Paul Holmes
I will heed your advice, Ms Jardine, and bring this back to new clause 50.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said there should be more social homes, but that comes under the remit of local authorities to set in their housing plan. In response to what she said about Help to Buy versus social homes being a panacea, I gently say to her that I never at any stage said that Help to Buy was a panacea. I said it was part of the mix in which we could help people, if they so wished, to get on to the housing ladder for the first time.
Paul Holmes
I have not finished my point, if the hon. Lady would let me do so. I feel like the Minister last week.
I am saying that Help to Buy was part of a wider mix. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to focus on building more social housing, but I have a fundamental political disagreement with her, which is that social housing is not a panacea either. There are people who want to buy and there are people who want to be helped to buy, and that is why I say that, under this Government, the incentivisation for first-time buyers in the context of that argument has been abandoned, and that happened when we left office.
Ellie Chowns
My point is brief: given that the Government have a limited amount of money available, should it not be spent on the things that are most effective in tackling the reality of the housing crisis? It is clear that Help to Buy was not that.
Paul Holmes
I agree with the hon. Lady that the Government should be focusing on social housing. However, to be fair to them, they have announced a huge amount of money for it, as we discussed in the Westminster Hall debate six or seven weeks ago. I cannot remember the figure, but it was a great figure for building social housing. They have gone further than the last Government did on social housing, and I said in that Westminster Hall debate that I welcomed the Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to building that affordable and social housing, but we need a housing mix that also allows for first-time buyers. That is the argument I originally made, and I do not think many people in the House or out there would disagree that we need such a mix.
Briefly, new clause 75 relates to small site allocations in local plans. Currently, local planning authorities are expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans, unless they can provide a strong explanation why that is not possible. The Government have recognised the strength of feeling that small site policy generally is not working for both planning authorities and small and medium-sized developers, and they are strengthening the wording in the Bill. However, this new clause is designed to reverse that, and to up the percentage of small sites that should be accessible to SME developers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined in his intervention. I think the Minister should be able to agree to it.
We discussed this morning how SME developers could be enabled to build more homes. There would be a requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites, and:
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development…The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”
I hope that also shows many Members across the House that we believe in a solid and varied housing mix, built by a solid and varied housing sector. A number of these measures will help deliver just that. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts.
The Chair
Before we go on, let me say that the Minister is under no obligation to discuss Help to Buy in his response.
Matthew Pennycook
I will obey your strictures, Ms Jardine, and avoid a debate on Help to Buy. I welcome hon. Members moving this group of new clauses, but I will be fairly brief. Although they may not want to, I am keen to debate all the other new clauses they have tabled and to make good progress through them. However, I am more than happy to address these new clauses.
It will not surprise hon. Members that the Government do not feel able to accept the new clauses, but for good reason. I am happy to discuss why and to set out, where applicable, how our proposals to disrupt—these are not disruptive proposals, just to clarify that for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley—the housing system, so that it functions better, play a part in that.
I will first address new clauses 3 and 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington respectively. It is true that the Government have not yet set a social and affordable housing target, but we are clear that we need to significantly increase the number of social and affordable homes built each year. There is a particular focus on that under this Government, because I would argue that we have seen the engineered decline of social rented housing over the previous 14 years. That included not only the significant cuts the coalition Government made to affordable housing grant, but other measures that were introduced. I think, in particular, of the generous right-to-buy discounts introduced by Grant Shapps when he was Housing Minister, which have seen our stock sold off in too large a quantity. We are determined to build more and, through the changes we are making to right to buy, to retain more of our stock, while recognising that long-term tenants should still have a right to buy, where applicable.
We do not believe that the new clauses are the right way forward. I think there is a difference—I am more than happy to debate the issue outside the Committee Room, but it is probably too extensive to go into now—between the standard method for calculating assessed housing need in the national planning policy framework, which sets overall assessed housing need numbers, with those being translated into local targets for housing as a whole, and affordable targets.
As I said, we have not set a target yet, but we are clear, through the NPPF, that local authorities should, in producing their local plan, assess their need for affordable housing and social rented homes, and then plan to meet those needs. That includes establishing the total need for affordable housing and setting out the amount of affordable housing that should be secured on development. Those plans are then obviously independently examined as to whether they are sound. We have also made changes to the NPPF to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit the particular housing needs in their areas.
In addition, we are introducing new measures in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify an amount or distribution of affordable housing to be delivered. I have also already committed to considering further steps to support social and affordable housing as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies for decision making in 2025. It is as part of those changes that further steps will, in many instances, best be taken, including on the content and timing of further updates to guidance. I really do recognise the point behind the new clauses, and we are keeping the matter under review, but for the reasons that I have given, I would ask that the new clauses are not pressed to a vote.
I now turn to new clause 49. Our approach to housing targets has been put in place to support our ambition to build 1.5 million new homes over the next five years. In our view, that reflects the scale of house building needed to address the current acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country, which I think we all recognise, and we have heard the statistics. As things stand, there are nearly 30,000 people on my local housing waiting list, and huge numbers are in temporary accommodation. Everywhere I go, I say that this is an acute and entrenched crisis; in many parts of the country, particularly for those of us in urban areas, it is nothing short of an emergency, and we need to take steps to respond to that.
The Government have been clear that new towns—this is our preferred approach as we proceed now—will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method across the country. I say that for the following reason, but with the caveat that we are keeping the matter under review: I do not know what precise list of recommended sites the new towns taskforce will bring forward, and some of those sites may build out in this Parliament, but a great number will either not have started building out in this Parliament or will only just have started. For that reason, I do not think it is reasonable, in many instances, to say that a significant proportion of the LHN we are asking local authorities to meet can be absorbed by a new town that is to come in a future Parliament.
Lewis Cocking
Local plans are done over a 15-year period, so they are over multiple Parliaments. When the Government set the housing targets for local councils—if what the Minister has just said is the Government’s position on new towns—should the situation not be the same as for local plans? Broxbourne has a local plan over 15 years, which is three Parliaments, so all the housing targets given to local authorities will not be done in one Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Local plans are set over a longer time horizon. There is an issue, as he knows, with the number of local plans across the country that are up to date. There are other, corresponding issues about the date at which those local plans that are brought forward begin, and whether they are brought forward at all. Our general position—I will not go any further than that—is that we are keeping this under review. It has been our stated position so far that new towns will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method.
When a new town might build out will be highly place-dependent; it will depend on the particular circumstances and delivery vehicle. Let us see what sites the new towns taskforce recommends. We are keeping this under review because we recognise that we need the right incentives in place to support proactive local authorities to work with us to bring new towns together. Although we have been clear that the site selection will ultimately be in the national interest, in terms of building these large-scale new communities out quickly and effectively, and ensuring that they are exemplary developments, it will obviously be far easier if local authorities are proactive and constructive.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is making a very important point. He will no doubt recall that, on a number of occasions, I have argued that those new towns should be within the housing targets. Our view is that if they are going to be successful, they need to be community led and embedded in the mission of that council area or community.
To the Minister’s point about aligning incentives, we encourage him to continue to keep that matter under review and open for a further reason: the scale of the increase in allocations. For example, my council has to find a 46% increase in housing allocations, which is extremely challenging, as it is in areas where, for example, there are green belts or protected land. It is extremely challenging for some authorities to identify land for housing, and if that has to be on top of a new town, it will be even more challenging. I welcome the Minister’s statement that he is keeping the matter under review, and we encourage him to do that.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman’s position on the matter is very clear. We will keep under review how the taskforce’s recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets.
Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking, understandably, to prevent areas with a new town from taking unmet need from neighbouring areas, his new clause would have the effect of discouraging effective cross-boundary co-operation on a much wider range of matters, which could lead to issues with local plans in those areas. For that reason, I ask him not to press it.
I turn to new clause 48. In our manifesto, the Government committed to restoring mandatory housing targets and reversing the supply-negative changes introduced by the previous Government in December 2023. In December 2024, we therefore implemented a new standard method for assessing housing needs that aligns with our ambition for 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament and better directs homes to where they are most needed and where housing is least affordable. The standard method is an important tool to ensure that housing is delivered in the right places, which is critical to tackling the chronic shortages facing the country across all areas and all tenures.
We consulted extensively on our changes to the standard method. Our public consultation received more than 10,000 responses from a range of relevant parties, including 387 submissions from local authorities. Our response to the consultation sets out the evidence received and how the Government have responded to the points raised. We have also published revised guidance to support authorities utilising the standard method. Given the recent consultation exercise on the revised standard method, I do not believe that new clause 48, which seeks further consultation and procedural steps, is the right way forward. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.
I turn to the hon. Member’s new clause 50. National planning policy—specifically paragraph 72 of the NPPF—already expects local planning authorities to prepare strategic housing land availability assessments to provide evidence on land availability within their area. Authorities should then set out, through their local plans, a sufficient supply and mix of sites that can be brought forward over the plan period. Through this existing policy, local planning authorities are already expected to make an assessment of the number and type of homes that are required and proposed to be built in the authority’s area. I note the comment that several hon. Members have made about older people’s housing. I think it fair to say that the housing and planning system has not kept pace with demographic change, but that is why the Government are exploring the recommendations of the older people’s housing taskforce, for example.
In addition, we are committed to introducing the new plan-making system, which includes the following provision set out in new section 15C(8) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023:
“The local plan must take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed.”
New clause 50 would therefore duplicate national planning policy and legislation that we anticipate will come into effect later this year. It would create new burdens on local planning authorities, with the effect of delaying plan making. It would also undermine the Government’s priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, reducing much-needed housing supply. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.
I fully understand and support the principle behind new clause 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. The Government fully recognise the benefits that small sites can offer in contributing to house building, diversifying the housing market and supporting faster build-out. We are therefore fully committed to increasing delivery on small sites and supporting our SME developers. This is a real priority for the Government. The statistics show that back in the 1980s SMEs built something like 40% of housing supply; the figure now is less than 10%. That is a large part of the reason that we are not bringing homes forward in the numbers we would want. Council house building is another example.
Via the NPPF, local authorities are already expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans unless they can provide a strong explanation why this is not possible. If such an explanation proves wanting, the plan can be found unsound when it is examined by an independent inspector. In line with the thinking behind new clause 75, we consulted on strengthening that requirement by making it wholly mandatory in local plans. That was part of the summer 2024 consultation on the NPPF, but the responses we received were clear that making the target fully mandatory would be resource-intensive, would put significant pressure on local authorities, would be unworkable in many areas and might lead to delays in plan making.
In the Government response to the NPPF consultation in December, we therefore made clear our intention to explore other options to support small site delivery as part of the upcoming national development management policies. I do not want to tease the Committee again, but details will be forthcoming and will be subject to consultation. Although I appreciate the principle behind new clause 75, I therefore do not believe that it is the best way to support small site delivery. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley not to press it.
Paul Holmes
I am a pragmatist, so if the Minister says that he will make announcements in due course to strengthen what he already has a track record of doing, which is what the new clause seeks, we will welcome that. I must press him slightly, however. I grant that he has only been in his position for 10 months, but if the 10% is already in the NPPF and has not made any real change, and if he is reluctant to make legislative changes to enforce it, what other measures can he introduce to increase the number of houses that SME builders can build?
Matthew Pennycook
It is worth referring to the NPPF consultation in the summer and the Government response. We think that there was good reason not to make the 10% allocation mandatory. Local authorities, in particular, told us that they had concerns in that regard. There are many other things we could do. Without using this as a defence, in fairly short order the shadow Minister will see some of the measures that we want to introduce to support SME house builders. Access to land is a concern, and access to finance is another issue, as is the cumulative burden of regulation on SME house builders, which, for obvious reasons, are less able to cope with that than large-volume house builders. All of that is part of the answer, but I am sure we will have further debates on the matter once the Government have brought forth new measures in that area.
I turn to new clauses 92 and 26. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market. I agree that the need to provide sufficient housing to meet older people’s specific needs is critical. We must ensure that the housing market is moving with demographic change. I also recognise that well-designed, suitable housing can improve the quality of life, health and wellbeing of older people, as well as supporting wider Government objectives.
That is why the revised national planning policy framework already makes it clear that local authorities producing a local plan should, as I have said before, assess the size, types and tenure of housing for different groups in their communities, including older people, and reflect that in their planning policies. Supporting guidance also makes it clear that an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs should be considered from the early stages of plan making through to decision making.
Furthermore, clause 47 contains provision for spatial development strategies to take account of that factor. It provides that SDSs
“may specify or describe…an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other kind of housing”
if the provision of that housing is considered
“to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
One can well imagine how, in particular sub-regions of the country with high proportions of older people, SDSs may want to take particular account of that factor.
We will of course consider how we can continue to make progress on delivering sufficient housing for older people, as we develop our long-term housing strategy, which we will publish later this year. I recognise that that will have benefits not only in meeting housing need for older people, but further down the housing chain, by unlocking homes that are inappropriate for older people. Those people may wish to move if they have a better offer and if challenges such as those mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, such as the excessive service charges on some older people’s residential housing, are dealt with.
On new clause 26, I do not believe that introducing legislation to impose targets and capital funding for the affordable homes programme is the best way to incentivise the market to increase the supply of older people’s housing and later living homes. The Government’s view is that local housing authorities are best placed to bring forward the right amount of new housing for older persons and later living homes in their areas through the planning and care systems, and based on local need. The Government will obviously support them to do that when they set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review on 11 June. Alongside wider investment across this Parliament, the new programme will help to deliver our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For that reason, I respectfully ask that none of the new clauses in this very large group are pressed to a vote.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for his comments. I will briefly pick up on a couple of the issues he mentioned. On housing for older people, and new clause 92, I welcome the Government’s recognition that this is a serious issue, and that there are real benefits to enabling greater provision of housing for older members of the community—not least that it would also unlock housing for others. I look forward very much to the measures with which he is tantalising us coming forward. Likewise, as support for SME house builders is an issue close to the hearts of those in my constituency of North Herefordshire, I am on tenterhooks waiting for his forthcoming announcements.
However, I do intend to push new clause 3 to a vote. The Minister has not explained why he thinks that mandatory housing targets are essential, but targets for affordable and social housing are apparently unacceptable.
Matthew Pennycook
In part, I would like to correct the hon. Lady, because at no point did I say that such targets are unacceptable; I said that we have not, to date, set one. I will give her an idea of some of the reasons. The hon. Member for Broxbourne will remember discussion of this in my evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee: there are factors that bear on the delivery of social and affordable housing that sit outside the control of a local authority area.
For example, while a lot of social and affordable housing comes through section 106 agreements, large amounts come through grant funding from Government, and we cannot impose an arbitrary target without other measures, which the Government are bringing forward, being in place. We have not set a target for now; we think it is right that local authorities lead on assessing that need and ensuring that it is reflected in local plans. However, at no point did I say that it is unacceptable—
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Ms Jardine, we had agreed, through the usual channels, that the Whip would move the Adjournment for the Committee at 4 pm—that was agreed with the Labour Whip yesterday. I appreciate that, for very good reasons, she is not here today. I also understand that Ministers may have a preference, given our progress, to continue a degree further. I will not move the Adjournment if the Ministers indicate that they wish to continue a little later, but may I seek your guidance, Ms Jardine, on how to resolve that, given that the schedule on which hon. Members’ diaries have been constructed included an adjournment at 4 pm?
The Chair
I am sorry, but I have had no instruction about that. There has been no mention of it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am standing in as both Energy Minister and a Whip, Ms Jardine. As far as I know, the assumption was that we would have made speedier progress on various clauses today, and might have concluded line-by-line scrutiny by 4 pm. I do not think it was agreed that we would adjourn at 4 pm, but I am not party to any of those conversations, so I am afraid I cannot help. I think all other hon. Members have 5 pm in their diaries—and, given the lack of progress that we have made, we probably should proceed.
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine, I accept that it was a discussion between me, as the Opposition Whip, and the Labour Whip yesterday, which is the usual channel through which times are agreed. That being the case, and in her absence, I will not move the adjournment, in order to enable the Committee to proceed. However, I respect that hon. Members may have to leave—including me, because I have built my diary around that agreement and I have childcare responsibilities.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine—I do not wish to waste any more of the Committee’s time—for my part, I am content for the Committee to sit until 5 pm to ensure that business gets through. However, given my own diary, I would take a dim view if the Government should seek to continue beyond 5 pm.
The Chair
To clarify, the Committee sits until the Government moves the adjournment, so it is entirely up to the Government as to what they wish to do.
Michael Shanks
In all our diaries, the session was from 2 pm until 5 pm. That is when the Government will adjourn.
The Chair
We will continue; I believe the hon. Member for North Herefordshire was speaking.
Ellie Chowns
I was not speaking at the moment of the point of order—the Minister was. I confess have been slightly thrown by the intervention from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but I think that at the time of the point of order, the Minister was intervening on my summing-up speech, which was about pushing new clause 3 to a vote. I take the Minister’s point that he did not say that such targets were unacceptable; however, if he fails to support the new clause, he is effectively indicating that it is fine for the Government to specify where houses must be built, but not to say that local authorities should specify that certain types of housing must be built, as they see fit.
Matthew Pennycook
I would genuinely like to understand the hon. Lady’s thinking in this area. Does she think that it is the role of Government to prescribe, for every local planning authority in England, the precise mixes of tenure and affordable housing, and, for example, the number of older people’s homes they bring forward? It would be helpful to have clarity on where the line is drawn.
Ellie Chowns
I am pleased to clarify that no, that is not my proposal, nor is it what the new clause says. It simply states:
“Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.”
The elaboration of those national and local plans remains in the hands of those who are responsible for producing them under existing legislation. There is nothing in the new clause that says that it has to be at a specific level.
If the Government take the provision of affordable and social housing seriously, and recognise that the existing level of social rented housing—whether it is 3% or 6%—is nowhere near sufficient, then why not have the Bill specify that a quota for affordable and social housing should be set by the authorities that write the local plans? The new clause is moderate, reasonable and proportionate, and is entirely in line with the Government’s commitment to setting targets for housing overall.
The net effect of not accepting the new clause may well be that the housing market continues to be just as distorted as it currently is, so I warmly encourage the Minister to consider supporting it. I think that others will find it difficult to understand why a Labour Government would not support targets for affordable and social housing—not specifying the numbers, but requiring that such targets are a necessary part of achieving what the Government say they want to achieve in improving access to housing.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Before we move on, I think we could all do with a brief comfort break. I will suspend the sitting until 4.15 pm, which will give us eight minutes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Accessibility requirements to be made mandatory—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for M4(2) (Access to and use of dwellings) in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 to be made mandatory, and
(b) issue guidance for developers and other relevant stakeholders on how M4(2) is to be complied with.”
This new clause would make the existing Building Regulations requirements in relation to accessibility, which are currently optional, mandatory.
New clause 110—Accessibility standards for new homes—
It must be a condition of any grant of planning permission for new homes that—
(a) all planned homes meet Building Regulation M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings); and
(b) where an application for planning permission is for 20 or more homes, a minimum of 15% of planned homes meet Building Regulation M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings).”
Gideon Amos
It is a privilege to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
New clause 5 would require building regulations to be made that require new homes to meet the zero carbon standard and to include renewable energy. Back in 2006, the then Labour Government rightly set out plans to achieve zero carbon in new housing. The same Government made a commitment in the carbon plan that there would be a regulatory requirement for zero carbon homes from 2016, which was the key date. That 2016 commitment was renewed by the coalition Government in 2011 and was included in the 2014 Infrastructure Bill. However, all the commitments to on-site efficiency standards and allowable solutions—the extra bit to make new homes zero carbon—were cancelled by the incoming Conservative Government in 2015, in a shocking retrograde step in addressing carbon emissions.
We came so close to achieving the zero carbon homes standard back then. A cross-sector ministerial taskforce had been in place from around 2008. Two preparatory upgrades to building regulations had already been made—by the Labour Government in 2010, and by the coalition Government in 2013—and regulations were drafted for the 2016 upgrade that would have delivered zero carbon homes.
Labour housing and planning Ministers who are now in the Cabinet—I will not name them in case they do not want to be named—chaired the ministerial taskforce and took the programme forward. Under the coalition Government, a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), Andrew Stunell—to whom I pay tribute, and who introduced his first Bill on this subject back in 2004—continued the zero carbon homes programme as a Minister until 2015.
We then had the complete cancellation of the programme in 2015. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had the zero carbon standard been reached, residents would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills since 2016 as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes.
My noble Friend Baroness Parminter tabled a zero carbon homes amendment to the 2015-16 Housing and Planning Bill on Report, but the then Government did not support it. The Minister at the time in the Lords said that the Government would
“introduce nearly zero energy building standards”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2016; Vol. 771, c. 925.]
Of course, that falls well short. Undeterred, the Lords voted in favour again; the then Government ultimately tabled their own amendment that committed to reviewing energy performance requirements under building regulations, but they never did so—and, again, that fell a long way short.
Almost 20 years on, we still do not have a zero carbon standard for new homes. It was, and still should be, a cross-party and cross-sector issue. There is a legal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in this country, and mandating zero carbon new homes would ensure that we do not make the task even harder for ourselves than it already is. Zero carbon homes insulate households not just in terms of energy but from fluctuations in energy prices. They reduce demand for electricity from the national grid and obviously reduce carbon footprint.
Much more recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) tried again to acquire a degree of solar generation on new homes with a private Member’s Bill—his sunshine Bill. When the Minister responded to that debate back in January, he said that
“the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year...that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 652.]
I am not sure why I am quoting the Minister to himself, but he will no doubt recall saying that rooftop solar deployment will increase significantly as a result.
We look forward to a response on the new clause, which moves us towards and helps to deliver zero carbon homes. It would give the Government six months to set out regulations, and it merely seeks to hold the Minister to his word on the topic. The Minister ought to emulate once more the forward-looking approach of the Labour Government back in 2006, who committed this country to a trajectory of zero carbon homes. Almost 20 years on, we and many others want the certainty of a legislative provision to secure a zero carbon future for British housing and bring the benefits of solar generation to all residents.
After all, we could have avoided building an entire new power station had this standard been introduced in 2016, as was proposed through cross-party agreement at the time. It is now almost a decade since the first zero carbon homes plan would have been introduced. This will be a lost opportunity if Parliament does not commit, finally, to taking that last step to make all new homes zero carbon.
Ellie Chowns
I warmly welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I refer colleagues to the fact that I have proposed a private Member’s Bill on exactly this topic—the Carbon Emissions from Buildings (Net Zero) Bill—and my very first Westminster Hall debate was on environmental building standards, so I am fully behind the new clause.
It is essential that we build new housing to the best possible standards, and that we build new homes that are fully fit for the future. We know that doing so has social, environmental and economic benefits. It has social benefits, because it reduces people’s fuel bills and tackles issues such as mould in homes. It has environmental benefits, because, of course, there are huge energy efficiency advantages. It has economic benefits, not least because it is much more economically efficient in the long run to build houses effectively at the start so that we do not have to retrofit them years down the line. We already have a huge retrofit challenge in the coming years, so the very least we can do is to ensure that all new houses are built to zero carbon standards.
The new clause refers specifically to solar power generation on roofs. I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement—I believe it was on local election day—that they are moving in that direction. However, in zero carbon design, other factors are much more important, including building orientation, design around transport and fabric first. I would like to discuss another factor, namely embodied carbon. I have tabled new clause 91 on the subject, but I am not sure that we will get there. When we talk about zero carbon, we need to recognise both the operational carbon, which is the carbon produced by a building during its lifespan—over the next, say, 80 years—and the embodied carbon in buildings, which is becoming a larger factor in the construction industry. We will soon be at the point where embodied carbon is half of the carbon associated with a building during its lifetime.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Member for her lengthy and detailed explanation of zero carbon standards. Does she think it is appropriate to constrain the Minister to bringing forward building regulations within the short period of six months? Would that take longer? Not all of us have the same detailed and intricate knowledge of the standards that would be required, although I understand a great deal about building regulations.
Ellie Chowns
In fairness, I did not draft the new clause. I recognise that it says six months, but as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington spoke about so eloquently, we had proposals for net zero carbon building standards on the table 10 years ago. This has been in development for 20 years. The sector itself is way ahead of Government on this. A huge amount of work has been done by the Low Energy Transformation Initiative, the Royal Institute of British Architects and all sorts of organisations to develop zero carbon building standards.
Although bringing regulations forward within six months is arguably ambitious, it is not that the work is not available. The missing thing is political will, and political will can be found, as we have seen—we have passed a bill in less than 24 hours in this House within the last few weeks. Where there is political will, things can be done quickly. This is not an unreasonable proposal in this legislation. All the technical work is there; it is political will that is missing to bring forward a zero carbon standard for new homes. I could not more warmly welcome this new clause.
Olly Glover
I wish to add some concise thoughts to support the new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which requires new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for generation of solar power. My comments relate to the current political context in our country, which is—regrettably, in my view—more and more cynicism about net zero and the feeling that climate change mitigation is a negative, a drag on our lives and something that will cost us loads of money.
These proposals on zero carbon homes and solar panels are the exact opposite of all that. They are a good example of how taking action on climate change and striving for net zero brings economic opportunity by stimulating supply chains and the labour force and helping people to reduce their bills, creating more money for them to spend on the wider economy. Of course, it helps our planet as well. We need to be far more radical on policies like these, and there needs to be far less delay. We really need to get on with it, because they benefit people, planet and economy.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling the new clause, and other hon. Members for speaking to it. They are all right to highlight the damage caused by the scrapping of the zero carbon homes standard back in 2015. It is worth recalling that that was widely criticised at the time, not only by environmentalists, but by house builders that had geared up to be ready to make the change. It is particularly regrettable, not least to me—I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, will feel the same—to confront the collective costs of the retrofit that is now required because those standards were not in place.
The Government agree that reducing carbon emissions from new homes is a vital part of our ambition to reach net zero by 2050, and increasing solar power in the country must play an important role in that transition. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said when he referenced the debate on the private Member’s Bill that we had a few months back, it is already the Government’s intention to amend building regulations later this year and set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes. The future homes and building standards will set our homes on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels.
We are conducting further technical stakeholder engagement on solar energy following feedback from the future homes and building standards consultation. It is our responsibility to make sure that solar provision is included in the new standards in a way that is ambitious, but technically achievable. We are working through the details to get that right. It is also our responsibility to provide industry with sufficient time to prepare to ensure that any transition to new standards is as smooth as possible. The time spent carefully engaging with industry on the future homes standard makes me confident that a smooth transition to higher standards is entirely possible.
Therefore, I can assure hon. Members that the Government remain committed to improving the energy efficiency of new homes and increasing solar panel deployment. Without seeking to tease hon. Members, who will not have to wait too long for further information in this area, we are doing that. I reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that very fruitful conversations continue with the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I recognise the leadership he has shown in bringing his private Member’s Bill, which has drawn more attention to the issue. For those reasons, and in view of our firm commitment to bring forward those future standards, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might withdraw his new clause.
Gideon Amos
Before I respond to the Minister, I note that I should have spoken to new clause 11. I will not do so at length, but it would improve accessibility for new homes, make sure they are adaptable and introduce a minimum standard for them.
On the zero carbon standard, I am grateful for the Minister’s generally positive response about the direction of travel, but so far, the rhetoric has been about getting us nearer to zero carbon. We need to be bold and decide that we are finally going to make new homes zero carbon. It is a small step to take. In previous legislation, there was an allowable solution that would compensate for the final balance of emissions in any new house that could not achieve it through fabric first. It is achievable, it needs to be done, and we will push new clause 5 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 34—Sustainable drainage (No. 2)—
“The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on—
(i) how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments, and
(ii) the minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage infrastructure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 89—Review of drainage performance of new developments—
“(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development.
(2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.”
This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 7, which would require schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be commenced. My Liberal Democrat colleagues have pressed on this matter repeatedly over recent months and years, including in Westminster Hall. The schedule, which was never commenced, would require sustainable drainage systems—SuDS—to be provided in all but the most exceptional cases. It would establish a proper authority for regulations to ensure they are properly designed and maintained. It is not right that because of inadequate regulation and safeguards, the burden of poorly constructed drainage systems should fall on individuals who have saved for years to get their first home. Without proper enforcement of sustainable drainage, there is a real risk that the drive to increase housing numbers will exacerbate the current problems with drainage and flooding.
After the 2007 floods, Sir Michael Pitt recommended the introduction of the provision. It was duly passed as part of the 2010 Act, but it was never commenced. By 2014, the Government had consulted on the necessary guidance and were on track for commencement before the end of 2015. In 2015, the consultation came to an end, the work came to an end and it was not commenced. The policy approach taken by the then Conservative Government was that we would deal with sustainable drainage through policy, and policy would be sufficient. A little later on, in their 2023 review of the implementation of schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they set out that a previous review had concluded that
“non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems should be made statutory: as the ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult. The review also found that in general there were no specific checking regimes in place to ensure that SuDS had been constructed as agreed, leaving concerns about unsatisfactory standards of design and construction, and of difficulties of ensuring proper maintenance once the developer has left the site.”
If only that schedule had been brought into effect, a great deal of flooding of people’s homes would have been avoided.
In the past, we have had a body of law to control our sewage and drainage system, originally from the Public Health Act 1936, which dealt with any kind of drain that is
“communicating with a public sewer”,
in the words of the Act. But SuDS are a new way of doing things, and they do not have the same body of regulation. There is therefore no longer any reason why schedule 3 should not be commenced as soon as possible, if not immediately. It should not take another flood to make that happen.
It is time to implement the recommendations of the 2008 review, the Government’s consultation response in 2014, the 2023 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review that I quoted, and schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 before our constituents find themselves forced into communicating with a public sewer in their homes and gardens in a way that is all too close and personal.
Paul Holmes
I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on tabling the new clause. It is very similar to new clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). My hon. Friend’s goes slightly further, in that it would ensure
“minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance”,
but we welcome the sentiment, and we understand why the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats have tabled the new clause.
This is an issue that many of us have faced. The hon. Gentleman and I both attended a Westminster Hall debate about problems with drainage in new developments. I said then that in our constituencies, several of us could point to new developments in which planning officers and constituents had no confidence, even though the planning authority had acted entirely appropriately within the guidelines. I think particularly of Botley parish council in my constituency and Boorley Green, where development is going on along the River Hamble and further up into Winchester Street. Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was supposed to help with the expected standards.
With many new developments, a lot of the water companies are not sufficiently accountable to the people they serve. Local authorities are slightly constrained by the planning system from making the changes that they could make to help the long-standing flooding problems, if schedule 3 was brought in.
I welcome the new clause, and it will have our support. We will work with the hon. Gentleman on Report to strengthen the new clause. I do not mean that there is anything wrong with it, but I would like it to be combined with new clause 33 and the standards on ongoing maintenance. I hope the hon. Gentleman takes that as a helpful suggestion, and we look forward to supporting his new clause.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. I have spoken about flooding in the main Chamber at least five times. Constituents have come to see me in my surgeries to tell me that they have been flooded out of their new homes only six months after they were built, because of a lack of appropriate drainage. As climate change brings us greater extremes and severity of weather, we know that frequent flooding will become even more of a problem, so it is imperative that any new building is flood resilient.
I draw the Committee’s attention to my new clauses 85 and 86, which I will move if we have time tomorrow or on Thursday. They are also designed to prevent building on flood plains, and to ensure that flood resilience measures are in place for all new buildings. It is quite extraordinary that 15 years after SuDS were provided for in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they have still not been brought in. I add my voice to those of my Lib Dem and Conservative colleagues urging the Government to support the new clause, and to ensure that all new building is genuinely flood resilient and does not contribute to further problems downstream for other areas, housing or infrastructure.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak to new clause 89, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). It would support what other hon. Members have been seeking with their amendments by requiring developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and by clarifying that it is very much for the developer to take remedial action when such drainage performance is found to be inadequate.
My hon. Friend tabled the amendment for a range of reasons, not least because the new house building in his constituency, and indeed in mine, has included a number of areas where drainage installation has not been done adequately. There have subsequently been lots of issues with the local authority not being willing to adopt because of that; then there has been all the usual argy-bargy that many of us are familiar with between developer and local authority.
The amendment also speaks to a concern of many residents that the scale of house building and the drainage facilities put in place contribute to local flood risk and flooding incidents. A couple of examples from my constituency: the Anderson Place estate in East Hanney and the Childrey Park estate of East Challow have had both flooding issues and those arguments between local authority and developer. For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 89 to put greater onus on developers to ensure that they are installing drainage to the required standard, and that assessment takes place subsequently within five years.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Members for proposing these amendments. Once again, the Government very much sympathise with their objectives. I personally found the recent Westminster Hall debate extremely useful in clarifying my thinking on this matter and the wider issue of water infrastructure.
The Government are strongly committed to requiring sustainable drainage systems in new development. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire cites 15 years—we have had 10 months, and within that time we have already taken steps to improve the delivery of SuDS through the planning system. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December, expanded the requirement to provide SuDS to all development with drainage implications. The framework now also makes clear that SuDS provided as part of proposals for major developments should have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development. The Government also provide planning guidance on sustainable drainage, which supports policies contained within the NPPF.
Some time has passed since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 came into force, and it is important that we consider the most efficient and effective way of securing its objectives in the current circumstances. More specifically, better delivery of SuDS may be achieved by continuing to improve the delivery of the current policy-based approach, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I believe that the underlying ambition is shared. We want to improve the take-up of SuDS, but the means of achieving that are under active consideration. I understand why in all these debates hon. Members wish to push the Government because they feel an urgency to use this legislation to enact every change to the planning system that they want to see. However, I say to the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for North Herefordshire that a final decision on this particular matter will be made in the coming months. I hope that on that basis they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
I turn to new clause 89. It seeks, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage just set out, to introduce a new requirement for developers to undertake a review of the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and to take action when it is needed to improve the development’s drainage performance. As part of the planning application process, developers will need to set out plans for the long-term management of a site, including for drainage infrastructure. That will be agreed as part of the planning permission for the use of the planning conditions or section 106 agreements, and can include arrangements for agreed bodies to take on the management of drainage infrastructure.
When a developer proposes to use SuDS as part of a development, it is clear in planning practice guidance that the proposal should include arrangements for their long-term maintenance. The arrangements will include setting out an agreed body that will adopt the SuDS once the development is completed and take on the maintenance of this infrastructure.
Gideon Amos
I genuinely appreciate the Minister’s constructive response; I know that he is interested in and concerned about the issue.
We all know that the industry will have objections to new regulations—back in the day, house builders objected to being required to put bathrooms inside houses. Objections will come as surely as night follows day. Previous Governments responded by saying, “Don’t worry; we can just change policy—it will be fine.” The 2023 report explicitly states that the policy approach has not worked. We have had 10 years of experimentation and a full Government review by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the response was that the current ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult—essentially, it has not worked.
Relying on policy is also a departure from the tried-and-tested approach in which things to do with the physical structure of the building—drainage and all those matters—come under the building regulations. All drainage matters come under the building regulations, so why would sustainable drainage not be covered by regulations but be a matter of policy? That leaves the ambiguity that the DEFRA report points out, and it simply has not worked. For all those reasons, I cannot see any alternative to our pressing the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 14—Purposes and principles to be followed by parties exercising planning or development functions—
“(1) Any party exercising any function in relation to planning and development must—
(a) have regard to the purpose of the planning system outlined in subsection (2), and
(b) apply the principles outlined in subsection (3) for the purposes of achieving sustainable development.
(2) The purpose of the planning system is to promote the spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
(3) The principles are—
(a) living within environmental limits;
(b) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(c) achieving a sustainable economy;
(d) promoting good governance including promoting democratic engagement and accountability; and
(e) using sound science responsibly.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘sustainable development’ means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while ensuring the health and integrity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the species within them, as well as the wellbeing of future generations.”
The new clause would define the purpose of the planning system and of planning as promoting the efficient spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
New clause 41—Exercise of planning functions to be compatible with the purpose of planning—
“(1) Any person or body exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with the purpose of planning as set out in subsection (2).
(2) The purpose of planning is to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest.
(3) Anything which—
(a) addresses the long-term common good and wellbeing of current and future generations,
(b) has full regard to the achievement of the commitments in and under the Climate Change Act 2008 or the Environment Act 2021,
(c) is in accordance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and
(d) delivers fair planning processes that are open, accessible and efficient,
is to be considered as being in the long-term public interest.
(4) In this section, a planning function means any statutory power or duty relating to the use or development of land in England.”
This new clause would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose.
Gideon Amos
New clause 9 concerns healthy homes, and would ensure that national and local government plans are designed with a clear and explicit aim of improving the physical, mental and social health and wellbeing of people in those homes.
We cannot afford to keep building homes that make people ill. It is instructive to recall that the original planning system and the original planning Act emerged from the garden city movement, the public health movement and the desire to enable people to escape from slums. The first planning Act was the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act 1909, which was mainly concerned with public health. We need to re-establish the link between planning and health if we are going to improve our health outcomes, prevent health inequalities and address the sicknesses in our society.
Right now, 3.5 million homes, which are lived in by around 15% of households, fail to meet the decent homes standard. That is not just a housing issue; it is a public health issue. According to the Resolution Foundation, poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health. It costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year to treat to treat and costs society an estimated £18.5 billion, because it damages productivity, education outcomes and life chances. If we are serious about levelling up and addressing health inequalities, we must start with the homes that people live in.
We know that deregulation has not worked. The extension of permitted developments under the last Government allowed the conversion of offices and shops into substandard housing, flats without windows, and rooms too small for someone to stretch their arms out without touching the walls. Those were “homes” in name only. If the Government enact any further changes to permitted development rights, they should at least adopt this new clause to ensure that those homes are healthy, regardless of how they are built.
Even the revised national planning policy framework, while nodding towards health inequalities, includes no effective levers to address them or to force those making development decisions to consider health outcomes. A vague instruction to have regard to local health inequalities is simply not enough.
Similarly, while the decent homes standard refers to health outcomes, it deals only with fixing the dangers in the existing rental stock. We need to consider health outcomes during the development stage to prevent dangers, rather than considering them only when they have already become a problem. This new clause would do that. It is about designing out risks from the start and embedding health into the DNA of planning once again, and into development policy.
This new clause is backed by the Town and Country Planning Association, which says it will establish clarity on housing standards and wider development quality, setting a level playing field for industry. That is fundamental for promoting positive health outcomes across all new homes and communities.
Surely, it is time that we moved from building homes quickly and at any cost to building them well and making them healthy for the people who live in them. I urge the Committee to support new clause 9.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 41, which have been grouped with new clause 9 and address the same question of what the purpose of planning should be. To be clear, new clause 14 has the support of the Town and Country Planning Association, and new clause 41 has the support of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Indeed, there is a widely held view in the planning sector that it is necessary to have a clear statutory purpose for planning, both to guide planning decisions and to make it more publicly understandable what planning does and what it is for.
The suggestion in these new clauses is that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill should take the opportunity to set out a clear purpose for planning, based on the UN’s sustainable development principles, to which, of course, the UK Government are a signatory and make fairly frequent reference. That would offer an opportunity to build consensus around the purpose of planning in all its diverse glory—not just in plan making, but in decision making.
What we have seen with the Government’s emphasis on reframing national planning policy in the NPPF as being all about economic growth is not just bad for the environment but risks missing out on the opportunity to ensure that all planning policy and decisions are good for people, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just explained.
Creating a statutory purpose for planning would give a clear foundation for national planning policy and would help to prevent the sudden shifts in national policy direction that have been a feature of the system since 2010. As it currently stands, planning law has only an exceptionally weak duty:
“to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.
That duty is limited only to plan making and does not extend to decision making. That existing duty contains no definition of sustainable development and makes no reference to the internationally recognised framework of the sustainable development goals.
I feel that in framing a vision for our future development, as outlined in new clause 14, a specific requirement should be placed on the Secretary of State to have special regard for the wellbeing of present and future generations in planning. Planning decisions are, by definition, long term. The world we inhabit today is shaped by planning decisions made decades in the past, so it can only be right that we explicitly recognise the needs of children and young people in both plan making and decision making.
Although new clauses 14 and 41 have slightly different wording, their intention is effectively the same, which is to ask the Secretary of State to use the Bill as an opportunity to set out a statutory purpose for planning that specifically frames all planning decisions around the broad concept of sustainable development, as very clearly articulated in the SDGs and elsewhere.
Matthew Pennycook
We can all agree that the design and use of the built and natural environment are major determinants of health and wellbeing. That is why this important matter is addressed in the planning system through both policy and guidance such as the NPPF and PPG, which includes the national design guide and the national model design code.
The hon. Lady said that the Government have made the NPPF all about economic growth. No, we are very clear that we made changes to ensure that the NPPF is pro-growth, but the NPPF makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, with a fundamental part of this being to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities.
Ellie Chowns
Will the Minister set out his definition of sustainable development?
Matthew Pennycook
I will do better than that and direct the hon. Lady to the appropriate paragraphs in the NPPF, which set out a clear explanation of what is meant by the purpose and the presumption that runs through it.
The framework further sets out that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places that promote social interaction. This includes opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, and that enable and support healthy lives—both by promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this addresses identified local health and wellbeing needs and seeks to reduce health inequalities.
The framework also recognises that access to a network of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for health and wellbeing and it is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and should seek opportunities for new provision.
It is a legal requirement to have regard to national policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State, such as the NPPF and the national design guide, when preparing a local or strategic plan. Such policies and guidance are also material considerations in planning decisions, where relevant. Therefore, while I understand the intent behind this amendment, we are clear that these important matters are best recognised and addressed through national planning policy and guidance, all of which must be considered in the preparation of local plans and, where relevant, in planning decisions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling new clauses 14 and 41. They are right that planning should serve a clear purpose, which is why its purpose is front and centre of our NPPF to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. What that should mean in practice is set out through the policies in the framework, and through the policies in the development plan for each area. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan in question, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one of those material considerations and must also be taken into account in preparing the development plan.
Furthermore, there are already well established mechanisms in place to enable communities to engage with planning processes and shape the development that takes place in their area. This includes through statutory consultation, which local planning authorities are required to undertake, as the hon. Lady will be aware, for both plan making and when determining planning applications.
Ellie Chowns
Would the Minister care to explain why the TCPA and the RTPI feel that the existing framework is not adequate?
Matthew Pennycook
No, in short, and I will give the hon. Lady my explanation. I had extensive debates during the last Parliament with the TCPA and Lord Crisp, who is a proponent of healthy homes. I well understand where the TCPA is coming from, but I am not going to purport to set out the reasons why it thinks this issue is important. I am setting out the Government’s position, and why we think that existing national planning policy and guidance are sufficient in this area. However, I accept there may be a genuine difference about how necessary and beneficial it is to define a clear purpose of the planning system. The Government have a view on that, and I concede that the TCPA and others will continue to campaign in this area.
Gideon Amos
I simply make the brief point that there is a whole swathe of statutory requirements on planning—good design, sustainable development, mitigating climate change—and such legal duties can be included in planning legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman almost makes my point for me. There is a whole layering of statute, policy and guidance, and if we had more time, we could have a more extensive debate on the merits or otherwise of including a clear purpose of the planning system. I am sure there would be lots of disagreement about what that purpose should be. However, on the principle, as I have set out, the Government think that planning policy and guidance are adequate to achieve the outcomes we all want to see achieved through the planning system.
Gideon Amos
Thank you, Ms Jardine. You have reminded me that I have the right to sum up, which I am happy to forgo in the interests of time. We will not push new clause 9 to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Thursday 22nd May 2025
(6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2025 - (22 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I ask Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are now allowed during sittings.
I remind Members that interventions are taken at the discretion of the Member who has the Floor and that they should be short and relevant. Members may bob to make a speech if they want to speak at more length.
The Committee will be considering new clauses today. As a reminder, new clauses will be considered in numerical order, as on the amendment paper and on the selection and grouping paper. They may be grouped with other new clauses for the purposes of debate, and where a new clause has been debated previously, it cannot be debated further when it is reached. Members should let me know if they wish to push it to a vote.
The Committee will conclude its consideration of the Bill at 5 pm. I refer Members to the detailed advice circulated to them by the Clerks in advance of the sitting. To recap, however, if the Committee is still considering the Bill at 5 pm, the Chair must interrupt and bring proceedings to a close. After 5 pm, there can be no further debate on any remaining propositions. The Chair will, in accordance with the Standing Order, put the questions on the new clause that was under discussion at 5 pm, on any outstanding Government amendment and on any remaining clause stand part questions before reporting the Bill. I also have discretion to put the question on any non-Government new clauses that have previously been debated. New clauses that have not been debated cannot be considered or voted on. Should any Member wish to request a vote on a previously debated new clause, they should let me know in advance.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Ms Jardine. You said that debate would continue until 5 pm, but I have just been told by the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden that she intends to stop debate at 1 o’clock.
The Chair
I am sorry. There are two separate things. We will stop at 1 pm and adjourning until the afternoon sitting, unless we are finished at that point, in which case good. The latest that debate can continue to, however, is 5 pm.
Ellie Chowns
Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine. So if we have not got through all the new clauses in this sitting, we will continue this afternoon.
The Chair
Yes, until 5 pm, but if we can get through the new clauses before then it would be helpful.
New Clause 10
New car parks to include solar panels
“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels.
(2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 31—Incentives for installing solar panels—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a scheme under which specified parties who install or incorporate fitted solar panels on a specified property, whether as permitted development or following a grant of planning permission, receive financial benefits or rewards.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
‘specified parties’ means homeowners and the owners of car parks;
‘specified properties’ means the home of the homeowner or the owner’s car park.”
This new clause would create a new scheme to provide financial incentive to homeowners and carpark owners who install solar panels on their properties.
Olly Glover
Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I have moved new clause 10 and will speak to new clause 31, both tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 10 would require solar panels to be provided on all new car parks and new clause 31 would create a scheme to provide financial incentives to homeowners and car park owners who install solar panels on their properties.
Clearly, the main driver of the new clauses is the climate change challenge that we face but, as I said previously in Committee, it is not just a challenge, but an opportunity: embracing more solar power generation enables us to become more self-sufficient in energy generation, and homeowners and others to reduce their energy bills. That is a good example of something that helps people, planet and economy.
New and existing car parks could provide 11.4 GW of solar capacity, which would go a long way towards reaching the Government target of 70 GW of solar by 2035. If land is already being used for a car park, why not make more use of that land and generate renewable energy? Generating energy close to where it is used means fewer energy losses, which is more efficient and makes the energy cheaper to the end user. That is an example of the sort of local electricity grids that we need to move towards in the 21st century of power generation.
Existing and new car parks, and non-domestic roofs between 50 kW and 1,000 kW, have costs comparable to solar farms, and so could be similarly economically attractive. Solar farms are predominantly rural and can require extensive planning permission and additional construction costs due to location, such as long-length cables and large transformers. Car parks also provide the opportunity to use the energy generated directly to charge electric vehicles, thereby relieving pressure on the grid and making driving electric vehicles more attractive. The Government have been clear about their aspiration for us to move to electric vehicles as standard.
In 2022, France introduced similar legislation to that which we are proposing, and it took effect in 2023. The French Government calculated that the measure will result in a capacity of between 6.75 GW and 11.25 GW. For context, Drax, the UK’s largest power station, has a capacity of between a quarter and a half of that, at just 2.6 GW. If not mandated, incentivising such schemes should be the minimum requirement. We are not using car parking space to its full potential, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity to change that by supporting the new clause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I have missed our Wednesday “Politics Scotland” soirées, so it is nice to be with you again. I will begin by speaking to new clause 10. I was going to speak to new clause 31 as well, but I do not know whether anyone intends to move it.
New clause 10, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require the provision of solar panels on at least 50% of the surface area of above-ground car parks. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, and we share his ambition. Indeed, in the “Clean Power 2030 Action Plan”, which we published just before Christmas, we outlined the pathway to achieving a clean power system. Solar photovoltaic deployment is a key component of that, and through the plan we hope to increase solar output from 18 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by 2030.
We were very clear in the plan that we saw solar PV as a real opportunity, but we also stated our intention to gather evidence on the potential of putting solar canopies on car parks. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, although that principle seems entirely sensible and something that I would entirely agree with, there are some details that we would want to work out on how it could be delivered and the economics of it. That is why we are consulting right now. Our call for evidence is open on the potential for mandatory installation of solar canopies on new car parks, and indeed on increasing the potential for solar on current car parks. It is important that we properly engage with industry on this question, particularly on the economics of how it could be delivered because we want to be really clear on the impact that it could have on car parks and of course on the users of car parks if costs are passed on.
I assure both hon. Members that we are in favour of the idea. Fundamentally, we want solar to be part of our pathway to clean power. If it can be deployed on the rooftops of industrial buildings, car parks, warehouses or any rooftop we can use, that clearly is the best and easiest way to do it, but we want an adequate evidence base before we do that. For that reason, we will not support the new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage appreciates that we broadly agree with the general direction that he is proposing.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. We understand that there will be some technical details to look into, although of course that is the case for many aspects of the Bill overall. We wish to press the new clause to a vote, because we think this is a very important topic and that this is an opportunity to be progressed.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Dismissal of appeal or referral—
“In section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of appeals), after subsection (6A) insert—
‘(6B) The Secretary of State may dismiss an appeal or referral where, having considered the appeal or referral, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the appeal or referral is—
(a) vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or
(b) made with the sole intention of—
(i) delaying the development, or
(ii) securing the payment of money, gifts or other inducement by any person.’”
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to dismiss appeals or referrals in certain circumstances.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. New clauses 12 and 13 relate to the introduction of a community right of appeal against planning applications that are approved contrary to the local development plan. That includes policy in local and neighbourhood plans.
New clause 12 reflects the wider need to rebuild public trust in a system that is perceived to be dominated by the power of private sector development interests. It has additional importance in the context of the provisions in the Bill to restrict democratic oversight of planning decisions by locally elected members, which would mean that planning officers and not councillors would decide on the final outcomes of major planning applications.
New clause 12 would address the unfairness in our planning system, whereby only applicants have a right to appeal planning decisions. It would create a strictly limited community right of appeal that applies only when decisions are approved contrary to local planning policy; it would balance things up by creating a reciprocal right of appeal, essentially. That reflects the minimal opportunities that are currently available to the public in the taking of development management decisions and the frustration caused when decisions are made that go against local and neighbourhood plans that have been agreed by communities. New clause 13 is an additional safeguard to give the Secretary of State powers to intervene if the community appeal is considered to be vexatious. Taken together, the new clauses are proportionate and limited measures that could begin to rebuild public trust in the planning system.
Creating such a qualified right was an important recommendation of the Raynsford review of planning in 2018, which was produced by the Town and Country Planning Association. I warmly commend the new clauses to the Committee.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, and I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to the two new clauses, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).
We have a long-established and much-valued right of appeal in the planning system. It recognises that the system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. That existing right of appeal compensates for the removal of the individual’s right to develop.
The planning system already enables community involvement through the preparation of local development plans and neighbourhood plans, and through consultation on individual planning applications. Given that these opportunities already exist, the Government do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to introduce a right of appeal for interested parties.
New clause 12 would serve only to discourage early involvement in the planning process or lead to repeated consideration of issues that have already been raised and addressed during the planning application process. In our view, adding a new appeal process to the planning system would create more delay, costs, complexity and unpredictability, undermining confidence in the system and ultimately delaying the delivery of new housing and economic development at a time when we need to get Britain building again, which we have been very clear about. For that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 12.
I turn to new clause 13. We do not believe that we should extend appeal rights to third parties, which again would serve only to delay the planning process and hinder the development of new housing and economic development. Although I welcome the sentiment behind the new clause—namely, to deter appeals submitted for spurious or non-planning reasons—in our view there are already appropriate measures in place to respond to such appeals through the awards of cost regime. The appeal system in the awards of cost regime helps to stop unmeritorious appeals by making those who submit them pay costs, thereby discouraging vexatious or frivolous cases.
For those reasons, the Government will not be able to accept either new clause.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Refusal of planning permission for countryside development close to large electricity pylons
“(1) If an application is made for planning permission or permission in principle relating to large scale housing development in the countryside which—
(a) may lead to affordable housing being built within 100m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system; or
(b) may lead to any new residential dwelling or new residential garden being within 50m of the centreline of any high voltage overhead electrical transmission system
the local planning authority must refuse the application.
(2) This section applies to any planning permission for large scale housing development in the countryside for which a decision notice has been issued by a local planning authority since 11 May 2022.
(3) If planning permission has been granted for development to which this section applies which contravenes subsection (1), that planning permission shall be revoked.
(4) The revocation of planning permission for the carrying out of building or other operations shall not affect so much of those operations as has been previously carried out.
(5) In this section—
‘large scale housing development’ means any development which includes more than 500 houses;
‘countryside’ includes any predominantly agricultural, rural or greenfield land;
‘may lead to’ includes plans for housing shown in any outline or illustrative masterplan;
‘high voltage overhead electrical transmission system’ means any overhead electrical transmission system at or over 275kV.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 29—Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and
(b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘permanently protecting’ areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area.
(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must—
(a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites;
(b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding—
(i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt;
(ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and
(iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘wildbelt’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include—
(a) areas of land;
(b) bodies of water and adjacent land;
(c) wetlands.”
This new clause would enable the creation of new wildbelt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding the use of provisions of the bill to protect wildbelt areas.
New clause 47—Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land.
New clause 74—Conditions for installation of solar panels on productive land—
“Where an application for permission proposes the installation of solar panels on land used or suitable for agricultural production, it must be a condition of any grant of consent that such panels are installed at a minimum height of one metre from the ground.”
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 29, which would enable the creation of new wild belt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding them. In January, the Office for Environmental Protection reported that the Government are off track for meeting the nature recovery target set out in the Environment Act 2024 and the related commitment to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030—the 30 by 30 target, which was really important.
Getting nature recovery back on track will require the restoration of hundreds of thousands of natural habitats. A new claim designation will be needed to achieve that upgrading and uprating of habitat protection land. For example, sites where habitats are in recovery are not yet at the point where they could qualify for existing protections, such as sites of special scientific interest. Put simply, there is no mechanism to safeguard the next generation of nature sites. We desperately need these new sites for nature to emerge if we are going to achieve the doubling of nature that the Liberal Democrats had in our manifesto. That includes the doubling of protected areas and/or meeting the 30 by 30 target.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to create the new wild belt designation within six months of the passing of the Act, and to limit development in those areas. It would also require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on implementing the new wild belt sites. The new wild belt would be protection for the next generation of nature sites, and would ensure that early habitat restoration is not upended by a change in land use or by new development proposals.
As well as turbocharging efforts to meet nature recovery targets, the increase in habitat recovery provided by wild belts could also help with the climate, by protecting land and reducing carbon emissions. Finally, wild belt sites could create a new space that people can use to connect with nature. The guidance required by the new clause would require local authorities to increase public access to nature through wild belt designations and to report on progress towards this objective. Increased access to nature is associated with improved health outcomes and life satisfaction, as well.
New wild belt sites could be assets for local communities. Community use of wild belts can include space for outdoor education, shared wildlife-friendly gardening spaces, and new river walks to help people of all ages enjoy the benefits of access to nature. Similarly, wild belt designation would not cause undue problems for development or landowners. Many landowners would welcome the designation as a way of securing the protection and nature management of their land, which could be aligned with schemes such as environmental land management schemes. The Government could give extra weighting to ELMS applications where landowners are applying for wild belt areas.
In summary, the wild belt clause would significantly increase the contribution the Bill makes to achieving nature recovery targets, while also helping net zero efforts and ensuring that new homes are progressed alongside flourishing wild spaces that local communities can enjoy. Wild belt would be a win-win for nature, climate and people, and we urge the Committee to support it.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to new clause 16, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). The new clause goes some of the way to address what I spoke about on Second Reading, about how we must create communities. When we are designing new large-scale housing in the countryside, community and design must be at the forefront.
I want the Government to look at what more they can do, because we do not want affordable homes to be put next to large electricity transmission systems. In the interests of time, I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to write to me on this issue, setting out the Government’s position and explaining what they are doing, when we have large-scale development in the countryside, to stop the social housing element of the development being placed in these locations.
Matthew Pennycook
I will respond briefly to new clauses 16 and 29, but I am more than happy to expand on what I say in writing to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. New clause 16 relates to the refusal of planning permission for large-scale housing developments where they are close to large electricity pylons in the countryside.
The new clause seeks to require local planning authorities to refuse applications for planning permission, or permission in principle, for large-scale residential development in the countryside that falls within specific distances of overhead electricity lines. It would also require any planning permission granted since 11 May 2022—a specific date—to be revoked where the development meets the criteria set out in the new clause.
There is nothing in current planning legislation that prohibits development near to overhead electricity lines. However, there are mechanisms within the existing system that ensure decision makers are aware of and—to the extent that they are material—take into account potential safety or other issues of siting development near overhead lines. When developing sites that are close to overhead lines, in practical terms, developers are more likely to position less sensitive elements of their development under these, such as roads rather than homes, which can further minimise any impact.
In the Government’s view, including a clause within legislation that requires the refusal of certain large-scale residential developments together with the revocation of existing permissions would be a major departure from the current approach in planning legislation. It would have a significant impact and would therefore need to be supported by strong justification. That is particularly the case given that other types of safety risk, such as residential development near oil pipes, are deal with adequately under the current framework.
I would also highlight that in the case where an existing planning permission is revoked, which happens very rarely at present, it can be subject to compensation payable to the developer in particular circumstances. That could be significant in the context of large-scale housing development. National Grid has published guidance relevant for development near overhead lines, which ensures that decision makers are aware of safety and amenity issues that may arise from development within close proximity of electricity pylons and overhead lines, citing statutory safety clearances. It also encourages early and proactive engagement with National Grid on plans and individual schemes, which are brought forward within proximity of its infrastructure. That is precisely so that matters can be considered and addressed at the outset.
Given the mechanisms already in place to address impacts on development near high-voltage lines, the new clause would place unnecessary restrictions on the decision-making powers of local planning authorities. For those reasons, we cannot accept it, but, as I said, I am more than happy to set out some further detail to hopefully reassure the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for South Leicestershire.
I turn to new clause 29, as tabled by and spoken to by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. The Government are committed to ensuring that our goal of building 1.5 million homes does not come at the expense of nature. We have had several debates where the Government have reinforced our position in that respect. We are taking steps towards achieving our commitment of protecting 30% of our land for nature by 2030.
I again highlight, as I have in previous debates, local nature recovery strategies, which were introduced under the Environment Act 2021 and are being rolled out across England. They are vehicles to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, to map the most valuable existing areas for nature and to identify proposals for creating or improving habitats for nature and wider environmental goals. They will provide a basis for local decision makers to take informed decisions about where to protect and restore areas that are of importance for nature recovery. They will be able to identify the best opportunities to create or improve habitats, while enabling the development that is needed in their area.
It is important that local areas have flexibility in how they do that. We are not convinced that we need a new category of designated area in law to achieve that end. Development plans at both the local and strategic level will be required to take account of local nature recovery strategies under provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and this Bill when brought into force, and will be able to identify area for environmental improvement.
The Government published guidance setting out the role of local nature recovery strategies in the planning system in February this year. We are considering how the creation of a national set of policies for decision making can further support the goal of protecting and restoring land, which will become of importance to nature’s recovery, using those strategies. I hope that in the light of that information, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his new clause.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We believe that wild belts could be a significant new designation and would add something of real value to help to restore the species that I discussed—those that are in recovery and need their habitats to be developed and further protected, such that they reach protected status. When we reach that point, we will be pressing new clause 29 to a vote.
Lewis Cocking
I am happy with the Government’s considered approach to new clause 16, and I am happy that the Minister will write to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 20
Swift bricks and boxes
“(1) It must be a condition of any grant of planning permission that there must be a minimum of one swift brick or nest box per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.
(2) Swift bricks integrated into walls are to be installed in preference to external swift nest boxes wherever practicable, following best practice.
(3) A planning authority may grant planning permission with exceptions or modifications to the condition specified in subsection (1) in exceptional circumstances, where possible following best practice.
(4) Where a planning authority grants exceptions or modifications, it must publish the exceptional circumstances in which the exceptions or modifications were granted.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
‘swift brick’ means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift;
‘swift nest box’ means an external nest box suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift and
‘best practice guidance’ means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would make planning permission for buildings greater than 5 metres high conditional on the provision of a minimum number of swift bricks. Swift bricks and boxes provide nesting habitat for small urban birds reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 22—Building regulations: biodiversity—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purposes of—
(a) protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and
(b) contributing to the achievement of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out under the Environment Act 2021.
(2) Regulations under this section must include provision—
(a) for the appropriate installation and maintenance of measures including—
(i) bird boxes,
(ii) bat boxes,
(iii) swift bricks,
(iv) hedgehog highways,
(v) splash-free pavements, and
(vi) biodiverse roofs and walls,
(b) limiting the use of artificial grass in a garden or in or on land associated with a dwelling or building covered by the regulations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require new developments to include design features that will contribute to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the achievement of Environment Act targets.
New clause 23—Biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects—
“(1) In Schedule 15 of the Environment Act 2021 (biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects), in paragraph 5 omit ‘10%’ and insert ‘20% for all terrestrial and intertidal development.’
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 1 year of the passing of this Act, bring into force section 99 of the Environment Act 2021 (biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects).”
This amendment increases the biodiversity net gain requirement and includes intertidal development.
New clause 27—Environmental infrastructure in new developments—
“(1) Within six months of to the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;
(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—
(i) bird boxes;
(ii) bat boxes;
(iii) swift bricks;
(iv) hedgehog highways; and
(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in defence of the swift. I have tabled a private Member’s Bill to achieve essentially what this proposed new clause would achieve, but what an opportunity we have in this Bill to take a fantastic step that would make a crucial difference to the future of a species that is under threat.
I will start with an extract from a parliamentary speech made in 2023 by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, of Labour. She said
“We believe that specifically including swift bricks as a measure in the Bill, to be incorporated in planning law, is justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits… If there is anything we can do to either halt that decline or hopefully turn it around, we should certainly do so. There is definitely a clear and present threat to these species. We hope the Government”—
the Tory Government of the time—
“will accept this relatively a small step, which could make a world of difference to protecting our swift population”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2023; Vol. 832, c. 541.]
Baroness Taylor spoke on behalf of Labour, when it was in Opposition, to support the exact swift brick provisions we now discuss. The need for this measure is now two years more urgent. Labour’s former words present the case perfectly, so I urge the Government to embrace their own sentiments and safeguard the future of these iconic birds.
Cavity nesting birds, as a category, are reliant on cavities in buildings to breed. House martins and swifts are 100% dependent on buildings. That breeding dependence means that not only are swift bricks different in character from other types of supplementary biodiversity measures, but the mechanism to make them operable is already in place. That is a key point: there is a specific British standard that makes this new clause feasible. That is why there is a national campaign solely for swift bricks, and a specific swift brick new clause.
Swift bricks would secure cavity nesting habitat by indirectly mitigating the national-scale loss of nesting habitats in our existing buildings. That loss of nesting habitat is inadvertent, due to renovation, demolition and changes to the character of housing. Without legislative protection of their nesting sites or mitigation of loss, it is not surprising that four cavity nesting birds are redlisted, a term defined by the need for urgent action. If these birds cannot breed here, they have no future here.
Swift bricks are therefore a critical nesting habitat measure. They are not merely supplementary. They require zero maintenance, are fully sustainable and are effective, providing eight species of bird with nesting habitat. The new clause poses no risk of delaying or blocking development since swift bricks, first, are bricks and secondly, can be laid alongside all the other bricks without any additional expertise. Actually, this measure would, uniquely for a nature-protection measure, contribute to development and building. Natural England has urged the Government to embrace this proposal, as has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Non-compliance of developers in installing bird boxes, as per conditions stated by their local planning authorities, is 75%. Swift bricks are not included in biodiversity net gain or the Environment Act, and the national planning policy framework guidance is not enough for a critical nesting habitat measure. The swift brick campaign is supported by the nature sector, including Wildlife and Countryside Link, and has seen sustained media interest, showing just how much public concern there is to support these birds. We have had a number of public petitions with over 100,000 signatures. The latest one has 80,000—I just checked it this morning.
Without swift bricks, we lose out too, because our new buildings will never accommodate these urban birds, so our connection with them will also be lost. This measure is a giant, tangible legacy for the public. Even if we live in inner cities, or are unable to get to green spaces easily, we can access these birds—but that will not be true in new homes without swift bricks.
Swifts have been dubbed “our icons of summer”. They are on the brink after 50 million years and they just need a brick with a hole in it. The Bill will enable millions of brick walls to be built. In urging the Committee to include this lifeline for our urban birds, I represent the almost half a million people, in total, who have signed swift brick petitions, including the fastest growing Government petition in 2023. Our homes are, quite literally, these birds’ homes. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is once again a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine.
We broadly support the aim of this new clause. I know my colleague the noble Lord Goldsmith proposed a similar amendment in the House of Lords, which Baroness Taylor and the Secretary of State at DEFRA have indicated they are supportive of. However, there are some flaws in the new clause. It is clear that rather than just habitats for swifts, there are creatures—insects in particular—that would also benefit from similar arrangements within the building industry. Creatures such as starlings, which are something of an iconic British bird and also nest in buildings, would require an alternative design provision.
I am not inclined to seek a vote, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister that there will be consideration given to ensuring that new buildings—both homes and, where possible, commercial buildings—incorporate features designed to support the nesting of birds and other creatures that may use those habitats in a way that is sympathetic to the use of the building.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 26, which would increase biodiversity net gain to 20% for nationally significant infrastructure projects, and new clause 27 on swift bricks. The Committee will be relieved to know that I will not repeat all the points that have been made on this. It is worth saying that the swift bricks proposal has widespread public support and would be a very small and limited change to introduce to building practices. Swifts fly thousands of miles from the Congo basin and back across the Sahara desert twice. When they get here, quite often they find that their nesting places have gone, have been sealed up or are not available. This new clause would make a significant contribution to providing better habitats for swifts and other bird species. We are in support of this new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I take from that that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is not seeking a debate on new clause 27. Is that right?
Matthew Pennycook
Sorry—and 23 as well? I could also address that, if we come on to debate it, but let me first respond to new clauses 20 and 27 relating to swift bricks.
I am well aware of the serious population decline of swifts in the UK. There are numerous reasons behind that decline. It is not just the loss of nesting sites; there are other factors, such as the decline of insect food, but nesting sites are a certainly a contributory factor and the Government recognise that. The objective of increasing the coverage of swift bricks is one that we absolutely share.
However, there are different ways of advancing that aim and this is where a fruitful debate can take place. We are not convinced that legislating to mandate the use of specific wildlife features is the right approach, whether that is done through building regulations or a freestanding legal requirement. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire wants a good summary of my own views, which I have been very clear on over many years, she can find it in a 10 July 2023 Westminster Hall debate we had on the subject, where I expressed similar reservations about the approach that the new clause dictates. Measures such as swift bricks and hedgehog highways are beneficial in many cases, but they will not be feasible or effective for every single development across the country.
The way that new clause 20 tries to provide for exceptions demonstrates that, so there is obviously an awareness of the issue, but it also shows the complexity which arises from a blanket approach. I have real concerns that it would be difficult to operate in practice and risks more legal challenges seeking to block development, rather than securing better uptake of the right features in the right places.
Progress is already being made in expanding the use of wildlife features in homes across the country. The Future Homes Hub, representing 29 home builders who have a large share of the market, operates a voluntary commitment to install a bird nesting brick or box for every new home built. There are factories across the country producing large numbers of swift bricks, so they—and similarly hedgehog highways—are being rolled out as a standard on every new development. That action is welcome, but we absolutely accept that more can be done.
That is why our revisions to the national planning policy framework, published last December, make clear that developments should incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. That is supported by both the national model design code and Natural England’s green infrastructure framework, which set out how developers can do this.
Gideon Amos
It is good to hear the support for this measure. It is a very standard practice that could be expanded. Would the Minister be willing to meet with the hon. Members who support this new clause, including the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), myself and others, to discuss how the use of swift bricks and related features could be encouraged further across the development industry?
Matthew Pennycook
I am always happy to have conversations with hon. Members about the Government’s thinking in this area and other areas, although a particular spin on recent conversations I have had with hon. Members found its way into The Guardian, which is a warning to Ministers. We are trying, as a Government, to feel our way to the most appropriate way to boost the coverage of swift bricks. As I have said, that is an objective that we absolutely share.
In that regard in particular, I point once again to the fact that we are committed to producing a set of national policies for decision making to set out policy requirements in a variety of areas in a more explicit manner. As part of that, we will assess how existing policy is operating, and whether there are any changes to wording in that area that would be beneficial to that objective. Although I fully support the aim of securing both an increase in swift brick coverage and more nature-friendly features in new developments more generally, I cannot support these new clauses, for the reasons I have given. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will be content to withdraw them. Given that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington has not spoken to new clause 23, which relates to biodiversity net gain, I will—
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for correcting the numbering. When I referred to new clause 26, I meant to refer to new clause 23. I spoke only briefly on that, so I understand why the Minister is not responding to that detail.
Ellie Chowns
I welcome the Minister’s warm words regarding the protection of swifts—I am glad to hear them. I do not, however, feel that he has made a strong case against this new clause. If the Government are serious about protecting swifts, why not vote for it? It contains the ability to make exceptions and is an opportunity to drive forward this agenda.
As the Minister has recognised, swifts are still in terrible decline. Although I acknowledge that this measure alone will not in itself magically resolve the full issue, as well as the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that there are also other necessary measures and required species, there is something unique about swifts because they are dependent on these breeding sites.
It is true that they need food, but without breeding sites they are completely stuck, and those sites must be in our buildings. I will be pressing this new clause to a vote, and if the Government vote against it I hope they will come back with an amendment in their own words at Report to achieve exactly the same outcome, if the Minister is genuinely committed to saving and safeguarding the future of these iconic birds.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 21 would introduce a mechanism compensating small businesses and organisations that incur operational losses due to significant roadworks. This is an important measure for us. I am disappointed that it appears that the Government may be foreclosing a whole half day of debate of this Bill Committee. None the less, I will proceed as rapidly as I can. It will be very disappointing if that does indeed occur, Ms Jardine, but they are the powers that be.
The purpose of this measure is to ensure a fairer distribution of impact when infrastructure projects take place. At present, the law is such that the Land Compensation Act 1973 covers only property damage and loss of land value. There is a clear legislative gap when it comes to consequential non-property-based losses.
Small businesses in Wellington, in my own constituency, are experiencing this at first hand. This summer’s unavoidable closure of the M5’s junction 26 and link road to Wellington, for reconstruction, has huge implications for the local economy. Several small businesses on the Foxmoor business park in particular, which depend on daily access to the M5 corridor, will see that closed off for up to three months. A scaffolding company showed me its estimates; it expects to lose around £14,000 over that three-month period. This is not speculative; those are real impacts.
A whole series of other companies will be affected: Adler & Allan, Moss Joinery, Apple Campers, Weston Recovery Services and TLC Garage Services and Recovery. Many of those have emergency services contracts with the police, the RAC and the AA. They are required by the police to be on-site, on the motorway, in 30 minutes. They will lose that business because they will no longer be able to get on to the motorway, because the motorway junction they are situated on will be closed. They are eligible for no compensation at all, despite those significant losses.
That situation is mirrored in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in whose name the new clause was tabled, where redevelopment of the M25’s junction 10 has already run beyond its original deadline. By the time it is complete, it will have taken four years, causing serious disruption to both large and small organisations. RHS Wisley is projected to lose £11 million, and Ockham Bites, a small local café, is losing £600 per day. Those are real impacts on small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, and they need support when they are experiencing massive losses due to roadworks.
We believe that infrastructure investment must balance public benefit with the private burden that they often incur. This is a targeted measure that would introduce pragmatic, proportionate reform, and means to support businesses that are being hardest hit during the delivery of major projects.
Matthew Pennycook
I note and appreciate the case that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but successive Governments have taken the view that businesses should not have the right in law to any particular given level of passing trade, and that traders, or other organisations, must take the risk of loss due to temporary disruption of traffic flows along with all of the other various risks of running a business or organisation. The same businesses or organisations may also profit from new developments once works have been completed.
If planning permission is needed, affected organisations can express concerns as part of that process if they are worried about how works will affect them. Temporary traffic regulation orders are needed for some road closures, and affected organisations can also express concerns as part of that process to the relevant local planning authority.
Lewis Cocking
Does the Minister not appreciate that lots of utility companies dig up roads under emergency procedures, so do not have to let the local authority know? As it is an emergency, one would expect someone to be working, maybe not around the clock, but for a long period of the day over multiple days to get it fixed. When people drive past roadworks in those scenarios, and they do not see anyone working on them, they get incredibly frustrated. Could he just outline what the Government are doing to make sure that roadworks are finished as quickly as possible, in a timely manner?
Matthew Pennycook
Well, I do not begrudge the hon. Gentleman for asking, but he tempts me to move into areas far beyond my ministerial remit and, I would argue, outside the scope of the Bill. In the interests of time, and of ensuring that all of the other worthy new clauses that I see before me on the selection list are debated, I will write to him on that particular point.
On this new clause, following on from what I have just said, we must bear in mind that local planning and highway authorities can take concerns into account when approving planning permission or road closures. They can also amend the timings of road closures and make other arrangements to ensure that access to properties and businesses is maintained. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.
Gideon Amos
I have nothing further to add, but we will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review of the capacity of local planning authorities. The Bill’s passage appears likely, given the size of the Government’s majority, but it will impose a number of additional duties and responsibilities on local planning authorities, and meeting the proposals for housing growth will also stretch their capacity. Our new clause would require a review of their capacity and resources, as well as the impact of issues, such as lack of capacity in the construction sector or supply chains, on achieving some of the housing goals that are being put forward.
While this Government have an ambition to build lots of homes, it is important that we pay attention to how that happens. We know that local authorities are already under-resourced. I am sure that the Government appreciate the need to support local authorities in delivering housing and all the accompanying infrastructure, and we feel that this new clause would go some way towards doing that. At the risk of anticipating that the Minister is unlikely to support the new clause, we look forward to hearing what alternative solutions he may have to these challenges in planning capacity.
David Simmonds
I briefly draw the Committee’s attention to the Planning Advisory Service. As a result of a long-standing arrangement with the Local Government Association, through a funding set-up whereby local authorities and Government provide resources, both peer-support services and these activities are already provided in partnership with local authorities. For that reason, I would be reluctant to seek a legislative method of delivering something that is already, in practice, working well on a voluntary basis. There will always be a debate about whether local authorities feel that their resources are sufficient, but in supporting them to undertake the capacity assessment and build their capacity by working with their peers, that arrangement has been in place and working well for several decades.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I should declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I referred to in my contribution.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification from the shadow Minister and thank him for his comments. He highlighted the important role that the Planning Advisory Service plays.
Skilled planners are essential to delivering efficient, proactive planning services and ensuring that new development supports growth and high-quality design of places and homes. The Government recognise the mounting pressures on local planning authorities as they adapt to significant reforms, both in how we want to reform the house building system and in boosting housing supply. That is why we have legislated in the Bill to allow all local planning authorities to set their own planning fees in order to increase resources in a way that responds to the individual needs of each authority and, as we have debated at length on previous clauses, ensure those fees are ringfenced.
Furthermore, the Chancellor announced—I have said this before, but it is worth my pointing to the Government’s good efforts in this area at every opportunity—a £46 million investment for 2025–26 at the Budget last year, supporting planning capacity and capability, including the recruitment and training of at least 300 graduate and apprentice planners. Funding is also being used to support implementation of the revised national planning policy framework. For example, we allocated substantial funds to local planning authorities to assist them with green belt reviews.
Alongside that, our planning capacity and capability programme works with sector partners to build long-term skills, modernise local plans and speed up decision making, using innovation and digital tools. Importantly, we are closely tracking the impact of those interventions through an embedded research and evaluation team. A national survey conducted in 2023 informs our approach; a further survey, now concluding, will build on that baseline. Given the robust programme of support and evaluation already in place, we are of the view that the new clause is not necessary, and I hope that with those reassurances he might be minded to withdraw it.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments, and I welcome his overview of the Government’s endeavours in tackling the issue of local planning authority capacity. I also note the comments from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I understand his point, but nevertheless, there are still considerable challenges in this area that need to be tackled. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 32
Register of planning applications from political donors
“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—
(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and
(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.
(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”—(Gideon Amos.)
This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 32 would require local planning authorities to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where the Secretary of State had received a donation from the applicant. We are fortunate to live in a country where the planning system is, generally, free of corruption. The United Kingdom is ranked by the Corruption Perceptions Index as among the least corrupt countries in the world. It is in the top 20 alongside Japan and other countries, but perceptions, as in that perceptions index, matter. It is important that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.
We believe there is a need for better control of situations where donations have been made to Ministers, and those Ministers have themselves then made decisions. I will not name any individual, but there has been a well-known scheme involving the Isle of Dogs in which that occurred. I do not allege any corruption in that instance, but, as I say, it is important that justice is not only done but seen to be done. The new clause would be an important contribution to ensuring that our planning system remains as free of undue influence as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving new clause 32. In short, we think it is unnecessary, but I take on board his points and I share his concerns about the particular case that he raised.
Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission that relates to their area. The register must include details on application decisions, including where the Secretary of State has made the decision either via a called-in application or a recovered appeal. That is set out in article 40 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Secretary of State decisions on planning casework are also published on gov.uk in order to provide additional transparency. That includes the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision in question.
When determining applications for planning permission, the Secretary of State operates—obviously—within the ministerial code and planning propriety guidance. The planning propriety guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts before them at that time. Any conflicts of interest between the decision-making role of Ministers and their other interests should be avoided.
To that end, planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the ministerial code. The ministerial code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity, and gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall within the rules relating to the Registers of Members’ and Lords’ Financial Interests. In addition, before any planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance reiterates that they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict of interest, or—this is equally important—the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The planning casework unit within my Department uses that information to ensure that planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to an appearance of impropriety. For example, if the Minister in question has declared that the applicant of the proposal is a political donor, they would be recused from making the decision. We therefore feel that there is sufficient transparency on planning casework decisions made by the Secretary of State, and the Ministers, including myself, who act on her behalf, and it is not necessary to impose an additional administrative burden on local planning authorities.
I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I have nothing further to add. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Prohibition of development on functional floodplains
“(1) No local planning authority may grant planning permission for any development which is to take place on a functional floodplain.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, issue new guidance, or update existing guidance where such guidance exists, relating to development in flood zones and the management of flood risk.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 85—Regard to flood risk guidance when considering development on flood plains—
“(1) When preparing a local plan for an area which includes a flood plain or considering an application for development on a flood plain, a local planning authority must have regard to—
(a) the sequential and exception tests;
(b) the most up to date guidance on flood risk produced by the Government.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
‘sequential test’ means steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding, taking all sources of flood risk and climate change into account. Where it is not possible to locate development in low-risk areas, reasonably available sites within medium risk areas should be considered, with sites within high-risk areas only considered where there are no reasonably available sites in low and medium risk areas;
‘exception test’ means that it has been demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities to have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains.
New clause 86—Requirement for installation of flood resilience measures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, amend relevant Approved Documents to require the installation of flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
(2) Flood resilience measures must be specified and installed in accordance with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice for property flood resilience.”
This new clause would require Approved Documents to require the installation, to CIRIA’s code of practice, of property flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
Ellie Chowns
These new clauses relate to flood resilience. New clause 85 would ensure that local planning authorities have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains. New clause 86 would ensure that there is a requirement for the installation of flood resilience measures.
When we considered the topic of sustainable drainage systems, I spoke about the importance of ensuring that we bear flood resilience in mind. It bears repeating that flooding—already a huge problem in our country—will become even more of a challenge as we continue to wrestle with the effects of climate change. I refer colleagues to the work of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, which is currently conducting an inquiry into flood resilience. We heard evidence from a number of witnesses earlier this week about the importance of property flood resilience measures, which new clause 86 concerns.
Matthew Pennycook
I will speak to new clauses 85 and 86, for which the hon. Lady has just made the case. The Government are committed to building the homes that the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. The national planning policy framework contains strong policies on flood risk, which, along with associated guidance, must be considered when local plans are made. They are also an important material consideration when planning applications are being determined.
The framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas of flood risk should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. That means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain. Where the strict tests set out in national policy for flood risk are not met, it is clear that new development should not be allowed. I believe we share the same ambition to protect development from the risk of flooding. To that end, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, local planning authorities are already required to follow the sequential and exception tests through the NPPF, associated planning guidance and the underpinning legislation that requires them to be taken into account.
New clause 86 seeks to require the installation of flood resilience measures in new build homes in areas at risk of flooding through an amendment to approved documents to the building regulations. I assure hon. Members that I agree with the intent of the new clause. As I said, the Government are committed to building the homes the country needs while ensuring that they are safe from flooding. Building regulations set a minimum standard to protect people’s safety, health and welfare. They are supported by approved documents that provide guidance in common building situations towards meeting outcome-based standards. Specifically, approved document C promotes the use of flood resilient and resistant construction in flood-prone areas, while avoiding placing undue costs on any properties that do not require further flood resilience measures.
Those designing homes can choose to use the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice if they so wish, while ensuring that the building is compliant with the building regulations. However, to establish that as a minimum standard for all new dwellings would be, in our view, disproportionate. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December 2024, is clear that development should be directed to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Where no alternative sites are available, permission should be granted only where it can be demonstrated that it will be safe for the building’s lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Where possible, it should reduce flood risk overall.
The use of property-level flood protections, as recommended through the proposed Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice, such as flood doors, flood barriers and automatic air bricks, should only be considered as part of a wider package of measures to ensure that the development would be safe for its lifetime. Where they are used, they must be in compliance with the requirements of the building regulations. In addition, there are well-established means for ensuring that developments are not approved where there is unacceptable flood risk, with the Environment Agency and local authority bodies overseeing the maintenance of existing mitigation methods.
The Environment Agency has also commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience, which is due to report in the autumn, and we would not like to pre-empt its recommendations with any action that might be contradictory. Although I agree with the intent of the new clause, introducing additional building-level requirements through the approved documents to the building regulations is not a proportionate measure in the context of our wider policy framework. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady might withdraw it.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. “(zg) Any development in an area covered by an Internal Drainage Board. The relevant Internal Drainage Board.””
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 36
Internal Drainage Boards to be statutory consultees
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
Brought up, and read the First time .
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “(zg) Development likely to affect a water company The relevant water company””. “(zg) Development involving a building or property for which insurance will be required The Association of British Insurers””. (zg) Development likely to affect an area covered by a National Landscape Partnership The relevant National Landscape Partnership””. “(zg) Development involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions The relevant fire authority””. “(zg) Development likely to affect historic parks or gardens The Gardens Trust””. “(zg) Development which is likely to affect operations of ambulance services The ambulance trust concerned (zh)Development which is likely to affect operations of fire and rescue services The fire and rescue service concerned””.
New clause 62—Water companies to be statutory consultees for planning applications —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would make water companies statutory consultees on planning applications.
New clause 63—Association of British Insurers to be a statutory consultee —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 64—National Landscape Partnerships to be statutory consultees for planning applications —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 87—Fire authorities to be statutory consultees for applications relating to Battery Energy Storage Solutions —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would ensure that fire authorities are included as statutory consultees in planning applications involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions (BESS’s).
New clause 90—Gardens Trust to be statutory consultees for planning applications —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 97—Removal of statutory consultees —
“(1) A party may only be removed from the list of consultees—
(a) in or under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, or
(b) in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009,
once Parliamentary approval for the removal has been signified.
(2) Parliamentary approval may be signified by—
(a) the approval of a relevant statutory instrument;
(b) the agreement of a relevant motion.”
New clause 100—Pre-application consultation of emergency services —
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
Gideon Amos
This group of new clauses relates to statutory consultees. We are concerned that the Government are reducing the number of statutory consultees. We do not believe that reducing consultation with expert bodies is the right approach. Some of the new clauses in this group relate to introducing certain organisations as statutory consultees into the system. Our new clause 62 would require water companies to be consulted. At present they are not consulted, but they are also obliged to provide connections. They are unable to state whether there is capacity to provide water supply for new development.
New clause 63 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) would introduce the Association of British Insurers into the statutory consultation list, which would mean that insurance companies would be able to indicate whether they would be able to insure properties, particularly those vulnerable to flood risk. At present they have no role in the planning process to do that.
New clause 64 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) refers to national landscape partnerships being involved. Areas of outstanding natural beauty are now called national landscapes. The partnerships that oversee them are incredibly important and do not have any statutory voice in the planning system at present.
New clause 87 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) would require fire authorities to be consulted, and new clause 90, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require historic parks and gardens to be consulted. New clause 97 is also included in this group. We believe Parliament should be required to agree when statutory consultees are removed from the list.
With regard to national landscape partnerships, in my constituency the Blackdown Hills national landscape partnership covers a wide number of local authorities that are unable to provide a single voice in the planning system. The partnership covers probably tens of different parishes and certainly three council areas. It has asked us to put forward the case for it to have a single voice, a seat at the table. If our national landscapes are of importance, they should have a seat at the table in the planning process.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester points out that national landscapes such as Chichester harbour are just asking for a seat at the table in the same way that other organisations do. Chichester harbour national landscape currently responds to 300 planning applications a year, so there would be no increase in resource or funding required to become a statutory consultee. The pressures on Chichester harbour, with the loss of 58% of its salt marsh in 80 years—two and a half hectares a year—mean that it is under considerable stress and needs its voice to be heard in the planning process.
Matthew Pennycook
I will respond to this large group of new clauses by taking seven of them together and then responding separately to new clause 97.
New clauses 36, 62 to 64, 87, 90 and 100 seek to introduce internal drainage boards, water companies, the Association of British Insurers, landscape partnerships, fire authorities, the Gardens Trust and emergency services as statutory consultees in the planning application process. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will be aware, on 26 January my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a moratorium on any new statutory consultees in the planning application process and a review of existing arrangements for statutory consultees to ensure that they align with the Government’s ambitions for growth.
I set out the Government’s concern in this area in more detail in the written ministerial statement that I made on 10 March. It responds to concerns—I think this is an important point to get on the record—not only from developers about the operation of the statutory consultee system at present, but from local planning authorities. In that written ministerial statement, I outlined a package of measures to reform statutory consultees in the planning system, so that they meet their goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making.
The Government have committed to reviewing the system of statutory consultees and will soon be consulting on proposals. At that point, I will expect and welcome a more extensive dialogue with the hon. Gentleman and others about the changes that we might have in mind. Decisions about the long-term operation of the system will be taken as part of the review, with any changes to statutory consultees being taken forward through changes to secondary legislation at a later date.
The new clauses are broadly framed and would result in the various bodies being consulted on a wide range of applications, including for small-scale housing and householder development. That could result, in our view, in many tens of thousands of applications requiring to be consulted on, which would be likely to have severe resourcing implications for the bodies in question—we have spoken about the resource pressures and challenges placed on local planning authorities, and hon. Members might like to have that in mind when drafting amendments that would increase pressure on them—and slow down the planning process. That would be especially acute in relation to application consultations for any building or property requiring insurance or any building that needs connecting to the water mains, and for fire and emergency services.
The Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities are statutory consultees in relation to flood risk issues. Internal drainage boards are not statutory consultees, but they do work proactively with local authorities, which are represented on their management boards, and they can comment on proposals within the statutory public consultation period. Where an internal drainage board raises issues that are material to the determination of the application in question, local authorities must take those into account in reaching a decision.
I should note that the Gardens Trust is currently a statutory consultee for development likely to affect any registered battlefields, gardens or parks. We have committed to consulting on the impact of removing its statutory consultee status, as part of the review. Any decision will obviously be taken in the light of the evidence provided through the consultation.
This Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel that making fire authorities statutory consultees for planning applications involving battery energy storage solutions is necessary or proportionate. BESS grid-scale batteries are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive within a robust framework that mandates battery designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. Developers of BESS sites are already expected, under guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council, to engage with the local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of their planning application.
The Government are considering further measures to enhance the regulation of environmental and safety risks from BESS. DEFRA intends to consult by June 2025 on incorporating BESS in the environmental permitting regulations. That will provide further oversight to safeguard both people and the environment.
We must also consider at what stage in the planning process engagement is most effective. For instance, where particular emergency service concerns exist, such as in relation to high-growth areas, new settlements or developments with complex infrastructure needs, we believe that these are more appropriately addressed through local plan policies and strategic infrastructure planning. It is important to note that local planning authorities have the discretion to consult emergency services where that is relevant to a specific application.
Lastly on this large grouping of new clauses, I note that many organisations can meaningfully contribute to planning decisions through their responses within the statutory public consultation period. That includes charities that promote particular interests, as well as bodies performing public functions. However, the role of statutory consultee creates an obligation not just on the part of the planning authority to consult, but on the part of the consultee to respond within statutory timelines.
I set out in my written ministerial statement the ways in which the system, in various respects, is not performing in the way we believe is most conducive to the outcomes we seek. The burden is substantial, and existing statutory consultees, in some cases, can struggle to deliver. Under a streamlined and effective planning system, the bar for becoming a statutory consultee, in our view, must necessarily be high.
Gideon Amos
I will be brief. I know the Committee wants to move on to the remaining new clauses, and I will facilitate that—we will not push this new clause to a vote. I simply observe that, historically, there was not an issue of local authorities saying that they could not cope with statutory consultees and bodies. What we have now is a system that is not well enough funded, and consulting important bodies should not be seen as a cause of unnecessary delay in the planning process. We think the case is made for the bodies I set out, but we will not press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 47
Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”—(David Simmonds.)
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to targets set out in the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. The Environment Act is the UK’s framework for environmental protection. It was particularly important after the UK left the European Union to maintain rules on nature protection, water quality, clean air and other environmental protections that were at risk. The Climate Change Act established a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making the UK the first country to do so. It set a target of net zero emissions by 2050 and established the Climate Change Committee.
The activities of local authorities inherently have an impact on carbon emissions, and UK100 has estimated that it amounts to between 4% and 9% of the UK’s total carbon emissions, which is of course a non-trivial impact. As we know, and as I believe we largely agree on this Committee, climate change is one of the biggest issues facing us today and has wide-reaching consequences. It is right that any organisation should take reasonable steps to reduce its carbon footprint, and local authorities are no exception.
New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps in relation to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets, as they do not have such a statutory duty today. As the Committee has discussed, that presents opportunities as well as challenges for councils and our communities.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, new clause 58 would place a statutory duty on local planning authorities to contribute to targets set under the Environment Act, the Climate Change Act and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act.
Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. In our view, it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central Government, air quality in the UK is improving, although we accept that there is more to do. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects.
Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies, which we have discussed, and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was strengthened by the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.
On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, a number of which are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched the local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.
The Government also provide a range of net zero support to local authorities. This includes funding five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net zero projects and attract commercial investment, and funding the local net zero accelerator pilot programme to test how to support local places to leverage commercial investment at scale to accelerate the move to net zero.
Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling the combined issues of environmental decline and climate change impacts, we do not think a statutory duty for local authorities to contribute to environmental, net zero or air quality targets, or towards the Climate Change Act’s programme for climate adaptation, is necessary. For that reason, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his response, and we note his comments. Yes, many local authorities are making significant contributions, but I am sure he would agree that it is patchy and inconsistent at the moment. Nevertheless, we will not press the new clause to a Division, but we will observe local authority progress and Government support in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 75
Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development.
(2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”—(David Simmonds.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Thursday 22nd May 2025
(6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2025 - (22 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 78—Cooling hierarchy guidance—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities which—
(a) outlines a cooling hierarchy; and
(b) provides guidance on the application of the cooling hierarchy in the exercise of a local planning authority’s planning and development functions.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local planning authorities on applying the "cooling hierarchy"—a structured approach to reducing overheating risk in buildings, prioritising passive and sustainable design measures.
New clause 79—Overheating risk assessments—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, require all applications for planning permission for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment.
(2) An overheating risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with—
(a) the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk in homes, or
(b) any successor standard designated by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require all planning applications for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment, conducted in line with the latest recognised technical standard, such as those of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
New clause 80—Incorporation of features to mitigate overheating risk—
“(1) When preparing any plan or strategy relating to the development of housing under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a local planning authority must have regard to the need for residential developments to incorporate passive design features that mitigate the risk of overheating.
(2) Passive design features may include—
(a) cross-ventilation,
(b) external shading,
(c) solar control glazing, and
(d) thermal mass.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities, when preparing housing-related plans or strategies, to have regard to the need for residential developments to include passive design features that reduce the risk of overheating, such as cross-ventilation, external shading, solar control glazing, and thermal mass.
New clause 81—Access to data on overheating risk—
“(1) For the purposes of supporting the making of local plans, spatial development strategies and planning decisions, the Secretary of State must make provision for local planning authorities to have access to relevant data relating to overheating risk.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that data on overheating risk made available to local planning authorities is updated at intervals not exceeding five years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have access to up-to-date data on overheating risk, to support the making of local plans, spatial development strategies, and planning decisions.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once more, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak in strong support of a group of new clauses that address a clear and growing risk to public health, quality of life and economic productivity: domestic overheating. It may surprise some—hopefully no one in this room—to know that the risk of overheating in homes is now one of the most severe climate-related threats in the UK. The Climate Change Committee’s independent climate risk assessment identifies overheating in homes as one of the most severe climate risks, requiring urgent action. Over half of UK homes are already at risk of overheating, and that is projected to increase to 90% homes under a 2°C global warming scenario, which unfortunately is a possibility.
This is not some distant hypothetical; the Met Office recorded the UK’s first ever 40°C day in 2022. Already around 2,000 deaths per year in England are attributed to heat waves, a number that is projected to more than triple by the 2050s under even a medium-emissions scenario. This is not just a health issue but an economic one. Evidence shows that overheating in buildings could cost the UK economy £60 billion a year—the equivalent of 1.5% to 2% of GDP—through lost productivity. That is on top of the economic costs of heat-related mortality, estimated to already be £6.4 billion per year in England, which is likely to increase to £14.7 billion per year by the 2050s. These are huge figures.
As highlighted by the Climate Change Committee,
“early adaptation investments deliver high value for money”,
with every £1 invested in adaptation delivering £10 in net economic benefits. That is a huge rate of return and a huge benefit-cost ratio. As heard by the Environmental Audit Committee, passive measures supported through planning, such as installing external shutters, can reduce incidence of heat mortality by around 40%.
Given the urgency, I draw the Committee’s attention to a regrettable decision made more than a decade ago. In 2012, the coalition Government removed references to “overheating” from the national planning policy framework. This left a significant gap in our planning system’s ability to deal with overheating risks—one that has not been adequately addressed since. That is precisely why we need the new clauses. There are five in the group, each of which deals with a particular element that needs addressing, and I will go through them now.
New clause 77 would empower local authorities to impose conditions on planning permissions where there is demonstrable overheating risk, such as single-aspect flatted developments with no cross-ventilation. It is a targeted, proportionate provision that would allow planning authorities to respond to local climatic data with appropriate preventive conditions, and it would undo the short-sighted change introduced by the previous Government.
New clause 78 would introduce statutory guidance on the cooling hierarchy, an approach that is already familiar in London planning policy. The hierarchy prioritises passive design strategies, such as shading and ventilation, before resorting to energy-intensive cooling. This aligns with our net zero goals and ensures resilience, without placing undue burden on developers and the grid. Why would we not ensure that our buildings can effectively cool themselves before going to measures such as installing air conditioning?
New clause 79 would address a significant gap by requiring all full planning applications for residential developments to include an overheating risk assessment, using the established TM59 standard, or its successor, from the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. At present, many new homes are being designed with large, south-facing windows, poor ventilation and inadequate shading. Building regulations alone do not capture this risk at the early design stage, so the planning system must intervene. Overheating is a planning issue, not just a building regulations issue. Building regulations govern how buildings are constructed; planning dictates what gets built and where.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a long-standing norm that building regulations deal not just with the construction of buildings but their thermal efficiency and performance. That is why energy performance certificates were introduced, and there are regulations on windows, glazing and glass roofs all found within the building regulations. Surely these provisions on overheating need to go hand in hand with those provisions on thermal efficiency in housing, and therefore sit far better within building regulations than in this Bill.
Ellie Chowns
I do not at all dispute that there is potential to go further and faster within the framework of building regulations to address the risks that I am outlining. However, there is also potential within the planning framework to do it, which is exactly the point that I have made. The removal of “overheating” from the planning framework in 2022 meant that things have got worse. We have an opportunity in the Bill to ensure that we tackle overheating through the planning framework, as well as the building regulations framework. It really is not an either/or. There is scope and need within both those frameworks to address the risks that I am outlining.
New clause 80 would ensure that local plans must consider passive design in residential development, from cross-ventilation to thermal mass. These are well-established strategies that can drastically reduce indoor temperatures during extreme heat events without energy use.
Finally, new clause 81 would ensure that local authorities have access to up-to-date, localised overheating risk data. Evidence-based planning is possible only when planners are equipped with timely, spatially accurate information. Datasets such as these have already been pioneered in places like Bristol, with its Keep Bristol Cool map and local plan policies. Likewise, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has been developing national data on overheating, and that could form the basis of rolling out such support nationally.
We really must not miss this opportunity. Climate adaptation cannot be an afterthought; it needs to be embedded in our planning framework and how we plan our communities, protect our citizens and shape the homes of tomorrow. These five new clauses offer a clear, practical and urgently needed framework to ensure that our planning system is fit for a warmer world. I urge the Committee to support them.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling the new clauses and raising the very real social and economic issue of overheating in our homes. I absolutely agree with her aims to ensure that homes being built do not give rise to the health and lifestyle risks that come with overheating.
In 2021, a new part of the building regulations—part O —was introduced, which was designed specifically to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. As the hon. Lady will know, compliance with building regulations is mandatory. Given the transitional arrangements that accompany new building regulations, it is only relatively recently that we have seen new homes built specifically to mitigate the risk of overheating, so we are seeing that effect come through the planning system. As part of the future homes and buildings standards consultation, which ran from December 2023 to March 2024, my Department ran a call for evidence on part O. This was to investigate how industry was finding part O, how it was being implemented and whether further improvements could be made. The Government response to that call for evidence, with details of next steps, will be issued later this year.
Different regulatory regimes exist for different purposes, and aspects of building construction concerned with heating and cooling are best addressed through these regulations. The planning system absolutely has a role in mitigating the risks of overheating, but in the Government’s view, that is more in the overall layout and form of development—matters that are covered in national planning policy. Notwithstanding the comments that the hon. Lady made about changes introduced by the coalition Government, paragraph 161 of the national planning policy framework sets out that concern must be given to
“taking into account the long-term implications”
of a range of matters, including overheating.
I reassure the hon. Lady that there is specific reference to overheating in the NPPF as it stands. As we have discussed several times, the framework was partially revised in December last year, but we have again committed to consult on clearer policies for development purposes, which is how decisions on applications are made. These will cover the full range of planning considerations, including how the planning system can address the risks posed by climate change. This is a really important topic, but we think that we are addressing it through our work to strengthen building regulations and planning policy in the future. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is somewhat reassured and will withdraw the motion.
Ellie Chowns
I am somewhat reassured that the Minister recognises the severity of the problem. None the less, I maintain that there is need and scope to go further in ensuring that the planning system specifically enables us to address this issue. In the interests of gently encouraging the Minister further in the direction of tackling overheating, I will press this new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, in the final hour of this Bill Committee—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—metaphorically speaking, of course. I rise to speak to new clause 88 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). The new clause is intended to update the guidance on the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. One of the reasons the Liberal Democrats tabled the new clause is because, not unlike many other forms of infrastructure, building active travel routes seems to take a disproportionately long time and involve a huge amount of legal complexity. This is one idea to help make it a little easier.
The new clause calls on the Secretary of State to review existing guidance and remove barriers to using compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes—I have previously pledged not to use that term—by which I mean walking, cycling and wheeling routes. Such orders can be used to acquire land for a project or development that is in the public interest, but local authorities seem currently reluctant to use them, although they regularly do so for road projects.
To give an example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame, the Thame to Haddenham greenway is a cycleway that will connect Thame to the village Haddenham, just three miles away, which would also help to improve connectivity between Thame itself and the Haddenham and Thame Parkway station on the Chiltern main line. Currently, reaching one from the other requires a cycle down the very busy A418. It is an important link, as it would provide safer pedestrian and cycle routes for tourism, for visiting friends and family in the area, and for commuting to and from London. I could bore the Committee with many similar examples in my own constituency, but I shall restrain myself on this occasion.
The delay is being caused by a variety of issues, but the biggest in this case is trying to acquire the land. Because of the number of owners, it is often the case that one may refuse, even if many others are willing, making the whole route or project impossible. Using a compulsory purchase order would allow the local authority to bypass such obstacles to build the project, as it would be seen as delivering a public good.
While there are a few cases of CPOs being used successfully for active travel, it is difficult because local authorities are reluctant, and the new clause would improve that situation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to new clause 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame. The new clause would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish guidance within 12 months of the Bill becoming law on what is considered a compelling case in the public interest for the use of compulsory purchase powers, and to clarify that active travel schemes are in the public interest. The Government already publish guidance on the compulsory purchase process, including advice on how local authorities can demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest for the use of their CPO powers in general terms. It also provides more detailed guidance on the most commonly used local authority powers.
The Government are keen to support local authorities to use their CPO powers in the public interest, and we published updated guidance in October last year. We also intend to publish updated guidance to reflect the reforms being implemented through the Bill. In addition, CPO powers can already be used for active travel routes and can be executed by local authorities as part of their wider statutory functions. To assist authorities in deploying the powers more effectively, Active Travel England is developing guidance to support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes. The guidance will be published in consultation with local authorities in due course.
Given that the guidance that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has requested on the CPO process already exists, and further guidance is set to be published by Active Travel England, we believe the new clause is unnecessary, and I am afraid I cannot accept it for those reasons.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments. I was very pleased to hear him reference Active Travel England; as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, I have been very impressed by the leadership of Chris Boardman, and it is good to hear the Minister making encouraging noises in that direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 91
Embodied carbon assessments
“(1) Local planning authorities must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) require applications for permission for developments which exceed a specified gross internal area and number of dwellings to include an embodied carbon assessment;
(b) consider a relevant embodied carbon assessment as a material factor when considering whether to grant permission for the development.
(2) The Secretary of State must—
(a) approve a methodology for calculating embodied carbon emissions;
(b) provide guidance on how the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings must be expressed; and
(c) establish a centralised reporting platform to which embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments must be submitted.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
‘embodied carbon’ means the total emissions associated with materials and construction processes involved in the full life cycle of a project;
‘whole life carbon’ means the combination of embodied and operational emissions across the full life cycle of a project;
‘operational emissions’ means the carbon emissions from the energy used once a project is operational, including from heating, lighting and cooling.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning application and consideration of these by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State will be required to approve a methodology, issue guidance, and establish a centralised reporting platform for whole-life carbon emissions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 108—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—
“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”
Ellie Chowns
New clause 91 would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning process. It is a practical, forward-looking measure that I think will make a significant difference. It has been called for widely by industry, and indeed by parliamentarians, for some years, and it relates to a critical and currently unregulated area of the UK’s built environment emissions. The new clause would require planning applications for development only over a certain size to include an embodied carbon assessment, and it would provide for the Secretary of State to approve a methodology, issue guidance on how the assessments should be carried out, and establish a centralised reporting platform. Crucially, it would require that local planning authorities consider these assessments as a material factor when reviewing an application.
Embodied carbon refers to the emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole life cycle of a building or of infrastructure. This is typically from any processes, materials or products used to construct, maintain, repair, refurbish or repurpose a building. The UK Green Building Council estimates that the UK releases around 60 million tonnes of embodied carbon per year. That is more than aviation and shipping combined, and it accounts for over 10% of UK emissions. This is really significant. As I mentioned on a previous day, as we become more efficient in the operational carbon in our buildings, the embodied carbon in them becomes an increasingly significant part of the carbon reduction challenge in the building sector.
Embodied carbon has not substantially reduced over the last 30 years, unlike operational carbon, despite initiatives to decarbonise material manufacturing. Unlike operational carbon, which can be regulated through building performance standards, embodied carbon remains unaddressed by policy. As a result, decisions with very significant long-term climate implications are being made every day without a consistent framework for assessing their carbon impact. It is a huge unregulated problem.
The new clause seeks to close that gap in a measured and industry-ready way. It would not impose a burden on small-scale development—only major schemes, where carbon savings from early design choices are both most impactful and most achievable. It would buils on existing tools and industry momentum, and industry actually really wants this. There are already widely used standards and guidance available, including the whole life carbon assessment guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the UK net zero carbon buildings standard and the embodied carbon primer from the London Energy Transformation Initiative.
Many local authorities, such as the Greater London Authority, Bristol and Manchester, have begun requiring whole life carbon assessment as part of planning. Embedding this requirement in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide clarity and consistency, saving time and minimising potential legal challenge by ensuring that planning authorities are demonstrably committing to the fulfilment of statutory climate duties. It would empower local planning authorities to make more informed, balanced decisions that take account of our legally binding net zero commitments and provide a consistent policy environment in which developers can operate.
This next bit is really important: there is strong consensus from industry that there is a need for this requirement to be widespread. Over 140 organisations have signed up to Part Z, a proposal developed by industry that calls for embodied carbon regulation. The industry is ahead of the politicians on this, and they are calling for it. This new clause requires a central database and consistent measurement framework to streamline and simplify the current diversity of approaches. Standardisation of embodied carbon measurement is a major priority, with leading industry organisations—such as UKGBC, the Royal Institute of British Architects, CIBSE, the Institution of Structural Engineers and RICS—calling for a national framework to ensure consistency between planning authorities.
Importantly—this is my final paragraph—this new clause aligns with the Bill’s aim to accelerate the delivery of housing and infrastructure while ensuring that the system is fit for future needs. The decisions that we make today about what we build and how we build it will lock in emissions for decades. This new clause is not a barrier to development: it is a tool to build better, more responsibly, more efficiently and more sustainably. It enables early intervention, supports innovation and ensures that the carbon cost of our buildings is not ignored in the rush to meet targets. It is pragmatic, proportionate and backed by industry. If the Minister is not inclined to accept the new clause, I would very much welcome a meeting with him to discuss how we can ensure that embodied carbon is taken forward and we use Government policy to address this important issue.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this new clause, and I very much recognise the challenge that she has outlined. The Government are committed to the 2050 net zero carbon emissions target, and we recognise that embodied carbon can account for a significant proportion of a building’s whole life carbon emissions. Climate change is obviously one of the greatest challenges facing the world today, and managing carbon emissions and carbon storage is vital to mitigating the speed and impact of climate change. The national planning policy framework is clear that the planning system should contribute to and support the transition to a low-carbon future. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Our consultation in the summer of last year on changes to the NPPF deliberately sought views on whether carbon can be accurately measured and accounted for in plan-making and planning decisions to establish industry readiness and identify any challenges to widespread use of carbon assessments in planning. We received a wide range of views on this topic, and based on the responses received, we do not consider it appropriate to make carbon assessments a mandatory requirement using a standardised methodology at this stage. However, we consider that both local authorities and developers could benefit from clearer guidance on the use of appropriate tools to assist in reducing the use of embodied carbon and operational carbon in the built environment, and we have committed to updating the relevant planning policy guidance to support this.
Addressing embodied carbon is a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, not just in buildings. As other policies take effect, and industries that supply construction decarbonise, the embodied carbon emissions of buildings will fall in turn. I am happy to give the matter further thought, and I am more than happy to have the hon. Member for North Herefordshire take one of my Tea Room surgery appointment slots.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister, and look forward to discussing this with him further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 94
Considerations when deciding an application for development consent
“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—
(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;
(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;
(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and
(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.’”—(Gideon Amos.)
This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief, Mrs Hobhouse. Earlier in the progression of the Bill, we debated the removal of the pre-application requirement—all the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation under the Planning Act 2008. It may be wishful thinking, but it seemed to me that it was a generally held view that a qualitative test of some sort was needed for the consultation carried out by applicants before a DCO NSIP application is accepted for examination. That is certainly the opinion among the Liberal Democrats.
We therefore drafted the new clause, which repeats the four key paragraphs on the requirements for good consultations, which are in Government guidance, and places them on the face of the Bill as something to which the Secretary of State should have regard when considering whether to accept an application for development. In other words, in simple terms, when an application comes in, the Secretary of State and the inspector should consider the extent to which the applicant has consulted people and how well they have consulted people. That seems to be a basic, straightforward and simple requirement. I am sure the Government will have many complicated reasons for why this cannot be done, but to my mind it seems a straightforward way of dealing with it: introducing a qualitative test for Government to apply, given that they are removing all the pre-application consultation requirements from the primary legislation.
I have a quotation from Suffolk county council. As many will know, Suffolk has had more than its fair share of nationally significant infrastructure projects, far more than anywhere else in the country, starting with the Ipswich rail chord a number of years ago, with which I had some involvement. Suffolk is the site of numerous offshore wind farms, solar farms, Sizewell and huge numbers of cable routes and substations so, as the council describes it:
“Suffolk County Council has been involved with the delivery of projects under the Planning Act…since 2010”.
It states:
“The proposed replacement of a statutory requirement, by statutory guidance alone, is therefore, neither sufficient nor robust.”
I will not continue the quotation in the interests of time. I am sure that the Committee gets the gist. We offer the new clause as a way of securing sensible test, so that there is proper pre-application consultation, and that that continues to occur despite the removal of all the requirements under the Act.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause. Without testing the patience of the Committee too far, I will speak fairly briefly to set out the Government’s position, because I recognise the concerns that were expressed in previous debates. As he described, the new clause would result in the Secretary of State having to take into account how community consultation has taken place in the determination of whether an NSIP application should be accepted for examination. Specifically, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider whether the application has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant information about the locality, and enabled appropriate mitigation through community consultation.
We recognise the crucial role that communities’ engagement and consultation can play in building infra-structure that mitigates impacts and increases benefits for communities, but the Government do not agree that a statutory test is the right way to achieve that objective. Evidence shows that the statutory consultation requirements —as debated at length in an earlier part of the Bill—which are unique to the NSIP regime, are creating perverse alternatives. Risk-averse developers end up producing lengthy documentation that is aimed at lawyers and not communities. Moreover, developers are disincentivised to change their schemes in light of responses to those consultations for fear that they would have to go out to consultation again. Let us be clear; this slows down delivery and increases cost to all our detriment.
As we discussed with the pre-application stage, the times have nearly doubled since 2013 to over two years, and we estimate that our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. For this reason, as we have already debated, the Government have tabled amendments to remove all statutory consultation requirements during pre-application. This includes amending the acceptance test in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 to remove the adequacy of consultation test.
Gideon Amos
It continues to be a privilege to serve the Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and a pleasure to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I am very grateful for the opportunity to respond to what the Minister has said on this new clause. It is worth pointing out that the new clause would not reintroduce all the procedural requirements that are being removed from the Planning Act 2008. It would place a test in the Bill that, as the Minister has just said, will already be applied, because it is in the guidance. If it is already being applied under guidance, I am not sure why the Government feel that it will be so detrimental and delay applications to such a great extent.
Including this provision in the Bill would give the Secretary of State the clear ability to refuse an application where that consultation has been wholly and completely inadequate. Take, for example, an applicant who comes forward after completely refusing to consult anybody on anything. There would be nothing in the Bill that expressly allows the Minister to take that into account when deciding whether to accept the application for examination. I know that the Committee would like to make progress, so I will not press the new clause to a vote. I think the point has been made, and I hope the Government will consider it further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 95
Repeal of requirement for agreement to removal of consent in DCOs
“In the Planning Act 2008, omit section 150 (removal of consent requirements).”—(Gideon Amos.)
This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would remove the existing requirement that development consent orders can only remove a requirement for consent or authorisation with the agreement of the relevant consenting body.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would remove section 150 from the Planning Act 2008, which would restore the ability to elected Ministers, when making decisions on NSIPs, to make decisions on other consents, which is currently reserved to executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies.
In other aspects of the Planning Act, these big development consent order projects are intended to follow a single-consenting regime, which works reasonably well. As we discussed earlier today, it includes a listed building consent, conservation area consent and a whole range of other matters. Certain consents are reserved to other executive agencies—or quangos, we might say. That is time consuming, as it obstructs the principle of a single, one-stop shop for these big projects. It is also less democratic even than the Secretary of State taking the decision.
Industry is keen on this new clause. Another reason to table it was to show the Minister that we also have proposals to speed up the process, where that does not remove people’s democratic say. The new clause would enhance that democratic say, because it would restore to elected Ministers some of the decisions that are currently reserved to unelected arm’s length bodies. The new clause is offered in the spirit of improving the Planning Act 2008 regime.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause. As he says, it seeks to repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008. I recognise the issue touched on, and it is one that the Government have considered but ultimately decided not to make the changes that he seeks, for reasons that I will outline.
In addition to the planning permit granted through the DCO, NSIPs have to secure a range of other, secondary consents. Those can be temporary permits if only needed for construction, or permanent permits if needed for operating the development. Section 150 enables applicants to include those secondary consents in the DCO, instead of having to seek them separately. That speeds up the consenting process, but it is subject to the agreement of a relevant consenting authority, such as the Environment Agency.
The Government agree that the consenting and permitting process for NSIPs needs to be streamlined, and work is ongoing to achieve that. Seeking permits after the DCO has been granted causes unnecessary delays to the construction of significant infrastructure schemes. As the hon. Gentleman referenced, section 150 was intended to support the one-stop shop ambition of the NSIP regime, but in practice is rarely used. Consenting bodies require a large amount of information to decide on a permit application, but applicants rarely have such information this early in the planning application process.
As we said in the planning reform working paper, the Government want to deliver the one-stop shop vision for the NSIP regime. We considered potential reforms, such as a deemed consent framework, or indeed to repeal section 150, to reduce barriers and increase uptake. However, after speaking extensively with stakeholders, we think that those are not viable options.
The new clause repealing section 150 would allow applicants to include consents and permits in their draft DCO application without the agreement of the consenting body. The secondary consents would then be included in the DCO under section 120, which does not require permission from the relevant consenting authority. That risks, however, lessening the robustness of the permitting process for the following reasons.
As the draft DCO is submitted at an early stage, most applicants do not have enough information about their project to underpin a permitting decision, and consenting bodies would need to evaluate applications based on incomplete information. The Secretary of State making the decision on the DCO would likely have insufficient information to make a robust and legally sound decision. In particular for environmental permits, there is a risk of regression on environmental standards. Some consents are also not suitable to be included in the DCO, because they relate to ongoing activities that a regulating body needs to monitor, and where permits may need to be amended or revoked. I therefore disagree—the Government took this view on the balance of serious consideration, after engaging with a wide range of stakeholders—that repealing section 150 would be beneficial.
Instead, we will reduce the permitting burden by reforming the permitting system. Many NSIPs need environmental permits for low-risk temporary construction activities. Our wide-ranging reforms will modernise, accelerate and simplify decisions to get projects and developments moving, while upholding protections for the environment and local communities. The reforms by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will further empower regulators to make risk-based decisions on which activities should be exempt from needing environmental permits.
Easing permitting requirements for low-risk activities will help to speed up consenting and construction, as well as incentivise more investment in infrastructure. Further operational and service improvements to the Environment Agency’s permitting service will enable permits to be issued faster. Additionally, we will provide clearer guidance to applicants and consenting authorities to improve the usage of section 150 in its current form.
I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington accepts that we recognise the problem, but think that there is a different way to address the challenges he has highlighted that does not involve a full repeal of section 150. We agree that change is needed, but we are focusing on alternative and what we consider more effective solutions. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured, although I recognise the point he makes.
Gideon Amos
I am concerned that this smacks of certain parts of Government reserving to themselves decisions that could easily come under one Secretary of State, and would be the one-stop shop that we would all like to see. In the interests of time, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 96
Review of land value capture
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of land value capture.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the benefits of different methods of land value capture;
(b) international best practice;
(c) how changes to existing practice could assist in the meeting of housing targets and the delivery of critical infrastructure and public services; and
(d) how any changes to existing practice could be incorporated into UK planning law.
(e) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the conclusion of the review, lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, to ensure the public benefit from instances where land value rises sharply, and for this to be considered to be incorporated into UK planning legislation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, for reasons that I shall explain. As the Minister will be aware, currently the primary mechanisms to capture land value uplifts in England are developer contributions, in the form of section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy. While those mechanisms bring some benefits, they are not without their challenges.
Earlier this year, the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee launched an inquiry to examine how land value capture policies can contribute to the delivery of the Government’s house building plans and, crucially, help to fund affordable housing and public infrastructure. The Committee gathered valuable insights from experts, and one finding was that in high- value locations such as the greater south-east, to put it in affordable housing terms, only 19.6% is being achieved on average at the moment, whereas one could achieve 40% to 50%.
Land value capture is not unknown in this country—indeed, it is being used to finance the ongoing operational costs of the newly reopened Northumberland line between Newcastle, Blyth and Ashington in the north-east of England—but we need a land value capture system more widely that is fair and delivers what communities need: genuinely affordable housing, and public infrastructure and services that people can rely on. Moving to more mechanisms for local authorities to use land value capture methods other than section 106 and CIL might enable them to fund some more expensive elements of infrastructure, such as new railway stations or lines, that are currently neglected.
The new clause would require a review into land value capture methods, building on the work of the Select Committee inquiry. National Government should consult with local government. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of land value capture. As he says, local planning authorities can use developer contributions secured through section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy to capture a proportion of the increases in land value that occur as a result of planning permission being granted.
Developer contributions play a vital role in the planning system: nearly half of affordable homes delivered in England each year are through section 106 planning obligations, and contributions from developers fund essential infrastructure to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why, as I made clear previously in relation to earlier amendments and clauses, the Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and local infrastructure.
To that end, we chose not to implement the alternative proposal for land value capture provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—namely, a mandatory infrastructure levy, which the previous Government would have had replace section 106 and CIL—given the concerns raised by many involved in the planning system. I remember extensive debates on that point in Committee; if hon. Members think that some of the debates that we have had lasted a long time, I refer them back to the Hansard reports of the debates on that infrastructure levy. There were real risks that it would, overall, have led to our receiving less affordable housing than under the present system, so we are not taking it forward.
We have already made progress through the revised national planning policy framework published on 12 December last year in other areas—for example, the new golden rules for green belt development, which are designed to capture more of the land value uplift to fund central infrastructure and high levels of affordable housing—and we will legislate to give mayors of strategic authorities the power to raise a mayoral CIL, alongside the requirement to have a spatial development strategy in place, enabling them to raise revenue for strategic growth-supporting infrastructure where that is balanced with viability.
We welcome an ongoing discussion about how we improve the system of developer contributions—I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the hon. Gentleman’s when we bring the Government’s proposals forward in due course—and I personally look forward to engaging with the findings of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s important inquiry into this subject. However, we believe that the Government’s focus is better directed on delivery at this stage, reporting to Parliament through the usual procedures. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member is content to withdraw the motion.
Olly Glover
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments; the Committee will be delighted to learn that I will not rise to his challenge to debate at inordinate length. It is good to hear that the Government are taking forward some proposals in this area and, given that there is an ongoing Select Committee inquiry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 98
Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—
(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;
(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;
(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;
(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.
(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”—(Gideon Amos.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 99—Extension of permitted development—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—
(i) upgrading of existing lines from single to three phase;
(ii) alteration of conductor type;
(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;
(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;
(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;
(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wood poles;
(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years.
(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”
Gideon Amos
New clauses 98 and 99 would require the Government to review permitted development rights and land acquisition rights for the electricity distribution network. The electricity distribution network is about 200,000 kilometres of bending overhead lines. If we are going to deliver net zero and economic growth, the anomalies now appearing in the system need to be addressed. There is a massive challenge for us in delivering more local renewable energy installations, as more farmers want batteries and more people want solar panels on their roofs.
The stress on the distribution network is significant—the Minister will know a lot more about this than I do—and we need to upgrade our distribution network as rapidly as possible. That reminds me of a seminar I once organised, when someone from National Grid said, “You can tell the road with all the solar panels on the roofs by the substation on fire at the end of it.” We really need to find a way to resolve the overloading of the distribution network, which can pose risks—though hopefully not fires—and challenges to those trying to upgrade their local network.
I have a couple of examples. Where there is a row of poles with two cables on them going across a field, just to put a third cable on there requires a planning application. When we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of kilometres of electricity line, that seems overly rigorous and constrained. Similarly, if someone wishes to increase the height of the poles by more than 10%—let us say they want to increase them by 12%—that would require a full planning application process. We hope these new clauses are self-explanatory in their aim of to moving us closer and faster towards delivering on communities’ net zero ambitions.
I have growing confidence that the Government will accept these new clauses without any further debate—but I have always been an optimist. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I hate to let the hon. Gentleman down at this hour of the Committee, but I will outline why we cannot accept his new clauses. I think he will, however, be pleased with the Government’s position on this. I will turn first to new clause 98, which requires the Government to consult on the implementation of measures to give distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
First, we completely agree with the case that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The distribution network does the vast majority of the heavy lifting to get electricity to all our homes and businesses, and it plays a critical role. It will require significant upgrading over the coming years, not least with the increase in demand that we expect. We agree that the current regime for infrastructure is not fit for purpose, as do developers and landowners.
We are all in agreement, which is fantastic at this hour of the Committee. The reason I cannot support this new clause is that we want to propose—if I may say so—a more ambitious set of reforms to land rights and consenting processes later this year. While we agree with the principle of many of the proposed changes, it is important that we get their detail right and ensure that they are developed with particular consideration of the rights of landowners. We will consult on reforms in this area, and following that consultation, we will look at including appropriate measures in future legislation, where necessary.
Gideon Amos
I wonder whether the Minister could be a little more definite. He referred to future legislation and some time this year, but I cannot help but think that I have heard those phrases before on some other topics. Is there a concrete proposal to bring forward legislation in this area?
Michael Shanks
A working group, involving people from across the Department and all those involved in this area, has been working on these proposals, and a consultation will be brought forward shortly. In the King’s Speech, we committed to a Bill that addresses a number of different areas in the energy space, and we hope that this area could be included. However, it is necessary to complete the consultation process in order to know what those measures might look like.
On new clause 99, I broadly agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has raised. Reform is necessary for us to meet the increasing demand for clean energy, and upgrading the distribution network will play a crucial role, particularly in connecting small-scale renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, as well as the widespread adoption on the demand side, which we do not often speak about, with the roll-out of electric vehicles and heat pumps. Without upgrades in this space, we risk falling short of our climate goals and hindering progress towards our sustainable future.
While we are in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman on the need for change, we do not support this particular new clause because it is possible for us to complete many of these changes through secondary legislation. As with new clause 98, it is also crucial that landowners’ views are heard and understood before any of these changes are implemented. We may wish to consider other reforms as part of this process or to discount certain proposals based on the evidence from those relevant stakeholders. That is why the Government have committed to consult on these and other reforms in the summer. That is the most appropriate way forward, rather than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw new clause 98.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 101
Preservation of playing fields and pitches
“(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—
(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or
(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘playing fields’ and ‘playing pitches’ have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 111—Protection of villages—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.
(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—
(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,
(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and
(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”
Gideon Amos
New clause 101 concerns the protection of playing fields, which are vital to people’s health and wellbeing by creating important opportunities for physical activity, with multiple benefits for mental health and physical health. Following the Government’s decision to withdraw Fields in Trust from the list of statutory consultees, there is widespread concern about the loss of playing fields and the under-provision of play and green spaces—[Interruption.]
Gideon Amos
I will be brief as we come to the last couple of new clauses that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to speak to today. I was speaking to new clause 101, which relates to playing fields. Fields in Trust is a charity that helps to protect playing fields and green spaces. Its public green space index is a way to track change over time, and it consistently finds inequality of access: one in three children do not have a playground close to home and 6.3 million people live more than 10 minutes away in walking time from a green space.
The new clause would place a duty on local planning authorities to protect playing fields and pitches from development. In March this year—a couple of months ago—the Government announced that some organisations, including Sport England, will no longer be statutory consultees on planning decisions, in order to speed up development. The press release states:
“The NPPF is clear that existing open spaces, sports, recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless an assessment has shown the space to be surplus to requirements or it will be replaced by equivalent or better provision.”
The Government argued that such protections were sufficient, but Sport England states that:
“from 2022-23 alone it protected more than 1,000 playing fields across the country.”
That was in a Guardian article where it was reported that thousands of playing fields may be lost. The protections in the NPPF are therefore not sufficient. The effect of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee can only be to speed up development on playing fields.
Sport England has also stated that
“it responds to over 98% of applications within 21 days and that in 70% of statutory applications it does not object.”
There is not a source of unnecessary delay as a result of Sport England being involved in the process. If those provisions are being removed, then the Government need to put in place more robust legal provisions for playing fields. The new clause would do that so that important community assets are not lost.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I will be brief: the issues in new clause 111, which it is my privilege to speak to, have already been extensively debated. We have just heard about protections in respect of playing fields; new clause 111 is about protections in respect of villages. Those are relevant to places such as Harefield in my constituency—pretty much the last village in London—and to the concerns highlighted by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), about some recent decisions on infilling, which puts the separation of villages from nearby towns at some degree of risk. We are keen to preserve it. We will press the new clause to a vote in due course.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise in support of the important new clause 111, in the name of the shadow Minister. I have six villages in my patch—Goffs Oak, Hertford Heath, Brickendon, Great Amwell, St Margarets and Stanstead Abbotts—all of which have a unique character. We need to protect village life; villages are all unique and different. The new clause is not saying that we do not want any development in villages—of course, to make progress, there has to be developmentbut people in villages in my constituency, and probably across the country, are fearful of having loads of development so that villages all get connected up together and lose their rural identity, village community and spirit.
I would like the Government to really consider the new changes they have made to the national planning policy framework, particularly on villages. As I said, when we drive throughout the country, probably through hundreds of villages, we know they are all unique and have a different character. We should try to maintain that, rather than having an urban sprawl, with no green spaces left and developments that all link together. I fully support the new clause in the shadow Minister’s name.
Matthew Pennycook
I will start with new clause 101. I gently say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that I do not agree with his interpretation of the reforms that we set out for the statutory consultee system or our minded reforms; as I have said, we will consult on those in fairly short order.
We want to look at both the scope of statutory consultees and the specific application types on which they provide advice. We know that there are lots of applications where statutory consultees are required to be consulted but do not even engage with the issues for which they have responsibility. We think there is a sensible reform there. But I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the in-principle decision to look to consult on the removal of Sport England means that the Government are determined to develop on every playing field across the country.
The Government agree that access to recreational spaces, including playing fields and pitches, is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities. Those spaces play an important role in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young people. The national planning policy framework already includes strong protections for playing fields and pitches. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such space can be approved. The policies ensure that playing fields can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere.
Given those existing safeguards, we do not believe it is necessary to duplicate them in primary legislation. The risk is that doing so could lead to an overly rigid framework that limits the ability of local planning authorities. We have had a number of debates where in a sense we are trying to restrict the ability of local planning decisions—I do not think advertently, but perhaps inadvertently. We think local planning authorities are best placed to make some of these decisions. We do not want to overly restrict their ability to respond to the specific needs and circumstances of their communities. We need some of that flexibility to be left in the system.
Gideon Amos
We do not agree with the Government’s approach in removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. We are concerned that that will only lead to more development on playing fields. I will not detain the Committee with a vote, but I think that our position is clear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 103
Local Area Energy Plans
“(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘Local Area Energy Plan’ means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would make the adoption of local area energy plans compulsory in England. Local area energy plans are now recognised as the leading method for turning national net zero targets into real, on-the-ground action. They offer a path that is not only strategic and data driven but collaborative and cost-effective.
The plans are driven by local government, working hand in hand with key stakeholders from across the community. The result is a fully costed spatial plan that lays out exactly the changes needed to the local energy system and the built environment. Critically, it includes not just what needs to happen but where, when and by whom it should be delivered. Moreover, local area energy plans break down the big picture into manageable steps. They map out the costs, shifts in energy use and reductions in emissions over time. Such plans can be prepared to align with our national climate goals, including ultimately reaching net zero by 2050.
I am proud to say that in Oxfordshire, where my constituency is, a local area energy plan is under development. However, despite their importance to our planning process and net zero target, such plans are not compulsory in England. That has not stopped many local authorities from preparing them, and I hope that the Government will note that many of those local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. In Greater Manchester, 10 boroughs have a local area energy plan in place. Plans are also in place in York and North Yorkshire, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Peterborough and the borough in which we are holding this debate: Westminster. In Wales, all 22 authorities have produced a local area energy plan because in Wales that is compulsory.
If hon. Members do not believe me, I quote Shaun Gibbons, the head of carbon reduction at York city council:
“The York Local Area Energy Plan has served an important role in articulating the scale of the net zero challenge and setting specific targets against some of our most pressing actions. It has provided a robust evidence base for external funding applications and has resulted in the Council accessing funding several times greater than the original cost of the plan.”
The new clause would require local authorities to prepare local area energy plans and would be a key component in getting to net zero. In the final stages of this Committee, I have hope that the Minister will view the measure favourably, given that there is so much good practice from Labour-run councils.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling the new clause, and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for speaking to it—and for his praise of Labour councils, which we are always happy to hear from colleagues across the House. I recognise the important work and example of local area energy plans where they are working.
Local authorities are taking a number of other actions right across the country to deliver net zero, many having drafted strategies in different ways and forms to achieve their own local aims, goals and ambitions alongside other strategies that local authorities might have. These are helpful documents to be able to refer to when planning for forthcoming energy projects and investment.
We support the idea that local authorities may wish to look at these kinds of plans as part of the wider context around, for example, local growth plans. However, our view on the new clause is that now is not the right time to place an additional burden on all local authorities to have to develop local area energy plans—during a period of local government reorganisation, and crucially, as we are taking forward the regional energy strategic plans process, which is under way at the moment.
A top-down requirement for a local area energy plan would risk duplicating local and regional energy system planning that the National Energy System Operator is carrying out in line with Ofgem’s recent decision to introduce regional energy strategic plans. Ofgem has set out that regional energy strategic plans will plan how local energy systems need to be developed to reach net zero, considering the national targets set by central Government, and, as part of the strategic planning of our energy system more generally, the local needs and most appropriate approach in each area. They will set out the energy requirements for each region presented spatially. They will also set the foundation for determining capacity required and strategic investment needs on a regional basis.
Ofgem has stated that the National Energy System Operator will set up regional strategic boards, which will be responsible for providing oversight of regional energy plans, and it is anticipated that local government will be properly represented on those boards. We want local government to play an active role in the development of the regional energy plans. I understand that the work that many of them have been doing already, the evidence they have gathered and the experiences that they have had will be hugely helpful in supporting this process. The exact format of how each local government will contribute is still to be decided. Given that that process is ongoing and the huge amount of work as part of the strategic spatial energy plan and the regional plans, now is not the right time to place a new burden on local government to provide a uniform product across the country.
Finally, given that many areas have multiple tiers of local government, the new clause risks a number of different duplicative plans covering the same geographical area. For those reasons, although I completely support the premise of the point about the importance of local participation in planning the energy system, we will not support the new clause.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is good to know from him that the topic is being looked at with a geographical scope greater than single local authorities. We shall observe with interest how that goes. In the interests of having time to speak to other new clauses, I will not press this one to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 105
Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England
“In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”—(Gideon Amos.)
This amendment of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 106—Change of certain use classes to require permission—
“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).
(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C5 or Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.
(1AB) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C5, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.””
This amendment would require planning permission to be obtained to change the use of a dwelling to a second home or to a short term let use class and for changes of use between those classes.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak on new clauses 105 and 106, which are the final new clauses in these debates—I know how disappointed Government Members will be to hear that news. They are a couple of important new clauses, and I will spend a couple of minutes on them. There are, of course, well discussed and rehearsed arguments about second homes and short-term lets and their effect on existing communities. New clause 105 would take the position in Wales, where there are separate use classes for short-term lets and second homes to enable them to be regulated, and extend that across to England. New clause 106 would ensure that planning permission was required to change a dwelling house to a second home or a short-term let.
The previous Government indicated that they would legislate on short-term lets and allow planning authorities, local councils, to determine their extent, and that is what this is really about. Of course, second homes can be great for the local economy by bringing people to the area to spend money, but when they become a huge proportion of that local town or community, they can lead to businesses being closed and trade going away if the homes are left empty for too long. The same can apply to short-term lets.
In Cornwall, there are 13,000 second homes. In Somerset, my own county, there are 4,200 second homes. In recent years, there has been a staggering 30% increase. The whole point of the two new clauses is that they would give local planning authorities the ability to plan and to say what the appropriate level of short-term lets and second homes in their communities was. It would give them the ability to set those policies themselves and to grant or refuse planning permissions in accordance with the policies, so that they could do what is right for their areas to ensure that they do not suffer from too many short-term lets and second homes, which are pulling resources out of their communities.
We believe that the new clauses are vital and needed by councils around the country, and we urge the Government, at least on short-term lets, to make good on the previous commitment to introduce planning controls, not just taxation controls. Planning controls are needed because they shape the community in which people live and over which councils have a say.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling and speaking to these two new clauses and highlighting this really important issue, which does affect a large number of rural, coastal and, it is important to say, urban communities across the country. I have had a number of extremely fruitful meetings with colleagues on both sides of the House about it—most recently with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is from the same party as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and whose constituency typifies the problems that can occur from incredibly excessive concentrations of both short-term lets and second homes.
Short-term lets and second homes can benefit local economies. They can be incredibly important for tourism in particular parts of the country. But we are also very aware of the concern that excessive concentrations can affect the affordability and availability of housing to buy and to rent, impact on the sustainability of local services and reduce the sense of local community. There is clearly a balance to be struck. As things stand, it has not been struck correctly. We think that change is needed in this area.
To take action on short-term lets, we still intend to introduce a registration scheme for them to ensure the quality and safety of tourist accommodation, provide better data to local authorities and protect the spirit of our communities. In addition, from April 2025 the furnished holiday lettings tax regime was abolished, eliminating the tax advantages that short-term let owners had over private rented sector landlords. Furnished holiday let owners are now subject to the same income, corporation and capital gains tax rules as other landlords.
Gideon Amos
Would the Minister not agree that the problem of locking-in could be countered by giving a lead-in time of six or 12 months? After that time, there would be a need for planning permission to continue with a short-term let, for example.
Matthew Pennycook
I note and accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and there are a variety of considerations at play in this area. Locking in was one concern raised; enforcement was another. In response to feedback, we are considering the issue more generally. I make those points simply to say that this needs to be thought through carefully.
I have made this point in the House a number of times, and I am happy to do so again: we recognise the case for further action on short-term lets and second homes. We are very carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures they are facing, but this is a complex area, and we have to think carefully about introducing these types of restrictions. We need to explore various potential levers that could help better strike that balance between housing and the tourism economy before moving forward.
We do not consider the planning changes set out in the new clause to be the most effective route to achieving that aim, but I once again reassure Members that we are taking concerns in this area very seriously and that I am more than happy to continue the dialogue with the hon. Gentleman and other Members who are affected. I know it is an extremely pressing issue in many constituencies. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel content not to push the new clause to a vote.
The Chair
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Gideon Amos for the final time in this Bill Committee.
Gideon Amos
I hope you and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have not been discussing that this is to be my final time as the spokesperson, Mrs Hobhouse, but I am grateful for your introduction. It is the final time in this Committee—I definitely agree with you there.
We believe this is a crucial issue and that the argument is well made for legislating for planning controls. I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for committing to taking further action, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches remain absolutely resolute that this needs legislation, so we will push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 101 and 102.
Clause 95 stand part.
Government amendments 68 to 71.
Government amendments 55 and 56.
Clause 96 stand part.
Clause 97 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to the final group of clauses and amendments. Clause 94 simply sets out the Crown application of Bill measures.
Government amendments 101 and 102 make minor technical changes to reflect the fact that the amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in schedule 6 extend only to England and Wales, because there are different versions of those Acts for England and Wales and for Scotland. I hope that the Committee accepts the amendments.
Clause 95 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill and whether each part of the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolution position has been debated in relation to each part during the discussion of that part.
Government amendments 68 to 71 make minor consequential changes related to new clauses 44 and 45. To summarise, new clause 44 removes statutory consultation from pre-application, and new clause 45 makes subsequent changes to sections of the Planning Act 2008 and clauses as introduced by the Bill to reflect the changes made in new clause 44, and to remove reference to statutory requirements for consultation and associated documentation. The original clauses were to come into force six months after Royal Assent. These Government amendments now mean that new clauses 44 and 45 will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
In my written ministerial statement accompanying the tabling of the amendments, I made it clear that the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. As we have discussed, this will be an important component of how we implement the removal of statutory consultation requirements for NSIP projects.
We will work with stakeholders to design the guidance and will launch a public consultation to seek input on how the guidance, regulations and transitional arrangements should be implemented. We are also aware that consequential changes to secondary legislation need to occur, so that associated legislation aligns with those changes. Therefore, the changes to the commencement of new clauses 44 and 45 allow the Government to adhere to commitments, ensure that guidance is in place to support changes and make the necessary changes to associated secondary legislation before the removal of statutory consultation requirements takes effect.
Government amendment 55 relates to new clause 42 and the amendments that the Government are introducing to improve the process for accessing land when needing to survey it in connection with an application or proposed application for development consent, or the implementation of a development consent order. Under new clause 42, the Government will later be introducing regulations associated with the notices that will need to be served on landowners before an applicant, or proposed applicant, enters the land in question. Government amendment 55 will ensure that the amendments under new clause 42 will come into force only when the Secretary of State introduces regulations associated with that new clause.
Government amendment 56 is a consequential change related to new clause 43. The merits of new clause 43 have already been debated. A proportionate and unified process for making changes to development consent orders post consent will be developed following appropriate consultation and engagement with consenting Departments and stakeholders and set out in revised regulations. Transitional provisions will be included in the revised regulations to ensure an efficient transition to the new system. The amendment will permit the clause introduced by new clause 43 to be introduced by regulations at the appropriate time.
Clause 96 sets out how different provisions in the Bill will be commenced, and clause 97 reaffirms that the short title of the Act will be the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. I commend the clauses and amendments to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Extent
Amendments made: 101, in clause 95, page 134, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A),”.
This amendment, and Amendments 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108, are technical amendments reflecting the fact that there are different versions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 for England and Wales and for Scotland, and making it clear that the amendments to those Acts in Schedule 6 only extend to England and Wales.
Amendment 102, in clause 95, page 134, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Paragraphs 37 and 41 of Schedule 6 extend to England and Wales only.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.
Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Commencement and transition provision
Amendments made: 68, in clause 96, page 134, line 28, leave out “1, 2 and 3” and insert “1 to 4”.
This amendment has the effect that the changes made by the new clauses inserted by NC44 and NC45, and current clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill, are to come into force by regulations.
Amendment 69, in clause 96, page 134, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.
Amendment 70, in clause 96, page 134, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 60.
Amendment 71, in clause 96, page 134, line 34, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.
Amendment 55, in clause 96, page 135, line 2, at end insert—
“(ea) section (Planning Act 2008: right to enter and survey land) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”.
This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by NC42 comes into force by regulations.
Amendment 56, in clause 96, page 135, line 3, leave out “section 8 comes” and insert—
“sections (Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders) and 8 come”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by NC43 comes into force by regulations.
Clause 96, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Matthew Pennycook
On a point of order, Mrs Hobhouse. Briefly, I want to take the opportunity to put on the record my thanks to you and the other Chairs of the Committee. I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings. I thank my officials and private office team who have supported me and worked tirelessly to bring forward the ambitions of the complex piece of legislation that we have debated over recent weeks.
Finally, I thank my fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, for his support on the relevant parts of the Bill that pertained to his Department; my other hon. Friends, whose valuable insights have benefited our deliberations; and the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington, for Didcot and Wantage, and for North Herefordshire for the spirited and constructive dialogue that we have had. I value all the contributions and challenges that have been made.
I know we are all united in wanting to deliver the best piece of legislation that we can for our constituents and the country. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.
The Chair
I thank the Minister for his point of order. I understand that it has been a marathon of a Bill. I thank all members of the Committee for their attendance, their great contributions and the respectful tone of the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Monday 9th June 2025
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 June 2025 - (9 Jun 2025)
First day | |
|---|---|
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. | The moment of interruption on the first day. |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. |
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 9th June 2025
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 June 2025 - (9 Jun 2025)
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “(zg) Development likely to affect an area covered by a National Landscape Partnership The relevant National Landscape Partnership”” “(zg) Development likely to affect historic parks or gardens The Gardens Trust”” “(zg) Development which is likely to affect operations of ambulance services The ambulance trust concerned (zh) Development which is likely to affect operations of fire and rescue services The fire and rescue service concerned”” ‘(zg) Development involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions The relevant fire authority’” zg Development falling within any area covered by an Internal Drainage Board The relevant Internal Drainage Board”” Number of homes in development Number required to meet Building Regulation M4(3) Up to and including 9 homes A minimum of 1 home Exceeding 9 homes 10% of all homes, rounded to the nearest whole number” “cross–pavement charging solution section 105(1);”.
New clause 1—Steps to be taken when exercising functions under Part 3—
“When exercising any function or fulfilling any duty under Part 3 of this Act, the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to—
(a) avoid, prevent and reduce any identified significant adverse effects on the environment, and only permit such adverse effects where they cannot be avoided and where the adverse effects will be compensated for;
(b) enhance biodiversity;
(c) permit a significant adverse effect on a European site or Ramsar site only where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public importance and where the adverse effect will be compensated for, and
(d) prevent the loss of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and veteran and ancient trees, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and any loss will be compensated for.”
This new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to avoid causing adverse environmental effects.
New clause 2—Zero carbon standard for new homes—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that new homes must—
(a) be built to a net zero carbon building standard, and
(b) include provision for solar power generation.
(2) Regulations must include a presumption that, as far as is reasonably practicable, new developments will include facilities for the rooftop generation of solar power.”
This new clause would require that new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for the generation of solar power.
New clause 3—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—
“After section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—
“91A Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission
(1) This section applies—
(a) where a development includes the construction of 100 or more homes and has not begun within the applicable period, and
(b) where section 91(4) of this Act does not apply.
(2) There is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory purchase under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 of land on which any such development was permitted provided that such purchase is—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the Land Compensation Acts, and
(b) complies with the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(3) In this section—
(a) “applicable period” has the meaning given in section 91(5) of this Act;
(b) ”Land Compensation Acts” means—
(i) the Land Compensation Act 1961;
(ii) the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965;
(iii) the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;
(iv) any other relevant Act which the Secretary of State may specify.””
This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, there is automatically a justifiable case for the compulsory purchase of the land under the Housing Act 1985.
New clause 4—Sustainable drainage—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 5—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.
(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.
New clause 6—Development plans to aim to improve health and well-being—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy relating to the planning or development of an area must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people who are to reside in that area.
(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans and strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined in subsection (1).”
This new clause would require national or local development plans to be designed in a way that aims to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of residents.
New clause 7—New car parks to include solar panels—
“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels.
(2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”
This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks.
New clause 8—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.
(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).
(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—
(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and
(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”
This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.
New clause 9—Environmental infrastructure in new developments—
“(1) Within six months of to the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;
(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—
(i) bird boxes;
(ii) bat boxes;
(iii) swift bricks;
(iv) hedgehog highways; and
(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.
New clause 10—Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and
(b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “permanently protecting” areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area.
(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must—
(a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites;
(b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding—
(i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt;
(ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and
(iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “wildbelt” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include—
(a) areas of land;
(b) bodies of water and adjacent land;
(c) wetlands.”
This new clause would enable the creation of new wildbelt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding the use of provisions of the bill to protect wildbelt areas.
New clause 11—Register of planning applications from political donors—
“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—
(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and
(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.
(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”
This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.
New clause 12—Considerations when deciding an application for development consent—
“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—
(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;
(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;
(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and
(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.””
This new clause to the Planning Act would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.
New clause 13—Removal of statutory consultees—
“(1) A party may only be removed from the list of consultees—
(a) in or under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, or
(b) in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009,once Parliamentary approval for the removal has been signified.
(2) Parliamentary approval may be signified by—
(a) the approval of a relevant statutory instrument;
(b) the agreement of a relevant motion.”
This new clause would make the removal of statutory consultees subject to parliamentary approval.
New clause 14—Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—
(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;
(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;
(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;
(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.
(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
New clause 15—Extension of permitted development—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—
(i) upgrading of existing lines from single to three phase;
(ii) alteration of conductor type;
(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;
(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;
(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;
(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wood poles;
(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years.
(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”
This new clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.
New clause 16—Preservation of playing fields and pitches—
“(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—
(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or
(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing fields” and “playing pitches” have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”
This new clause would require local authorities to preserve playing fields when granting permission for development.
New clause 17—Community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.
(2) In subsection (1), “major energy infrastructure project” and “specified connection” have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.
(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—
(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and
(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.
(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and
(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.
(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.
(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—
(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;
(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;
(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;
(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”
This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.
New clause 18—Local Area Energy Plans—
“(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Local Area Energy Plan” means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”
This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.
New clause 19—Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England—
“In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”
This new clause of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England.
New clause 20—Change of certain use classes to require permission—
“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).
(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C5 or Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.
(1AB) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C5, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.””
This new clause would require planning permission to be obtained to change the use of a dwelling to a second home or to a short term let use class and for changes of use between those classes.
New clause 21—Local plan compliance with Land Use Framework and nature recovery strategies—
“When developing a local plan, a local planning authority must consider whether the plan complies with—
(a) the Land Use Framework, and
(b) any nature recovery strategy relevant to the area covered by the plan.”
This new clause seeks to ensure that Local Plans comply with the Land Use Framework and local nature recovery strategies.
New clause 23—Review of drainage performance of new developments—
“(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development.
(2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.”
This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.
New clause 24—Housing needs of ageing population—
“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”
New clause 25—National Landscape Partnerships to be statutory consultees for planning applications—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 would ensure that National Landscape Partnerships are included as statutory consultees in planning applications which impact their areas.
New clause 26—Environmental improvement duty: nature restoration levy—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies where Natural England agrees to a request to pay the nature restoration levy.
(2) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure to a high degree of certainty based on an objective assessment that significant and measurable improvements to the conservation status of each identified environmental feature is achieved within the period covered by the EDP.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure significant environmental improvements for protected features during the EDP period.
New clause 27—Gardens Trust to be statutory consultees for planning applications—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would ensure that the Gardens Trust are included as statutory consultees in planning applications.
New clause 28—Pre-application consultation of emergency services—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 29—Support for small businesses and charities affected by roadworks—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) any building or development works require or involve works to or on the road network, or otherwise result in road closures,
(b) such roadworks or closures have lasted, or are expected to last, for a period of six months or more, and
(c) any small business or charitable organisation suffers a material financial, access or other detriment resulting from the roadworks or closures.
(2) The Secretary of State must make provision for any affected small business or charitable organisation to receive financial compensation or other equivalent support to recover or mitigate the detriment suffered.”
New clause 30—Permitted development for ponds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to amend Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 so as to include the creation of ponds with a surface area of less than 0.2 hectares as permitted development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “pond” means a permanent or seasonal standing body of water with a surface area not exceeding 2 hectares.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the creation of new ponds under 0.2 hectares in size without planning permission being required.
New clause 31—Thresholds for affordable housing provision—
“Where an application proposes or is required to provide affordable housing, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would result in the amount of affordable housing to be developed failing to exceed the higher of—
(a) the relevant authority’s affordable housing threshold, or
(b) twenty per cent of the total amount of housing provided in the development.”
This new clause would place lower limits on the amount of affordable housing developments which intend to provide such housing must provide.
New clause 32—Housing plans to include quotas for affordable and social housing—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.
(2) Where a national or local plan or strategy includes quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing, the plan or strategy must include justification for the quotas.”
This new clause would require national and local housing plans to include, and justify, quotas for the provision of both affordable and social housing.
New clause 33—Power to decline applications based on outcomes of previous grants of permission—
“(1) Where a local planning authority has previously given planning permission to a party (the “initial grant”), the planning authority may decline any future planning applications from the party where, in respect of the initial grant of planning permission, the party has failed to—
(a) build out the structure or development,
(b) make sufficient progress towards the building out of the structure or development within a reasonable time period, or
(c) build out the structure or development at a reasonable rate.
(2) A local planning authority may define how it is to interpret “sufficient progress”, “reasonable time period” and “reasonable rate” as part of its local plan.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to decline planning applications from parties which have failed to build, or make sufficient progress on, projects for which permission has previously been granted.
New clause 34—Additional business rates for developers not completing approved development—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, hold a public consultation on providing local authorities who exercise the functions of local planning authorities with the power to levy additional business rates on—
(a) land owners, and
(b) developers who fail to complete the development of projects for which permission has been granted within a reasonable period.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the conclusion of the public consultation, lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a report on the findings of the consultation, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to those findings.”
New clause 35—Review of the setting of local plans under the National Planning Policy Framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, review the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the setting of local plans.
(2) The review must consider in particular replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites within their areas which are necessary to meet—
(a) local housing targets, and
(b) the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the setting of local plans with a view to replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites which meet housing targets and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal.
New clause 36—Purposes and principles to be followed by parties exercising planning or development functions—
“(1) Any party exercising any function in relation to planning and development must—
(a) have regard to the purpose of the planning system outlined in subsection (2), and
(b) apply the principles outlined in subsection (3) for the purposes of achieving sustainable development.
(2) The purpose of the planning system is to promote the spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
(3) The principles are—
(a) living within environmental limits;
(b) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(c) achieving a sustainable economy;
(d) promoting good governance including promoting democratic engagement and accountability; and
(e) using sound science responsibly.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “sustainable development” means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while ensuring the health and integrity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the species within them, as well as the wellbeing of future generations.”
The new clause would define the purpose of the planning system and of planning as promoting the efficient spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
New clause 37—Right to appeal against approved applications—
“In section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission which—
(a) does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated, or
(b) is a major application,
the parties specified in subsection (2B) may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision to approve the application.
(2B) The parties are—
(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the application in writing to the relevant planning authority;
(b) any other persons that a person appointed by the Secretary of State uses their discretion to permit to appeal.
(2C) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to—
(a) define “major application” for the purposes of subsection (2A)(b);
(b) consider parties to be permitted to appeal against a decision to approve an application under subsection (2B)(b).””
This new clause would create a limited third-party right of appeal for certain individuals to appeal to the Secretary of State where a local authority has approved a development that does not accord with a local development plan.
New clause 38—Dismissal of appeal or referral—
“In section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of appeals), after subsection (6A) insert—
“(6B) The Secretary of State may dismiss an appeal or referral where, having considered the appeal or referral, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the appeal or referral is—
(a) vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or
(b) made with the sole intention of—
(i) delaying the development, or
(ii) securing the payment of money, gifts or other inducement by any person.””
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to dismiss appeals or referrals in certain circumstances.
New clause 39—Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land.
New clause 40—Review of method for assessing local housing need—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property;
(b) basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local councils; and
(b) any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay before Parliament a report which summarises the evidence considered in the review and the review’s final conclusions or recommendations;
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities and other relevant bodies on how they should calculate and consider local housing need.”
New clause 41—New towns to contribute towards housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new houses, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
New clause 43—Protection of villages—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.
(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—
(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,
(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and
(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”
This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.
New clause 44—Sustainable drainage (No. 2)—
“The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on—
(i) how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments, and
(ii) the minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage infrastructure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 45—No planning permission to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development—
“(1) A local planning authority may not grant consent for development where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “intentional unauthorised development”—
(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission;
(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.
(3) Where works under subsection (2)(b) are undertaken, the local planning authority may require relevant permissions to be obtained retrospectively.”
New clause 46—Duty to complete development of local infrastructure—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a Development Consent Order is made providing for, or
(b) a Strategic Development Scheme includes provision for, the development of local infrastructure.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the developer must deliver the relevant local infrastructure in full.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but must include—
(a) schools,
(b) nurseries, and
(c) General Practice clinics.
(4) A duty under this section may be disapplied with the consent of the relevant local planning authority.”
This new clause aims to ensure that commitments to provide local infrastructure such as schools and GP clinics, approved as part of a development, are permanent and legally binding.
New clause 47—Development of land for the public benefit—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a developer has entered into an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires the development of local community infrastructure; and
(b) such development—
(i) has not been completed, and it is not intended or anticipated that the development will be completed; or
(ii) has been subject to a change of circumstance which means that it will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose.
(2) Where this section applies—
(a) the relevant land remains under the ownership of the local planning authority;
(b) the local planning authority may only develop or permit the development of the land for the purposes of providing a community asset;
(c) the local planning authority must, when proposing to develop the land under subsection (2)(b), consult the local community before commencing development or granting permission for any development.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“local community infrastructure” means a development for the benefit of the local community, including schools, nurseries, and medical centres,
“community asset” means—
(a) a public park;
(b) a public leisure facility;
(c) social housing;
(d) such other assets as the local planning authority may specify, provided that their development is to meet the needs of the local community.”
This new clause provides that land designated development as community infrastructure under a S106 agreement will not be returned to a developer to use for other purposes in the event that the original purpose is not fulfilled. It provides instead that land would remain under the control of the local planning authority for development as a community asset.
New clause 48—Neighbourhood plans—
“The Secretary of State may only—
(a) grant a development consent order where the Secretary of State believes that the application for consent gives due consideration to any relevant neighbourhood plan;
(b) permit a variation to a neighbourhood plan which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State—
(i) is clearly justifiable;
(ii) is unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan; and
(iii) has been proposed in a clear and timely manner.”
This new clause would require due consideration to be given to neighbourhood plans when deciding on an application for development consent.
New clause 49—Review of land value capture—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of land value capture.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the benefits of different methods of land value capture;
(b) international best practice;
(c) how changes to existing practice could assist in the meeting of housing targets and the delivery of critical infrastructure and public services; and
(d) how any changes to existing practice could be incorporated into UK planning law.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the conclusion of the review, lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”
To require a review into methods of land value capture, to ensure the public benefit from instances where land value rises sharply, and for this to be considered to be incorporated into UK planning legislation.
New clause 50—Guidance relating to social rent homes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide or update guidance for all parties involved in local or national planning decisions on how they can contribute to the provision of social rent homes through the exercise of their planning or development functions.
(2) Guidance produced under this section must include reference to the number of social rent homes which the Government intends to be delivered each year.”
This new clause requires the Government to set a national target for the number of Social Rent homes to be delivered per year.
New clause 51—Prohibition of solar development and battery storage facilities on all agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation or battery storage where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of any grade of agricultural land used in food production, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation and battery storage on all agricultural land.
New clause 52—Local planning authority powers relating to new towns—
“(1) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a new town may—
(a) include any of the area of the new town as land to be developed in any local plan which covers a period between the designation of the new town and the completion of development,
(b) include in the local planning authority’s housing target any houses expected to be provided by or in the new town during the period covered by the local planning authority’s local plan,
(c) include any housing expected to be provided by or in the new town in any consideration of the local planning authority’s 5 year housing land supply, and
(d) disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance relating to the duty on local planning authorities and county councils to cooperate on strategic matters crossing administrative boundaries as it relates to the delivery of housing numbers originally allocated to a neighbouring authority.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “new town” means a town developed by a corporation under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981.”
This new clause would provide local planning authorities with the ability to include new towns in local plans and housing targets, and give planning authorities certain powers with regard to new towns.
New clause 53—Prohibition of development on functional floodplains—
“(1) No local planning authority may grant planning permission for any development which is to take place on a functional floodplain.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, issue new guidance, or update existing guidance where such guidance exists, relating to development in flood zones and the management of flood risk.”
This new clause would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains.
New clause 54—Assessment of impact of nature restoration levy on environmental protections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual assessment of the impact of the introduction of a nature restoration levy.
(2) Any report published under this section must include—
(a) an analysis of the impact of—
(i) the introduction of a nature restoration levy, and
(ii) the disregarding of obligations under section 65(3)
on environmental protections; and
(b) an overview of each occasion where—
(i) the nature restoration levy has been paid, and
(ii) obligations have been disregarded under section 65(3).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish assessments of the impact of the nature restoration levy and the disregarding of obligations under the Habitats Regulations 2017 or Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on environmental protections.
New clause 55—Impact on major infrastructure on local area—
“The presence, or planned presence, of any major infrastructure project in an area may—
(a) exempt the relevant local planning authority from being required to meet national or local housing targets or other development targets;
(b) be a material consideration in any decision-making relating to further development proposed in that area.”
This new clause would ensure that areas hosting pieces of major infrastructure – such as transport projects, prisons and NSIPs – may not be expected to meet their full housing or other development targets and can have such projects taken into account when decisions relating to further planning applications are made.
New clause 56—Building regulations: biodiversity—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purposes of—
(a) protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and
(b) contributing to the achievement of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out under the Environment Act 2021.
(2) Regulations under this section must include provision—
(a) for the appropriate installation and maintenance of measures including—
(i) bird boxes,
(ii) bat boxes,
(iii) swift bricks,
(iv) hedgehog highways,
(v) splash-free pavements, and
(vi) biodiverse roofs and walls,
(b) limiting the use of artificial grass in a garden or in or on land associated with a dwelling or building covered by the regulations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require new developments to include design features that will contribute to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the achievement of Environment Act targets.
New clause 57—Co-ordination in the development of energy projects—
“(1) Where two or more energy developers are engaged in the development of projects relating to energy infrastructure within the same area, there is a duty on each developer to—
(a) exchange relevant information relating to project design, construction, and environmental impact;
(b) cooperate in the development of shared infrastructure where feasible and appropriate;
(c) take reasonable steps to reduce cumulative impacts on the environment, local communities, and existing infrastructure; and
(d) seek alignment of timelines and operational practices to minimise disruption.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for such developers, which must include—
(a) criteria for determining when coordination is required;
(b) mechanisms for dispute resolution between developers;
(c) standards for joint planning and reporting; and
(d) details of consultation required with affected local authorities and communities.
(3) Where subsection (1) applies, a relevant local planning authority may require the submission of a Joint Coordination Statement by the developers.
(4) A Joint Coordination Statement must include—
(a) an overview of each developer’s proposed works within the area,
(b) an identification of shared infrastructure opportunities,
(c) assessment of cumulative environmental and social impacts,
(d) details of measures proposed to mitigate identified environmental and social impacts, and
(e) a proposed governance structure for ongoing coordination during construction and operation, and must be submitted as part of or in addition to development consent applications.
(5) A party which fails to comply with any of the requirements of this section may be subject to—
(a) a delay in granting, or a refusal of, development consent;
(b) the imposition of conditions on an application for consent requiring such coordination; or
(c) such financial or legal penalties as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“area” means an area determined by the relevant planning authority or Secretary of State where coordination is deemed necessary due to overlapping or adjacent projects;
“energy developer” means any person or body undertaking or proposing to undertake energy generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure projects;
“shared infrastructure” includes roads, grid connections, substations, and other physical or operational systems.”
This new clause would require developers to cooperate in the development of energy projects when they are taking place in the same area. It also empowers local planning authorities to require statements detailing such cooperation.
New clause 58—Environment and climate duty: forestry land—
“When exercising any planning or development function relating to forestry land, or when contributing to or participating in the exercise of any such function, the appropriate forestry authority must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—
(a) the achievement of targets set under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 and any interim targets set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan;
(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; and
(c) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
New clause 59—Regard to existing use of land in exercise of planning functions—
“After section 58B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“58C Duty of regard to existing use of land in granting permissions
(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for the development of land in England, the decision maker must have special regard to the existing use of land within the vicinity of the land in relation to which permission is being considered.
(2) In complying with this section, the decision maker must consider whether to grant permission subject to such conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development of land with any existing use of land, including such conditions as may be necessary to mitigate the impact of noise on the proposed development.
(3) In this section, “decision maker” means the local planning authority or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State.””
This new clause imposes a duty to have special regard to the existing use of land when considering whether to grant planning permission and, in particular, whether there are any planning conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development (such as conditions relating to mitigation of noise caused by an existing use). This reflects the “agent of change” principle referred to in paragraph 200 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
New clause 60—Time-limited permission for landfill sites—
“Where—
(a) planning permission has previously been granted for a landfill site,
(b) landfill operations at the site have been ceased for a period of ten years, and
(c) a new party wishes to resume landfill operations at the site,
the party who wishes to resume landfill operations at the site must submit a new application for permission to develop or operate the landfill site.”
This new clause would mean that, where a landfill site has been dormant for a period of ten years, a new planning application is required to resume operations at the site.
New clause 61—Minimum depth requirement for underground cables on agricultural land—
“(1) Where a development involves the laying of electrical or communications cables under land currently in active agricultural use, such cables must be buried to a minimum depth of 1.8 metres from the surface level.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “active agricultural use” includes, but is not limited to, land used for arable farming, including the ploughing, sowing, and harvesting of crops.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for exemptions from the requirement in subsection (1) only where—
(a) the developer can demonstrate that installing at such depth is technically unfeasible, and
(b) alternative measures are put in place to ensure active agricultural use is not adversely affected.
(4) Regulations under subsection (4) must be made by statutory instrument and must not come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require electrical or communications cables required as part of a new development to be installed at least 1.8m under agricultural land.
New clause 62—Impact of the Act on biodiversity and nature investment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of the nature restoration levy on–
(a) biodiversity net gain, and
(b) initiatives to encourage investment in nature markets.
(2) A report produced under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 63—Guidance on planting along highways—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for developers, local planning authorities and other relevant parties on the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass alongside highways constructed as part of—
(a) any new transport infrastructure;
(b) any other development for which consent has been granted.
(2) Guidance issued under this section must—
(a) outline how licence conditions under section 142(5) of the Highways Act 1980 (licence to plant trees, shrubs, etc., in a highway) are to be applied and complied with in a way which—
(i) is not unreasonably burdensome on applicants for licences, and
(ii) does not prevent or discourage the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass;
(b) provide model licence conditions, standard designs, and planting palettes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the planting of trees and other plants alongside new highways.
New clause 64—Rural Exception Sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, take steps to support the delivery of housing through the Rural Exception Sites mechanism.
(2) Steps to be taken must include—
(a) reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework;
(b) publishing best practice guidance on—
(i) assessing the viability of Rural Exception Sites;
(ii) the setting of incentives for landowners and delivery partners to deliver housing on Rural Exception Sites.”
New clause 65—Provision of green space in new housing developments—
“Any application for permission for the development of housing must include provision for—
(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;
(b) open green space which can be accessed by residents using active transport within fifteen minutes; and
(c) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”
New clause 66—Fire authorities to be statutory consultees for applications relating to Battery Energy Storage Solutions—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would ensure that fire authorities are included as statutory consultees in planning applications involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions (BESS’s).
New clause 67—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction—
“(1) Where an application to develop affordable housing has been granted, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the reasons for the amendment include—
(a) the affordability to the applicant; or
(b) that providing such affordable housing would make the development unprofitable for the applicant.
(2) This section applies where the provision of affordable housing forms the whole of or part of the proposed development.
(3) For the purposes of this section “develop” has the meaning given by section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”
This new clause would mean that, where a developer has committed in their initial application to providing a certain number of affordable homes, they would be prohibited from lowering that provision based on affordability or profitability.
New clause 71—Display of new advertisements—
“In section 220(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations controlling display of advertisements), omit “amenity or public safety” and insert “amenity, environmental impact, public safety or public health.”
This new clause amends the section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to add environmental impact and public health to the considerations for which the Secretary of State can restrict or regulate the display of advertisements.
New clause 73—Building regulations: swift bricks—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations under Section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.
(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift and other cavity nesting species;
“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitat for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.
New clause 74—Refusal of permission to reduce affordable housing in large scale developments—
“(1) If an application is made for reserved planning permission relating to a large scale housing development which seeks to reduce the amount of affordable housing originally proposed by a developer as part of an application for outline planning permission, the local planning authority must refuse the application.
(2) Where—
(a) a local planning authority has agreed an application for a modification or discharge of a planning obligation under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
(b) the modification or discharge would reduce the amount of affordable housing from that originally proposed by a developer in the outline planning application, this section applies.
(3) In this section “large scale housing development” means any development which includes more than 500 houses in the outline planning application.”
New clause 75—Change of certain use classes to require permission—
“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).
(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C4 is to be taken to involve development of the land.””
This new clause would mean that converting a residential dwelling into a house of multiple occupation would require planning permission.
New clause 77—Embodied carbon assessments—
“(1) Local planning authorities must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) require applications for permission for developments which exceed a specified gross internal area and number of dwellings to include an embodied carbon assessment;
(b) consider a relevant embodied carbon assessment as a material factor when considering whether to grant permission for the development.
(2) The Secretary of State must—
(a) approve a methodology for calculating embodied carbon emissions;
(b) provide guidance on how the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings must be expressed; and
(c) establish a centralised reporting platform to which embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments must be submitted.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“embodied carbon” means the total emissions associated with materials and construction processes involved in the full life cycle of a project;
“whole life carbon” means the combination of embodied and operational emissions across the full life cycle of a project;
“operational emissions” means the carbon emissions from the energy used once a project is operational, including from heating, lighting and cooling.”
This new clause would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning application and consideration of these by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State will be required to approve a methodology, issue guidance, and establish a centralised reporting platform for whole-life carbon emissions.
New clause 78—Requirement regarding the provision of social housing under housing plans—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must—
(a) state the proportion of social housing which must be provided as part of any such development; and
(b) require any such housing to be delivered to a net zero carbon building standard.
(2) The proportion of social rent housing to be provided under subsection (1)(a) must be based on an assessment of the need for social rent homes in the relevant area.
(3) Any assessment of the need for social rent homes must consider—
(a) levels of homelessness,
(b) the number of children in temporary accommodation, and
(c) the number of households on social housing waiting lists, in the relevant area.”
This new clause would require housing plans to state the proportion of social rent housing to be provided (based on an assessment of need) and require those homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard.
New clause 79—Duty of cooperation between neighbouring authorities—
“(1) A local planning authority has a duty to cooperate with neighbouring local planning authorities when considering an application for development consent which could affect the area of a neighbouring local planning authority.
(2) In carrying out a duty to cooperate under this section, a local planning authority must—
(a) consult neighbouring authorities on the content of the application;
(b) take account of any neighbouring authority’s response to such consultation when reaching a decision on the application.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a development affects the area of a neighbouring local planning authority if—
(a) it directly adjoins any land within the area; or
(b) the construction, maintenance and occupation of the development would alter the environment, character, or infrastructure of the area.”
This new clause will ensure that Local Authorities have to work together when considering planning applications that will also impact the neighbouring Authority due to its geographical location.
New clause 80—Distribution of s.106 funding between local planning areas—
“(1) This section applies where a person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority has—
(a) entered into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Act 1990,
(b) the planning obligation requires a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically, and
(c) the land in question is within a certain proximity of an area of a neighbouring local planning authority.
(2) A local planning authority has a duty to distribute part or parts of the sum or sums to the neighbouring planning authority.
(3) Where the conditions in subsection (1) are met in relation to more than one neighbouring local planning authority, the duty applies in such a way as to require distribution to each neighbouring authority.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument specify—
(a) the method by which any sum payable to a neighbouring local authority is to be calculated and distributed;
(b) the meanings of—
(i) “certain proximity of an area”, and
(ii) “neighbouring planning authority”
for the purposes of this section;
(c) any other provisions as the Secretary of State deems appropriate for the purposes of this section.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause will require local authorities to distribute s.106 funding to neighbouring authorities should a development be in proximity to that local authority area.
New clause 81—Subsidy of s.106 agreements prior to development—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority has entered into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Act 1990, and
(b) the person has received development consent for—
(i) housing, and
(ii) any infrastructure reasonably connected with the provision of that housing.
(2) The person may only begin development if—
(a) the Secretary of State has paid to the local planning authority a sum equivalent to any sum under the section 106 agreement for the purposes of developing infrastructure;
(b) the person applying for permission must enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State to repay to them the total sum paid out under paragraph (a) (a “repayment agreement”).
(3) For the purposes of this section, “infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but may include—
(a) roadways;
(b) utilities;
(c) educational provision;
(d) medical facilities;
(e) recreational facilities;
(f) routes for active travel.”
This amendment will enable the Secretary of State to pay the equivalent of s.106 contributions to local authorities up front for the purpose of developing planned infrastructure, and thereafter reclaim it from the relevant developer.
New clause 82—Play Sufficiency Duty—
“(1) A local planning authority in England must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions.
(2) In fulfilling the duty under subsection (1), a local planning authority must—
(a) undertake and publish play sufficiency assessments at intervals to be defined in regulations;
(b) integrate the findings and recommendations of such assessments into local plans, relevant strategies, infrastructure planning, and development decisions;
(c) not give permission for any development which would lead to a net loss of formal or informal play spaces except where equivalent or improved provision is secured;
(d) require new developments to provide high-quality, accessible, inclusive play opportunities which incorporate natural features and are integrated within broader public spaces; and
(e) consult regularly with children, families, communities, and play professionals regarding play provision.
(3) A play sufficiency assessment produced under subsection (2)(a) must specifically evaluate and report on the quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration of play opportunities within the planning authority’s area.
(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify—
(a) the frequency, methodology, content, and publication requirements of play sufficiency assessments;
(b) minimum design standards and quality expectations for formal and informal play provision;
(c) developer obligations regarding play infrastructure contributions to be secured through planning conditions.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“play” means activities undertaken by children and young people that are freely chosen, self-directed, and carried out following their own interests, in their own way, and for their own reasons;
“play opportunities” include formal and informal play spaces, parks, open spaces, streets, schools, neighbourhood spaces, natural green areas, active travel routes, supervised play settings (including adventure playgrounds), and community recreation facilities;
“sufficient” means adequate in quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration within community infrastructure.”
New clause 83—Housing developments to include children’s play areas—
Any application for the development of new housing where the majority of units comprise more than one bedroom must include provision for adequate outdoor children’s play areas as part of the development.”
New clause 84—Prohibition of battery energy storage systems on higher-quality agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for battery energy storage systems where the development would involve the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher quality agricultural land.
New clause 86—Joint Nature and Conservation Committee Report—
“(1) The Joint Nature and Conservation Committee must publish a report on how best to consolidate the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in so far as they relate to planning and development.
(2) The report required by subsection (1) must be published by the end of 2025.”
This new clause would require the Joint Nature and Conservation Committee to report on how to consolidate the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in so far as they relate to planning and development.
New clause 87—Designation of chalk streams as protected sites—
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals to designate more chalk streams as protected sites”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to designate as protected sites more of the 209 out of 220 chalk streams that are not currently legally protected.
New clause 88—Use of grey water recycling in new developments—
“In any application for development, the applicant must include a statement outlining their consideration of and proposals for the use of grey water recycling in the new property.”
New clause 89—Prohibition of cross-subsidy on Rural Exception Sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, take steps to prohibit cross-subsidy on Rural Exception Sites.
(2) Steps to be taken must include reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “cross-subsidy” means the use of any financial proceeds from the sale or letting of housing at market rate on a Rural Exception Site for the purposes of subsidising the sale or letting of any other housing on the same Rural Exception Site.”
This new clause would require the secretary of state to take steps to prohibit cross-subsidy on rural exception sites.
New clause 90—Cap on profits for developers—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which limit the profits which may be made by a housing or property developer.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) provide that a developer may not make a profit from a development which is greater than 10% of the estimated cost of the scheme to be developed;
(b) where a developer makes a profit of more than 10%, set out procedures for the reclamation and use of any excess profit.
(3) This section applies to all developments which receive consent after the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would limit the profit a developer makes from any development to 10% of the estimated cost of the development.
New clause 91—Extension and application of use classes in planning—
“(1) A local planning authority must prescribe a limit on the number of buildings within its area which are used for the purposes of Class C5 or C6.
(2) Before setting a limit under subsection (1) a local planning authority must—
(a) consult residents of the local planning area, and
(b) publish a report on the outcome of the consultation.
(3) A local planning authority must refuse any application for development consent which would have the effect of increasing the number of buildings used for the purposes of Class C5 or C6 above any limit prescribed under subsection (1).”
This new clause would require local planning authorities to place a limit on the number (or proportion of housing stock) of second homes and short-term lets in their area, and refuse planning applications that would have the effect of exceeding the limit.
New clause 92—Change in use class upon transfer of property—
“(1) Where a building—
(a) is used the purposes of Class C5 or C6, and
(b) there is a change in its registered owner,
the use class of the building is to be automatically amended to Class C3.
(2) In this section, “change in its registered owner” means any change in the ownership of a property which requires a registration, or amendment to an existing registration made, with the Land Registry.”
This new clause would require that when property used as a short-term let or second home changes owners, it reverts immediately to having permission only to be used as a main residence, unless subsequent planning permission is sought and secured.
New clause 93—Permitted development and charging points—
“(1) Part 2 of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph D of class D, after “parking”, insert “or adjacent to a public highway lawfully used for on-street parking where a local highway authority approved cross-pavement charging solution is installed, ”.
(3) In paragraph 1 of class D, after subparagraph (a) add—
“(b) overhang the footway by more than 150mm perpendicular to the property boundary including the cable plug when it is plugged in;””.
This new clause extends permitted development rights to charge points powering EVs parked on-street, where an approved cross-pavement charging solution is present and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15cm. Installations still require approval by the Local Highways Authority to control liabilities, maintenance, and parking arrangements.
New clause 94—Installation of digital infrastructure—
“In Section 48 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (streets, street works and undertakers), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3ZA) In this Part, “street works” also includes works relating to digital infrastructure, and any reference to subsection (3) is to be read accordingly.””.
New clause 95—Digital infrastructure planning officers—
“(1) Local planning authorities must appoint persons to carry out functions relating to the promotion of digital infrastructure development within the planning system.
(2) Such persons may—
(a) advise planning officers, committees, and any other relevant person about the inclusion of digital infrastructure within a proposed development;
(b) assess the digital infrastructure needs of any local community likely to be affected by a proposed development;
(c) propose amendments to proposed developments to improve the provision of digital infrastructure;
(d) carry out any other duty relating to the assessment and provision of digital infrastructure within proposed developments as the local planning authority may require.
(3) Any amendment proposed under paragraph (2)(c) may include alternation to existing street furniture and infrastructure provision for the purposes of fulfilling the digital infrastructure needs of a proposed development.”
New clause 96—Assessment of need for banking services—
(1) In any case where a proposed development in a settlement would have the potential effect of increasing the population size of a town and any settlements reasonably considered reliant on the town for provision of public services to at least 5000 persons, the local planning authority has a duty to assess the need for a banking hub within the town settlement.
(2) In meeting a duty under this section, the local planning authority may consult—
(a) residents of the settlement and its local area;
(b) the relevant developer;
(c) the Post Office;
(d) LINK;
(e) providers of banking services, and
(f) any other relevant person.
(3) The local authority must publish a report on its assessment before any grant of permission can be made.”
New clause 97—Flood risk mitigation: planning permission—
“When considering an application for development consent, a local planning authority has a duty to consider whether any development of the land for which consent is sought could have the effect of increasing flood risk, or reducing flood mitigation, to any neighbouring land or development.”
New clause 98—Flood resilience measures for new homes—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that property flood resilience measures are included in any new homes.
(2) Property flood resilience measures under this section may include—
(a) raised electrical sockets;
(b) non-return valves on utility pipes;
(c) airbricks;
(d) resilient wall plaster;
(e) any other measure as the Secretary of State may specify.”
New clause 99—Obligation on developers to consider climate and flood resilience—
“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for development unless it is satisfied that the applicant has considered how the development would contribute to—
(a) the UK’s climate resilience, and
(b) flood resilience in the area surrounding the development.
(2) The Secretary of State must, every twelve months starting with the day twelve months after which this Act is passed, publish a review of the extent to which applications approved in the previous twelve months would contribute to the aims set out in subsection (1).”
New clause 100—Conditions to mitigate overheating risk—
“In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission for residential development, the authority may impose conditions which require the implementation of measures to mitigate the risk of overheating where local climatic data indicates elevated risk.””
This new clause would allow local planning authorities to impose conditions on residential developments to mitigate the risk of overheating, where local climate data shows elevated risk.
New clause 101—Cooling hierarchy guidance—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities which—
(a) outlines a cooling hierarchy; and
(b) provides guidance on the application of the cooling hierarchy in the exercise of a local planning authority’s planning and development functions.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local planning authorities on applying the "cooling hierarchy" - a structured approach to reducing overheating risk in buildings, prioritising passive and sustainable design measures.
New clause 102—Overheating risk assessments—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, require all applications for planning permission for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment.
(2) An overheating risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with—
(a) the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk in homes, or
(b) any successor standard designated by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require all planning applications for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment, conducted in line with the latest recognised technical standard, such as those of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
New clause 103—Incorporation of features to mitigate overheating risk—
“(1) When preparing any plan or strategy relating to the development of housing under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a local planning authority must have regard to the need for residential developments to incorporate passive design features that mitigate the risk of overheating.
(2) Passive design features may include—
(a) cross-ventilation,
(b) external shading,
(c) solar control glazing, and
(d) thermal mass.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities, when preparing housing-related plans or strategies, to have regard to the need for residential developments to include passive design features that reduce the risk of overheating, such as cross-ventilation, external shading, solar control glazing, and thermal mass.
New clause 104—Access to data on overheating risk—
“(1) For the purposes of supporting the making of local plans, spatial development strategies and planning decisions, the Secretary of State must make provision for local planning authorities to have access to relevant data relating to overheating risk.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that data on overheating risk made available to local planning authorities is updated at intervals not exceeding five years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have access to up-to-date data on overheating risk, to support the making of local plans, spatial development strategies, and planning decisions.
New clause 105—Regard to flood risk guidance when considering development on flood plains—
“(1) When preparing a local plan for an area which includes a flood plain or considering an application for development on a flood plain, a local planning authority must have regard to—
(a) the sequential and exception tests;
(b) the most up to date guidance on flood risk produced by the Government.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“sequential test” means steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding, taking all sources of flood risk and climate change into account. Where it is not possible to locate development in low-risk areas, reasonably available sites within medium risk areas should be considered, with sites within high-risk areas only considered where there are no reasonably available sites in low and medium risk areas;
“exception test” means that it has been demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities to have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains.
New clause 106—Requirement for installation of flood resilience measures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, amend relevant Approved Documents to require the installation of flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
(2) Flood resilience measures must be specified and installed in accordance with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice for property flood resilience.”
This new clause would require Approved Documents to require the installation, to CIRIA’s code of practice, of property flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
New clause 108—Planning applications for homes to address housing need—
“(1) Where an application proposes to provide housing, the applicant must demonstrate how the proposed development will contribute towards reducing the housing need in the local planning area where the development would take place.
(2) A “housing need” under this section—
(a) has such meaning as a local planning authority for the relevant local planning area may determine, and
(b) must be communicated clearly to any applicants proposing to provide housing in reasonable time before any application is submitted.”
New clause 109—Conditions for development on greenfield sites—
“Permission may only be granted for development on a greenfield site where–
(a) the applicant has proved that there are no appropriate alternative brownfield sites which could be used for the development, and
(b) the applicant has held a public consultation on the development of the greenfield site.”
New clause 110—Prioritisation of development on brownfield sites—
“(1) Any local or national plan or strategy which relates to the building or provision of housing must prioritise development on brownfield sites.
(2) The Secretary of State must take steps to support the development of housing on brownfield sites.
(3) Steps to be taken under subsection (2) may include–
(a) the disapplication of certain planning requirements or regulations;
(b) exemption from certain consultation requirements.”
New clause 111—Statements of service charges—
“(1) Where it is proposed that a development of social housing will impose service charges on residents, the application for such a development must include a statement of service charges which are to be applicable to residents of the new housing.
(2) Before granting permission for such development, a local planning authority must consider whether the statement of service charges—
(a) proposes service charge models which are fair, affordable, appropriate, and limited to services directly accessible to the residents;
(b) includes provision for annual, itemised breakdowns of applicable service charges to be provided to residents;
(c) provides for service charges to not apply where units are used as temporary emergency accommodation for individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.”
New clause 112—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction (No. 2)—
“Where an application proposes—
(a) to develop more than 10 houses, and
(b) that at least 20% of the houses to be developed will be social housing, no amendment to the amount of social housing to be developed may be made if the amendment reduces the amount of social housing below 20% of the houses to be developed if the reason for the amendment is the viability to the applicant.”
This new clause would prevent developers from seeking to reduce commitments to provide social housing on the grounds of viability.
New clause 113—New towns to contribute towards social housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new social housing, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
This new clause would ensure that new towns contribute to social housing targets.
New clause 115—Identification and protection of Green Belt—
“(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act, a local planning authority must identify land within its area which it is necessary to protect from development.
(2) It is necessary to protect land from development under subsection (1) if such protection would—
(a) limit the expansion of large built-up areas;
(b) prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(d) encourage the development of previously-developed land in urban areas.
(3) A local planning authority may designate as Green Belt any land identified under subsection (1) as necessary to protect, including undeveloped land within, and green wedges of land that extend into, built up areas.
(4) A local planning authority must prevent any development of land designated as Green Belt under this section for a minimum period of 20 years starting on the day on which it is so designated.”
This new clause would ensure that a local planning authority can identify land which it deems necessary to protect from development.
New clause 116—Heritage tree preservation orders—
“(1) A local planning authority may make a heritage tree preservation order in respect of a heritage tree.
(2) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations for heritage tree preservation orders, which must include provision—
(a) for a heritage tree to have all the protections afforded to a tree by a tree preservation order under section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
(b) requiring the owner of a heritage tree, or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands, to advertise appropriately its status as such, and the penalties for harming it, to persons approaching the tree or planning activities in its vicinity;
(c) enabling the responsible planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner of a heritage tree or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands to take specified reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree and, if the owner or occupier does not take such steps in reasonable time, to take such steps itself and to recover the reasonable cost of doing so from the owner or occupier;
(d) for the responsible planning authority, Natural England, the Secretary of State or another prescribed responsible body to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier about the care and preservation of the heritage tree (a “heritage tree partnership agreement”), including about costs;
(e) for additional or higher penalties for breach of a heritage tree preservation order.
(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for the creation, publication and maintenance of a register of heritage trees in respect of which heritage tree preservation orders have been made.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “heritage tree” means a tree listed as such by Natural England on grounds of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecologic importance.
(5) Natural England must create, publish and maintain a list of heritage trees in England for the purposes of this section.”
This new clause provides for the protection of heritage trees.
New clause 117—Development consent for betting shops above street level—
“A planning authority must not consider any application for development consent—
(a) for a new betting shop, or
(b) to change the use of an existing building to, or to include, a betting shop,
unless the relevant premises proposed to function as a betting shop are at least one storey above street level.”
New clause 118—Development of dwellinghouses above shops—
“(1) This section applies where an application for development consent proposes to develop any part of a building which is—
(a) part of a retail or commercial premises, and
(b) is at least one story above ground level.
(2) It is permitted to—
(a) develop any such part of the building for the purposes of dwellinghouses;
(b) include in development safe access and egress to the new dwellinghouses;
that does not require any such access and egress through the existing retail or commercial premises.”
New clause 119—Internal Drainage Boards to be statutory consultees—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 120—Accessibility standards for new homes—
“(1) It is a condition of any grant of planning permission for new homes that—
all planned homes meet Building Regulations M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings); and
the relevant number of homes, as set out in the following table, must meet Building Regulation M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings)—
New clause 121—Residential development on flood plains—
“(1) Where a development involves the building of residential accommodation on a flood plain, no living or social spaces may be located on ground level.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “living or social spaces” include bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens and other private or communal rooms or spaces used for social or recreational purposes or for the preparation or consumption of food, but does not include garages or other rooms or spaces used primarily for the purposes of storage.”
New clause 122—Availability of small and medium sized properties to be considered—
“(1) When considering an application for development which would increase the size or number of bedrooms in a residential property which has a maximum of two bedrooms, a local planning authority must consider the availability and affordability of small and medium sized properties in the authority’s area.
(2) Where the authority considers that the extension of a small or medium sized property would have a detrimental impact on the availability and affordability of such properties in the authority’s area, the authority may not grant permission for the proposed development.”
New clause 123—Notices—
“(1) Where a party is required to publish a notice relating to proposed or prospective development, such a requirement may be satisfied by the relevant party providing the information to be included in such a notice to—
(a) affected individuals directly;
(b) a relevant parish or local authority.
(2) Where there is no relevant parish authority, the requirement under this section is satisfied if the relevant party notifies the nearest equivalent authority.
(3) In the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, omit the words from “; and” in paragraph 13(1)(a) to the end of paragraph 13(1).”
New clause 124—Notices (No. 2)—
“(1) Where a party is required to publish notices relating to proposed or prospective development in the vicinity of the area which is to be developed, the relevant party must—
(a) place such a notice at the main entrance to the property or site or, where there are multiple entrances, at each entrance;
(b) serve notice on the owner of every property located within 250 metres of the external boundary of the relevant site.”
New clause 125—Agreements on adoption of new highways—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 62 (applications for planning permission or permission in principle), after subsection (4A) insert—
“(4B) Where an application seeks permission for development which includes the construction of a new highway, the local planning authority must require that the application includes a declaration specifying the extent of any highway for which the applicant intends to seek adoption by the local highways authority.
(4C) A declaration under subsection (4B) must contain such information and be in such form as the Secretary of State may specify.”
(3) After section 106C insert—
“106D Requirement to enter into highways adoption agreement before occupation
(1) Where the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied, an agreement must be made under section 38(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (power of highway authorities to adopt by agreement) prior to the occupation of land or buildings resulting from development.
(2) The conditions are—
(a) that a declaration has been made under section 62(4B) of this Act which specifies that all or part of the highway is intended for adoption; and
(b) that the land or buildings to be occupied front one or more highway section intended for adoption.
(3) Any agreement must include all highway sections intended for adoption that front the land or buildings to be occupied.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “front” has the meaning given for “fronting” in section 203 of the Highways Act 1980.””
This new clause would require developers to declare, when seeking planning permission, that they intend for a highways authority to adopt the roads they construct as part of their development, and enter into an agreement with the highways authority before occupying any building next to the relevant roads.
Amendment 87, in clause 2, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment retains the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement setting out their response to a resolution of either House of Parliament or the recommendations of a committee of either House relating to a proposed national planning policy statement.
Amendment 128, page 4, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a response to a resolution made by either House or recommendations made by a committee of either House in relation to amendments to national policy statements. The requirement to do so is otherwise removed by 2(a).
Amendment 145, in clause 25, page 34, line 34, after “electricity suppliers” insert “and generators”.
This amendment would extend the financial benefit scheme for people living near network transmission infrastructure to those living near new energy generation infrastructure.
Amendment 146, page 34, line 38, after “plant” insert “, energy generation,”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 145.
Amendment 147, page 35, line 2, after “system” insert
“or is intended to generate electricity.”
This amendment is related to Amendment 145.
Government amendment 93.
Amendment 3, page 53, line 22, leave out clause 40.
This amendment aims to conserve the listed building conservation area and scheduled ancient monument consent requirements that would otherwise be disapplied for transport projects here.
Government amendments 94 to 98.
Amendment 122, in clause 46, page 58, line 10, leave out “(5)” and insert “(6)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 123, page 58, line 38, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—
‘(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.’”
This amendment will extend the easements being provided to public charge points of installation without the need for a section 50 street works licence to approved cross-pavement charging solutions. Each site remains subject to Local Highways Authority approval, enabling control over liabilities, maintenance and parking arrangements.
Amendment 124, page 59, line 9, at end insert—
“‘cross-pavement charging solution’ means a local highway authority approved device, solution or apparatus to safely convey electricity from premises across or under a footway to a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from a storage battery (or for discharging electricity stored in such a vehicle);”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 125, page 59, line 23, at end insert—
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 124.
Amendment 127, page 60, line 5, at end insert—
“References to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.”
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 125.
Amendment 141, page 60, line 5, at end insert—
“(10) The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 is amended as set out in subsections (11) and (12).
(11) In section 10 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection)—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points;’;
(b) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Regulations under subsection (1)(ba) may, for example, require the operator of a public charging or refuelling point to ensure that the point complies with minimum specifications for placement of a charge point display, bay size, and the height and weight of the charging cable.’
(12) In section 14 (transmission of data relating to charge points), in subsection (2) after ‘energy consumption’ insert ‘, accessibility’.”
Amendment 139, in clause 47, page 60, line 12, leave out “(2)” and insert “(1A)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 140.
Amendment 140, page 60, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) After subsection (1ZZA) insert—
‘(1ZZB) References in subsection (1) to functions of a local planning authority include recovery of costs to authority resulting from enforcement of any breach of planning permission.’”
This amendment allows local planning authorities to levy a fee or charge to recover any costs to them associated with enforcing planning rules. It is linked to Amendment 139.
Amendment 133, page 60, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) the requirement for proportionality in the level of the fee or charge, based on the nature and size of the development to which the fee or charge will apply;”.
This amendment would require authorities to consider the proportionality of the level of any fee or charge they set, based on the nature and size of the works to which the fee or charge will apply.
Amendment 126, page 60, line 35, at end insert—
“‘cross-pavement charging solution’ means a local highway authority approved device, solution or apparatus to safely convey electricity from premises across or under a footway to a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from a storage battery (or for discharging electricity stored in such a vehicle);”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 129, page 61, line 3, after “imposed” insert
“, and must be such an amount as the authority, Mayor or specified person considers to be a proportionate contribution towards the carrying out of their functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”
This amendment, which is linked with Amendment 130, would expand the planning fees ringfence to allow local planning authorities to spend revenue from planning fees on local plan-making functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Amendment 130, page 61, line 15, at end insert—
“(ba) functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 129.
Amendment 1, page 67, line 1, leave out clause 50.
This amendment would ensure that planning committees retain their existing powers.
Amendment 74, in clause 51, page 72, line 27, at end insert—
“(1A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise for new development previously-developed land.”
This amendment would require that spatial development strategies prioritise development on brownfield land over other locations.
Amendment 15, page 72, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) A spatial development strategy must have regard to the need to provide 150,000 new social homes nationally a year.”
Amendment 21, page 72, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area;
(g) recreational and leisure facilities; and
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Amendment 77, page 72, line 39, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 148, page 73, line 1, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) an amount or distribution of housing the provision of which either—
(i) is considered by the strategic planning authority to be of strategic importance to the strategy area, or
(ii) meets housing need within, or related to, the strategy area.”
This amendment would enable strategic planning boards authorities to choose whether housing allocation based on local need or strategic importance.
Amendment 71, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 149, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) the timetable for, and annual targets relating to the delivery of, housing specified or described under this subsection.
(5A) In subsection (5) ‘housing need’ has such meaning as a strategic planning authority may determine in consultation with local planning authorities within the strategy area.”
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 148. It requires a strategic planning board to set targets for the delivery of any housing specified under this section, and allows a strategic planning board to define housing need in consultation with relevant local authorities.
Amendment 78, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in any part of a strategy area which is an urban area,
when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) ‘urban area’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 134, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), any amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing includes Gypsy and Traveller sites provided privately, by local authorities, or by other registered social landlords.”
This amendment would include Gypsy and Traveller sites in the strategically important housing identified in spatial development strategies.
Amendment 16, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Amendment 70, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;
(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and
(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
Amendment 75, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) A strategic planning board has a duty to ensure that any development specified or described under subsections (4) or (5) does not take place on green belt land unless there is no practicable option for development in existing urban areas, including by—
(a) increasing the density of existing development, and
(b) regenerating an existing development,
in an urban area.”
This amendment would ensure that a strategic planning board must only propose development on green belt land where development in urban areas is not possible.
Amendment 76, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy proposes the development or use of agricultural land, the strategy must consider—
(a) the grade of such agricultural land;
(b) the cumulative impact of projects developing or using such agricultural land.”
Amendment 17, page 73, line 33, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) take account of Local Wildlife Sites in or relating to the strategy area, and
(b) avoid development or land use change which would adversely affect or hinder the protection or recovery of nature in a Local Wildlife Site.”
This amendment would ensure that spatial development strategies take account of Local Wildlife Sites.
Amendment 91, page 73, line 33, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must include policies relating to the provision and protection of land for community gardening and allotments”
This amendment would require planning authorities to include their policies in relation to the provision of allotment and community garden land in their spatial development strategy.
Amendment 67, page 74, line 3, leave out from “means” to end of line 6 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 23, page 74, line 5, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Amendment 81, page 76, line 29, leave out from “must” to end of line 38 and insert
“consult—
(a) residents of the relevant area;
(b) businesses located in the relevant area; and
(c) representatives of those that the authority considers may have an interest in any relevant area.”
This amendment would change the existing requirement in the Bill for a strategic planning authority to notify specified parties to a requirement to consult local residents, businesses, and representative organisations.
Amendment 18, page 77, leave out line 33 and insert—
“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
This amendment would require strategic planning authorities to consider notifying disabled people about the publication of a draft spatial development strategy.
Amendment 72, page 77, leave out line 33 and insert—
“(5) Any person who makes representations seeking to amend a draft spatial development strategy must, if they so request, be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person conducting out the examination.”
This amendment requires that anyone who submits representations to amend a draft spatial development strategy has a right to appear in person and be heard during the examination of the strategy.
Amendment 142, page 81, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) No review of a spatial development strategy may be undertaken within five years of the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, except where such a review is consented to by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority’s first spatial development strategy may not be reviewed for the first five years except with the agreement of the Secretary of State.
Amendment 143, page 81, line 26, after “strategy” insert
“, but this may not, within a period of five years following the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, take the form of a full review of the strategy and the scope of any alterations must be agreed with the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority may not conduct a full review of its first spatial development strategy in the course of preparing alterations in the first five years.
Amendment 144, page 82, line 5, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply within the first five years of the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, except with the consent of the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority may not replace its first spatial development strategy within five years.
Amendment 24, page 89, line 28, leave out clause 52.
This amendment, along with Amendments 25 to 63, would leave out Part 3 of the Bill.
Amendment 6, in clause 52, page 89, line 35, after “to” insert “significantly”.
Amendment 82, page 90, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”
Amendment 25, page 90, line 14, leave out clause 53.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 26, page 91, line 12, leave out clause 54.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 7, in clause 54, page 91, line 27, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.
Amendment 150, page 91, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) An EDP must—
(a) require developers to demonstrate that they have sought to avoid and minimize any negative effects on the identified environmental feature, and
(b) only permit adverse effects on the identified environmental feature where they cannot be avoided and where the adverse effects will be compensated for.”
This amendment would ensure the mitigation hierarchy applies to development covered by EDPs.
Amendment 137, page 91, line 30, after “appropriate” insert
“and if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest”.
Amendment 83, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is—
(a) a chalk stream;
(b) a blanket bog.”
Amendment 138, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Where an identified environmental feature is a protected species, the EDP should—
(a) set out conservation measures that address the environmental impact of development on that feature within the relevant Local Nature Recovery Strategy area, and
(b) where Natural England considers it appropriate and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”
Amendment 27, page 92, line 10, leave out clause 55.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 28, page 92, line 19, leave out clause 56.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 99.
Amendment 69, in clause 56, page 93, line 8, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Amendment 29, page 93, line 10, leave out clause 57.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 100.
Amendment 136, in clause 57, page 93, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) When preparing an EDP, Natural England must—
(a) demonstrate that there is reliable scientific evidence to suggest that implementing conservation measures as part of an EDP could contribute to a significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature at an ecologically appropriate scale;
(b) be able to establish sufficient baseline data on relevant protected features to enable an accurate assessment of the environmental impact of development on the identified environmental features; and
(c) take account of the environmental principles set out in section 17 of the Environment Act 2021 and publish a statement explaining how it has done so.”
This amendment would require Natural England to provide scientific evidence on the expected effectiveness of the proposed conservation measures when preparing an EDP.
Government amendments 101 and 102.
Amendment 30, page 93, line 32, leave out clause 58.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 103.
Amendment 84, in clause 58, page 94, line 14, at end insert—
“(j) any impacted landowner,
(k) sea fishing businesses, where the EDP covers an area which is adjacent to their fishing grounds,
(l) the owners of fishing rights, where the EDP includes or otherwise affects rivers or lakes used for fishing.”
Government amendments 104 and 105.
Amendment 31, page 94, line 31, leave out clause 59.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 8, in clause 59, page 95, line 2, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.
This amendment seeks to strengthen the overall improvement test.
Amendment 9, page 95, line 2, after “sufficient to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment seeks to strengthen the overall improvement test.
Amendment 32, page 95, line 13, leave out clause 60.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 33, page 95, line 21, leave out clause 61.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 34, page 96, line 27, leave out clause 62.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 5, in clause 62, page 96, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.
Amendment 35, page 97, line 20, leave out clause 63.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 10, in clause 63, page 98, line 8, after “to” insert “significantly”.
Amendment 36, page 98, line 21, leave out clause 64.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 106.
Amendment 37, page 99, line 33, leave out clause 65.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 107 and 108.
Amendment 38, page 100, line 33, leave out clause 66.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 90, in clause 66, page 100, line 37, leave out from “that” to end of line 40 and insert
‘‘the conservation status of environmental features are maintained and improved whilst supporting development to proceed where ecologically appropriate.”
This amendment would state that the purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable development while maintaining and improving environmental features.
Amendment 39, page 101, line 1, leave out clause 67.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 40, page 101, line 29, leave out clause 68.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 41, page 102, line 36, leave out clause 69.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 42, page 103, line 9, leave out clause 70.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 4, in clause 70, page 103, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.”
The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.
Amendment 11, page 104, line 5, leave out “separately” and insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8.
Amendment 12, page 104, line 9, after “money” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 13, page 104, line 10, after “report” insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on expected charging collection and use of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 14, page 104, line 16, after “paragraph)” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on money passed to another public authority.
Amendment 43, page 104, line 17, leave out clause 71.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 2, in clause 71, page 104, line 27, leave out from “levy” to end of line 30 and insert—
“(4A) Provision under subsection (4) must include a condition that the nature restoration levy must be paid before development begins.”
This amendment would require that the levy is paid up front, so that nature restoration can begin immediately.
Amendment 44, page 105, line 8, leave out clause 72.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 45, page 106, line 32, leave out clause 73.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 46, page 107, line 18, leave out clause 74.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 47, page 107, line 24, leave out clause 75.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 48, page 107, line 32, leave out clause 76.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 49, page 108, line 19, leave out clause 77.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 50, page 109, line 27, leave out clause 78.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 51, page 110, line 38, leave out clause 79.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 52, page 111, line 9, leave out clause 80.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 53, page 111, line 25, leave out clause 81.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 54, page 112, line 33, leave out clause 82.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 55, page 113, line 29, leave out clause 83.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 56, page 114, line 3, leave out clause 84.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 57, page 114, line 33, leave out clause 85.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 58, page 115, line 10, leave out clause 86.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 59, page 116, line 19, leave out clause 87.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 60, page 117, line 1, leave out clause 88.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 61, page 117, line 10, leave out clause 89.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 62, page 117, line 27, leave out clause 90.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 63, page 118, line 29, leave out clause 91.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 115 to 119 and 109 to 111.
Amendment 65, page 163, line 12, leave out schedule 5.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 54.
Amendment 66, page 170, line 3, leave out schedule 6.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 60.
Amendment 20, in schedule 6, page 174, line 37, leave out paragraph 41.
Amendment 131, in schedule 6, page 175, line 1, leave out subparagraph 41(2).
This amendment removes provisions that amend the reasons for the killing or taking of badgers.
Amendment 132, in schedule 6, page 175, line 16, leave out subparagraph 41(4).
This amendment removes provisions that amend the reasons for the killing or taking of badgers.
Government amendments 112 to 114, 120 and 121.
Amendment 64, in clause 109, page 150, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is consequential to Amendments 24 to 63.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a real pleasure to bring this landmark Bill back to the House on Report. Let me begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their engagement with the Bill over recent months. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as well as hon. Friends on the Government Benches, for their considered line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
Over the past 11 months, the Government have acted decisively to restore economic stability, increase investment and reform our economy to drive up productivity, prosperity and living standards in every part of the country. To build the homes and critical infrastructure we need, we have already delivered the most significant reforms to our planning system in a generation, including the publication of a revised, pro-growth national planning policy framework, which the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded will permanently increase the level of our real GDP by 0.02% by 2029-30—the equivalent of £6.8 billion in today’s prices.
We are making further progress on our plan-for-change mission of rebuilding Britain and kickstarting economic growth this week by progressing this critical legislation. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, helping us to achieve our ambitious milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England, and making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament, as well as supporting our clean power 2030 target by ensuring that essential clean energy projects are built as quickly as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, the mother body of which is the National Farmers Union. Others will comment on this, but the UFU has told me that it is concerned about losing farmland for housing. Should it not be the policy of Government to ensure that brownfield sites are used first? If they are used first, farmers will have the opportunity to retain their land to produce food, which is important. Does the Minister feel there must be balance in what is put forward tonight to ensure that that happens?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—he knows I have great affection for him. He tempts me into a debate that does not directly relate to the Bill, but I can tell him the following: the Government’s position is brownfield-first when it comes to development. He knows that we strengthened the national planning policy framework to give greater weight to brownfield release. We have consulted on a brownfield passport to ensure that bringing forward previously developed land becomes the default and that people get a yes in those circumstances. When it comes to agricultural land, very strong protections already exist. They remain in force in terms of what is in the NPPF.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way briefly, and then I will make some progress.
Greg Smith
When the Minister says that agricultural protections are very strong, that simply is not true, is it? In the new NPPF that the Government brought in after being elected, they removed the important clause that explicitly protected land used in food production.
Matthew Pennycook
I slightly take issue with the hon. Member’s interpretation. We made targeted changes, but the strong protections that apply to agricultural land exist. He knows that, and I have spoken to him before about the fact that, in particular parts of the country, we see high numbers of applications for things like solar farms. But as I have said to him before, even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be brought forward for solar farm applications, and those protections remain in place, so we are confident that that is robust.
Matthew Pennycook
I will take this one last intervention because these are not matters relating to the Bill, and then I want to move on.
Sir Roger Gale
This relates directly to the Bill. Not only does it relate directly to the Bill, but there are dozens of amendments all relating to this one single issue. The fact of the matter is that, under the proposals as they stand, we will lose vast swathes of prime agricultural land because planning consent will effectively be driven straight through. That is simply not satisfactory.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the point I just made. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be turned over to solar farm use. Some of the hyperbole that has been associated with the issue over recent months is unwarranted. I say directly to him, because I want to move on and speak to the Bill, that these are matters that relate to the national planning policy framework, rather than to any proposals in this piece of legislation. I am more than happy to sit down with him and talk about them outside of the context of this debate, but I do want to make some progress.
We made a number of improvements to the Bill in Committee to ensure that it operates as intended and that its expected benefits are fully realised. In many cases, the changes were a direct result of constructive feedback from key stakeholders and parliamentarians. The result is the stronger and more impactful Bill before us. I will briefly outline the more substantive changes made to the Bill in Committee, including in relation to the nationally significant infrastructure projects, statutory consultee funding and the nature restoration fund, before turning to further amendments that the Government tabled last week.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this process so far. He is absolutely right that the Government made many positive changes and concessions in Committee, but he will be aware that many stakeholders remain concerned about the Bill’s impact on nature. As the Bill progresses, is he minded to listen to representations from people who are absolutely behind him on his growth mission but who want to ensure that there is no further loss of natural habitat in one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend and I spoke just days ago about that issue. We are of course more than happy to continue engaging with and listening to the views proposed by hon. Members from across the House and by organisations. If he will allow me to make a little progress, I will deal specifically with the nature restoration fund in fairly short order.
Let me begin with the improvements made to the consenting process for critical infrastructure. As set out in my written ministerial statement of 23 April, the Government have removed the overly prescriptive and burdensome statutory consultation requirements for major economic infrastructure projects that were unique to the NSIP system established by the Planning Act 2008. Over this Parliament, that change could result in a cost-saving of over £1 billion across the project pipeline. By speeding up delivery, increasing capacity and reducing constraint cost, it will also contribute to lower household bills.
We have decided to proceed with the change because considerable evidence attests to the fact that the statutory requirements in place are driving perverse outcomes. Rather than providing a means by which engagement drives better outcomes, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk-aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities; longer, more technical and less accessible documentation; and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in a local community’s interests, because applicants worry that a further repeat consultation will be required.
In removing the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications, and bringing requirements more closely in line with other planning regimes, the Government are not downgrading the importance of high-quality pre-submission consultation and engagement. We still want the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and we still expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected as part of that process. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place and leads to improved proposals in other planning regimes without such statutory requirements, and because the development consent order examination procedure rewards high-quality applications, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised to undertake it.
To support that change, the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. We will work with stakeholders to design that guidance—a public consultation will be launched in the coming months—so that it encourages best practice without recreating the flaws of the current system.
We have also made a number of other changes relating to the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, including by amending the Bill to ensure that promoters can gain access to land to carry out surveys assessing its condition and status and inform environmental impact assessments, and to make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My inbox is full of correspondence from Harlow residents who cannot get a home and cannot get on the housing ladder. They find that the planning framework means that it takes too long to get houses built. The main purpose of the Bill is to speed up that process and build people the homes that they need.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: the Bill does streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Although the changes I have just referred to relate not to homes but the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects—big clean energy projects, water reservoirs and so forth—there are other changes in the Bill that do support a more streamlined local planning process.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Before the Minister moves on, will he give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some progress, because I know a lot of hon. Members want to get in and there are lots of points I need to make before I can bring others in.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Is the Minister not concerned that he has lost the audience among wildlife organisations and trusts that say they are offended by Ministers’ portraying nature as a blocker to development rather than an enhancement to life and the economy, and are now asking for part 3 of the Bill to be scrapped?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come on to address that call, which I know is being made, but in general the Bill aims for, and I have always focused on, a win-win for development and the environment. We had extremely productive engagement with ENGOs in the development of the Bill, and we continue to have fruitful conversations with them, aside from the campaigns that I know are being fought out there in the country and in some of the national media.
While critics of this part of the Bill may be content to maintain the suboptimal status quo, in full knowledge of the fact that it is frustrating the building of new homes and failing to drive the restoration of nature, this Government are not. To those who believe this Government might buckle and scrap part 3 of the Bill entirely, I simply say, “You have underestimated the resolve of this Government and this Minister.” The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, is compelling.
That is why so many organisations indicated their in-principle support for the purpose and intent of part 3 when the Bill was first introduced.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress.
As Beccy Speight, the chief executive of RSPB, put it at the time:
“With bold leadership, collaboration, and smart planning through initiatives like the Nature Restoration Fund, we can build a future where nature, climate, people and the economy thrive together”.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the enhanced environmental protections in the nature restoration fund. My constituency of Bournemouth West has some unique heathland habitats, many of which are protected as sites of special scientific interest. They hold deep value for the local community, so can the Minister reassure me that these unique habitats will be protected as well under this Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We must make a distinction between irreplaceable habitats, where the model does not remove the strong protections that exist for them, such as ancient woodland in the national planning policy framework, and habitats where Natural England will be allowed to take a view as to whether conservation measures that apply to them meet the overall improvement test in the Bill, and any intervention in those circumstances will be driven by what is in the environmental best interests of the relevant feature. There are, therefore, protections in place that address my hon. Friend’s concerns.
In recent weeks, there has been a not inconsiderable amount of spurious commentary attempting to convey a false impression of what the nature restoration fund does.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument a little, I am more than happy to give way to her in due course.
As such, I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. First, some have claimed that the nature restoration fund is driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment and that the Government are creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute—a “cash to trash” model, as some have dubbed it.
In reality, the nature restoration fund will do the precise opposite. I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not—and need not—come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest that the nature restoration fund would allow developers simply to pay Government and then wantonly harm nature. Instead, it takes payments from developers and hands them to Natural England, a public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environmental delivery plans, setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of the environmental feature.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister is making a strong case for the legislation, on which he has worked very hard. However, does he accept that many concerns were raised in Committee, on which we both served, about Natural England’s ability to undertake the duties that he is asking it to undertake, and that he was unable to give an answer about the extra funding that may be needed for that to happen? Will he elaborate on that?
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister’s memory is different from mine: I did provide those assurances. We have already allocated £14 million in the Budget to support the delivery of the nature restoration fund, and through measures set out in the Bill, we will move to a system of full cost recovery so that Natural England has the resources it needs to carry out those functions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I know lots of Members wish to contribute to the debate but I will make some progress. If I may finish the argument I am trying develop about taking on those misconceptions, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) very shortly.
We have been perfectly clear that the new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable, which is why the Bill gives Natural England the ability to request planning conditions to ensure that appropriate actions are taken by developers as part of using an EDP.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister warmly for giving way. He dismissed “spurious” criticism of part 3 of the Bill, but would he use that phrase to dismiss the very expert criticism of the Office for Environmental Protection? In complete contrast to the Secretary of the State’s claim that the Bill does not reduce environmental protections, in its independent expert advice, the OEP says that it does and that the Bill constitutes “a regression” in environmental protection?
Matthew Pennycook
The simple answer is no, I would not characterise the OEP’s advice as “spurious”, but I am characterising some of the arguments that have been made over recent days and weeks as such. The OEP is not saying that the Bill is a “cash to trash” model, but some people out there in the public discourse are making that claim.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way again. We have to make this argument to take on the critics of the Bill who are intentionally trying to malign the objectives—
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I will not. I have just been very clear that I am not going to give way again as I want to make some progress.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is more than welcome to have another go at intervening in due course. I know that she will be putting forward her views later. The Government’s view is that the Bill is not “regressive”. As I have said, environmental delivery plans will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation. As the hon. Lady knows, because we had extensive debates in Committee, we are giving very serious consideration to the OEP’s technical advice on how the Bill might be strengthened in various areas.
Another claim that has been put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, that amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation. The very strong protections for important sites set out in national planning policy are untouched by the legislation. It is only when an EDP is in place, following consultation and approval by the Secretary of State, that developers can avail themselves of it to discharge the relevant obligation.
In the same way that developers can build only once they have met existing requirements, development supported by the nature restoration fund will only be able to come forward when there is a credible and robust EDP in place that will deliver better environmental outcomes. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), has rightly flagged the importance of these plans relying on robust scientific evidence, which is why they will only ever be put in place where they can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes.
Finally, there has been a suggestion by some that the new approach provided for by the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or for irrecoverable harm. Again, that is patently false. Not only do all existing protections for irreplaceable habitats remain in place, but the overall improvement test in clause 59 simply could not be met if an EDP proposed to allow irrecoverable harm. Natural England would not propose such measures, and the Secretary of State could not sign them off if it did. If any Secretary of State signed them off, they would be open to judicial review on the basis of that decision.
In short, the nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests: it will restore, not harm nature. It is smart planning reform, designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery, while improving the state of nature across the country. By shifting to a strategic approach, leveraging economies of scale and reducing the need for costly project-level assessments, it will deliver a win-win for development and the environment.
While the Government have no time for spurious and misleading attacks on the nature restoration fund, I am acutely conscious of the views expressed both within and beyond this House from those who are supportive of the purpose and intent of part 3 of the Bill—those who are not calling for it to be scrapped, but are not yet convinced that the safeguards within it are sufficiently robust or that there is the required certainty that it will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits it offers.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I find it remarkable that the Minister repeatedly accused the over 30 leading environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has described the Bill as a “cash to trash” model, as making “spurious” remarks, given that he quoted the chief executive of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, to try to shore up his own argument. However, the quote that he took was from a much earlier comment made before the debate in Committee. More recently, she has said:
“The evidence clearly shows nature isn’t a blocker to growth. The Government has identified the wrong obstacle to the problem it’s trying to overcome”.
She went on to say that, with no possibility for improving the Bill through amendments,
“the complete removal of Part 3 of the Bill is the only responsible option left.”
Matthew Pennycook
It is for the chief executive of the RSPB to justify why she has changed her view on the Bill when the Bill has not changed. If anything, as I will come on to explain, quite a lot of amendments that the Government made—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The list of Members wishing to speak is extensive, so I hope that the Minister will be coming to a conclusion shortly.
Matthew Pennycook
I was not planning to, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I need to set out some important changes that the Government have made and the amendments that we are proposing. However, on the basis of your stricture, I will not take any further interventions.
The Bill has not changed; if anything, it has been strengthened in Committee in ways that I will set out. To assuage what are entirely reasonable questions in respect of an approach that is novel, we have already made some targeted improvements to part 3 in Committee, including requiring environmental delivery plans to demonstrate how conservation measures will be maintained and over what period; strengthening the overall improvement test by clarifying that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it will be passed by the end date of the environmental delivery plan; clarifying that the negative effect the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the environmental delivery plan; and ensuring that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry, used only when absolutely necessary, to survey or investigate land alongside appropriate constraints, including notice requirements and introducing further protections in respect of Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers. Those changes significantly strengthen the nature restoration fund and, I hope, will be welcomed across the House.
However, as I was at pains to make clear in Committee, and will more than happily restate once again today, I continue to reflect on the reasonable points made by hon. Members and the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection with a view to deliberating on what more might be done to ensure everyone is confident that the outcomes for nature provided for by this part of the Bill will be positive. For the purposes of clarity, that includes giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence in respect of the rigour of the overall improvement test, provide for greater certainty in respect of the delivery of EDPs, and ensure that there is more clarity about the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic network level conservation measures. As we do so, I put on record my thanks to all those who have continued to engage constructively with the Government with a view to providing reassurance that the nature restoration fund will operate as intended. As ever, I will listen carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members in respect of part 3 of the Bill, and I look forward to a constructive debate on these clauses.
In Committee, we discussed the need to do more to rapidly increase the coverage of swift bricks across the country as an important means of arresting the long-term decline in breeding swift populations. In responding to the debate, I intend to cover some of the ways forward that the Government intend to take.
Madam Deputy Speaker
You just wish to speak at the end—marvellous. [Interruption.]
Paul Holmes
Actually, I will say a few words. Why resist the temptation to say a few things?
I thank the Minister for his hard work in leading the Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee and all Members who served on that Committee over the past few weeks. He spent a long time in Committee saying that he would reflect on a number of really important points that hon. Members across the political divide had made, but he has done no such thing. He said that he has reflected and that he will also reflect after the events of today and tomorrow, but he has made no substantive changes to the Bill based on the real and genuine environmental concerns of many Members across the House.
I do not intend to detain the House too long, because I know that I have a winding-up speech, but we are worried about the centralising zeal of this Government when it comes to planning, as I said on Second Reading. We are worried about the erosion of the powers of locally elected, democratic politicians to make decisions about their local areas, serving their local people.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that local communities should have much more control over what happens to the housing stock in their areas. Will he reflect on his party’s opposition so far to the proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a different category of planning use for both short-term lets and second homes, given that communities such as mine are ravaged by so many homes being unavailable to local people? Will he change his party’s position and show that if the Minister is not listening, he is?
Paul Holmes
The Conservative party has always believed in the rights of locally elected councillors and planning committees to make decisions for the people they serve; we have said that consistently through the passage of this Bill. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled new clause 1 to ensure that planning committees have their current powers reinstated under the Government’s proposals. The Minister is saying this afternoon, as he will say tomorrow, that he does not trust any planning committee or any Labour-controlled council to make decisions based on the wishes of the constituents in their local areas. We think that that is a disgrace.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents expect to have their voice heard on a local planning committee? Provided that councils are well-trained, the system that we have is working quite well.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman says, “Is it?” from a sedentary position, but I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Very few planning applications are refused by planning committees, and very few planning applications do not go through because of the actions of planning committees. We on the Opposition Benches happen to trust our locally elected councillors and local leaders to make decisions for our constituents. It is quite clear that Government Members do not trust them, as they are vesting more power into the hands of the Minister and the Secretary of State.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that was in power for the last 14 years. The result of that 14-year period is that we are a nation with a housing crisis and huge numbers of people in inadequate accommodation or no accommodation at all, and that we are the most nature-depleted nation on earth, so the system clearly is not working. Does he have any real sense that there needs to be change, or is he saying that we can carry on with the system that we have?
Paul Holmes
I would have more truck with the hon. Gentleman’s argument if anything that his Government proposed had the intentions that he has outlined. Just this morning, Savills has indicated, knowing what the proposed legislation will do, that the target of 1.5 million homes will not be met and that only 880,000 houses will be built by the end of this Parliament.
When it comes to the environmental protections that the Minister has outlined, it is quite clear that many of the concerns of Members across this House should be listened to. The environmental proposals made by the Minister will have a detrimental impact on local areas by shipping the problem elsewhere.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I have any proposals. The last Government built the largest number of houses in history. There are many things that we agree need to be done, and there are some areas of this Bill that we agree with, but the hon. Gentleman needs to realise that taking power away from locally elected councillors is a disgrace. The Minister is saying to the hon. Gentleman and his councillors that they should not be trusted to make decisions on behalf of their local communities. I am sure he will not be happy with that when he gets to his annual general meeting in a few months’ time to be reselected as a parliamentary candidate.
There are other concerns about this legislation. As we have said, the Government have consistently said that they want to build 1.5 million homes, but the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—a body that Labour held in high regard when it was in opposition—has forecast that the Government will fail to deliver on their manifesto commitment and will fall short of that figure. As I have said, that was echoed today by Savills, which estimates that the Government will build just over half the number of houses that the Deputy Prime Minister has promised, even after coming out of her very testing meetings with the Chancellor.
The Government’s proposal to reduce the number of legal challenges available to opponents of major infrastructure developments from three to two—and in some cases just one—should alarm anyone who believes in checks and balances. Legal scrutiny is not an inconvenience; it is the backbone of our democratic system. Infrastructure projects often have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences, and by curtailing legal recourse, we are not removing red tape but removing the public’s right to hold power to account. In the name of speed, the Government are undermining the legal mechanisms that protect us from Government overreach.
As I have said, the clear implication of the Minister’s proposals today is that powers will be removed from locally elected planning committees. That is a disgrace, and it is in addition to a gerrymandering housing algorithm that punishes rural areas and rewards Labour councillors in urban centres for failure. We are told that the Bill will speed up planning decisions, but at what cost? Local planning authorities are indeed struggling, under-resourced and overburdened, but granting them fee-raising powers without guaranteed central support is like asking a drowning man to swim harder. More alarmingly, the shift of decision-making powers from elected councillors to unelected planning officers under the guise of efficiency diminishes local democracy. It takes key decisions out of the hands of public representatives and places them in the hands of a bureaucracy increasingly dictated by central policy.
We are also told that the Bill will make planning more strategic. That is a noble aim, but let us not forget that the strategic failure of recent years has been due not to too much local input but to too little co-ordination. The requirement for regional spatial strategies was scrapped by this Government’s predecessors. Now, the pendulum swings once again, with combined authorities being told to draft regional plans; however, those same authorities are being starved of the funding and staff required to do so. We risk repeating history, only this time with fewer safety nets and a weakened capacity to challenge flawed strategies.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, which is concerned that there are 6.3 million properties currently at risk of flooding—a figure that is forecast to rise to 8 million by 2050 because of climate change. However, the Bill does not really address climate change or any kind of flood resilience. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by me and others that deal with building properties in areas that are at risk of flooding and lack flood resilience?
Paul Holmes
Of course. We discussed this topic at great length in Committee, and many good amendments were tabled. However, as I understand it and as I think the hon. Lady agrees, having reflected consistently the Minister has not strengthened the environmental protections or the measures to deal with flooding risks to housing that will be built in future. In fact, I would argue that those protections have been weakened. I hope the Minister will go away and look at these issues again.
Turning to environmental protections, we in the Conservative party say that they are under threat. The creation of environmental delivery plans sounds suitably wishy-washy, but this new centralised model turns bespoke ecological assessments into a bureaucratic chequebook exercise. While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask whether this is really restoration, or whether it is greenwashing.
On Natural England, I remind the Minister once again that the Bill Committee held a huge evidence session. He consistently said that he had confidence in Natural England’s ability to undertake the responsibilities he is seeking to impose on it, but time and time again he has outlined that he has allocated what I would argue is a mediocre sum of money to Natural England. He is asking that organisation to make decisions and improve environmental protections for people across this country, but he still has not outlined what funding model will be in place. The chief executive of Natural England herself stated, in very generic terms, that she was not entirely sure that she or her organisation would be able to undertake those operations going forward. The Minister should listen to the huge concerns across this House that Natural England is not the right organisation to undertake those responsibilities—rather, it should be local councils and local mayors. They should be the ones who represent their constituents and speak for local people, and who can make the changes they need on environmental protections.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member recognise that only up to 1% of agricultural land could actually be dedicated to solar panels? Does he also recognise that a former president of the National Farmers Union has said that solar helps farmers to generate income?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman says “only up to 1%”, but given the international situation, this country should be producing its own food, and that land should be protected. He may need to catch up, because I understand that the NFU now wants the Bill to go further and completely ban solar panels on high-quality land. I suggest that he speaks to the NFU again, and then comes back to this House and backs new clause 39. The NFU speaks up for our farmers, so we should listen if it is not happy with what is in the Bill. Instead of giving me a quote from a former NFU employee, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the NFU’s current leadership, and then maybe change his comments.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member believe that farmers are able to choose how best to use their land?
Paul Holmes
Of course I believe that farmers know how to make best use of their land, but this Government are taking power away from farmers, whether by increasing the power to issue compulsory purchase orders for land that farmers want to use to produce food, or by reducing the money that they will get from the CPOs that the Government are advocating for. Farmers see more and more agricultural land being taken out of use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill and the measures that the Minister is bringing forward, which undermine our farmers and stop them from being able to do the job that they want to do.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Paul Holmes
I will move on to another clause, because Madam Deputy Speaker probably wants me to sit down soon, as might many other Members. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I knew I would get universal acclaim eventually.
New clause 43 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Villages across our country need to be protected, and the Bill simply does not do that. It eradicates the relevance of local plans and power of local people to make decisions to protect the strategic gaps around our villages. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause, which would provide villages with protections equivalent to those provided to towns under the national planning policy framework. It is a vital measure for protecting the character, identity and heritage of England’s villages before they are lost to unchecked sprawl.
For too long, planning policy has prioritised urban growth without giving equal attention to the unique pressures faced by rural communities. New clause 43 seeks to correct that imbalance by requiring the Secretary of State to issue or update guidance that grants villages equivalent protections to those afforded to towns under the NPPF in order to safeguard villages from being swallowed up by neighbouring developments, preserve green buffers between settlements, and protect the historic fabric and rural character that define these communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her work in bringing about the amendment, following a truly baffling planning appeal decision on green belt in her constituency. That decision would result in the merging of two settlements with completely different characters and identities, simply because one was classed as a village and one was classed as a town. Many Members will have had such problems. The Minister needs to go away and look at the protection of villages and green belt in the Bill, because it is not delivering that.
A number of amendments have been tabled that Opposition Members think would make the Bill better. New clause 82, tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), relates to play areas. Many developments are not delivered with play areas, and those should be brought forward. Amendment 69, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), would require environmental delivery plans to set out a timetable for, and to report on, conservation measures, and it would require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place.
We Opposition Members believe that there need to be changes to planning policy, but the Minister has squandered a chance. He has not listened to Members who genuinely want to strengthen the Bill by making planning policy faster, while protecting our environment and enhancing the role of our locally elected councillors. As a result, he has left us unable to strengthen the Bill by working together. This is a wasted opportunity. He will not deliver his housing numbers. He will take powers away from local communities and stifle the planning process. We Opposition Members will always stand up for our locally elected councillors. It is a shame that this Government simply have not done that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
More than 55 Back Benchers hope to contribute, and colleagues know what time this debate has to end. It is unlikely that everybody will get in, so colleagues may want to reconsider and submit to speak tomorrow instead of today. I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I am mindful of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will try to keep my remarks short. I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. In this Report stage, I will briefly touch on why the Bill is so vital. It is fair to say that we all, as constituency MPs, have our frustrations with the planning system, but ultimately we must remember why this Bill matters. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. A generation of young people are spending more and more of their income on unaffordable private rents, while the dream of home ownership fades even further. We have 1.3 million households on local authority waiting lists for social housing and more than 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. That figure has risen by 15% in the last year alone.
I am the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and our first report looked at the lives of some of the children in temporary accommodation. What we found was truly shameful. Families are living in damp, cold and mouse-infested homes. Babies are not able to crawl or learn to walk because of a lack of floor space. Most shockingly, we found that temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor in the death of at least 74 children in the past five years.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
As a fellow London Member of Parliament, I recognise everything that my hon. Friend has described. Was she surprised, as I was, to hear from the shadow Minister that the planning system is fine and should not change?
Florence Eshalomi
As I outlined in my opening comments, the planning system does not work. It is broken, just as we have a broken housing market and a housing crisis.
I mentioned the 74 children who died in the past five years; 58 were under the age of one. As Members of Parliament representing different parts of the country, we might disagree with aspects of developments in our constituencies, and we must not let developers off the hook when they often fail to deliver quality in new housing.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and she touches on developers. My new clause 67 focuses on developers’ obligations when they have committed, at the planning application stage, to deliver a certain number of affordable homes. Under my new clause, they would have to stick to that. They should not be given scope to use issues around viability or profitability to reduce the number of affordable homes that they deliver. Does she agree that that option should not be open to developers if they want to build homes?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my constituency neighbour for that important point. We have to be honest: the market facing developers is challenging. Their costs have increased, but we see waiting lists across our boroughs increasing daily. More and more people face an acute housing shortage. It is therefore important that when developers consult and go to planning committees with their development plans, they stick to what they have committed to. Developers must build the infrastructure that our communities need, and we must ensure that homes are built to the highest safety standards. We must be in no doubt that, unacceptably, we have for decades failed to build the homes that we need. If we want to give young people homes, stop families facing the scourge of homelessness, and ensure that every child has the best start in life, we must say yes to building more homes. In particular, not enough new social homes have been built. That is why I tabled new clause 50.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I completely agree that not enough social homes are being built. Does the hon. Lady think we should have a target for social homes in the Bill?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for that point, and I am coming to some of the points on targets; essentially, this subject is why I tabled new clause 50, and I am grateful for the support of colleagues from all parts of the House. Social rent, as we know, is the most affordable housing tenure, as the rent is calculated through a national formula. Usually, the rent is set at around 50% of local market rents. That is exactly the kind of housing we need if we want to make progress towards ending homelessness during this Parliament.
The Minister told the Select Committee that the Government want to prioritise the building of new social rent homes as part of their social housing ambitions. My new clause 50 would require the Government to set a national target for the number of social rent homes that they want to deliver per year. The target would not be binding on the Government or the sector, but it would demonstrate the scale of the Government’s ambition. Targets are important to how our planning system works in England. Local and national housing targets make sure that our planners, developers and housing associations know how many homes the Government intend to deliver, and they allow communities to plan effectively.
The Government have been clear on their overall national housing targets, but the Select Committee believes that the Government must set out how they intend to hit that 1.5 million target, and we want to ensure that includes a target by tenure. In the absence of a specific housing target, the number of new social rent homes has plummeted from hundreds of thousands in the 1970s to consistently below 10,000 in the past decade.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, which we have discussed on the Select Committee. Does she agree that to reach the target of 90,000 social homes a year, we must set clear targets now? Otherwise, we will not be able to get a grip on the housing crisis when it comes to delivering socially rented homes.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my fellow Committee member for making that point. As the shadow Minister outlined, a number of key sectors have made claims and are worried about the target that the Government have set. It is an ambitious target, and we want the Government to hit it, but without urgent action, that might be difficult for them to do.
In the absence of such a target, far fewer families are getting off the waiting list, out of homelessness and into secure and safe affordable homes. As the new Select Committee has not endorsed a specific number of social rent homes, my new clause does not hold the Government to a target; rather, we want the Government to consider what is needed and, most important, what is possible within the financial constraints and the sector’s capacity. In recent years, several organisations have called for social rent targets at different levels. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the most common figure is 90,000 social rent homes per year, which has been endorsed by Shelter, Crisis, the National Housing Federation, the Affordable Housing Commission, and the predecessor of my Committee in the last Parliament.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Member has made some excellent points about the need to set a target for social homes. I believe that the destruction of council house stock is one of the most regressive actions that the country has ever taken, and that we need to replenish that stock as a matter of urgency. However, I fear that 90,000 a year is not enough. Does she agree that we need to aim for 150,000?
Florence Eshalomi
The hon. Member makes a really important point. What we are asking the Government to do, in the new clause—and what many other Members across the House are asking them to do—is ensure that, within that 1.5 million target, there is a clearer ambition in relation to how many of those homes will be social housing. We need to take a step first before we start increasing that target, but I agree that 90,000 is a drop in the ocean, given the number of people across the country who are on the social housing waiting list.
When he was in office, the former Secretary of State—now Lord Gove—said that he wanted to see at least 30,000 social rent homes a year, which he called a “stretching but achievable” target. My new clause would give the Government six months after the passing of the Bill to set their own target. By that time, we expect the Government to have published details of a new affordable homes programme and a long-term housing strategy. The Minister has told the Select Committee that the long-term housing strategy will set out how the Government will meet their 1.5 million target, and we hope that will include a breakdown of the figure by tenure and a target for social rent housing.
My amendments 129 and 130 are technical amendments to the Bill’s planning fees ringfence. We know that local planning authorities are badly under-resourced. According to the Royal Town Planning Institute, one quarter of planners have left the public sector between 2013 and 2020. The sector has therefore welcomed the Bill’s plan to ringfence the revenues from planning fees so that local authorities must invest those revenues in planning departments. However, in evidence to the Committee, planning representatives told us that the current ringfence in the Bill was too restrictive, as it would not allow planning departments to spend the money on developing their local plans. The Minister is up to date with local plans, and, as he knows, local plan coverage is vital if the Government’s planning reforms are to succeed. The fact is, however, that only a third of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan in place. It therefore seems to be a missed opportunity that the ringfence, as currently drafted, would not allow local authorities to invest in plan-making using revenues from fees. The Government wish to see universal coverage of local plans, so I hope that the Minister might consider making this modest change in the other place to extend the fees ringfence.
With those local plans in place, and with the Government’s wider planning reforms bedding in, hopefully we will start to see real progress towards building the homes we so desperately need. But even then, we must face the reality that planning reforms alone will not to be enough to deliver 1.5 million homes during the current Parliament. The private sector will need to take time to adjust to the new regime, and developers will need years of lead-in time to bring forward those applications. The private sector will build homes only at the rate at which they sell without needing to reduce prices, whereas with social housing a family can receive the keys to a secure home as soon as it is built. We must remember that the last time England was building 300,000 homes a year, more than 100,000 of them were social housing.
The Government have promised to deliver the
“biggest wave of social and affordable housing for a generation”,
and that will require the biggest boost in social housing investment for a generation. In truth, the spending review will make or break the 1.5 million target. It is now time for the Government to be bold, and to deliver on their housing ambition. If they do so, they will find councils across the country ready to match their ambition.
I particularly welcome Southwark Council’s work, and the work of its outgoing leader, Councillor Kieron Williams, in spearheading the “Securing the Future of Council Housing” campaign. In just under a year, Southwark has joined 112 other councils across England in sending the clear message that it is there to get more homes delivered, and to fix the broken housing system. I urge the Government to match that goal, back up their stated ambitions, and set a social housing target following the spending review. We must ensure that social rent housing—the most affordable tenure—forms a substantial part of the new housing that results from the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I remind Members that we are pushed for time? After the next Front-Bench speech, I shall be imposing an immediate five-minute time limit. I now call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
Let me start by thanking all the members of the Bill Committee, the Clerks, and the officials whose joy at receiving our 78 amendments I can only imagine to have been unbounded. The House will be pleased to hear that I will now be focusing only on those that we have prioritised for this debate.
On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru were the only parties to vote against the Bill. All the others were content to support it; Labour and Green party Members nodded it through, while the Conservatives—the official Opposition—abstained. I hope that they will all consider their position more seriously on this occasion, and reconsider supporting some of the measures in the Bill, but if today the Liberal Democrats are again the only party to vote against the Bill—
Gideon Amos
Tomorrow, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded me. If, tomorrow, the Liberal Democrats are the only party to vote against the Bill because of the harm that it does to the rights of communities and local people, to fairness and to nature, all three of which are cornerstones of what liberals believe in, we shall bear that standard proudly—and we shall do so again.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I have tabled new clause 65, which would require housing development applications to include provision for green space within 15 minutes of new homes, supporting nature and helping people to lead happier, healthier lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to require new housing developments to be designed in a way that would be not only good for nature and the environment, but good for the health and wellbeing of residents?
Gideon Amos
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of green spaces in development. In our contribution, we are showing how the protections of nature could be strengthened in the Bill without entire chunks of it being deleted. I shall say more about that later.
As we heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), when it comes to rights for individuals, real freedom often depends on decent homes that people can afford and where they can bring up their families. When homes are genuinely affordable for local people, they will command real community consent and support in the planning process. Unless we give a commitment to a massive increase in the number of social and council rent homes, we will not be responding to the needs of those people, and we will fail to meet head-on the criticism that housing developments today are more about profit than about people.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
My constituency contains less than the national average proportion of social rented housing, at 7%. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that the new Government have been asleep at the wheel, and have lacked the ambition to deal with the desperate need for more social rented housing during their first 11 months in power?
Gideon Amos
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the need for social and council rent homes, which is exactly what the Liberal Democrats are doing. We welcome the £2 billion commitment that the Government have made to social housing, and we are listening carefully to what they are saying about the spending review, but there is still no target for new social homes in either this Bill or any of the relevant Government policy. That absence needs to be put right.
Paul Holmes
We agree with many of the amendments that the hon. Gentleman’s party has put forward. He outlines a target for new social homes. How would he afford that, and where would the money come from?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the next part of my speech. Our amendment 15, which would support the delivery of 150,000 new social homes per year, would be funded by the taxation proposal set out in our costed manifesto. That would provide an extra £6 billion per year, on top of the existing affordable housing programme and section 106 contributions. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, that would be enough to enable us to deliver 150,000 social homes per year by the end of the Parliament.
On the rights of communities, more people engage with their local councils on planning than on almost any other area, but far too often that engagement becomes a dawning recognition that all the key powers and levers on planning have been taken away from local areas by successive Governments, leaving local communities and the elected councillors who represent them increasingly powerless over the development that takes place around them. Housing numbers are set by a formula made in Whitehall and dictated not by population, but by demand and supply ratios, even though studies show that that has never yet reduced the price of a single house. Private builders will quite reasonably act to sustain the price of their product, and adding consents in this context is only likely to unleash development in inappropriate areas.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we saw in the recent Westminster Hall debate that the standard method for calculating the number of homes not only does not reduce prices, but inevitably ratchets them up and increases them?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is very perceptive and hard-working on this issue. He raises a significant problem with the current standard method, and I pay tribute to him.
It is not just the standard method that is dictated from Whitehall; so too are rules on second homes and short-term lets, so communities cannot stem the loss of family homes for local people—something that our new clause 20 would put right. Rules on transport and highway capacity are also set by Whitehall, so local authorities such as my own Cheddon Fitzpaine parish council cannot question them. In the battle between underfunded local authorities and developers with big profits to make, Whitehall rules also mean that commitments to deliver affordable housing and infrastructure can all too often be evaded on grounds of viability—something that our new clause 112 would tackle by requiring an absolute minimum of 20% social housing in any development.
No wonder trust in local politics is at such a low. That has only been made worse by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government: with one rule for them and another for everyone else, basic fairness went out the window. The UK may rightly be ranked among the top 20 countries in the world by Transparency International, but nothing undermines fairness more than foul play, even if it is, as we know, very rare. Our new clause 11 would ensure that never again can Ministers favour a planning application from a donor without that being exposed in the public record. It cannot ever be right for a planning decision to be taken by those who will financially benefit from it.
Trust in the fairness of local democracy is so often shaped by how much trust people have in the local planning processes. Our amendment 1 would remove from this Bill the powers it gives Whitehall to control the running of councils, and the rights of councillors to make decisions on planning applications. The powers in this Bill mean that, for the first time, even a unanimous decision by every single councillor will not be enough to enable them to change a decision that their officers or planning consultants made on their behalf. Giving employees and consultants power over the heads of the elected representatives who employ them is a dangerous step, and no Parliament should endorse it.
It is not just elected councillors who will lose their vote on planning. Members of this House will lose their vote when it comes to changes to national policy statements that set the rules for the largest national infrastructure projects, from Hinkley C and Swansea tidal lagoon to the world’s biggest offshore and onshore wind and solar farms. Our amendment 128 would allow the Government to change national policy statements to reflect changes in the law, but it would preserve this House’s right to decide whether national policy on massive projects should be changed.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I agree with some of the things that the hon. Member is saying, but we all want to build faster. Under the local district plan in Stroud, we have been waiting four years for our housing plan, and this Bill will free us from the quagmire that is our current planning system. Last Friday, I met representatives of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and the Severn Rivers Trust, who have serious concerns about part 3 of the Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that we should have a short pause on part 3 and keep some of it?
Gideon Amos
I certainly agree that part 3 requires amending. Our amendments seek to do that, as I will come to shortly.
People want to see development that treads lightly on the land and reduces harmful emissions. Our new clause 2 would enforce the zero carbon standard for all new homes, on which the Liberal Democrats and Labour Ministers worked so hard before the Conservatives cancelled the whole zero carbon homes programme in 2015.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Net zero standards cut bills as well as carbon emissions, so does my hon. Friend share my incredulity that a Government who have been forced to U-turn on winter fuel payments are refusing to back new clause 2, which would cut bills for people of all ages?
Gideon Amos
It is absolutely right to say that we should be moving to zero carbon homes. In fact, one study shows that had they been introduced in 2015, new homeowners would have saved £9 billion.
Our new clause 25, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), would give key national landscape partnerships, such as in the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills in my constituency, a seat at the planning table.
As we see species becoming extinct before our eyes, people want to see new homes and nature thrive together. Crucially, our new clause 1 would put back the pre-eminent principle in all this: wherever possible, we must first do no harm to the environment on the sites that are being impacted. Of course, there are circumstances such as phosphate mitigation, where off-site measures can deal with the problem, but by completely removing from EDPs the hierarchy of mitigating impacts first and foremost on site, the Bill provides what the National Trust has called a “licence to kill nature”.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that the problem with the Bill is misdiagnosis? The problem is not nature holding up house building, or local authorities—which have been starved of cash for the last 15 years— holding up housing, but developers that are sitting on 1.4 million homes with planning permission, because they are land banking and profiteering. That is the problem that the Bill is not getting to. We do not have to destroy nature, and we do not have to undermine our future environmental protections.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the thousands of homes that have planning permission and have not been built, including the 11,000 we have in Somerset. While I welcome what the Government have said about bringing those forward, a real “use it or lose it” power is missing from the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 3 so that, unless those homes are built, the local authority would have powers to take over the land and to build the houses. That would ensure a real “use it or lose it” penalty for those that do not build out the permissions that they have.
Pitting communities and nature as the enemies of progress and development would be a massive mistake. Taking power away from councillors is taking it away from local people, and taking power away from Members of Parliament is taking it from the hands of the people who elect us to this place. Both are examples of centralisation and “Whitehall knows best” thinking, in which local views count for little and nature for even less. There is another way to build the hundreds of thousands of homes we need. It is to invest in 150,000 social homes per year to pump-prime our industry, give communities the funding for the jobs, transport, green space and energy infrastructure that our constituents want, build the new GP and healthcare facilities before building the houses and homes our communities will need, and build them in ways that will support rather than harm those communities.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as it sounds as though he is coming to his conclusion, but I want to give him the best possible chance to talk about new clause 115. My constituency of Surrey Heath is made up of small villages divided by green-belt land and Ministry of Defence property. Without the protections afforded by new clause 115, I fear that the distinctiveness and sense of place of those villages will be gradually lost. Can he comment on how new clause 115 would protect the distinctiveness of place?
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes. It is vital to protect the character of existing places and communities that are so valued, which is why we want a more locally driven approach to assessing housing numbers and local plan making.
Finally, if we build the GP surgeries, the healthcare and the other infrastructure before the homes, we will be building in the interests of our communities, not against them. That is the kind of community-led development that Liberal Democrats want and that our amendments would help to bring about, and I humbly urge Members to support them.
Mr Perkins
I rise to set out the case for amendments 136 and 150 and new clause 62, in my name. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far. The Bill would tackle the long-standing conundrum of how to deliver the ambitious house building targets to which the Government are rightly committed, while protecting the environment and enhancing, not reducing, protections for nature. Before I turn to my amendments, I want to speak briefly about the extent to which the Bill achieves those aims.
I absolutely share the Government’s commitment to freeing up the planning system and ensuring that fewer people are unable to get on to the housing ladder and fewer children grow up in unsuitable, overcrowded and temporary accommodation. I see the impact of this country’s failure to build the homes it needs in my surgeries every single week, so I support the Government’s aims to speed up that process. I also agree that planning has too often been a barrier to those ambitions, and the Government are absolutely right to attempt to remove this blocker.
Freeing up unnecessary restrictions, however, must not mean allowing further nature degradation, nor does it have to. The Government have said that these ambitions will be achieved alongside nature recovery. Wildlife populations in England have fallen to around 67% of their 1970 level; as I said a few moments ago, Britain is now one of the “most nature-depleted” places on earth. Most of England’s rare and vulnerable habitats are in poor condition. Alongside building the homes and infrastructure that our society needs, we must rebuild our natural capital—the air, water, soils and biodiversity —on which our society depends.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It sounds as though the hon. Member, like me, has a deep passion for ensuring that we maintain nature, so does he agree that a simple measure would be to accept new clause 30, which would extend permitted development rights for ponds of up to 0.2 hectares, providing vital freshwater habitats for up to two thirds of all freshwater species, exactly as he has been saying?
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Member very much for that intervention, and I look forward to hearing her speech in support of her new clause. I do think that has merit and is worth considering, and I look forward to hearing her make her case in more detail.
The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry into housing growth and environmental sustainability to scrutinise the Government’s national planning policy proposals. Achieving growth and delivering for people, climate and nature together is a vital but challenging task. There are many provisions in this Bill that I welcome, and I thank the Minister for his efforts and his detailed engagement. I was grateful that he made time to meet me recently to discuss my proposed amendments.
Overall, I support the Government’s intention in part 3, and I think those parties that wish to simply scrap the approach entirely are wrong. It is right to introduce a more strategic approach to satisfying developers’ environmental obligations. If done well, the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposed in part 3 could simplify and accelerate the process of meeting existing environmental requirements, where developments impact protected sites or protected species. Importantly, I see the merit of this strategic approach in delivering larger-scale and more effective nature conservation measures where development has unavoidable impacts on protected sites and protected species.
However, the strength of concern from knowledgeable stakeholders should give the Government serious pause for thought. The Office for Environmental Protection, which was mentioned earlier, published advice for the Government stating that the existing provisions in the Bill would amount to a regression in environmental law, so it is welcome that the Minister continues to be open-minded about making further amendments. I look forward to hearing about the engagement in another place, where I am certain that further amendments will be brought forward.
The Environmental Audit Committee has heard evidence that there must be stronger safeguards for the proposed nature restoration fund to genuinely deliver on its potential for nature. My objective in tabling amendments to this Bill is to engage constructively with the Government’s approach to part 3, and to strengthen it so that it delivers for nature and development at the same time.
To turn first to amendment 136, I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about scientific safeguards, and I look forward to what he comes forward with. This amendment would ensure that environmental delivery plans are used only where there is scientific evidence that they will work. In other words, there must be robust evidence that a particular negative effect on a protected site or protected species can be mitigated or compensated for at a strategic level, rather than on a site-by-site basis.
Although the strategic approaches that will be delivered by EDPs can work well for some habitats and species, such as nutrients or newts, they do not always work for others. This amendment would safeguard against the EDP approach being applied to inappropriate species or habitats. The Government have recognised this principle and have committed to a modular approach to expanding EDPs with new plans applying feature by feature, and existing protections remaining in place for those not yet covered. I support this approach, and I encourage the Government to enshrine this principle in legislation to give certainty that the scientific safeguards to which they have committed cannot be altered by any future Government without revisiting this legislation.
On amendment 150—
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
In view of the pressure on time, I will limit my remarks to amendment 141, in my name. The Bill, as we have heard, seeks to do many things, but one of them is to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points around the country to facilitate the move to electric vehicles. Drivers with disabilities, and there are 1.35 million of them, will also be expected to move to electric vehicles, but public charging points are often unsuitable for them to use. The amendment is designed to address that.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 137 and 138 in my name. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the local nature recovery all-party parliamentary group and a proud species champion for the hen harrier. I am deeply committed to the protection and restoration of our natural world, and I have tabled the amendments to ensure there is adequate protection for protected species.
I recognise the need to take the housing crisis extremely seriously. I support numerous amendments on affordable homes and social housing, including new clause 32, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would mandate that national and local housing plans incorporate and justify specific targets for both affordable and social housing. It is clear that we need to build more housing, but we must ensure that that includes enough social homes, because a just society must care for both people and planet.
In defence of nature we must remember that nature is not a luxury; it is essential. It sustains our health, our economy, our climate and the rich web of wildlife that makes our planet thrive. From the air we breathe to the food we eat and the water we drink, nature underpins every aspect of our survival, yet we are, as has been said, living in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and the consequences are becoming impossible to ignore.
Our peatlands, woodlands, wetlands and seas, once vibrant with life, are deteriorating. These ecosystems are not just carbon stores; they are vital habitats for countless species. As they degrade, they not only release more carbon than they absorb, but drive wildlife into decline. Iconic species are vanishing, pollinators are disappearing, and once common birds and mammals are becoming rarer, pushing many species closer to extinction. Without urgent action to restore these ecosystems, we cannot hope to meet our climate goals, or halt the alarming loss of biodiversity. Every species lost weakens the resilience of nature and our ability to adapt to a changing climate. Protecting nature is not just an environmental imperative; it is an economic, social and moral one. The loss of pollinators threatens our food supply. The destruction of our coastal habitats increases our vulnerability to storms and flooding, and the collapse of ecosystems puts both human and animal lives at risk.
My amendments require that if a protected species is identified as an environmental feature, the environmental delivery plan must include a clear strategy for conservation measures to address the impact of the development on that species within local recovery strategy areas. If Natural England determines that that is not possible, or there is an overriding public interest not to do that, it must aim to conserve the same species at a different site. Recognising the realistic risk of local extinctions and the threats facing specific species, this approach reflects a fundamental truth: protecting nature is not optional; it is essential. Our ecosystems are interconnected, and the loss of even a single species can have cascading effects on biodiversity, climate resilience and human wellbeing. By embedding strong, enforceable protections for species into development planning, we are not only safeguarding wildlife but reinforcing the natural systems that sustain our economy, our health and, importantly, our future.
Carla Denyer
Given the really important points that the hon. Lady is making about the environment and how it is so strongly connected to our economy and public health, does she agree with me—I appreciate that this is on a slight tangent, but she will see where it is going—that the planning rules for big digital billboards, which themselves can emit 11 homes-worth of energy, not to mention the light pollution that seriously affects nature and human health, are illogical and inconsistent? The rules say that planning applications can only be considered on highway safety and immunity grounds, and not on environmental impact or on the impact on human health. Would it not be better if local authorities could make decisions on those grounds as well?
Olivia Blake
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and I am sure the Minister is listening.
In a time of ecological crisis, every action must contribute to halting and reversing nature loss, because nature is not just part of the solution; it is the solution. I hope the Minister will sit down with me to discuss these points further, as the Bill enters the other House.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 59, in my name, which considers the impact of our planning system on our creative and cultural industries and infrastructure. These spaces are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and are also very important for our local communities. They are the engine of an industry which is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. They are the R&D labs of a sector that is bigger than our automotive, aerospace and life sciences industries combined. Yet the creatives industries are under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and onerous licensing regime.
My Culture, Media and Sport Committee has heard that live music venues will be back to shutting at the rate of two a week by the end of the year. That is in addition to electronic music venues and clubs, which have been shutting at the rate of three a week. My amendment seeks to help prevent those closures by putting a duty on planning decision makers to apply the agent of change principles, which have existed since the national planning policy framework in 2018. They require developers to ensure that their developments do not disrupt existing businesses in future, as well as places of worship, schools, transport infrastructure and so on.
First, the new clause would be good for venues. Of the 86 grassroots music venues that closed in 2024, one in four shut for operational reasons, including noise abatement orders, neighbour disputes and interventions by the local councils. In the previous Parliament, the Committee I chair held a roundtable in Manchester at the Night and Day Café, an iconic venue. We were there to meet representatives of live music venues from across the north, yet the operators could not attend their own roundtable because they were instead attending a court hearing with Manchester city council to settle a three-year noise abatement dispute—a costly and pointless legal dispute at that, as it started due to a single complaint by a tenant who had moved out long before the issue was resolved.
Secondly, the new clause would be good for developers and new neighbours. Consistent application of the agent of change principle will de-risk and speed up planning and development. It will ensure that the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy, expensive legal disputes down the line. It will require developers and decision makers to think about the presence of existing venues and will benefit future tenants and homeowners, who should be less impacted overall.
Finally, the new clause would help local authorities. It is councils that have the duties to detect statutory nuisance and investigate noise complaints; it is councils that serve noise abatement orders; and it is councils that get dragged into expensive and often pointless bun fights with local venues, as the Night and Day Café example illustrates. Encouraging councils to consider at the planning stage how developers and venues can find a nice equilibrium in their interests can only help to save them time and money, which is surely more efficient than settling matters in court.
The new clause has widespread support. It takes forward the recommendation of the CMS Committee in the previous Parliament and is supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs. It is built on evidence given by LIVE, UK Music Creative UK, the Music Venue Trust, the Night Time Industries Association and the National Arenas Association.
The new clause is not about venues versus developers; instead, it is about ensuring we have the balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we are building keep the things that make life worth living. Everyone in Westminster and our constituencies agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it is vital that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities—the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries, where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.
I hope the Government will support my new clause and, if not today, commit to making this law as soon as possible. Live music is in crisis. The Government need to listen.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to amendment 87, in my name and the names of most Select Committee Chairs—certainly most of those who cover Departments—including the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
The amendment relates to the Government’s new approach to the consultation around national policy statements, and in particular to the parliamentary scrutiny of those statements. There is currently a process by which Select Committees join forces to examine national policy statements and provide recommendations to the Government, but the Government are proposing to introduce what they call a new “reflective amendment” procedure where an amendment to planning policy reflects new legislation, changes to Government policy or a relevant court decision since the policy guidance was put in place. We all know that the Government’s aim is to speed up the planning process, but we need to be clear that reducing parliamentary scrutiny can have long-term consequences. I am therefore seeking reassurances from the Minister as to how this will be managed.
This proposal will remove the requirement to respond to either a resolution of either House of Parliament or recommendations from a Committee of either House of Parliament on the proposed changes; instead, the Government would write to the appropriate Select Committee at the start of the public consultation period, which is typically six to 12 weeks, and the Committee would then have the option of inviting Ministers to discuss the proposed changes during that time. My fellow Chairs and I are concerned about this change reducing the Committees’ influence and enshrining in law that the Government do not need to respond to the scrutiny or recommendations of Select Committees.
Dame Meg Hillier
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has tabled a similar amendment.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the other Select Committee Chairs for taking up an issue that we took up in Committee, and about which there has been concern across the House. The Government may wish to change NPSs in the light of legal judgments, but does she agree that changes to them for policy reasons, particularly when they affect massive projects like Hinkley Point C and Sizewell, should continue to come before the House?
Dame Meg Hillier
If I move on to what will happen, I think the hon. Gentleman will be reassured. There is a bigger point here, which I do not have time to elaborate on in this debate. This change is part of a trend of Government not appreciating the role of thoughtful, thorough scrutiny from outside the Whitehall bubble—this is a disease affecting Governments of all parties—and of scrutiny from MPs with detailed knowledge of the subject matter. The hon. Gentleman, of course, has a strong track record on this issue outside this place, from before he became a Member of this House.
Those who scrutinise through Select Committees often understand the system, and how a change in policy or law can have a different effect within policy guidance because of the interactions it will have. The worst-case scenario here would be that a Committee did not have time to examine a proposal, or, if it did have time, that the Government ignored the recommendations. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the time they have spent engaging with me and the Clerk of the Liaison Committee, on behalf of the Select Committees, to try to mitigate those worst-case risks. In theory, these changes could sound quite reasonable, but in practice, there is a risk that the Government could lose a useful voice that also reflects the views of other bodies. Select Committees also get the chance to question Ministers in public, which is important for transparency and accountability. Select Committees can also give force to the views and expertise—shared in public, very often orally—of bodies with knowledge of the technical changes that could be introduced and wrapped into new or revised policy guidance.
We have all been there when, at the Dispatch Box, a Minister promises that another Minister will attend a Committee and be questioned, but we are talking about having as little as six weeks to work with. We have all been in a situation in which a Minister’s diary is so busy that it is difficult for them to attend, and that would not be good enough in this case. I hope the Minister will give some reassurance that he will, through the normal channels in Whitehall, ensure that every Department is aware of the requirement for a relevant Minister to attend within a period that allows the Committee to produce a report or respond to the Government, which does not mean at the end of a six or 12-week consultation period.
I hope the Minister can give me those reassurances. I would like him to be very clear on the record. I acknowledge the efforts made in Committee to talk about this, and some of the pledges made then, but it is important that these changes and the Minister’s views and pledges are made clear in this Chamber. In Committee, the Minister said that
“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the Committee during that period, in so far as that is practical.”
He also said that
“not all select Committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 103.]
I can clarify for and reassure the Minister that it is the intention of those on Committee corridor to ensure that these things are dealt with in a proper and timely fashion.
I hope that the Minister will ensure both that Ministers attend in a timely fashion, and that there is a proper approach that ensures that Committees get advance notice of a new planning policy statement or revised statement, so that they have time to plan and get their ducks in a row in order to enhance the work of Government by giving them, if necessary, critical-friend comments. Scrutiny in whatever form is absolutely vital. If, as I hope, the Minister will put that on the record today, I will not push my amendment to a vote. It is vital that parliamentary scrutiny be protected as much as possible.
Andrew George
It is clear that we are today debating methodologies, rather than values. Certainly, I do not dispute the Minister’s values at all; we all want to see the growing need met, and the environment protected. The question that we are debating today is the best methodologies for achieving those outcomes. I have submitted a number of amendments covering three areas, which I will rattle through as quickly as I can, all of which support the themes that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) advanced today, and indeed that he has pursued in Committee in previous weeks.
Amendment 148 relates to housing targets. It proposes allowing local authorities to adopt targets that reduce housing need, rather than simply targets to build homes. House building targets are in many areas part of the problem, rather than the solution to housing need. For example, since the 1960s, Cornwall’s housing stock has been among the fastest growing in the United Kingdom. It has almost trebled, yet housing problems for local people have got significantly worse over that time.
Simply setting house building targets results in massive hope value being attached to every single community around Cornwall. Having worked as a chief executive of a charity that tries to build affordable homes, I can say that establishing house building targets makes it more difficult to address the housing needs of local people. Targets that are about reducing need would change the dynamics of the planning system in places that face these problems.
Unfortunately, the approach to house building targets that has been adopted by parties over the previous decade is built on the delusion that private developers will collude with Governments to drive down the price of their finished product. We can no longer carry on in that delusion. We cannot and should not pursue counterproductive methodologies. Amendment 149 and new clause 108 are consequential on the fundamental change proposed in amendment 148.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington has spoken about introducing a new class order to address the prevalence of non-permanent occupancy in some areas. The previous Government were looking at bringing in a new class order for holiday lets, but that should be extended to second homes and all homes of non-permanent occupancy. New clause 92, which is consequential on new clause 91, proposes introducing a sunset clause for planning permission to ensure that there is not a perverse incentive for people to apply to change a property’s use in order to enhance the value of their property when they sell it. This is not about the politics of envy but the politics of social justice. I think those who represent areas or constituencies with large numbers of second homes properly understand how these things operate.
Finally, I tabled a number of amendments relating to affordability, including new clause 89 on affordable development and new clause 90. New clause 89 would prohibit cross-subsidy—or at least open-market development—on rural exception sites. Those sites should not be called rural exception sites; they should be called rural norm sites. That should be the methodology for delivering affordable homes in rural areas. It should be driven by wanting to have affordable homes in such locations.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. In North Norfolk, people want house building that genuinely meets local need and helps address the housing crisis, which is affecting everyone in my constituency. On affordability, does he agree that we need to empower local authorities to define what “affordable” means in their areas?
Andrew George
My hon. Friend is right about that. Affordability is defined for rented accommodation—either 80% of market rent or the local housing allowance, whichever is lower—but it is not sufficiently defined for the intermediate market in rural areas, which includes shared ownership and discounted sale. There are ways that affordability can be achieved, and that should be done within local planning. We should give local authorities the power to define, for the purposes of their communities, what is and is not affordable, and we should strengthen the role of neighbourhood development plans in that respect as well.
New clause 90 would put a cap on developer profit. A lot of people do not understand how planning authorities make their viability assessment when developments are brought forward. There is an assumption of a developer profit of 20%, but when developers ask for amendments to the way that their planning applications are viewed, they will often have undertaken two different valuations, and will come with both. One they present to the planning authority, and one they keep in their back pocket. One of the valuations comes with violins, and a sob story about how they will lose out because of the development, and how they are doing it only for the community. The other valuation is the reality. We know that they are making a killing out of other people’s poverty.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I am pleased to support this important Bill and the Government amendments to it, which will deliver the housing, infrastructure and environmental protections that my constituents need.
First, I welcome the Government’s enhancements to the environmental delivery plan. They provide greater clarity, legal safeguards and appropriate flexibility to ensure that the plan restores and enhances our precious natural habitats. The current piecemeal approach to offsetting environmental harm is not working. The Government’s sensible approach maintains existing protections for nature, and adds to them with the ability to fund high-impact strategic nature recovery projects. I am very lucky that there are several significant nature recovery projects in my constituency, such as Sulham woods and meadows, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week. This project is maximising biodiversity on 130 hectares of marginal arable land, and is planting 24,000 trees, 4 km of new hedgerow and a new walnut orchard. We need more big projects like this.
I would like to highlight the opportunity the Bill presents for our country’s chalk streams. I am proud to represent a constituency that boasts many wonderful waterways, including the entire length of the River Pang—a beautiful, winding chalk stream that is a point of local pride. It is said to be the inspiration for the “Wind in the Willows”, and it is loved by families, dog walkers and anglers alike. But the precious Pang is in crisis. In just a few short years, the water quality has plummeted to poor. Citizen scientists and anglers testing the river, such as Professor Mike Wilson and Pete Devery, consistently report samples with completely unacceptable levels of phosphate and E. coli. The phosphate pollution from Thames Water sewage works is so bad that luminous green from the resultant algae can be seen in satellite images.
I thank all the campaigners, citizen scientists and volunteers with whom I have been working throughout my campaign to restore the Pang. I also thank the ARC project, the Rivers Trust, the Angling Trust, Pang Valley Flood Forum and Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust, as well as all members of the Pang Flagship Chalk Stream Partnership, which supports a range of initiatives to restore the Pang. They are all dedicated advocates whose restoration efforts are making a real difference. Chalk streams are rare and valuable habitats. Their mineral-rich, stable waters are home to a plethora of species.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The hon. Member is talking about chalk streams, which are the rainforests of the UK. A chalk stream in my constituency has had over 4,000 hours of non-stop sewage, and it sounds like the River Pang has been a victim of something similar. Amendment 16 is so important to protect our chalk streams, and local people say to me, as development comes, that this is actually groundwater. Would she support amendment 16?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I will come to my view on that amendment.
Given that 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England, it is right that we consider chalk streams England’s rainforests. We have a duty, as their custodians, to protect them for future generations. While some chalk streams have protections, such as site of special scientific interest status, many, including the Pang, lack even that. The Bill, alongside our landmark water legislation, is an opportunity to expand the protections for chalk streams. I am grateful for the conversations I have had with the Minister on this issue, and I know how committed he is to our chalk streams, so I ask if he will commit to strengthening the protections for our chalk streams as this Bill progresses.
The Bill is an opportunity to build the homes and infrastructure that this country needs, boost our economy, and protect precious habitats like the Pang. I look forward to continuing to support it.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 74 in my name. First, I thank all Members from parties across the House who signed up to my new clause. I also thank Mr Speaker and his team for the novel offer he made this morning on how we might have dealt with new clause 74.
New clause 74 is very simple. It seeks to ensure that promises made to all of us as MPs by prospective developers when considering applications for large-scale housing developments are honoured. I have lost count of the number of developers who have made promises about so-called flagship housing developments, gained the support of the MP and other local community stakeholders, applied for outline planning permission and then been granted it on the basis of a good mixture of homes. In one case—that of Lutterworth East—a pledge was made by the developer to build a minimum of 40% affordable homes. Those developers give the pledge, obtain the support and gain outline planning permission, but then, a few months or a year or two later, they seek to renege completely on the pledges given.
Rachel Blake
I am really moved by what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Many of us will have had similar experiences. We have been hearing so much about the importance of local decision making. I cannot help but think if only there had been the necessary investment in skills in the planning team who made the decision and determination, and that they had had a planning committee behind them who, by all accounts, could have said, “You need to bring the application back in.” Does he agree that we need to invest in local planning teams so that they can resist such totally inappropriate applications from developers?
Alberto Costa
I welcome the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I would welcome more resources going into local planning teams, but what we have here is a problem, which she may well encounter in her own constituency. Hon. Members should be very careful indeed when developers promise X, Y and Z affordable, social and accessible homes, even with legally binding section 106 agreements, because those agreements can be changed at whim when a local planning authority is put under pressure.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Liberal Democrats that, given the unreliability of section 106 agreements and developers living up to them, as he demonstrated, the best way to get affordable homes for his constituents and mine is through an increased amount of social housing delivered by the local council?
Alberto Costa
I would welcome that. The Government need to take into account Lutterworth East and to ask themselves why a Labour parliamentarian and a Conservative parliamentarian have had to go begging to the Government to look into the matter. The Government purport to want to see more social housing, more affordable housing and more accessible housing, but with Lutterworth East they have had the opportunity to look into that and have chosen not to rectify the issue. In concluding—I am aware that others wish to speak—I simply ask the Government whether they are willing to have a meeting with me and the Labour parliamentarian in question to discuss what they could do on this matter, given that the developer, incredibly, is none other than a county council.
Chris Curtis
May we please start by acknowledging something that still has not been acknowledged enough: the current planning system is broken? Nowhere is that clearer than in our environmental and habitats regulation, which part 3 of the Bill is hoping to fix, and which many amendments—amendment 69 in particular—would make significantly worse.
Let us start with a couple of clear examples. First, we have the lower Thames crossing. Some £250 million was spent on a planning application spanning over 350,000 pages. That is more than 250 times the length of “War and Peace” at a cost that is more than Norway paid to build the world’s longest road tunnel. Fifteen years on, not a single spade is in the ground.
Secondly, we are currently building the most expensive nuclear power station in the history of the human race at Hinkley Point. Why? For the last eight years, EDF has been stuck in regulatory wrangling over—I kid you not—a fish disco: an acoustic system designed to guide fish away from water intakes. Millions spent and still not a single resolution.
My personal favourite is the infamous bat tunnel, where £120 million of taxpayers’ money was wasted on a tunnel that might save a handful of bats from a nearby forest, though many experts argue it will more likely put them in harm’s way. That is not planning; it is parody. While we argue about newts and bat tunnels, what is really happening in Britain is that 150,000 children or more are growing up in temporary accommodation, with all the consequences mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi).
Rachel Blake
My hon. Friend said we have not confronted how the planning system is broken. Does he agree that we have not heard enough about how many children are homeless this evening and will be in the months ahead because we are not grappling with the housing crisis, and that we cannot do that until we address the infrastructure crisis?
Chris Curtis
Hundreds of thousands of children will wake up tomorrow morning in temporary accommodation as a consequence of this, and millions of families will continue paying some of the highest energy bills in the western world. When Russian tanks rolled into Europe, we were dangerously reliant on foreign oil and gas because our planning system consistently blocked the clean, home-grown energy generation that we so desperately need. I see some Liberal Democrat Members laughing. I note that, in many cases, it was their councils that blocked that energy infrastructure from being built.
Chris Curtis
In one of the wettest countries in Europe, we could face summer water shortages because we have not built a single major reservoir in over 30 years. Here is the real kick in the teeth: we have paid all those prices for rules that have failed even on their own terms. We have created endless hoops to jump through and poured public money into bizarre mitigation schemes while Britain has become one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. We have lost over half our ancient woodland and one in six species are at risk of extinction. We have got fewer birds, fewer butterflies and fewer mammals, and yet more paperwork than ever before.
We should ask this: if these rules are not helping people and they are not helping nature, who on earth are they for? We throw money at scattergun mitigation—fish discos and bat tunnels—while failing to invest in strategic, landscape-scale restoration that actually works. We force every project to fit every issue on site, even when that is more expensive, less effective and totally irrational. That means tens of thousands of individual site-by-site protections, which are bureaucratic, inconsistent and scientifically out of date, and all despite the fact that modern ecological science is clear that nature recovery depends on scale and connectivity, not isolated microprojects.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
When I was building the second runway at Manchester airport, I had similar rants to my hon. Friend’s. I came to hate great crested newts, which were getting in the way of building that second runway. Surely there has to be a solution with balance, one that does not cost a quarter of a billion pounds for looking at the land around the lower Thames crossing, but allows Government and local government to put things such as swift bricks into housing. There has to be balance.
Chris Curtis
I start by appreciating the description of a rant—I will keep ranting on this point until I do not have to speak to my constituents waking up in temporary accommodation because of this country’s failure to build. I note that there is a middle ground; in fact, it is even better than a middle ground, because through this Bill and the changes we are proposing we can improve the situation for nature and improve the situation for building, including incentivising developers—for example through the biodiversity net gain process—to put swift bricks in place.
What we currently have is not a conservation system, but a cargo cult, mimicking the symbols of protection while the reality on the ground gets worse. Contrast that with what protecting nature actually looks like, from this Government: a strategic land use framework that supports farmers to deliver climate and nature benefits across 1.6 million hectares of land—more than half the size of Wales; banning bee-killing pesticides; backing a transition to regenerative farming and planting forests on double the amount of land that will be needed to build the 1.5 million homes.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Chris Curtis
I will make some progress.
Now we have a Bill that will finally move us towards environmental delivery plans that take a far more strategic approach to improving nature and increasing the building that this country so desperately needs. I want these changes to go further. We need to look at the culture within our regulators, especially Natural England, which has become too much of a blocker to building, but this Bill is a step forward, and the amendments proposed would be a step backwards.
I end with this plea, especially to hon. Members on my own Benches who seem to find themselves defending this broken status quo: “Before you vote tonight, talk to the people who will still be here after you’ve gone home. Speak to the person cleaning your office this evening, and ask them what it is like when rent swallows up over half your salary because we have failed to build our way out of this housing crisis. Speak to the person who cooked your lunch in the Tea Room, and ask what it is like to raise kids in a country with sky-high energy bills because we failed to build home-grown energy generation. Ask yourself who you are here to serve: the broken spreadsheets or the people who sent us here?” If we keep putting more and more barriers into our planning system, it is hard-working families across this country who will pay the price. Let us fix our planning system and get Britain building again.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister and the members of the Bill Committee for their hard work on this legislation. I regret, however, that the Minister has been so resistant to amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and from others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, which I now rise to support. My constituents in Bicester and Woodstock want to see a planning system that delivers decent, affordable homes for those excluded from housing, that recognises that investment in infrastructure must come before housing development and that does not create a false distinction between development and protecting nature.
Linda and Gary live in my constituency. Gary has complex needs and Linda is his carer. Their property is not suitable; Gary cannot shower or get to the garden by himself. Linda and Gary have been bidding to West Oxfordshire district council for a property suitable to meet Gary’s needs for more than a year, but they have been continually unsuccessful. As many hon. Members have stated, we have a crisis of social housing in this country. That is why Liberal Democrats want to see an additional 150,000 social homes built every year through amendment 15, and why new clause 112 is so important, preventing developers from ducking the delivery of social homes.
We also need developers to develop the buildings that have been consented. In Cherwell district council in my constituency, more than 8,000 homes have been consented but not built. That has led to a crisis, with villages such as Ambrosden and Launton at the mercy of opportunist developers who have hoovered up sites not contained in the local plan. New clause 3 would put an end to the land banking of consented sites, forcing developers to use them or lose them.
Tom Hayes
I rise to speak in favour of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill because it will build high-quality housing, reform energy grid connections and deliver critical energy infrastructure. I also rise to speak in favour of new clause 82, tabled in my name and backed by 71 MPs with cross-party support, to achieve happy, healthy childhoods. We should bring forward a statutory duty in England, like those in Scotland and Wales, to ensure inclusive and sufficient play opportunities.
The foreword to the first and only play strategy to be published, by a Labour Government in 2008, states:
“Time and space to play safely is integral to our ambition to make England the best country in the world for children and young people to grow up”.
That ambition remains, but the strategy was scrapped because, a few years after its publication with a £235 million budget, the coalition Government drew a red line through everything. We need to prioritise play in this Parliament. Why? Because in the intervening years, hundreds of playgrounds in our constituencies have been boarded up and allowed to rust.
This has been especially true in disadvantaged communities. Our poorest communities have been the greatest casualties of austerity, and we know the consequences. Screen time dominates and we have a rise in social media. Politicians are very good at telling children to get off their screens without providing the alternative play opportunities. With more play and less screen time, we can have better mental health outcomes for children. We can have more safety in our streets and we can have better social development opportunities. Play is prevention. When we improve life quality and life chances, we save the public purse significant sums in the long run because we reduce demand on the NHS, on our councils and on our social services.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is clearly speaking on the basis of a great deal of experience as a former senior councillor in Oxford. I wonder if he would like to dwell on some other aspects of this, because in many ways, play also benefits children’s social development and their ability to work and concentrate on learning at school. Does he agree that there are many other benefits to play, and will he praise local authorities such as Reading that are actively promoting play areas?
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend will know that I have spent a lot of time in Reading getting to know his constituents and the community, and I do indeed praise the people that he is talking about. I agree that, with time and space for play, children will have the very best start in life, but this is not just about children; it is also about their families. We are in an ongoing cost of living crisis. With play, and outdoor play in particular, we have free opportunities for parents and guardians to give their children the support, the social development and the leisure opportunities that they need and deserve.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. In my constituency, the Scalby school playing fields long served the community as vital green space, but that space is under threat as the council is seeking to remove protections, which could lead to its being sold. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why this new clause is so necessary, as it would ensure that the council either kept the fields or made equivalent provision of land for children to play on?
Tom Hayes
I make it a habit to agree with my hon. Friend and I will keep that tradition today. I do indeed agree, and she rather anticipates the points that I am about to make.
New clause 82 is so important because it provides key things that our children need. It would require developers to deliver and fund adequate play in their communities. It would ensure no net loss without equivalent provision as a consequence of development, but let me be clear: this is not about requiring every development to have a blanket requirement. It is not about holding every development hostage, because we know that development is important for growth in our communities. It is about ensuring that councils are well equipped and that planning authorities are supported to take a view in the round of what play sufficiency would be in a given area, and indeed to use contributions from developers to fund adequate—indeed, excellent—play provision.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, as am I as a signatory to this new clause. In my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I have been working with a group of local parents on a joint campaign for safe, inclusive parks for neurodiverse children. Those spaces benefit not just neurodiverse children but parents who also need somewhere safe to go with their children and young people. In recognition of the cost of living crisis, does my hon. Friend agree that these spaces should be provided for all children, not just those who are neurotypical, and that they should provide space for their parents too?
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend and I have talked many times about the importance of inclusive play, and I commend her as a fantastic champion for children with special educational needs and disabilities to access those play opportunities. I agree with her entirely, and one thing that my new clause 82 would do is to introduce a requirement for planning authorities to assess play sufficiency, particularly inclusive play sufficiency. That is a critically important point.
In a nutshell, we need to have national policy frameworks and national planning actions that will ensure that the voices of children and their families are properly listened to, that they are consulted on their needs, and that planning authorities are required and supported to introduce the outdoor play equipment and areas that can so enhance their life chances. In so doing, we would be building on the work of that last Labour Government that I was just talking about. If you ever want to enjoy a beautiful photograph that sums up all of what the last Labour Government were doing, have a look at Ed Balls and Andy Burnham on a swing announcing the 2008 national play strategy. It is a fantastic sight. Genuinely, you can see in their faces the joy that comes from play and extending play opportunities. You can see that they are Ministers who are fantastically enjoying their jobs, and that is because they are delivering for children. That 2008 strategy was a critical development in the world of play, and the play sector responded so positively to it. It came with £235 million of investment to provide up to 3,500 new or refurbished playgrounds. I still get sent photographs by people who have seen those playgrounds with the Department for Children, Schools and Families logo on them, with its beautiful rainbow, and we should have more of that.
To conclude, this Bill is critical for children’s development. This is also a pro-growth new clause because we have in our play sector small family businesses who contribute to our economy to the tune of £250 million and are powering employment and economic opportunity in our communities. Our country feels like it needs a lick of paint at times. We need potholes filling, we need litter collecting and we need playgrounds repairing. In so doing, we can bring hope back to our communities, and in doing that we can help people to feel positive about the potential for politics to make change.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). That was an important speech and I concur entirely with his priority there. It is really important that we invest in the social infrastructure of play for the benefit of children, although not necessarily for the benefit of Ed Balls and Andy Burnham—an appalling image was conjured by the hon. Gentleman there—but I concur with his general point.
I want to speak in support of my new clause 87, which would require the Government to designate more chalk streams as protected sites within six months of the Bill passing. We know that 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in this country. There are only 220 of them, so they are a rare and very special habitat. Most of those chalk streams are in southern England, and I am glad to say that most of the most important ones are in Wiltshire. Morgan’s Hill on the edge of my constituency is a hydrological dividing line where a drop of rain can end up in the River Kennet and then the Thames, flowing out to the North sea. Alternatively it can go down the Hampshire Avon into the English channel, or it can go out west along the Bristol Avon and end up in the Atlantic. This is a very significant place, with water from Wiltshire flowing through the whole of southern England.
Those chalk streams are 60 million years old and they have flowed clear and clean all that time until very recently in the modern era. They are over-abstracted; too much water is being taken out because of overdevelopment and bad house building. They are contaminated with agricultural run-off and, of course, sewage spills. I pay tribute and give my sincere congratulations to all the campaigners in my constituency. We will all have similar organisations locally, but Action for the River Kennet in particular is doing great work to support that river and anglers, schools and farmers in our area. I also pay tribute to the Southern Streams initiative that supports farmers across Wiltshire to restore the health of the soil and the water in our area.
The last Government introduced some important new measures to restore and preserve the health of our chalk streams. These included the water restoration fund, which ensured that the fines levied on water companies for sewage spills went to restore nature in the areas that had been harmed. We introduced a storm overflow discharge reduction plan, stewardship schemes that addressed the question of agricultural run-off and, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, we ensured that chalk streams were considered as part of environmental assessments for new developments. We also introduced the chalk streams recovery plan, which was sadly halted by the Labour Government when they came into power last year. They kept some of our legacy, I am glad to say, but they have paused the sustainable farming incentive and I am afraid to say that we expect cuts to stewardship schemes in the spending review this week. Crucially, they scrapped the water restoration fund itself. Thames Water was fined over £100 million last month because of sewage spills in our area. That money should have gone to supporting natural restoration in the Thames Valley area, including in Wiltshire. It has been taken by the Treasury. We do not know where that money will go. The Government have also scrapped the chalk stream recovery plan.
My concern about the Bill, and why I tabled the amendment, is that it will put additional pressure on our chalk streams. Yes, we need new building—absolutely, that priority is right and what we need—and building in our backyard, but the backyard of Wiltshire is Swindon. We need to see more intense development in urban areas where the real demand for housing is. That will be a great blessing to Swindon and Wiltshire if we can make that happen.
The new clause in my name would protect more chalk streams as protected sites. I am glad to say that the Kennet and the Hampshire Avon are already SSSIs, but we need to see more streams designated in that way. It is not enough to protect only 11 of the 220 chalk streams in this country; the more designations, the better. That would create genuine momentum behind the preservation of chalk streams, so that when developments are being considered, we can be sure that these vital national natural assets are properly protected for the future.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
The Bill before the House has the potential to be one of the most pro-growth pieces of legislation passed by this place for decades and to transform our country for the better, but the amendments proposed will blunt its impact and make us all worse off. We should reject them for the prosperity of our constituents and the future of our country.
Every day in this place has to be about our constituents and the lives they lead. In Chipping Barnet, time and again I see the impact of our failure to build homes. Take Maryam—a victim of domestic violence and mother of a seven-year-old, working a zero-hours contract. She found herself with nowhere suitable to live to the point that she was living in a car. Or take Hayley—a wheelchair user living in a property that is not accessible for her. Due to a lack of available housing that is appropriate for her, she is often housebound because she simply cannot leave her home without support.
These are the stories of Britain today, but it does not need to be like this. This Bill gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix many of the things holding our country back. For too long, we have not built enough in this country, and we are paying a huge price for that. Under-investment in our homes and infrastructure has made us all worse off, both financially and socially, living in homes that skewer the prospect of a good life. That is why I do not support the Opposition amendments.
I also do not support amendment 69 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which sadly misses the mark. Labour was elected on a manifesto that sought to prioritise growth and making people better off. The Bill demonstrates how that is possible, alongside improved protections for nature. The nature restoration fund is a genuine win-win, but its successful and timely implementation is put at risk by the amendment.
Dan Tomlinson
I will make a bit more progress.
Let us take the example of nutrient neutrality. It is estimated that no fewer than 160,000 homes across the country have been blocked by Natural England on that basis. That is because on-site mitigation on a site-by-site basis is often virtually impossible, and those homes remain stalled. The environmental delivery plans that Natural England will produce will mean that rather than homes being held up by those rules, the very issues causing nutrient neutrality challenges can be addressed in a strategic way—better for building, for nature and for people. EDPs take the challenge of nutrient neutrality seriously and mean that builders can get stalled sites built, providing much-needed new homes.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend may have slightly confused the point of amendment 69, which is merely to address the concerns raised by the Office for Environmental Protection and to ensure that the nature restoration fund works to deliver exactly the points that he describes with the right nature protection.
Dan Tomlinson
I will come to the point my hon. Friend raises in a second.
If the amendment were adopted, the homes that have been blocked to date would continue to be blocked, and vast numbers would face unacceptable delays or, indeed, never be built. What would happen under the amendment, as we can interpret it, is that we would first have to wait for the EDP to be drafted, for the relevant funding to be secured and for the funding to be distributed to the relevant farmers or others who can help with the mitigation. The works would then have to take place; the impact of the mitigation would have to be monitored; and the monitoring would then have to conclude that it had been a success before any new homes in an area could be built where nutrient neutrality is a concern.
Chris Curtis
Does the hon. Member agree that what he has just described would lead to more delays in the system, which would mean that more planning permissions were held up—something that Opposition Members have complained about? If the amendment were passed, the requirement would also add a lot more expense to the system, which would mean more viability problems and fewer social homes being built.
Dan Tomlinson
I agree with those points. It would also make it virtually impossible to meet our manifesto commitment, on which we were elected, to build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member knows that I am a big fan of his. He makes a speech about our and other amendments blocking the delivery of homes. Will he therefore criticise his Government, who have reduced the number of homes required in his constituency through reducing the number of houses being built in London under his mayor?
Dan Tomlinson
I expect the hon. Member knows that the housing targets have been reduced in London because of the additional premium that was put on by the previous Government just to make life more difficult for the Mayor of London, which we all know Conservatives love to do. We are trying to be reasonable and proportionate in the location of the new homes.
As I was saying, it is important for us to do all we can to ensure that we can hit our target of 1.5 million new homes. As much as I respect my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and his work in this space, I hope his amendment will not command the support of the House today.
I know my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House are strong supporters of social housing, but without the unamended changes in the Bill, we will not get the social homes that we need to be built. People have spoken movingly about those living in temporary accommodation. I spent four years or so as a child living in emergency and temporary accommodation. I was homeless for a number of years. Back then—15 or 20 years ago—there were not that many young children who were homeless and in temporary accommodation. There are now 160,000 children—one in 21 children in London, one in every single class—in temporary accommodation. We cannot allow a system that fails both nature and those children to persist. I implore any colleagues thinking of voting for the amendment to think of those children and the vital homes that could be built, and built quickly and at pace.
Dan Tomlinson
I should make progress so that others can speak; my hon. Friend and I will have to talk later.
This Bill and this Government are all about the economic growth that ultimately is the route to more jobs, more opportunities and higher living standards—a better life for all of us in every part of the country. That is the potential of this Bill, and we must match the scale of the problem with the scale of our ambition. Britain’s economic decline has gone on for too long. Families are suffering with a crippling cost of living crisis, driven by high housing costs in many parts of the country and high energy bills everywhere. We just do not invest as a country; we do not build, and year after year we find ourselves surprised that we are worse off and that we are stuck in a doom loop from which no politicians in recent decades, if we are honest, have had the guts to pull us out.
We finally have a Government elected on a promise to wrest us from this decline, and legislation that takes steps in the right direction to do just that. Of course, there is more to do—much more—but this is a strong legislative start. For the prosperity of all our constituents, I hope the Bill passes unamended today.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 43, 44, 52, 53 and 81, if I have time. Mid Bedfordshire is a fast-growing area and has accommodated more than its fair share of new homes in the past decade. Since 2012, the two districts that my constituency covers have delivered over 35,000 new homes, including the new town of Wixams. Yet this Government would have us believe that those people in my constituency who have seen housing growth outpace services, who are still waiting for the long-promised GP surgery, for train stations and for other infrastructure, and who fear that the character of their historic Ends villages is being lost, are all blockers because they are concerned about what more badly planned development would mean for the overstretched amenities and services in their area.
The Bill is an opportunity to lead. It is an opportunity not to pit blockers against builders but to deliver a system that turns blockers into builders. Regrettably, as it stands, the Bill will fail, but it does not have to fail. My new clause 52 would create a fairer way of managing new towns by reforming the new towns programme, which seems expressly designed to make local communities resent the towns foisted upon them. It would replace that new towns model with one that does not involve a double whammy of house building—currently, communities that want to do the right thing and build the houses that people need find every patch of countryside is hoovered up because the Government have added a new town on top of the developable area in their district.
My new clause 53 would close the loophole that allows planning authorities to grant developments on floodplains. That is a perfectly sensible and pragmatic position. People in Maulden in my constituency know all too well how bad development compounds the risk of flooding. They are honest hard-working people who want to enjoy the warm and dry homes that their hard work has paid for, but the Government are backing big-box developers, not them. The new clause would prevent developers from getting away high and dry with their profits while our constituents pay the price in flooded homes. New clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would do the same by ensuring that where development does happen, developers must deliver and maintain sustainable urban drainage infrastructure. The current guidance is too vague and the current rules too lax to ensure that our residents are protected.
My Mid Bedfordshire constituency has lots of beautiful villages, but they are under threat from the creeping spread of urban sprawl that threatens to merge them into a conglomerate mass of development, which flies in the face of the historically gentle and natural evolution of our beautiful estate villages. I therefore endorse new clause 43 for its efforts to stop our beautiful villages from being lost to future generations.
Wendy Morton
To put it more simply, the sense of urban sprawl is about the green belt not just between specific villages but between communities. We see that between Streetly and Pheasey in my constituency on the edge of Birmingham. Does he agree that it would help to tackle the problem if the Government adopted a truly brownfield-first approach by developing the 1.2 million homes that it is estimated are available on brownfield sites?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Those green spaces on the edge of and between towns are at risk. It is not just the fields that are at risk but people’s access to green space, which is vital for mental health and wellbeing.
Paul Holmes
In relation to new clause 44, which my hon. Friend supports, does he agree that the Government could very easily accept it because it enables and encompasses an existing piece of legislation and could make a vast difference to many of the developments proposed? Why does he think the Minister will not accept it?
Blake Stephenson
The shadow Minister makes the case for me, so I do not think I need to. I absolutely support new clause 44.
I will make a final point so that we can hear from another speaker. I am proud to support new clause 81 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). Communities such as Wixams in Mid Bedfordshire too often find that the housing-first, infrastructure-second approach that our planning system prefers mean that they get all of the housing but none of the infrastructure—that is just not right. It is not right that, nearly two decades on from the first shovel going into the ground, it is still not clear when Wixams will get its long-promised GP surgery, while more and more houses are planned around it. We must end that cycle and ensure that where infrastructure is promised, infrastructure is delivered. That is what the new clause will do.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a planning systems that turns blockers into builders. We must do better than this Bill, which I fear will only build more blockers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I give Members notice that I will take the time limit down to four minutes after the next speaker.
Chris Hinchliff
I rise to speak in favour of the amendments in my name, particularly amendment 69, which has 53 supporters from across the House.
Every family stuck on a housing waiting list, and every child suffering the insecurity of temporary accommodation, represents a moral stain on our country. I welcome Ministers’ urgency in seeking to address those corrosive failures, which, for millions, underpin a lingering sense that our country is deeply broken. However, I fear that the Government have misdiagnosed the root cause of the housing crisis, which is fundamentally that private capital will never deliver the public good that we need.
The evidence is clear that processes that uphold democracy and nature are not the problem; profit maximisation is. The planning system consistently approves more homes than the private sector delivers, and when homes are built, they are too often unaffordable for those at the sharp end of the housing crisis. Last year, less than 2% of homes delivered through section 106 were for social rent. After 20 years of deregulation, hoping that just one more wave will finally make the market deliver is simply not credible. It certainly does not justify stripping away the few protections that we have left for our natural environment, especially when the Government’s own assessment could provide no concrete evidence that it would work.
We are already one of the most nature-depleted nations in the world, and we can spend what little remains of our natural inheritance only once. If the Government press ahead with their proposals, the national account will soon be empty. There is the kernel of a good idea in a nature restoration fund, but the weight of evidence against the way that it has been drafted is overwhelming: nature organisations, academics, ecologists and the Office for Environmental Protection have all raised serious concerns. I welcome the tone of earlier commitments from Government Front Benchers, but amendment 69 gives Ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation by ensuring that environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature, and that conservation takes place before damage, so that endangered species are not pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established.
The amendment outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed. That will protect irreplaceable habitats such as chalk streams. Our natural capital, which underpins all prosperity in this country, declined by a third from 1990 to 2014. This is a chance to reverse that trend. Given that Letchworth Garden City in my constituency sprang into life without a single mature tree being felled, we can build the homes that we desperately need to clear our housing waiting lists in harmony with nature.
To conclude, the primary value to which our politics has sought to appeal has for decades been self-serving ambition, but as the party of change and of the people, Labour has a duty to serve a higher virtue: hope. I am talking about hope for a future in which our nation no longer imagines housing as an ever-appreciating financial asset, and instead builds homes that provide the secure and healthy environment essential for our physical and mental wellbeing, and that allow everyone to put down the roots necessary to grow and fulfil their truest potential; hope for a future in which we create connected communities of friendship and co-operation, rather than having the grey and miserable utilitarianism of commuter dormitories; hope for a future in which we take every possible opportunity to restore the glories of British nature and can meaningfully say, for the first time in generations, that we have left the nation richer than we found it; in short, hope that we choose by design to surround every man, woman and child in these islands with constant proof that life is beautiful.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on local nature recovery.
When the Government first introduced this Bill, they branded it a win-win. They said that we could build the homes and infrastructure that this country desperately needs and protect and restore nature. We have seen in my constituency—one of the fastest growing areas of the country, with a Liberal Democrat-run local planning authority—that it is indeed possible to demand from developers both ambitious house building and high environmental standards that restore nature. We Liberal Democrats believe that a healthy childhood for all children includes homes that are energy-efficient and warm, not cold and damp; access to green space for mental and physical health; and infrastructure, including public transport, GPs and schools.
When done well, nature is a partner to the healthy homes and green energy that our country needs. However, through this Bill, the Government risk taking a wrecking ball to good-quality development. Nature is not a blocker to development. We are pointing the figure at the wrong culprit, and this is cheap, false rhetoric. Nature is not to blame. The Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, has publicly warned that the Bill in its current form will be a regression from current environmental protections, rather than increasing the number of homes, helping nature and helping us to meet our binding climate and nature pledges. Instead it will remove vital safeguards and put protected sites and species at risk.
Over 30 leading environmental organisations, including the RSPB, the wildlife trusts and the National Trust, have raised the alarm about part 3 of the Bill, with its very worrying plan to move to a “cash to trash” model for the nature restoration fund. I know the Minister has rejected that characterisation, but in the Environmental Audit Committee we heard robust evidence from expert witnesses that we could call it a “pay some amount later for something, somewhere” fund.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the Government are not receptive to amendments to part 3 that would restore the mitigation hierarchy and protection for irreplaceable species and ancient woodland?
Pippa Heylings
I completely concur. We appreciate the work done by my hon. Friend and others in the Bill Committee, and by tabling numerous amendments at this stage to help the Government improve the Bill.
Why do we need more stringent regulations and demands on developers, rather than less? Why do we need evidence and mitigations approved prior to development, rather than a “pay later for something, somewhere” nature restoration fund? It is because we have the evidence to show what happens without much-needed investment in enforcement capacity for local councils. On the Environmental Audit Committee, we heard the conclusions of the Lost Nature report: for nearly 6,000 homes across 42 developments, only half of the environmental pledges were kept. The others were missing in action—a staggering 83% of hedgehog highways, 100% of bug boxes and 75% of both bat and bird boxes. We need more. That is why I am speaking to the targeted amendments my hon. Friend has mentioned, to make sure we can have this win-win. His ew clause 1 would reinstate the mitigation hierarchy as a legal duty. Simply put, the duty is: first, avoid harm; then mitigate if that is not possible; and only compensate and offset as a last resort. This principle has underpinned environmental planning for decades and cannot be cast aside.
Amendments 6 to 10 and new clauses 26 and 29 aim to address the Office for Environmental Protection’s concerns and strengthen the overall improvement test for environmental delivery plans. I support new clause 21, which requires local plans to have due consideration to the local nature recovery strategies, which are currently silent in the planning system. Amendments 16 and 70 would give protections to England’s globally rare chalk streams—our rainforest and our groundwater. We have 85% of the world’s chalk streams, many of them in Lib Dem constituencies, including mine, yet they remain unprotected.
I hope the Government will consider amendments to the Bill, because we face a choice: pass this nature-wrecking Bill as it stands, or fix it by adopting amendments to protect chalk streams, restore wildlife and create a planning system that works with nature, not against it. I know what the Liberal Democrats will be voting for.
Naushabah Khan
I rise to speak as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and in support of new clause 50.
For too long, affordable housing has become a catch-all term that means anything but. Shared ownership and discounted market schemes are products that may work for some, but for many, they offer no real housing security. What those people need is not the option of getting a foot on the property ladder in the distant future, but a roof over their heads now. They need security, stability and homes that are truly affordable, and that means social rent. If we are serious about tackling the housing emergency, then clear, national targets for delivery of social rent homes are essential. That is why I support new clause 50, which would bring forward the accountability and direction that we need to get building and start delivering for those who have been let down for too long.
As housing charity Shelter identifies, building more social rent homes is the only lasting solution to the housing emergency. Those homes are genuinely affordable because their rent is linked to local income; there are secure tenancies; and any rent increases are more predictable. In my constituency—I know colleagues from across the House will recognise this from their inboxes—families are trapped in substandard housing or temporary accommodation for years on end. Many of us have, I fear, become desensitised to the stories of families with no kitchen to cook in, no quiet space for children to learn, and no peace in which to rest.
That is the daily reality for far too many families in the UK. This is a national scandal. Let us be honest: it did not appear overnight. For over a decade, the previous Government failed to build the homes that this country desperately needs. They dismantled council house building, slashed local authority budgets, and left the private rented sector unchecked. Those failures have left this Government with an inheritance of a hollowed-out system that responds to homelessness after the fact, instead of preventing it at root.
I welcome the fact that this Labour Government are changing this reality for families in my constituency through significant policy changes, and by allocating £800 million to the affordable homes programme, and I am proud that a significant proportion of those homes will be for social rent, but we need to go further. Publishing or updating planning guidance on how local and national decision makers can contribute to the delivery of social rented homes can make a significant difference. That would align planning, investment and delivery with a shared goal.
We know the scale of the challenge. As many have noted, we need to build 90,000 social rented homes each year, not just for the remainder of this Parliament, but for the next decade, to meet current demand and get on top of the deep backlog. We must equip councils and delivery partners with the resources, planning powers and clarity of mission that they need. New clause 50 supports that clarity, making sure that every local and regional planning decision is pulling in the same direction.
I agree with the Minister on the need for strategic planning, the potential that spatial development strategies have to unlock large-scale regional housing solutions, and the power of land value uplift to fund affordable homes. These are important tools, but they would be better supported by clear targets. Setting a national target for social rented homes is not about Whitehall dictating numbers from above; it is about saying that we are serious about tackling homelessness.
I echo the words of this Government: this country needs builders, not blockers. Central to that sentiment must be setting a clear social housing strategy, so that we know not just that we must build, but how much we must build, and hold ourselves accountable for delivering those homes.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I will be brief as many colleagues are waiting to contribute. I will speak only to new clause 40, which calls for a review of the standard method of assessing local housing need. A couple of colleagues have already mentioned aspects of it, but I will talk about it for three reasons: it puts too many housing development requirements on rural areas, rather than cities; in areas like mine there are physical constraints, such as national parks, which can cause difficulties; and, as specified in the new clause, the system needs to take account of different types of housing and their affordability.
First, the new formula means that too much housing is being put into rural areas, away from urban areas. As we have heard, in some parts of London and Birmingham targets are being reduced, but there has been a 50% uplift in housing numbers nationally and a 100% uplift in my constituency. This is not a north-south issue; it is repeated in rural areas throughout the country, including in the far north-west and the far north-east. It does not correct what some people may think of as an historical imbalance, where all the developments are in towns and not in the country, because over the past couple of decades developments have been disproportionately in predominantly rural areas rather than predominantly urban areas. This is also bad for the Government’s growth agenda because, as the Resolution Foundation and others have pointed out, skewing development towards cities and towns is better for growth because of connectivity.
Secondly, I am concerned about physical constraints such as national parks. Development in a constituency such as mine, where over half the land area is inside a national park, creates particular issues in the areas just outside the national park. The Minister and his officials have been listening and they have been very helpful; I hope that they will continue to give the issue full consideration and that there will be a change.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my amendment 134, which seeks to address a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system: the chronic undersupply of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England.
My amendment seeks to increase fairness in the system and to enable, rather than hinder, the provision of adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. For too long the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have been overlooked by the planning system. Research by Friends, Families and Travellers and Dr Simon Ruston looked at 100 local planning authorities and found that site provision has barely changed since the legal duty to provide them was scrapped in 1994. Of the 149 public sites in those areas, 119 were built before 1994, meaning that just 30 have been developed in the past 30 years—that is only 30 new sites across all 100 local authorities in three decades.
Decisions on Gypsy and Traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice, whether overt or institutional. Too often, proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that is not met with political will or leadership. Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level, where Gypsy and Traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. This absence is not an accident; it is the result of years of structural marginalisation that the Bill must now correct. I acknowledge the positive steps that the Government took in 2024, which work toward addressing some of those failures. However, we must go further if we intend to support provision and address inequality in the planning system.
We have seen an increase in private sites, which is welcome, but we often hear about the long, drawn-out, difficult and expensive processes that individual families go through to achieve planning permission. It is crucial to acknowledge that, just as with other communities, home and land ownership is not within reach of many and social provision is much needed. We are still seeing a troubling trend: the number of socially rented pitches is declining. According to the Traveller caravan count live tables, the number of socially rented pitches has fallen in the past five years, with a reduction of 179 pitches.
My amendment would ensure that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs are explicitly included in strategic planning, which means embedding the site provision in the spatial development strategies under proposed new section 12D to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Those new strategies would help to shape housing across whole regions. Leaving out Gypsy and Traveller sites would repeat the mistakes of the past. Other key planning changes need to be addressed in this Bill, but I will speak with the all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in due course.
Finally, I remind the House that the Government have committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029. If that ambition is to be truly inclusive, it must include everyone. That means making space—literally and politically—for communities that have been moved on, fenced off and forgotten. I urge the Government to consider these amendments at a later stage, not just for the sake of legislative clarity, but for the future of Gypsies and Travellers across the country.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I rise to speak to new clause 61, on the issue of cable ploughing—specifically, on the plans put forward by Green GEN Cymru. It proposes a 90-km power line, much of which would be suspended on pylons, across the breathtaking Twyi valley, and an additional 65 kilometres of power line across the equally beautiful Teifi valley. This is not just any landscape; it is the heart of rural Wales. These are not just two valleys across rural Wales; they are treasured by communities that have lived and worked there for generations.
From the beginning, residents and farmers made one thing clear: we support green energy, but it does not have to come at the cost of our countryside. We have called persistently for cables to be placed underground so that we can embrace a sustainable future while preserving Wales’s natural beauty and agricultural land. Unfortunately, our voices have gone unheard. Surveyors have come on to the land without proper respect, disregarding the rights of landowners, and in some cases people have felt intimidated and pressured into signing away land that has been in their families for centuries.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution, as she is speaking to my new clause 61. This is a huge issue in Suffolk Coastal, where we have National Grid and ScottishPower Renewables making landfall, and farmers in my constituency have a similar experience to farmers in her constituency. After this debate, perhaps we can request a meeting with the Minister and share these examples in person.
Ann Davies
I would love to have that opportunity. I thank the hon. Lady for putting forward her new clause—it was a pleasure to sign up to it.
We should not expect the behaviour that I mentioned from those who claim to be building a greener future. Let us be honest: if Green GEN Cymru had chosen to place the cables underground from the start, as the new clause proposes, it would have saved itself significant trouble. It argues that that is too expensive, but what about the cost of delay and the legal cost of taking landowners to court, which is what has been happening?
There is another cost: the cost of resilience. Just look at what happened over the last winter during Storm Darragh and Storm Éowyn: overhead lines failed, power was lost in my area for up to seven days and compensation from the National Grid had to be paid. If those cables had been placed underground, the impact would have been minimal. Long-term thinking is not just the right thing, but the practical thing to do.
I remind the Chamber that Wales has the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which is a commitment to development that is truly sustainable and does not compromise the ability of our children and grandchildren to thrive just to cut costs today. Let us ensure that the transition to clean energy serves the needs of both the present and the generations yet to come. Let us ensure that it is not done to our communities, but done with them. Let us deliver a future that is both green and grounded.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 91, on allotments and community gardens, and to new clause 60, on landfill sites, both of which stand in my name.
The UK currently has a shortage of allotments, with nearly 160,000 people on English local authority waiting lists. We need more space to grow. For the 8 million people in the UK who have no garden at home, shared spaces such as community gardens are a vital lifeline to nature. I am proud that my amendment 91 is supported by the Royal Horticultural Society, the Horticultural Trades Association, members of the National Network for Community Gardening and the National Allotment Society, as well as by Members across the House.
Without being overly prescriptive, my amendment aims to tackle the erratic provision of allotments and community gardens across the country, making them an essential part of all spatial development strategies. In her correspondence with me, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), said that because there was “nothing preventing” local authorities from including those green spaces in their strategies, amendments such as mine were not needed. I would like to refute that—that is precisely the problem. A person’s space to grow should not be dependent on their postcode or the whims of their council. That is especially the case given that the loss of allotment land over the past 75 years—60%—has been eight times greater in deprived communities such as mine.
In his 2024 annual report, Sir Chris Whitty said:
“Making…access to green space easier and more equitable, would go a long way toward removing barriers to improving physical activity levels and could significantly improve the health of England’s increasingly urban population.”
These small but mighty green spaces are about more than just vegetables; they are essential to supporting health, nature recovery and food security. They also supercharge biodiversity, because the quality of soil on allotments creates a unique environment in which life can thrive. In the midst of a nature crisis, gardeners and amateur horticulturists are our secret weapon. What is more, allotments create space for education and social projects. With so many on waiting lists or blocked from turning an unloved patch of land into a community garden, and with a desperate need for nature recovery, my campaign represents a win-win for the Government.
I now turn to my new clause 60, which comes in direct response to a gross injustice for my own constituents. Droppingwell tip in Rotherham was closed in the 1990s following a determined campaign by local residents. It was subsequently capped and returned to a natural state. Two decades later, in 2016, a permit variation was granted by the Environment Agency, allowing landfill operations to resume without any notice to residents. While the Environment Agency had the power to conduct a public consultation, it chose not to do so. Its argument was that as planning permission had been granted in the 1950s, no further scrutiny was required. Vital issues such as traffic, noise, pollution, and the impact on neighbouring properties were given no consideration whatsoever.
It cannot be right that landfill operators can so easily evade public scrutiny simply by reopening long-dormant sites, nor can it be right that my constituents’ views have been totally ignored. While my new clause comes too late for Rotherham, it would prevent the rights of other communities from being trampled by ensuring that planning permission for landfill sites would automatically lapse after 10 years of dormancy. Any proposals to resume landfill operations would be required to be subjected to full scrutiny through the planning system. My amendments can make a real difference, and I hope Government Front Benchers will support them.
Greg Smith
I have always been very clear that my top priority is the protection of the Buckinghamshire countryside and all of our farmland for the production of food, not for development. It is through that lens that I rise to speak to a number of amendments that I think will make this horror show of a Bill that tiny bit better.
First, I will speak to new clause 44, which deals with sustainable drainage, and new clause 53, which would stop development on floodplains. I can think of so many examples in my constituency where development has either happened directly on the floodplain or caused horrendous flooding concerns in communities. In Ickford, the developer’s expert said that flooding would be a “once in 100 years” eventuality, in an area that flooded six times in six months. I stood with the water lapping at the top of my wellies before that development was built to try to make a point, and now those homes are built, guess what? On Worminghall Road in Ickford, the houses that were there before are regularly flooded. Likewise, the construction of HS2 has had an impact on flooding in Calvert Green. Calvert Green simply did not flood before HS2 poured concrete into the fields next door, and now, guess what? It does.
I also support new clause 45, which would stop planning permission in cases where illegal development took place. I can think of examples in my constituency, such as between the villages of Askett and Longwick, where illegal development took place, yet the planning inspector has perversely now rewarded that bad behaviour by giving planning permission. Bad behaviour should not be rewarded and that new clause would stop it.
Others have spoken about chalk streams, which are incredibly important in Buckinghamshire, and new clause 87, which would designate chalk streams as protected sites, is incredibly important.
John McDonnell
There have been many references to the housing crisis and impassioned speeches, which I have welcomed. Like every other constituency in London, we have a housing crisis on a scale not seen before, and it has largely been caused by council houses being sold off and not replaced.
What has happened in my area is a salutary lesson about infrastructure developments. Crossrail is going through and the Elizabeth line has now gone through, so land value prices have gone through the roof. In central Hayes, I have more than 4,500 properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions—in fact, we have planning permissions coming out of our ears—but most local people cannot even think of affording what is being built. Many have tried to become leaseholders, and now they are being hit by huge increases in service charges, and some cannot even sell on their properties as a result.
With new clause 49, which no one has mentioned so far, we are asking the Government to look at how we can capture land value. There is a discussion to be had about a land value tax, and I think its time is coming. Many of those 4,500 properties are described as affordable, but they are not affordable to local people. That is why new clause 67 is so important, because we do not want affordable properties; we want social rent properties. In fact, I would like simply to give our local authorities the resources and to let them start building again, so that we can have places of a decent standard with a rent that people can afford.
Some 45 years ago, I was on the Greater London Council’s planning committee, and I was chair of finance, too. By the way, we should have some confidence in local government being able to undertake infrastructure projects, because were it not for the GLC—and me as well, actually—building the Thames barrier, most Members here would be swimming. That shows what local government can do. We decry local government too often. I dealt with developers throughout that process, and I can say that I have dealt with some good developers and also some atrocious ones. Often they do not deliver, and often they do let us down, and that is why new clause 69 is so important. It merely asks for measures to be put in place during the planning process before a development is properly allowed to go ahead: in other words, the mitigation is there. Deals have been done in my constituency, such as section 106 deals, that have not really stood up, and the developers have walked away leaving us to clear up the mess.
New clause 74, tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—who is not in the Chamber at present—draws attention to a classic example of what almost constitutes betrayal on the part of developers who come along, develop the site, take the profits and walk away. In many instances, our local council does not even have the financial resources to challenge them legally. For that reason, I am also attracted to new clause 33, which says, “If a developer has let you down in that way, do not give them any more planning permissions.” It gives the authority the responsibility of saying, “No more: you are not going to do that to us ever again.”
In our area, we will, if we are serious, have to go for compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 68 would take “hope value” out of the CPO calculations, which is significant because in the past too many compulsory purchases have failed because developers have applied hope value, which has escalated the cost and prevented us from acquiring property.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I wish to speak about my new clauses 46 to 48.
The Bill concentrates entirely on removing perceived barriers to development. Unfortunately, in the Government’s view those turn out to be nature and the general public, and to that end the Bill proposes a huge reduction in the ability of local residents and councillors to make their voices heard, or to have any meaningful influence over outcomes. That is such a pity, because gaining consent is not an impossibility.
Neighbourhood plans were introduced under the coalition Government. Done well, they represent the best version of local knowledge and local wishes, but there is not so much as a single mention of them in the entire Bill. Nothing could reveal more effectively how far the Government’s focus is from the views of local residents, who are to be treated as “hostiles” who must on no account be allowed to have their say. For that reason I have tabled new clause 48, which would require neighbourhood plans to be taken into account in decision making. Otherwise, I am not sure why they exist at all.
I have also tabled new clauses 46 and 47, which are directed at the need for local infrastructure. New housing development comes with two key promises: that it will bring affordable homes for local people, and that the extra funds it brings will mean more civic amenities. Both these promises are routinely broken. For the last decade, the pace of house building has been rapid in my constituency. Residents have been asked to support large-scale development because, they have been told, it will bring new schools and clinics along with it. In reality, they have seen the houses built but not the services. Why does that keep happening? People usually blame greedy developers, but the real fault usually lies with the Government.
Incredibly, although a school may in good faith be written into a local plan, signed and sealed via a section 106 agreement, that guarantees nothing. When the time comes to build the school, the Department for Education will often withdraw its support, and no DfE support means no school. Similarly, an apparently solid commitment to build a new GP surgery is so many empty words if the integrated care board later decides that it does not want to staff it. As budget pressures increase year on year, Government bodies will decide that it is cheaper to cram more children into existing schools, and more patients into existing clinics, than it is to add new ones.
Unfortunately, the Bill does little to fix those problems. Every time the Government mention supporting infrastructure, it turns out that they mean big national infrastructure. That is important too, but it does not solve local problems. The Government are viewing this problem through urban eyes. Urban centres usually already have sufficient infrastructure in place, but in rural areas such as Horsham, settlements are literally doubling in size, but with the same level of services. As a former local councillor, I have experienced at first hand how hard it is to shape development to meet local needs when planning authorities lack control over so many of the essential factors. No wonder residents object to new housing, when all they see is more strain on services that are already at breaking point.
I hope the Minister will support my amendments. They are intended to improve this Bill, not to sabotage it. Local participation is not something to be feared; rather, it should be embraced.
Nesil Caliskan
I was pleased to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill. I will also speak to clauses 4 and 46, and to new clause 55 and amendment 1, which I worry will further frustrate the planning process—the opposite of what the Bill tries to achieve. As the Member of Parliament for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis, as others do in their constituencies. Every week, I meet constituents who share with me their personal and desperate stories about overcrowding, years spent in temporary accommodation, poor-quality housing and sky-high rents.
Let me say this about hope. Hope is demonstrated through the actions of a Government who are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes and who will tackle the housing crisis—a challenge that has been absolutely ignored for decade after decade. Supply is one of the fundamental reasons why communities like mine are facing a housing crisis. Our planning system is hindering supply in a housing market that is already experiencing huge demand. It is a planning system that too often blocks or delays the necessary infrastructure that would support new homes being built, particularly as overall business cases for house building are intrinsically linked to infrastructure delivery.
On Second Reading, I spoke about the pre-application consultation requirements for NSIP. Like others, I have previously highlighted the lower Thames crossing, so I will not repeat that example, but it is really important that Members keep in mind the amount of money that is wasted through such processes. That is why I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister considered representations made by me and others in respect of reforming the pre-application procedure specifically. I welcome clause 4—alongside Government amendments 58, 60 and 67, and new clauses 44 and 45—which removes the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications. The changes will mean that delays are reduced and essential infrastructure is consented to faster. That will save up to 12 months from the pre-application stage and millions, if not billions, of pounds. It could make the difference between whether an infrastructure proposal is viable or not, and between whether homes are built in an area or not.
To be clear, that does not mean that applicants will avoid a duty to consult. As the Minister outlined in his statement to the House on 23 April, local communities and local authorities will still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of any adverse impacts, and have their say as part of the post-submission NSIP process. As a vice president of the Local Government Association and a former council leader, I understand all too well how important it is that local people have a voice, but I also understand that a national housing crisis needs a national solution, and this Bill is an important step in trying to achieve that.
At the heart of the debate is a recognition that the housing crisis cannot be solved by individual local politicians seeking to gain political favour by campaigning against new homes in their area. I know how difficult it is for local authorities to develop and agree local plans, but we cannot have a situation in which even though 90% of planning decisions are currently made by planning officers, key projects that would see infrastructure delivered in this country are held up, as are the thousands, if not millions, of homes that we need to deliver. I absolutely support this important Bill, and I look forward—
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise to speak to a number of the amendments before us. I spent a lot of time with colleagues on the Public Bill Committee, and some of the amendments are very good and some are not so good. I will try to rattle through as many as I can.
I support new clause 43, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Our villages should have the same protection as our towns. Villages have a unique character across all our constituencies, and I am privileged to represent six of them—Brickendon, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, Stanstead Abbotts, St Margarets and Goffs Oak. I have seen a local council that has built probably too much development in a village, and I have seen that change the fundamental character of Goffs Oak. We should be trying to protect that character, because when people move to villages, they do so for the rural way of life and their unique character and identity. We should stop urban sprawl, and we should stop villages linking together.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful point about the new clause I have tabled. Does he agree with me that this is about improving our environment and reducing pollution, and we need to think about all of that when we consider this Bill?
Lewis Cocking
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and of course I agree. She makes an important point, and I fully support her new clause. I know she is a keen advocate for this provision in her constituency; it is about creating communities. As I have said, this Government are interested only in hitting a national target, which I and lot of experts in the industry do not think they will meet.
The Government need to think about how they are going to create the communities of the future and the places where people want to live. That means designing them to be really nice, getting developers around the table and agreeing design codes, and making sure developers really put their money where their mouth is. We should ensure we have tree-lined streets, because when we go out in our constituency, as I am sure you do in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, a tree-lined street is absolutely beautiful to walk down. It is so much better for the people living there and everybody in the constituency if we make that a reality for lots of our residents. Rather than just focusing on building a set number of houses, we should focus on creating the communities of the future and the places where our constituents want to live.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 69 and new clause 32, which were both tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). I commend him for his work on the Bill.
I believe the Government have got it wrong with their changes to nature protection. I appreciate that Ministers will say that they come from a genuine desire to address the housing crisis, but the Bill removes the foundations of our nature laws, including the mitigation hierarchy that requires developers to avoid harm. Nearly every major conservation group opposes the Bill and the Government watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that it degrades nature protections.
Amendment 69 offers practical improvements, ensuring that environmental delivery plans achieve their stated purpose of making developers pay to offset damage to nature. It ensures that plans result in an improvement to the specific feature being harmed, so that the Bill does not give a green light to degrading irreplaceable habitats.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Wild Justice “Lost Nature” report, which was produced by a team including my excellent constituent Sarah Postlethwaite, reveals that housing developers are frequently failing on their legally binding ecological commitments. Its survey of 42 new housing developments, including two in my constituency, shows that only half the ecological enhancements promised, including hedgehog highways, bird boxes, bat boxes and planted trees, were actually being delivered. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while trusting developers’ promises, we must take up-front steps to empower and expand Natural England and other authorities to hold them to account?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.
Amendment 69 also mandates that improvements be delivered before harm occurs. Without that, we risk species being pushed closer to extinction before their habitats are replaced. Worst of all, the Bill still will not deliver the affordable homes we desperately need.
Dan Tomlinson
The explanatory statement to amendment 69 states:
“This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the…status…before development takes place in areas where Natural England”—
thinks there could be harm. How long does my hon. Friend think that that would take in the case of nutrient neutrality and a developer who wanted to build a new social home?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I do not have a specific answer to that point. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that.
The Government’s own impact assessment provided no data that environmental protections are a blocker. Nature in the Bill is being scapegoated to distract from a broken developer-led model.
Sean Woodcock
We have heard a lot about the failure of developers to build infrastructure, protect nature and provide enough social housing. Does that not just show that the status quo is broken, and why the Bill is so important and heading in the right direction?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
The current system is broken, absolutely, but I do not think that hard-pressed planning officers are the problem. I think developers are the problem, and that is the point that I am coming on to make.
Last year, less than 2% of new homes were social rents delivered through the planning system. Private developers prioritise maximum profit with high-end luxury builds, particularly in constituencies such as mine. At the current rate, we would need to build over 5 million homes to deliver just 90,000 social rent properties, yet there are over 1 million people on waiting lists. That is why I signed new clause 32 to introduce binding quotas for affordable and social rent homes. If we are serious, as I believe Labour is, about getting families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists, local authorities need the power and funding to lead a new generation of council house building.
We also cannot ignore the fact that the developer-led model creates conflict with nature, as under-resourced councils are forced to accept whatever sites developers propose, regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they are for sustainable development. There is no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires that will fix that. It is too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers. The overwhelming majority of planning applications are approved, which is why we had more than a million planning permissions approved in the past decade that have yet to be built. Developers continue to drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties that maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people.
It is time, therefore, to move away from the failed market dogma and, I believe, to return to Labour values. The post-war Labour Government built millions of homes supported by the planning system our party created, and it is time we did it again.
Wendy Morton
I rise to speak to new clause 84, in my name, and to add my support for new clause 51 on solar and battery energy storage systems, and new clause 39 on solar.
New clause 84 seeks to prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher-quality agricultural land. In a debate on this topic in this Chamber just last week, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) that there is 78 GW of battery capacity that is either operational, awaiting construction having received planning permission or awaiting consideration, which is equal to supplying 200 million homes—10 times the number of houses we actually have. This is ludicrous.
There are numerous questions over safety, fire risk, accessibility and proximity to homes and communities, yet these storage systems are replacing land that could be used for crops and grazing for animals with metal containers, eating into our national food security at a time that we should be increasing food security and strengthening our food chains. Farmland, as we all know in this place, is irreplaceable—when it is gone, it is gone. We are seeing far too many planning applications coming forward that would risk green-belt land being trashed, with the term “grey belt” used to create a grey area that planning inspectors will take advantage of. I hope the Government are listening to this point, and those made by others on solar, as well.
In the time I have, I want to support a number of other new clauses and amendments that I know matter to my constituents, such as new clause 79, on the duty to co-operate. It is not that we do not expect to have targets in constituencies such as mine; we just do not expect to do all the heavy lifting. We do not expect to have to pick up the can and let failing authorities such as Labour-led Birmingham off the hook. The council certainly cannot manage Birmingham’s bins and it cannot manage its housing, either; three years on, none of the properties in the Commonwealth village in Perry Barr has been let.
It cannot be right that housing targets in areas like Birmingham and London are being placed on authorities such as Walsall, where our targets are being hiked up— not least when evidence points to more people wanting to live in towns and centres. Surely what we should be doing is regenerating these areas and building on our brownfield. If we do it sensibly, it will protect the green belt, protect our environment and protect the green and open spaces that we all love and enjoy.
I will also speak in support of new clause 45, on intentional unauthorised development, something that really irks some of my constituents. They write to me and come to see me about developers or individuals who flagrantly breach or ignore planning regulation or permissions, creating misery for their neighbours. How can someone simply get away with doing that sort of thing without repercussions, when others abide by the rules and are left picking up the pieces?
I have already spoken of my support for new clause 43 on preventing the merging of villages. That is crucial to constituencies like mine, which is on the edge of Birmingham, and has communities that are at risk of being consumed into its urban sprawl. Finally, there is so much I could say on Natural England. I worry that the Government are giving more powers over planning to an unelected quango, while taking power away from local authorities and councillors.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to new clause 58 in my name. It would place a clear environmental and climate duty on Forestry England and its parent body, the Forestry Commission. That is a simple but crucial step that is long overdue. Forestry England manages over 198,000 hectares of land across England, and with that comes huge untapped potential. Estimates suggest that around 100,000 hectares of ancient woodland and open habitats such as lowland heath could be restored. Restoration at that scale could deliver a fifth of the Government’s legally binding target to create or restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, as set out in the Environment Act 2021. That is a massive opportunity that we cannot afford to waste.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that new clause 56 in my name would also enhance biodiversity. Simple acts such as providing bird boxes and swift bricks can enhance the environment in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Alex Sobel
Absolutely. We have seen a huge loss in biodiversity in this country. As Lord Goldsmith, a Minister in the former Government, said in the other place, we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Making small changes in planning law will increase biodiversity.
The duties on Forestry England are simply too weak. Its only existing nature duty is the biodiversity duty, updated in the 2021 Act, but it is ineffective. It requires Forestry England only to consider biodiversity, not contribute to nature recovery. That is not good enough. It lacks clarity, enforceability and, crucially, any tie to our legally binding nature targets. As a result, economic interests too often take precedence. Forestry England continues in many cases to prioritise commercial forestry over restoring biodiverse habitats, including areas of ancient woodland. There are no legal climate duties on it, either. Its climate work, while good, is entirely at the whim of political feeling at any time.
This imbalance is rooted in history. The Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to promote timber production, and that economic priority still dominates. It is reinforced by the growth duty in the Deregulation Act 2015, which requires the Forestry Commission and Forestry England to have regard to economic growth. However, as the nature and climate crisis has worsened, the law has failed to catch up. The result is missed opportunities, poor outcomes, and actions that directly undermine Government policy, such as grant funding of invasive species and the approval of development on deep peat.
Let us look at the facts. The target for restoring damaged ancient woodland is 5,000 hectares a year, yet under the last Government, in 2023-24, just six hectares were restored. That is indefensible. New clause 58 is a straightforward, cost-effective fix. It would rebalance the scales, and give Forestry England a proper legal duty to contribute to nature recovery and climate goals in a way that is in line with the Government’s targets. That means no more missed changes—just clear accountability, better outcomes and better value for public money. I urge the Minister to look at new clause 58 and consider giving Forestry England the clear mandate that it needs in order to deliver for people, nature and the climate.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I rise to support new clause 39. Building large-scale solar farms on productive agricultural land is short-sighted. The proposed Maen Hir project, classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project, will cover over 3,000 acres of agricultural land on Ynys Môn. This is not just any land; it is land that sustains rural livelihoods and underpins the economic and cultural identity of the island.
Let us not forget why Ynys Môn is known as Môn Mam Cymru—the mother of Wales. Our island has long been the breadbasket of the nation, playing a key role in food production. This land is not just soil; it is security. Replacing it with solar panels serves developers, not communities. The climate crisis will make suitable agricultural land scarcer, which makes protecting what we have now even more important. Once such land is lost to development, we will not get it back. That is not sustainability but short-term gain at long-term cost.
We see serious inconsistency in how planning policy is applied. In Wales, under the planning process, good-quality agricultural land is considered for smaller-scale developments, but when it comes to large-scale NSIPs, such as Maen Hir, those protections seem to vanish. The contradiction between Welsh and UK Government policy is unacceptable. There must be a level playing field, regardless of the scale of proposals.
We have already felt the impact of energy insecurity in recent years. Let us not repeat the same mistakes with food security. I ask the Government to rethink their approach; to protect our agricultural land, our economy and our communities; and to support new clause 39.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 64 in my name. It seeks to encourage a greater focus on the delivery of affordable housing through rural exception sites. I tabled it to prompt further consideration of the role that this policy can play in addressing the urgent need for affordable homes in rural communities. As many who represent areas with significant rural populations will know, we have a serious housing problem. Waiting lists grow faster in rural areas than anywhere else, and young people are forced out of villages and towns by the lack of affordable housing. Parents face old age without the comfort of their children nearby. Pubs, post offices and shops start to struggle for lack of customers. Those businesses close, and a small village and the whole community feels the damage.
Rural exception sites, which are usually found on the outskirts of small settlements, offer a modest but vital solution. Developed for the provision of affordable housing to those with a connection to the area, they help sustain local economies, retain local people and skills, and keep families together. Because they adjoin villages, development takes place on a gently human scale; houses radiate out from a historical core, respecting the historical and rural situation. These are not soulless, disconnected housing estates. This is development on a scale that ensures that affordable housing is woven into the fabric of our communities, not added on. It preserves and recreates the social mix once typical of our towns, where, as Nye Bevan remembered,
“the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and farm labourer all lived in the same street”.—[Official Report, 16 March 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2126.]
That sort of community is now an exception, but let us reform rural exception sites and offer a route back to that ideal.
Despite the potential, the rural exception site regime is alarmingly underused. Out of 145 local authorities in the country, only 25 used rural exception sites to deliver affordable homes in 2021-22. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is not in his place, although he was here for most of the afternoon, for his support for my new clause. Cornwall leads the country by example: 50% of what is delivered on rural exception sites across the whole of England is in Cornwall, and 20% to 30% of housing delivered in Cornwall is through rural exceptions. Why do we not equip other areas across the country, including my county of Suffolk, to do the same? Increasing awareness and engagement will double the output of affordable housing on such sites, so let us encourage officers and local authorities across the country to take a much closer look at the guidance. That will give us a new engagement strategy for delivery partners, who will work with the local community and landowners, which will be crucial.
By giving rural exception sites the prominence they deserve in planning, we increase the supply of affordable homes but maintain the unique character and spirit of our rural communities. I was heartened to read in the Government’s response to the consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that further consideration is indeed being given to exceptions as a means of supporting rural affordable houses. That is welcome, and I am optimistic about the potential for rural exception sites to be brought forward in much greater numbers, delivering small-scale affordable housing that is crucial to ensuring that the English countryside has vibrant and inclusive communities for generations to come. Let us put the life back into the heart of rural England.
Aphra Brandreth
I love trees, which is why I rise to support new clause 63 tabled in my name. I am sure that all of us in this House recognise the value of trees—not just their ecological importance, but the character and beauty that they bring to our communities and high streets. I hope that I can demonstrate why amending the rules to allow for sensible guidance on planting trees can help to liberate local authorities from their default, over-cautious position, and kick-start a tree-planting revolution.
New clause 63 seeks to remove some of the ambiguity and misconceptions surrounding the regulation of tree planting along highways. The Highways Act 1980 includes provision for local authorities to maintain free-flowing roads, but those provisions can and have been misinterpreted to block tree planting. In particular, the licensing rules established in section 142 of the Act should be relaxed to make it easier for local residents to plant trees. Too often, even well-meaning councils impose unrealistic demands. In Windsor and Maidenhead, for example, individuals planting trees must pay between £500 and £1,000 in administrative fees and secure £10 million in public liability insurance—hardly encouraging. Hampshire county council’s strict interpretation of section 142(5) has led to a one-metre buffer around utilities, blocking many ideal planting sites, despite minimal risk to those services.
Let me briefly touch on the environmental case. A Woodland Trust report, “The benefits to people of trees outside woods”, found that roadside trees are highly effective at capturing pollutants—especially important, given that traffic is a major source of air pollution in the UK. A study by Lancaster University even showed that planting silver birch on a terraced street reduced harmful particulate matter inside nearby homes by more than 50%. Trees also play a critical role in supporting biodiversity; common roadside species such as lime and flowering cherry trees are not only beautiful, but vital for pollinators, helping to maintain healthy ecosystems.
Cheshire is a proud dairy and beef farming county. We have some of the most carbon-efficient cows in the world, and we should be proud of that record, but if we can further improve our environmental impact, that can only be a good thing. In rural areas, having tree-lined roads can help to reduce ammonium levels and impacts on habitats and the surrounding environment. Again, placement of trees matters; having more trees near semi-natural habitats that need protection has a greater impact than having more trees in established woodland. Of course safety must remain a priority, and not every road is suitable for tree planting, but where space and conditions allow, trees can improve road safety. Studies have shown that tree-lined streets feel narrower, naturally encouraging drivers to reduce their speed.
There are many more benefits that I could speak to, such as improved soil quality, but time is short, so I will finish by touching on the aesthetic benefit of trees near highways. They really do make a difference. They stand the test of time, they add character to the area, they take on cultural significance, and they improve our mental health, our perceptions and our appreciation of the areas in which we live. By amending this Bill through new clause 63, I hope we can empower local authorities to plant the right trees in the right areas where there is local support, and I am confident that we will notice the benefits of doing so.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I was privileged to be a member of the Bill Committee. I started the Committee as a supporter of this legislation, and I rise to speak now as an equally strong supporter of it.
Many of my constituents in Dartford are also extremely strong supporters of change. Their town is regularly paralysed by overspill traffic from the overloaded Dartford crossing. That has been an issue for decades. The need for a new crossing was first suggested as long ago as the 1980s, yet despite a route having been agreed in 2017, development consent was granted only this year. Hundreds of millions have been spent on the process so far. I strongly support the measures to streamline the NSIP regime and give more certainty on large and much-needed projects such as the lower Thames crossing, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). This Bill will make changes to dramatically improve the situation, and that fact must not be lost as we debate the amendments today.
Ellie Chowns
I will get straight to the point: there are two big problems with this Bill. First, there is no social housing target, which means that it does not do anything to secure delivery of the fit-for-the-future social rent housing that we so desperately need, as colleagues across the House have said tonight. Secondly, it rolls back vital nature protections, effectively giving developers carte blanche to bulldoze nature to build luxury homes that are accessible only to the richest.
Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading—
Ellie Chowns
I am sorry, I will not give way because there are so many colleagues who still want to speak and we are short of time.
Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading, because a secure home is out of reach for too many people. Rents are spiralling, over 165,000 children are living in temporary accommodation and over 1 million people are stuck on housing waiting lists. It is scandalous that just 3% of the housing built in the last decade was for social rent, and there is now a wait of more than 100 years for a family-sized social home. I served on the Bill Committee for the past six-plus weeks and I worked hard to persuade the Government to fix the serious flaws in the Bill, but unfortunately those calls have so far been ignored.
I am profoundly concerned that, in the glaring absence of a social rent housing target, this Government are writing a charter for developers’ greed. That is why Green party MPs have tabled new clause 78, to push for safe, warm homes in the communities we love at a truly affordable price. It would require housing plans to set targets for building zero-carbon social rent housing based on local needs, because without an explicit social housing commitment, big developers will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are still locked out of affording a decent home.
I am hugely concerned, as are so many people and the nature organisations that we all trust. By the way, the Bill rolls back nature protections. That is why I have proposed amendments 24 to 63, which would delete part 3 of the Bill entirely, because the Government repeatedly blocked cross-party efforts in Committee to amend part 3 to reduce its harmful impact on nature.
Part 3 is harmful for three key reasons. First, it weakens and undermines the requirement for nature protection to be achieved to a high level of scientific certainty. Secondly, it creates a “pay to pollute” system, allowing developers to skip straight to offsetting, trashing the long-established principle of the mitigation hierarchy—that is, that development should first seek to avoid harm. Thirdly, it upends the requirement for compensation to be delivered up front and creates wiggle room for developers to avoid paying the true cost of the harm they do.
The Government know the nature crisis in our country is severe, yet they repeatedly voted in Committee to reject a raft of constructive amendments to improve part 3 and ensure a win-win for housing and nature. I remind the House that the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pointed out that
“the Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,”
but part 3 will make that terrible situation worse. It is not just the nature organisations that tell us that; it is the independent expert advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, which says that the Bill constitutes a “regression” in environmental law, directly contradicting the assertion of the Secretary of State.
If Ministers insist on bulldozing ahead on part 3, I urge them at the very least to accept my new clause 26. With cross-party support and wide backing, it seeks to match the current degree of certainty for environmental protection. I also strongly support amendment 69, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would ensure that improvements are delivered before the damage they are compensating for.
We can and must both protect nature and build warm, affordable, zero-carbon social rent homes. The Government said it is what they want. Sadly, it is not what the Bill delivers. Without urgent change—
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area, which is why local planning authorities must retain their current powers, as outlined in amendment 1. As we have heard, each area is different. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Loddon and Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity.
The Labour manifesto promised
“more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes… creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery.
Chalk streams in this country are at risk. A third are over-abstracted, a third failed their phosphorus targets, and a third failed their fish and plant assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national planning policy framework to protect those ecosystems. These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House, as outlined in amendment 16. We cannot make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it.
The Government also say they want to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrats’ call for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities. Supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Electric vehicles are key to achieving energy independence, but charging inequalities are simply holding us back, undermining net zero and energy security. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities must be empowered to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street work licences or planning applications?
Alex Brewer
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those policies.
Solar panels do not just soak up the sun and create clean energy; they also provide shade, protect vehicles and, frankly, over a car park they look quite good while they are doing it. We should be prioritising solar panels on the 250,000 hectares of rooftops and car parks across the country, not on our precious green spaces. Car parks are often located in energy intensive areas— near hospitals, shopping centres and office buildings—so it makes perfect sense to generate the power right next to where it is needed.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that car parks and rooftops might be a good place for solar, but this country’s prime agricultural land is not?
Alex Brewer
We must find the right balance between agriculture and renewable energy.
France has already taken the lead by mandating that all car parks with more than 80 spaces must be covered with solar panels. The Bill is the right place for us to implement a similar clause. Solar photovoltaics produce about 10 times more energy per square kilometre than biomass. Solar is efficient, clean and ready to go. I am highly concerned that the Bill is overcommitted to biomass, which is not a form of renewable energy. In Britain, we have the knowledge and expertise to develop new housing, energy and infrastructure with nature in mind. The Government are treating this issue as an either/or, but we could and should be much more ambitious and have both.
Helen Maguire
I rise to speak in support of my new clause 93 and amendments 122 to 126, which aim to tackle the growing electric vehicle charging divide—an issue that is not only about infrastructure, but about fairness, affordability and climate action.
Nearly four out of every 10 households in the UK do not have a driveway. For many of them, the transition to EVs remains a challenge because bureaucratic barriers mean that they face charging costs that are 10 times more expensive compared with those who can charge their car at home. Today, someone with a driveway can charge their EV overnight for as little as 7p per kilowatt-hour, but a driver without one may be forced to pay up to 80p at a public charger. That means over £1,000 more per year, and renters, residents of terraced homes and lower-income families bear the brunt.
My amendments would cut unnecessary red tape and enable local authorities to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street works licences or planning applications. They would give councils control while empowering residents to take part in the EV transition. That is a vital step in closing the gap between those who can charge affordably at home and those who cannot. It would help to reduce reliance on overstretched public chargers, support grid resilience and build confidence in the EV transition, while unlocking green jobs and cutting emissions.
This is also an issue of energy security. Sky-high energy and fuel bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost of living crisis. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and to invest in renewables, both to cut energy bills and to deliver energy security. Electric vehicles can help millions of families to avoid a petrol premium, save on travel costs and strengthen our national security and independence.
If we are serious about hitting net zero, cleaning our air and reducing the cost of living, we must make EV adoption a genuinely accessible and affordable option for everyone, not just for those with a driveway. I urge Members to support my common-sense, future-facing amendments and new clause 93.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to my amendments 145 to 147 and to highlight the importance of new clauses 39, 84 and—if I have time—83.
My amendments seek to correct a clear oversight in the legislation by extending the energy bill discounts to those who live near energy generation sites, rather than simply to those who live near energy transmission sites. Why is it that those who have pylons built near their homes are compensated, while those who have solar farms—such as the proposed Green Hill development near Grendon, Easton Maudit and Bozeat in my constituency —are not? That arbitrary distinction exposes the Government’s proposals as not only inconsistent, but fundamentally unfair. Such disparities understandably rile residents who must live cheek by jowl with solar farms. By simply extending the energy bills discount, the Government would at least put an arm around those who bear the burden, and would encourage communities to embrace renewables. I encourage the Minister to take that forward, but I will not hold my breath.
New clauses 39 and 84 are essential. The number of proposed battery energy storage systems is—if Members will pardon the pun—exploding. They should not be built on higher-quality agricultural land. The Government say repeatedly that food security is national security, but any plans that take agricultural land out of producing food leads the Government and this country down a very dangerous path. We must encourage and incentivise farmers to do exactly that: farm. The Government are creating an either/or situation by allowing battery energy storage systems and solar on higher-quality agricultural land. I urge Members to support these new clauses.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that it is hoped that new clause 82 has been selected to be called for a separate decision of the House. My concern is that the House will be denied the ability to have that separate decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that the Member who put forward the amendment has the right to withdraw it and has indicated that they will do so. It is at the Chair’s discretion whether a separate decision is called for, and in this case it is my understanding that the amendment is not going to be moved.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Member should shout and make it clear on the Floor of the House that he does not wish the amendment to be put to the vote, so that Members can voice their opinion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his further point of order. If I do not call the Member to move his amendment, and it is not my intention to do so, there will be no separate decision.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am entitled to raise a point of order.
I appreciate your ruling on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I ask for clarification because it is my understanding that if we have been informed that an amendment is for separate decision, the Chair asks the Member whose amendment it is whether they want to withdraw it, with the leave of the House, and I have never seen that question not being put on the Floor of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. It is simply not the case that it has to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House; this has happened on numerous occasions.
I call the Minister.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a very comprehensive debate. [Interruption.] A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) should not be shouting at the Clerks in that way. I have made my point.
I call the Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate and the House will appreciate that I do not have the time to address the vast majority of them. I will therefore focus on addressing as many of the key amendments and points of contention as I can. I have been extremely generous in giving way in opening the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will now appreciate that to get through as many points as possible I will not be taking further interventions.
The debate this evening has evidenced support from across the House for nature and for ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right. I spoke in detail about the Government’s position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in the Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by hon. Members and stakeholders. We are clear that this is the right model to take us forward.
We are of course open to ways to improve the legislation, however, and on that basis, and to emphasise the point I made earlier in the debate, we are giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence that part 3 will deliver the outcomes we believe it will, such as providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test, as raised by the OEP and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).
We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide for greater certainty in the timescale for delivering conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). The status quo is not working. The case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part 3 in the other place.
Turning to the important issue of children’s play areas and playing fields, I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 16 and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for tabling new clauses 82. I particularly commend my hon. Friend on all that he is doing to make the case for high-quality, accessible and inclusive areas for play. The Government agree that access to play space is vital, which is why strong protections are already in place.
The national planning policy framework is clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision, including places for children’s play. In December, we strengthened the strong protections already in place in the NPPF by adding explicit reference to safeguarding “formal play spaces”. That means that those facilities can be lost only where they are no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative
Given the existing policy expectations, safeguards and sources of support, we do not believe that it is necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements the amendments would entail. However, I recognise the importance of what the amendments seek to achieve, and the provision of play space is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making, on which we will consult this year. I commit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East to writing to my counterparts at the Department for Education and at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we are acting across Government to increase spaces for play. I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he seeks. With those assurances, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Turning to swift bricks, which were mentioned several times during the debate, we recognise that they are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. While swift brick coverage is increasing, with nearly 30 house builders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home built, the Government want to do more to drive up swift brick installation. However, there is a principled difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve that objective. Although I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species is to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new-build properties, through building regulations or free-standing legislation, I take a different view.
In all sincerity, I do not believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome that the House as a whole seeks. As building regulations are mandatory, going down that route would compel developers to install swift bricks in all new buildings, irrespective of what they are or where they are located.
Matthew Pennycook
No, I will not.
Contrary to what hon. Members might assume, amending building regulations is not a quick fix. It can take years for changes to feed through into building design and we do not think that swifts can afford to wait that long. For those and other reasons, I remain of the view that changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new buildings.
As the House will be aware, the revised NPPF published in December expects developments to incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. However, as I have made clear to many hon. Members over recent months, we have always intended to go further. We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings, unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or that would make them ineffective. That would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, so that, for example, we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.
I believe that is the best way we can achieve the objective of seeing swift bricks used as widely as possible, as the use and placement of swift bricks can be integrated into the planning process and become a standard expectation in the design of new developments. We will be consulting on a new set of national policies for decision making later this year. So that no one can be in any doubt about our intentions here, the Government have today published new planning practice guidance setting out how swift bricks are expected to be used in new developments, as an interim step ahead of the planned consultation.
We also heard from several hon. Members who want to see stronger protections put in place for chalk streams. The measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections for those valuable areas for nature, but the Government continue to give careful consideration to this matter in the context of ongoing reform to national planning policy and I am more than happy to engage with hon. Members from across the House on it.
I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would have the effect of preventing the Government from implementing a national scheme of delegation for planning committees. Put simply, it is a wrecking amendment, and the Government cannot accept it for the following reasons. Planning is principally a local activity, and the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play. However, we must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible. At present, every council has its own scheme of delegation, and 96% of planning decisions in England are already made by planning officers. However, there is significant variation across the country, which creates risk and uncertainty in the system. As such, we believe that there is a robust case for introducing a national scheme of delegation.
Since Committee stage, when we debated these issues at length, the Government have published a technical consultation setting out our detailed plans for reform in this area. I encourage hon. Members to read that consultation, in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments to allow for effective local and democratic oversight of the most controversial applications where warranted. I believe that if Members engage with the detail of that conversation, they will recognise that what is being proposed is not an attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy, but a sensible and proportionate change designed to improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. However, on the fundamental point of whether we should introduce a national scheme of delegation, the Government’s position is an unequivocal yes. For that reason, I cannot accept the new clause in question.
I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington relating to the Bill’s new reflective amendment procedure for national policy statements. I reassure the House that our changes are not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made, and we absolutely recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.
As I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, several safeguards are in place that will ensure parliamentary oversight is protected; I will happily restate them for the record. Where we intend to make a reflective amendment, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and we will write to the relevant Select Committee. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee as far as is practicable, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.
Let me be very clear in response: the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to colleagues to ensure that is fully and clearly understood. Importantly, the NPPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted. I hope that clarifies the process and reassures my hon. Friend and the House more widely.
Finally, I will address some of the amendments about provision of affordable and social housing, including new clauses 32 and 50, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The Government are committed to the biggest generational uplift in social and affordable housing, and in our first 10 months in office we have put our money where our mouth is. We have announced new £800 million in-year funding to top up the 2021-26 affordable homes programme, and we announced in the spring statement an immediate injection of £2 billion in new capital investment to act as a bridge to the future grant programme, which is to be announced this week in the spending review.
To date, we have not chosen to define a target for social and affordable housing, and there is good reason why that is the case, including the fact that the sector has faced significant financial constraints and needs regulatory certainty. That was made worse by many of the completely irresponsible and unacceptable decisions made by the Opposition when they were in government over the past 14 years. It would not be appropriate to set a target until after the sector is stabilised, knows what is required and, importantly, is clear on what investment will be available to support delivery, which will become apparent only after the spending review. A range of complex factors contribute to the numbers of affordable houses coming forward in this country and impact on the sector’s ability to build more homes, but we will of course keep that matter under review.
I will very briefly mention the green belt and the protection of villages. As the House will be aware, we recently published guidance in relation to the green belt. None of the long-standing green-belt purposes are touched by those changes, including the purpose of precluding the merging of towns. The guidance does not remove those appropriate and relevant protections from land around villages, and any green-belt land—including land in, or near, villages—that conflicts with the relevant purposes would not be identified as grey belt.
To conclude, I once again thank all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate for their contributions. The Government will continue to reflect on the arguments that have been made. I urge the House to support the targeted amendments to this Bill that the Government have proposed, to ensure we can realise its full potential.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 69 accordingly read a Second time.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could fill a gap in my ignorance —I am sure you can. Earlier today, Mr Speaker announced that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), whom I will call my hon. Friend because he is my county neighbour, would not move new clause 82, to which I am a signatory. Mr Speaker had said that the new clause would be subject to a separate decision, and anybody would interpret that to mean that there would be a vote on it. My understanding, from previous experience, is that when the principal signatory to an amendment decides not to move it, any hon. or right hon. Member who is a co-signatory to it is at liberty to move it, to test the will of the House. It may well be that the Standing Orders have changed, and that I am negligent of that knowledge. If that is the case, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what has changed?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard several earlier points of order on this question. He would also have heard me say that a decision on the new clause would be at the discretion of the Chair, and Mr Speaker indicated earlier that there would be a separate decision. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who tabled new clause 82, indicated that he wished to withdraw it. A decision on it is at the discretion of the Chair. If the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) wishes to question that further, he is at liberty to do so.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Labour Members may chunter, but I have a right to raise a point of order on process in this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? I am a relatively new Member, but it is my—[Interruption.] I want to raise a point of order, and it is not up to them to say I cannot.
New clause 82 has been signed by over 60 Members of this House. Through the usual channels, I was told, as shadow Minister, as were others, that the Speaker’s Office had selected the new clause for a separate decision. Over 60 Members have signed the new clause, and my understanding of precedent in this House is that any Member who has signed it can move it. It is a new and dangerous precedent if Members can indicate before the debate that they wish to withdraw a new clause, and other Members who have signed it are not given the choice to move it. May I seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker? It seems highly unusual that over 60 Members have signed the new clause but none of them can move it, especially when we were given an indication that it would be subject to a separate decision on the Floor of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his further point of order on this subject. I have provided the clarity for which he asks. The decision is at the discretion of the Chair.
New Clause 43
Protection of villages
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.
(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—
(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,
(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and
(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”—(Paul Holmes.)
This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Tuesday 10th June 2025
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
17:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 107 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:27 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 174 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 42—Alignment of basic and occupier’s loss payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.
(3) In section 33C (occupier’s loss payment: other land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.”
This new clause, being an amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1973, would align the occupier’s loss payments with the basic loss payments at 7.5% of the value of the party’s interest.
New clause 85—Compensation payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 30 (amount of home loss payment in England and Wales)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) omit ‘10 per cent of’;
(ii) omit ‘subject to a maximum of £15,000 and a minimum of £1,500.’
(b) omit subsections (3) and (4).
(3) In section 33A(2) (basic loss payment), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (2) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’.
(4) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land)—
(a) in subsection (2), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (3) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’;
(b) omit subsection (3).”
New clause 107—Disposal of land held by public bodies—
“(1) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Power to direct bodies to dispose of land) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In subsection (2), at end insert—
‘(C1) Steps taken in response to a direction under subsection (A1) must—
(a) include a duty to consider disposal of land for the public good, and
(b) provide that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal does not exceed £3,000,000 or 40% of unrestricted market value, whichever is greater.’
(3) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with subsection (7) of section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.’
(6) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.
(7) Subject to subsection (9), a disposal of land under is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (8).
(8) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—
(a) in paragraph 2(a)(iii), leave out ‘and’ and insert, at end—
‘(iv) the development and availability of affordable housing, and’
(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;
(c) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—
‘(xiii) a combined authority;
(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;
(xv) the Greater London Authority;
(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this subparagraph.’
(9) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.”
New clause 114—Development corporations to provide green spaces—
“A development corporation must provide or facilitate the provision of—
(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;
(b) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”
This new clause would ensure development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments.
New clause 127—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—
“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”
New clause 128—Community benefit scheme for compulsory purchase—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme for the purposes of providing members of a local community with certain benefits when a compulsory purchase order has been granted within the relevant area.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) require that, where a compulsory purchase has taken place, the equivalent of 20% of the amount for which the compulsory purchase was made must be paid into a community benefit fund;
(b) describe the—
(i) governance of, and
(ii) purposes for which sums may be payable from the fund;
(c) specify the meaning of—
(i) ‘local community’, and
(ii) ‘relevant area’
for the purposes of a scheme established under this section;
(d) specify the circumstances of compulsory purchase to which the scheme should apply; and
(e) specify the proportion of the sum to be payable into the fund by each party to the relevant compulsory purchase.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a community benefit scheme in relation to compulsory purchase. The scheme would require the equivalent of 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made to be paid into a community benefit fund by parties to the compulsory purchase.
Amendment 151, in clause 93, page 122, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after a period of twelve months from the passing of this Act has elapsed, publish a report assessing the impact of this clause on—
(a) the achievement of sustainable development, and
(b) the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State must publish a report into the success of development corporations in achieving their duty to have regard for sustainable development and climate change.
Amendment 153, page 145, line 10, leave out clause 104.
Amendment 68, in clause 104, page 145, line 22, at end insert—
“(za) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Subsection (2) also applies if an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order in relation to furthering the purposes of delivering housing targets set out in a local plan.’”
This amendment would provide that, where a compulsory purchase order is applied for to acquire land or property for the purpose of delivering housing targets set out in local plans, the prospect of planning permission being granted can be disregarded when calculating compensation (also known as “hope value”).
Amendment 88, page 145, line 22, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert ‘unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.’”
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Amendment 89, line 23, at end insert—
“(ab) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case this provision shall not apply.’”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 88 above.
Freddie van Mierlo
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 22. Active travel—cycling, walking and wheeling—is hugely beneficial for health and happiness, and I know there is wide agreement on that point in this House. I welcome the investments being made by this Government in active travel through increases to the budget for Active Travel England, but even when there is willingness and funding to progress a scheme, it can be hard to get a plan off the ground, because landowners can refuse to co-operate. Compulsory purchase orders are regularly used for road transport projects, but when it comes to active travel, local authorities are reticent.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for responding to my written parliamentary questions on this matter. On 15 May, he informed me:
“The Department for Transport has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of compulsory purchase order powers in progressing active travel schemes”.
That is somewhat surprising given the scope of this Bill, which aims to speed up infrastructure project delivery, but he did reassure me that local authorities can use CPOs for active travel. However, there is a difference between what is theoretically possible and the reality.
In Committee, this issue was raised by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who is a powerful advocate for cycling. We were informed then by the Minister for Housing and Planning that updated guidance was published in October last year, and that it will be updated following the passage of the Bill. I have been through that guidance, and I can tell the House that nothing in it refers to active travel; it is covered only in so far as it falls under the umbrella term “highway”. The problem is that those rules work fine for roads, but are insufficiently adapted for the challenges of an active travel project. Furthermore, this guidance is non-statutory and is an interpretation of current law.
The Minister also signposted me to upcoming guidance from Active Travel England. This will support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes, but it does not include consideration of CPOs. Again and again when the Minister states that there is already guidance, we see that it is insufficient and does not cover CPOs.
It is welcome news that, in response to another of my written questions, the Government have shared that future Active Travel England guidance will include case studies of the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. However, this is not enough. Active Travel England does good work, but it is not the Government and will never carry the same weight as statutory guidance. That is why new clause 22, which specifically requires such guidance to be published by Ministers, should be part of the Bill. All other options have been exhausted.
Before going further, let me make it clear that I do not believe that CPOs should be wielded lightly. It is far better to have a constructive relationships with landowners. CPOs should be a last resort, but without the threat of one in the back pocket, we are sending local authorities into negotiations with both hands tied behind their backs.
My county of Oxfordshire is hugely ambitious in its desire to reduce car journeys and roll out a county-wide strategic active travel network linking towns and villages together. In my own corner of the county, there is a clear case for the Thame to Haddenham greenway, which would link the town of Thame with the train station in Haddenham, and allow villagers in Haddenham to get safely to Thame and enjoy the town. There is widespread cross-party support for it, and I am pleased that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire are working closely together to progress the project. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), another of my constituency neighbours, for his support.
When I was a councillor, residents of the beautiful small town of Watlington told me just how valuable a cycleway between Watlington and the village of Lewknor would be. Lewknor sits just off junction 6 of the M40, and it enjoys good bus connections to London and Oxford through the Oxford tube and airport buses. An informal park and ride works well enough, but would it not be so much better if there was a cycle route covering those 2.5 miles? Yet I learned early on that the landowner has no intention of co-operating, even though an old railway would be a perfect route, and the project was stopped dead in its tracks.
It may surprise Members that the issue this new clause seeks to address has already been considered closely by our colleagues in Wales. In 2019, the Welsh Assembly, as it was still called, looked in detail at the issue. The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee made some observations within the context of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 that I think are relevant to building the case for better guidance. The committee was cross-party and chaired by an AM for the Welsh Conservatives. It received evidence from Sustrans that:
“without effective support to ensure that land is made available, key sections of route which could make everyday journeys viable could take years to be delivered, or not be delivered at all.”
Sustrans suggested that the CPO process is a block on active travel routes, as objections to CPOs may be made on the grounds that there is one or more alternative—albeit lower-grade—route options, leaving local authorities vulnerable to challenge. As a result, local authorities are discouraged from beginning a lengthy and costly CPO process. The committee received further evidence from Sustrans that:
“Greater guidance and support is needed for local authorities”.
It concluded with a recommendation that the Welsh Government should work with local authorities and other stakeholders to find ways to “unblock” the process of using CPOs to develop cycle routes.
Perhaps recognising this problem, in response to another written question, the Minister yesterday pointed me in the direction of public path construction under the Highways Act 1980 for the creation of active travel routes. Although I am grateful for his response, it raises more questions than answers, and I am sure he will be pleased to hear that I will be submitting those questions through MemberHub. I have previously worked with local groups who wanted to get rights of way registered, and it is simply not possible for the highway authority to create public paths where none already exist. The application process requires statements from multiple people showing continuous use over at least 20 years, which does not work for a route that already cannot be used due to private ownership.
Before I wrap up, let me give another shout-out to the work of the Welsh Government, who have recognised that funding for active travel can be hard to find and is often assembled piecemeal. This gives rise to a chicken-and-egg situation: why seek a CPO if there is no funding, and why get funding if there is no viable route assembled? In Wales, guidance therefore requires a compelling public interest in acquisition, but not immediate financial readiness; in contrast, in England, guidance emphasises the importance of demonstrating financial readiness. Will the Minister therefore consider following in Wales’s footsteps? I ask the Government not to dismiss my concerns around the inadequacy of the current guidance or the good work of their colleagues in Wales. A Government serious about active travel would engage with these issues, as I am sure this Government will want to do following this debate.
Finally, I will spend a few moments on other new clauses and amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The Bill removes hope value to improve the use of CPOs for some projects, but there are further projects that would benefit from a similar policy. Amendments 88 and 89 would ensure that hope value is not added to the cost of recreational facilities such as playing fields when an authority purchases the land with the intention of keeping it as a playing field. Removing hope value is particularly important in an area like Oxfordshire, where any whiff of development massively increases costs. In fact, it is one reason that so many small and medium-sized farms will be caught by the Government’s changes to agricultural property relief. If this House accepts the principle of disregarding hope value, that should also apply to the value of land for the purposes of inheritance tax for farms that remain farms.
I also support new clause 107, which would create a duty for any public body to consider the public good when selling land or property. I am aware of local organisations and good causes in my constituency that are looking for space to support their activities where land is disposed of by local authorities. It is right that local organisations benefit when public bodies sell land or properties, such as the men’s sheds movement, which seeks to improve mental health by offering practical hobbies in a space where people can meet and share skills.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak to these new clauses and amendments. I humbly ask Members across the House to support new clause 22.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is fantastic to speak in the Chamber on a subject that has been part of my career for the better part of 20 years. I started working in the construction sector as a civil engineer and finished my time working on major programmes around the world.
Planning, and particularly planning in respect of national programmes and major infrastructure, has been a headache for me for a long time. The prolonged wasteful consultation that happens on major programmes, which stops the urgency and prevents an outcome-focused approach to delivering the major infrastructure that we need, is almost like death by a thousand cuts for a lot of communities. It is death by consultation and fatigue; it means that people do not engage in the process, and it drives a culture of nimbyism rather than a culture of wanting to deliver the homes and schools—the civil and social infrastructure—that we desperately need, and that everyone across this House calls out for in their constituencies.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). He was very generous in congratulating many Members on their amendments and very constructive when he outlined his position on this piece of legislation.
I know that Members across the Chamber will be devastated to hear that this will be my last contribution on the Bill before the shadow Secretary of State makes his Third Reading speech. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I know! I wish to thank the Minister for his hard work, all the Members who contributed to our discussions, and the Clerks and the staff who gave us such amazing support throughout what I thought was a long, challenging and often frustrating Bill Committee. As a Committee, we all lived through the emotional journey of whether Charlton—a team that the Minister passionately supports—would be promoted. As I said to him during the Committee, he is welcome down to the Den for Charlton’s next match against Millwall. I will even let him sit on our side of the stadium.
As I have said, I wish to thank all members of the Bill Committee for their contributions. I also congratulate those, such as the hon. Member for Northampton South, who have tabled amendments to the Bill—we have had a weird, wonderful and varied number of new clauses and amendments. As the hon. Member said, finding them to be in scope of the legislation was quite challenging at times, but I trusted the Clerks to make the right decision and therefore most of them stood.
I look forward to briefly outlining the position of the Opposition on some of the new clauses and amendments before the House this afternoon. Only a small part of the Bill will be discussed this afternoon. The majority of mainstream clauses that we are opposed to were in the frustrating and rather emotive session last night. I look forward to challenging the Minister, who might, I think, look slightly less grumpy than he did last night, and to pleading with him to accept some of our amendments. Then again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I may be dreaming in that regard.
It is clear that the Minister and the Government have a driving mission in this legislation. The Opposition recognise that, but he knows that we have many disagreements on how to achieve the ambitions he has outlined. We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill—through the Bill Committee, Second Reading, Report and, later this afternoon, Third Reading— that we have many core, fundamental and principled disagreements with some of the measures the Minister has proposed. Although we agree that we need to build more houses, that we need to see an infrastructure-first approach and that we need to unlock some development, we have a fundamental disagreement with the centralising zeal of both the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to get us to where they want us to go. We also believe that the Minister could have looked more favourably on some of the new clauses and amendments that were tabled not just by my party, but by other parties in the House and by some of his own Back Benchers, who have proposed well-intentioned and well-meaning measures.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Like others, I sat in the Chamber yesterday listening to the Government voting down so many amendments. We had an opportunity to do something really good with this Bill, and we have missed it. Does the shadow Minister agree that, if we are not careful, we will end up with a piece of legislation that will drive a coach and horses through our communities and our green belt and that does nothing for nature, for farmers, for communities and for the very people who want those things?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend, not uncharacterist-ically, has made an excellent point and I entirely agree with her. As I said yesterday, the Minister has had a unique opportunity with this Bill—a detailed and potentially groundbreaking Bill—to fundamentally change the planning processes in this country for the better. He told us many times on the Bill Committee that he was reflecting on some of the genuine points and key concerns that Members from across the House brought to him. However, those reflections amounted to nothing. He consistently said that he would reflect on the genuine principles that we brought forward, but we have seen no changes in the legislation. We have seen no acceptance of our thoughts and no efforts to change this legislation to reflect the genuine concerns that so many of us brought to this place.
The Liberal Democrats tabled many amendments and new clauses. As the Minister knows, I very rarely praise the Liberal Democrats on the Floor of the House or in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and I am not likely to do so going forward. However, what I would say is that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled some really good and principled amendments that would have this improved this legislation, particularly on chalk streams and on some of our other concerns.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that Governments of all stripes tend not to accept amendments in this House, enormously to the frustration of colleagues from across the Chamber who put them forward. Will he join me in encouraging the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to take the opportunity to think again on some of the amendments if the Bill is delayed in the other place? All of us want to see more houses built, but in a way that works with communities. As my hon. Friend said, there is an opportunity here to do something historic, so let us make sure that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords—if that is what is required—the Government listen and act.
Paul Holmes
I have put it on the record, both here and in the Public Bill Committee, that I think this is a principled Minister who knows his stuff. Therefore, he should not be afraid to open his arms and embrace collective responsibility across the House to make sure that this legislation is better, and that it serves everybody in this country. He needs to make sure that the key principles that he wants to achieve are actually achievable. I say very strongly, as I did yesterday, that the key things that he wants to achieve, such as these housing numbers, will not be achieved through this legislation. He still has the opportunity to work with Members of all parties to make sure that this is a really important piece of legislation.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Emeritus Professor Sarah Nield, the chairman of the New Forest Association, writes:
“The current planning and environmental frameworks have played a crucial role in protecting the New Forest’s special qualities. However, the proposed changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, particularly those aimed at streamlining planning approvals, accelerating infrastructure projects and weakening environmental safeguards, would seriously undermine those protections.”
This is not a political statement; it is a statement of concern for our most delicate and valuable rural areas.
Paul Holmes
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The expert he quotes is from Hampshire, so as a Hampshire MP I am bound to say that she is spot on. My right hon. Friend is spot on too.
Many Members made contributions yesterday in which they raised concern about the Minister’s response to some of the environmental concerns that were raised, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), but also by the Liberal Democrats and Conservative Back Benchers. There are concerns that environmental protections will be diminished under this legislation. The Minister seemed, quite frankly, to not take those seriously. The quote my right hon. Friend read out is a very good example of why there are many people who are experts through their professions and who day to day live their ambitions to ensure that the environment is improved.
I note that the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), has said, “When did you start caring about the environment?”. [Interruption.] She can intervene on me if she wants to, or if she wants to contribute to the debate she might want to bob.
As I said, Members across the House have made very well-intentioned appeals to the Minister. I hope that between now and when he winds up he will open up his arms and ensure that he looks seriously at the amendments, not just from my party but from all parties, that seek to strengthen this legislation.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that where CPO powers already exist, there is a massive lack of trust between landowners and the acquiring authority? All too often a proposal will be put on the table, and an agreement will be reached, but then the legal agreement that actually comes along is totally different. Does he agree that there needs to be a CPO code of practice that gives landowners much greater protection?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is right. I would also say that there needs to be a code of practice for our tenant farmers. Two of our amendments, which I will speak to shortly, seek to meet the challenges that our farming and agricultural communities face with CPO. I will elaborate on that later, and my hon. Friend is welcome to intervene on me then if he does not find my explanation satisfactory.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I totally agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just said. So many of our constituents, particularly those in the farming community, are already feeling totally let down by this Government, and they feel that this is a further steamroller on their assets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might want to show our farming community, who they are already putting under immense pressure, that they are on their side on some of these issues, and probably for the first time in a very long time? So much has already been done to this community—and it does feel like things are being done to them rather than that they are being listened to as part of any process?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pleaded with the Minister at the beginning of my remarks to meet the concerns of not only Conservative Members or the Green party or Liberal Democrats but key people who have communicated through consultations on this legislation that this will harm their livelihoods and make their lives worse.
New clause 85, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), would deliver a fairer, more just system of compensation for individuals who are forced to give up their homes or land through compulsory purchase. The current framework under the Land Compensation Act 1973 sets arbitrary caps and percentages on home loss and occupier’s loss payments, which often fail to reflect the true value of what is being lost. By aligning compensation more closely with the full market value of a person’s interest in their property, the new clause acknowledges the deep emotional, financial and practical disruption that compulsory purchase can cause. It would ensure that those displaced by development were not left worse off or unfairly penalised. In doing so, it would uphold the principle that the burden of public interest projects should not fall disproportionately on individual homeowners or landowners, helping to maintain trust and fairness in the planning system. The Minister could easily get behind that, as could other parties. Given some of the real challenges we have talked about that CPOs bring to people, the Minister should be slightly more open to amendments to the Bill that would make their lives easier.
I turn briefly to new clause 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which would align compensation payments more fairly and transparently for occupiers affected by compulsory purchase by amending the Land Compensation Act 1973. It would increase occupier’s loss payments for agricultural and other land from 2.5% to 7.5%, bringing them more in line with basic loss payments. Additionally, it would remove arbitrary caps and fixed percentages on home loss payments and instead base compensation on the full market value of the interest in the dwelling. The change would ensure that those displaced or impacted by compulsory purchase would receive equitable and just compensation reflecting the true value of their property and losses. By modernising and standardising compensation provisions, we would argue that the new clause would support fairness for land-owners and occupiers, making the compulsory purchase process more balanced and respectful of individual rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly mentioned in his intervention.
I turn briefly to other new clauses. New clause 114, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require development corporations to provide or facilitate the provision of green spaces in their developments, including a variety of green areas such as
“private gardens, balconies, and community gardens”.
Furthermore, it would impose a duty on development corporations to ensure the ongoing care and maintenance of such green spaces. I hope that the hon. Member realises that I am doing him a favour by reading out his new clause.
The Opposition recognise the well-intentioned motivation behind the new clause, but I gently say to the Lib Dem spokesman, who yesterday rightly—this is no criticism—made a big play about the role of local authorities, elected councillors and local plans, that we believe that this area should be dealt with purely by our local government colleagues, councillors and planning committees. We should continue to give them the power to serve and react to our constituents’ wishes. We are keen that local authorities such as mine in Fareham and Eastleigh as well as those across the whole of the country have the power to do that for the people they serve. That was a key disagreement between us and the Government—the Liberal Democrats agreed with us—on that provision in the legislation. The Opposition believe that new clause 114 is not required in the legislation because local authorities can provide for that themselves.
I turn briefly to new clause 22 tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). Although it is a well-intentioned new clause to promote active travel infrastructure, it risks weakening the careful balance that compulsory purchase powers must maintain between public benefit and individual property rights. By pre-emptively deeming such projects to be in the public interest and lowering the evidential threshold for route justification, the new clause could enable the use of compulsory purchase orders without sufficient scrutiny or community consent, which raises legitimate concerns about fairness, proportionality and transparency, particularly in cases where landowners could lose property without rigorous demonstration that the chosen route was necessary and the best option available. Given the Conservatives’ long-held position on CPOs and the overreaching powers that the Secretary of State and the Minister want to award themselves in terms of CPOs, we do not think it would be right to give those same powers to local authorities or some of the new authorities outlined in the legislation.
Freddie van Mierlo
Is the shadow Minister in favour of using CPOs for road projects? The new clause would simply equalise the opportunity to use CPOs to deliver active travel with their use for road projects.
Paul Holmes
I understand, and I say this with respect to the hon. Gentleman: I think the new clause is well intentioned, but roads are absolutely necessary. Sometimes, on the CPO powers currently allocated in existing legislation, even though we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister wants to put forward, we believe fundamentally in the rights and responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate routes in localities. We agree that in some cases, as in my constituency, which covers half of Fareham and half of Eastleigh, there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities. However, we fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers, which we do not believe should be allocated, in new clause 22.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will the shadow Minister explain why the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created vast new powers for development corporations, if he believes that all such powers should be discharged by local authorities?
Paul Holmes
I knew that was coming from the hon. Gentleman. The last Government put forward many things in legislation that we are looking at again. We have been very clear about that, and I have been clear about what this new Conservative party stands for. We said throughout the Committee stage that we do not support the extension of powers within CPOs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you are looking at me to move on. I will do so and restrict the number of interventions I take, as I am about to wind up. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would bring universal acclaim once again, including from my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I thank him.
We have had a robust debate in this House on this groundbreaking piece of legislation. As I have said repeatedly, much to the Minister’s embarrassment— I hope he takes this in the genuine spirit in which it is said—even though we have fundamental disagreements on the measures that he is taking to get what he wants later on, we know that he has a well-intentioned and principled approach. The Labour party won the election and we know that. However, that will not stop us having principled and robust arguments around our disagreements with the methods by which he wants to get there.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) indicated in her intervention, the Minister had—and still has—a chance to listen to some of the well-intentioned, educated and intellectual amendments and new clauses that have been proposed by all parties to strengthen the legislation and make it better.
Paul Holmes
I will briefly, but he will let me finish this point. The proposals have been put forward by all parties to ensure that the legislation is better and more efficient, but fundamentally serves the people who send us here and who want to see differences in the way in which their country is run. We argue that this legislation does not do that, we argue that this is a massive centralising overreach advocated by the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we stand fundamentally against it.
Paul Holmes
I will give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) first because he is a sparring partner from the Public Bill Committee—I hope he does not have another quote—and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Luke Murphy
Unfortunately, I have another quote, which is from yesterday. With regard to the Opposition’s amendments, can the shadow Minister point to a single measure that would increase the number of homes? All the changes directed at the Bill seem to be designed to impede development. I also want to ask him what he meant yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said,
“The last Government built the largest number of houses in history.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 693.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful if I emphasised that we are not here to relitigate yesterday’s debate; we are here to debate the amendments that have been tabled today. I am sure the hon. Member will restrict his comments to that.
Paul Holmes
I was expecting so much from the hon. Gentleman, given how he intervened on me consistently in Committee with an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career up until this point. I know, as a county neighbour, that he is a dedicated and assiduous Member of Parliament who genuinely stands up for his constituents. I will say to him that my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate. Over 1 million homes were approved, and many more first-time buyers were given the chance of owning a home, under the last Government.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the entertainment he provided throughout the Bill Committee’s proceedings, and for his generosity in the Tea Room. Talking about reflection, however, would he agree that when one looks in the mirror, one does not always like what one sees? The Minister has reflected on many of the proposals that were brought forward in Committee and he has clearly decided that those things would be better left in the national planning policy framework, as opposed to being in this legislation. Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that we do not have more young people buying and owning their own homes now than we did in 2010, and that the reason for that is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to contribute later. Interventions really do need to be shorter than this.
Paul Holmes
I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise—
Paul Holmes
I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years.
What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one.
If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence.
As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards—[Interruption.] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course.
I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The shadow Minister will know that we are debating the amendments that have been selected today, on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Perhaps his final minute could be restricted to those subjects.
Paul Holmes
I heed your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Development corporations are an over-centralisation of the measures that the Minister is proposing, and planning committees will lose some of their powers to them. The Minister has not moved once on that. The Bill will do more harm than good to the power of local councils and our constituents, and it will diminish environmental standards.
We stand against the legislation because of the Government’s intransigence. We will continue to stand up for environmental standards and for local authorities; it is a shame that the Minister has not done so. That is why we will not support the legislation.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England—[Interruption.] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development.
Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty.
As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
To bring the hon. Member back to the compulsory purchase measures in part 5 of the Bill, which we are discussing today, many residents along the A1 corridor have been severely impacted by the Government’s decision not to continue the development of the A1. Will he consider supporting our new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%? That would help many of his constituents along the A1 corridor. With the new clause in place, they would receive bigger payments for compulsory purchase orders along the A1 corridor.
David Smith
All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.
On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will keep reiterating the point: we are not going to relitigate yesterday’s debate, and we should be discussing the amendments that have been tabled on compulsory purchase orders, development corporations and extraterritorial environmental concerns. The hon. Gentleman might like to think of a way to weave those topics into his remarks, rather than rehashing either yesterday’s debate or a Second Reading speech.
David Smith
I am simply trying to make the point that many of the amendments proposed seem to set up a false dichotomy between the ability to develop our country, including with housing, and to protect the natural environment.
I will give one example of that. Norham parish council in my constituency is trying to open up a plot of land for a small development, because it sees the value of young families moving into the village. That development would go some way towards securing the future of the first school and the community at large. It is not helpful for the parish council to be caught up in red tape, which diminishes the possibility of that development happening. A recent local report said that nearly one in two businesses in rural Northumberland cited a shortage of affordable local housing for staff as a key barrier to business.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend recognise the value that development corporations have brought to new towns such as Harlow? New towns are a great example of where we can have affordable housing but also the environmental aspect, with green fingers and green wedges.
David Smith
Absolutely. There need not be this false dichotomy between what development corporations can do and the protection of our natural environment.
Rural Great Britain is crying out for “little and often” development. We can get this right, and the Bill is trying to deliver that by cutting through labyrinthine planning rules so that we can have more homes and more infrastructure. If there is no one left in rural communities, the natural world will be without the stewards and protectors that it requires.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
I reiterate my thanks to all members of the Bill Committee and to the Clerks and officials, who I know had plenty to be getting on with during our sittings.
I am grateful for the support of my colleagues for the amendments I have tabled. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 22 on active travel, and new clause 114 on open spaces in new towns and other development corporation developments, and our amendments 88 and 89 on recreational land, form our key proposals for this part of the Bill. All of them urge the Government to go further when it comes to releasing land value for infrastructure that meets community and environmental needs.
On part 5 of the Bill generally, our compulsory purchase proposals included that where major permissions of over 100 homes are not built out, greater powers to acquire that land for housing would be given to councils in a new “use it or lose it” planning permission. I was delighted to hear in the news that the Government are taking up that idea—although I gained a slightly different impression in Committee—even if the promise of more conditionally approved compulsory purchase orders will not give councils the same strong “use it or lose it” power that our amendment would have.
Wary of your strictures to stay on topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will briefly allow me to add my welcome to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) of the fact that, following the introduction of his private Member’s Bill, the Government, to their credit, have agreed that all new homes will be fitted with solar panels as standard—his sunshine Bill really is “winning here”—bringing zero emissions a step closer, after all the hard work of Liberal Democrat and Labour Ministers on zero-carbon homes, before the Conservatives cancelled the programme in 2015.
I turn to our amendments on compulsory purchase and development corporations. Our community-led approach is about the essential infrastructure people want to see being put in place ahead of the building of new homes. Clause 104 could support that by helping the building of council and social homes. It would reward landowners with a fair value, rather than inflated prices from an imaginary planning permission no one has ever applied for, as set out in section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Our manifesto supports that for the delivery of council houses, and we are supportive of steps that ensure that landowners are awarded fair compensation, rather than inflated prices, for specific types of development scheme.
However, at my meeting with farmers in North Curry on Friday, there was concern about the idea—possibly as a result of rumours—that under the clause, farmers would lose land to Natural England so that it could carry out its environmental delivery plans, and in return would get only a reduced payment. I am not convinced that is what the clause does, but family farms have had a tough time recently. They provide food for our tables, and they have been hit hard by risky trade deals with Australia and New Zealand under the last Government, followed by a new inheritance tax on small family farms, the underspend of the agricultural budget, and the closing of the sustainable farming initiative.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman just said that CPO powers are, to the landlord, an inconvenience. I would say that having a home, farm or business taken is absolute devastation, not an inconvenience.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman knows he is talking absolute rubbish because those are not the words I said at all. What I said was that the occupiers’ loss payments “are made to recognise inconvenience”. He may have misheard me. I did not say that farmers were an inconvenience or anything of the kind, and Hansard will reflect that. As the proposed payments would clobber the taxpayer by making them pay double the land’s value, we cannot support the new clause.
On the contrary, we say that people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving local people with little to show for the sacrifices that they are making for new construction projects. There are further areas where the maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. Under amendments 88 and 89, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), hope value would not have to be paid in CPO cases where land is being acquired for sport or recreation. Her new clause 107, relating to disposals of land by public bodies, would ensure that top dollar did not have to be paid where the Secretary of State certified that the disposal was for “public good”; in those cases, a discounted price could be paid.
As we have heard, another Liberal Democrat amendment, new clause 22 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), would provide a “compelling case” justification for compulsorily purchasing land for new footpaths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Haddenham and Thame parkway station as I do, I congratulate him on this key proposal, which would really help his constituents.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Local authorities could really do with compulsory purchase powers for cycling and walking paths. The Devon local cycling and walking infrastructure plan that came out last December said that
“certain private sector development…may come forward sooner, or later, than anticipated”.
Local authorities do not have any control over when they can put in walking and cycling paths. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment correct that?
Gideon Amos
The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame would definitely provide a much stronger justification for a CPO that enabled footpaths and cycle paths to be made. As he said, it would create a more level playing field with the compulsory purchase powers already in use for highways. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). New clause 22 is a very logical amendment, and there is no logical reason why Ministers should reject it, although that has not stopped them so far; I hope that they break the habit of a lifetime.
We are clear in our amendments that communities should lead, and should be in the driving seat, when it comes to development and land. When people see the infrastructure for which they have been calling, it drives more community consent for the homes we need and the communities that we want to build. We need infrastructure for nature as well. Good places to live have gardens, open spaces, parks and meadows, so our new clause 114 would charge development corporations with ensuring those things.
I remind the shadow Minister that development corporations discharged planning powers under Conservative Governments, just as under Labour and coalition Governments. It is not always local authorities that deliver development. It is therefore right to ensure that development corporations discharge their duties as effectively as possible. If and when they build new towns and major developments, as the Government want them to, they must ensure open spaces for nature—spaces that work for people and our environment. Amendment 151 would require them to report regularly on their environmental and climate duties.
The first garden cities were supported by a Liberal Government and built without felling a single tree, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) confirmed yesterday. Their successes were emulated, and they are still emulated in the best developments, right up until today. The vision was a radical one of bringing people and the environment, town and country, and nature and humanity closer together. Those pioneers ensured healthier places to live in, an objective that our new clause 6, promoted by the Town and Country Planning Association, would insert in the planning objectives. Today, however, we face the much greater challenge of saving nature, as well as community cohesion and consent, before it is too late.
These amendments may not pass, but make no mistake: there are no greater threats to our way of life than the breakdown of trust, which risks destroying communities, and the breakdown of our environment, which is destroying nature. Those are the challenges that our amendments would tackle head-on, and I humbly urge Members to support them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Once more unto the breach. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 68 in my name, and I hope to find as much common ground with Ministers as possible. I fully agree with the Government that we need bold reform of the planning system to tackle the housing crisis, and that is what even stronger reform of CPOs would deliver.
We have substantially more homes per capita than we did 50 years ago, yet over that time, house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878%. The Minister for Housing and Planning was right to argue that housing supply is not a panacea for affordability. There have been 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households in England since 2015, so the Deputy Prime Minister was right to argue that there is plenty of housing already, but not enough for the people who desperately need it. The fundamental planning reform we need is an end to the developer-led model, which Shelter estimates is on track to deliver just 5,190 social rented homes per year, despite those being the very properties that we need to reduce waiting lists and get families out of temporary accommodation.
The housing crisis is one of inequality. We must move away from reliance on the vested interests of private developers, whose priorities will never align with the public good. Amendment 68 is intended to ensure just that. Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. Between 1995 and 2022, land values rose by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, which amounts to more than 60% of the UK’s net worth. The amendment would build on Government proposals to give councils the land assembly powers necessary to acquire sites to meet local housing need at current use value, and so would do away with speculative hope value prices, which put taxpayers’ money into wealthy landowners’ pockets. That would finally make it affordable for local authorities to deliver the new generation of council homes that is the true solution to this nation’s housing crisis.
If we coupled strengthened compulsory purchase powers with a more strategic approach to site identification and acquisition, we could not only increase the amount of affordable housing built, but achieve genuinely sustainable development, and would no longer be beholden to whatever ill-suited proposals developers chose to bring forward.
The failings of our developer-led planning system are writ large across my constituency. In the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire delivered a significant expansion of housing supply—3,973 and 7,948 net additional dwellings respectively. What happened to local authority housing waiting lists over the same period? They rose from 1,612 to 2,449 in North Hertfordshire and from 2,005 to 2,201 in East Hertfordshire. There have been more than enough new homes in my area to clear housing waiting lists, but the affordable homes we need are simply not delivered by a profit-driven model. A further fact stands out: over that decade, during which housing supply and waiting lists grew simultaneously in North and East Hertfordshire, not a single council house was built in either authority.
It is time for a genuine alternative to this farce. I urge the Government to look closely at the amendment, and to push onwards to create a planning system that once again puts people before profit.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I will speak to the amendments relating to compulsory purchase powers, and to my new clause 128. I note that much of the Bill and most of the clauses will not affect Scotland, but, unusually for a planning Bill, there are components that do affect it.
Before I talk about the detail of my concerns about compulsory purchase powers, I want to set out a little of the context, and say why the issue is exercising so many of my constituents. I am privileged to represent the Scottish Borders—the place I call home. It is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, but it is under attack. The net-zero-at-all-costs agenda of this UK Labour Government, backed by the SNP in Edinburgh, is causing huge concern to my constituents. Massive pylons, solar farms, wind farms and battery storage units are ruining the Scottish Borders as we know them, and compulsory purchase powers are a key part of delivering many of those projects.
Wendy Morton
When it comes to infrastructure, such as battery energy storage systems, it is not just the Scottish Borders that are affected, but areas like mine, Aldridge-Brownhills in the west midlands. I support what my hon. Friend says about this feeling like encroachment, and about increasing compulsory purchase powers. Where will it end?
John Lamont
I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns. Ultimately, this is about choices. The choice that this Government and the Scottish Government are making is whether we protect our natural environment, and the rural communities that have sustained food production for many years, or turn them into an industrial wasteland. The compulsory purchase powers in the Bill that affect my constituency in Scotland will affect many similar communities in England.
My constituents in the Scottish Borders have had their fair share of new developments. In the Scottish Borders, the countryside is where we live. It is not some distant, remote area that is occasionally visited by tourists from Edinburgh or London; it is the place we call home. Compulsory purchase powers must be exercised with appropriate checks and balances in order to protect our communities, whether in Scotland or in other parts of the UK.
I now turn specifically to the amendment that stands in my name, new clause 128, which deals with compulsory purchase and the community benefit related to it. We all know that when compulsory purchase takes place, it is difficult and often devastating for those who are directly affected. Too often, though, we fail to recognise the impact on the wider community, especially when it comes to new energy infrastructure. We have to improve the relationship between those affected and those acquiring the land. Compulsory purchase can be a complex and intimidating process.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about choices, but this is also about fairness. The compulsory purchase powers contained in part 5 of the Bill disregard any hope value over and above agricultural value, which is not fair at all for those landowners who are having their land compulsorily acquired. If my hon. Friend’s new clause were accepted, the 20% to which he refers would be 20% of the agricultural value rather than the market value, as the Government have stipulated, so less money would be going into the benefit scheme. Would it not be better if the Government were advocating market value for compulsory purchase, rather than disregarding it in favour of agricultural value?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. I am sure he will speak to those points further when he contributes later. We should be protecting the market value and not doing anything to interfere with the market—not least because if my new clause were accepted, it would improve the community benefit fund, which in turn would benefit the local residents who are directly affected by these types of projects. If the Bill could be improved in this way, it would be better for the people who live in rural communities, such as those in the Scottish Borders.
As we saw again yesterday, this UK Labour Government have U-turned a lot over the past few months. I hope they will take this opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House so that we can protect our beautiful environment, protect nature, and do better for rural communities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I will address three amendments that stand in my name: amendments 88 and 89, which go together and relate to hope value, and new clause 107, which relates to the disposal of public land.
Amendments 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple yet important change to the Bill. They would extend the circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order to include playing fields and recreational facilities. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues warmly welcome the important changes in the Bill. Ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process for the purpose of building more affordable homes, so that hope value no longer over-inflates land prices for acquiring authorities. However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. As such, my amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields in these provisions when an acquiring authority—for instance, a local authority—is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility. They would ensure that hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable and helping to boost grassroots sports provision in communities up and down the country.
We in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, St Margarets and Whitton are incredibly fortunate to have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis and much more. Girls’ and women’s football is just one example of the continued growth in grassroots sports in my constituency; my own daughter plays with the growing number of girls’ teams at Whitton Wanderers, and Twickenham Cygnets now boasts over 300 girls and has 40 women—Twickenham Swans—on its books. However, they are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the pitch space to train and play matches. This problem affects many clubs across the country, and certainly right across the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. At the same time, we have the absolute scandal of Udney Park playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for more than a decade, with successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be rightly prevented from developing it; that precious site has numerous protections attached to it.
The brilliant Udney Park Community Fields Foundation —a community group in my constituency led by Jonathan Dunn, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports—has repeatedly bid for the site to bring the playing fields back into community use. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell the playing fields, but has not engaged with the foundation at a realistic playing fields valuation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well-protected site does not look feasible. Extending the Bill’s provisions to playing fields to allow hope value to be disregarded for a compulsory purchase order could allow such sites to be acquired by the local authority or another public body.
Richmond council, like many other local authorities, is hardly awash with cash, but simply having that provision in law would provide leverage for community groups when they have to negotiate with developers, as we have seen in the case of Udney Park. I am certain that Udney Park is not the only example where this is happening. I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory. He rejected them on the following basis:
“Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2025; c. 489.]
I say that sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health, and he said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value.
Just yesterday, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the Government
“are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sports across the UK.”
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a brilliant speech last night at an event attended by many Members in this place to launch the inspirational Lionesses’ campaign to defend their European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sports and extending opportunity to every community. She has announced £100 million of investment in grassroots sports facilities, which is extremely welcome.
The change proposed through my amendments would help Ministers to achieve the important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny. It would not encroach on the principle that the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest, given that Ministers have so strongly and correctly championed the growth of grassroots sport across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendments would apply solely to land that is already sports field or recreational land, where there is local need for that sports and recreational facility and it is at risk of loss to speculative development.
It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply in such circumstances, so it defies all logic that Ministers have not embraced this change and that they continue to oppose it. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister. I hope he will at least commit to engaging further on this issue as the Bill moves to the other place. Perhaps he will meet me to discuss it, rather than dismissing it completely.
Let me turn to new clause 107, which is also in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the dire need for more housing across our country. The Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, so it was disappointing to see Labour Members vote against our amendment 15 last night to write a social housing target into law. One important way to secure sites for social and affordable housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies such as mine, with its royal park, a river and other important protected parks and spaces, sites are few and far between, yet week in, week out I see cases in my inbox and at my constituency surgeries of families on the social housing waiting list for years, with little hope of getting out of desperately overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation.
I am incredibly proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond council has consistently sought to repurpose, and sell below market value, sites that it owns but no longer needs to provide for more social homes from which families in my constituency can benefit. The council has done this despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly other public bodies do not feel able to do the same, whether they are national Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, key public services such as the Metropolitan police, or arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price as they can when selling assets that they no longer need in order to be able to invest in frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim, but it prices social housing providers, and other public service providers, out of the market, while losing assets from the public sector balance sheet at the same time.
New clause 107 would fill the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal in the public bodies included and is not properly used to allow all public sector bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit, whether that is for social housing or for much-needed community infrastructure like health facilities or a community centre. Not only would it extend that provision to all public bodies; it would go further still by imposing a duty on all public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good.
This wide-ranging new clause builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament, when I worked with a succession of Conservative Housing Ministers to secure a change in the then Bill, which became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, that included police authorities under existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born of frustration about the fact that the disused Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. A local housing association and the Park Road GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor, as well as much-needed social housing on the floors above. This Government think that all members of the public are blockers, but I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market we can obtain the GP surgery and housing that our community desperately need at a reasonable price, which will almost certainly not be as high as private developers can offer.
I secured the legislative basis to achieve that ambition in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but in many other cases the provision is not there or is not used. Furthermore, the amount below market value for which some public sector bodies can dispose of their assets has not been updated since 2003. New clause 107 seeks to address that anomaly, although I note that the Conservative Government made a commitment to consulting on and reviewing the amount—something that did not happen before they left office, and something that the present Government have not implemented since they took power last year.
The Chancellor herself has previously said that surplus Government land is a
“huge untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation of homeowners.”
I warmly welcomed the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for house building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land, but we need both the legislative basis for public sector disposals below market value and the incentives to achieve those sales. I do not blame the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for wanting to get top dollar for Teddington police station, especially when I read about the cuts that he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury when it comes to proper funding for the community policing that the Government have promised.
I say to Ministers that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies, and financial incentives from the Treasury for them to repurpose or sell their assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services that our country desperately needs, not by ripping up our green belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we repurpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Robbie Moore
I rise to speak about new clause 127 and amendment 153, both of which are in my name.
Compulsory purchase is a highly emotive and highly controversial subject. Indeed, much of yesterday’s debate was taken up by discussion of precisely the new CPO powers that the Bill will grant to Natural England and local authorities. The fact that under the Bill a farmer in Keighley can be told how to use his land, on pain of a CPO, as a result of a development in Kent is complete and utter madness, but that is exactly the intention of the Bill. No matter where someone owns land, they may be put at detriment by a scheme that is taking place elsewhere. That is exactly what the Government intend to do through the additional CPO powers: to give Natural England—an organisation with which I have huge frustration and which, dare I say it, is not accountable robustly to a Minister—more power to use compulsory purchase orders.
Wendy Morton
I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations with Natural England. Does he agree that it is a bit strange that we have a Government who say they want to reduce the number of quangos, but who have reduced it by one and introduced 27? In this Bill, they are giving more powers to an unelected quango, which risks doing further untold damage to our green fields, our open spaces and our farmland.
Robbie Moore
That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.
The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.
That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers.
Robbie Moore
But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.
Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the flaws of the Bill, which his amendments attempt to address, is that it overreaches not only in attacking property rights in this country and interfering with the market, but in taking away key aspects of democratic accountability? That is why so many of our constituents across the United Kingdom are so concerned about what the Bill attempts to do.
Robbie Moore
That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his speech against all the things he voted for under the last Government, but I am confused by Opposition Members. Is there no limit to the amount of taxpayers’ money they would give to landowners, rather than to councils so that they can build social housing, roads and the other public facilities we need?
Robbie Moore
Here we have the Liberal Democrats setting out their position, and it is a good that they are doing so because I fundamentally believe that if a farmer owns land and the state seizes control of it through compulsory purchase powers, it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with the market value, not the agricultural value. I know the Liberal Democrats have set out their position that they fully support just agricultural value being paid, not what the land is really worth at market value, and I hope all farmers across the country understand the Liberal Democrat position, which is to disregard that hope value.
I want to know whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment on the Valuation Office Agency. As we go through the compulsory purchase process, there will be many a challenge—quite rightly—by land agents or valuers acting on behalf of those many landowners to understand the true value of their land. I fear that the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny there will rightly be of the Government’s position.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend has set out some of the challenges the Bill presents for the farming community. Part 5 provides authorities with significant compulsory purchase powers, but with no definition or limits whatsoever. For our farming community, this all comes on top of the changes to agricultural property relief, business property relief and inheritance tax, and the increased national insurance for employers. What is it about the farming community that this Government do not like?
Robbie Moore
The farming community faces so much uncertainty not only as a result of the Bill, but because of all the additional pressures, whether it is the family farm tax or the increases in overheads, that are hitting cash flow this year.
That is why my new clause 127 and amendment 153 —and, indeed, Opposition new clause 42—are so important. It is frustrating that the Government are just throwing out these amendments and are not willing to consider them, because they have been put forward in the best interests of our farming community and our landowners, so that the state does not have the control that this Government are willing to give it. I urge the Government to consider these very practical, sensible amendments to the Bill.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am happy to speak today in support of amendment 151, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Our planning system needs reform, but the approach the Government are taking in the Bill is sadly all wrong and desperately needs to be amended.
Amendment 151 would compel the Secretary of State to produce a report that addresses a key principle of my concern with the current house building regime, which is good design. I am pleased that in drafting clause 93, the Government have recognised that good design goes hand in hand with sustainable development, but we need to see evidence that the houses we are getting are actually being designed and built better if we are to be confident that we are not just getting more of the same from the big developers.
No one has ever told me that they want more energy-inefficient chocolate box homes, buried deep in rabbit warren estates and built to maximise developer profit. What we see too often in North Norfolk is homes that people do not like and cannot afford, but which they must queue up to buy because there is no other option. I was horrified recently to find that developers had put covenants on an entire estate to ban branded vehicles from parking on private driveways—they might as well have marketed those homes as for rich second home owners only. That is not how we want to design our communities of the future.
The Government are already taking steps towards good design by accepting the provisions of the sunshine Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which mandates solar panels on new builds. It can sometimes seem that politicians ignore good ideas if they come from Opposition parties, so I am particularly pleased that the Government have come to share the Liberal Democrats’ view that having solar panels on new builds is just common sense.
It is not just about the homes themselves; good design is also about how and where we build new houses. People are growing tired, rightly, of estates that are designed around car use, rather than putting public transport or walking and cycling at the heart of design. We can encourage more people to walk or use public transport if we design developments in a way that makes it easy and attractive to do just that. When we use scheme design to encourage walking and cycling rather than car use, access to public transport rather than car parks, and routes that take people to town centres rather than bypasses, we see the benefits right across society: in reduced pressure on health services, in better natural environments and in more cohesive, resilient communities.
Good design will also support the second key aim that amendment 151 seeks to have the Government report on, which is tackling the climate emergency. It is simple: a development that means fewer fossil fuel-powered cars are required to be on the roads will be better for the planet than one that does not.
I do not think that people in North Norfolk are unreasonable in asking for developments to be affordable to buy or rent and sustainable and low cost to heat and power, and to feel connected to communities and not a burden on them. My constituents want to end the housing crisis, but they do not want it done through unaccountable, top-down targets. They want a design-led approach to planning and infrastructure development. I hope the Government hear our proposals to achieve that and support them today.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, we have seen the consequences of house building without the infrastructure to match. This Bill is such a missed opportunity: the Government are repeating the same top-down, developer-led approach that has already failed, sidelining communities, undermining local plans and cutting local councillors out of key decisions. That is why I rise today to speak in support of some amendments.
The current system often sees vital infrastructure lagging or not being delivered for years after houses have been occupied because the delivery of infrastructure is left to developers that submit viability studies and variations of conditions. We need a planning system that puts people and places first, and that includes high-quality active travel infrastructure.
We are lucky in Stratford-on-Avon to have the much cherished Greenway, a traffic-free five-mile cycle path and bridleway, but we also need cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in high-volume streets in our towns so that children and young people can travel to school safely and families can access services, while reducing car journeys and keeping people fit and healthy.
In the rural areas of my constituency, the Two Shires Greenway group is campaigning for an ambitious cycling route along a disused railway. These will link villages to the towns of Stratford and Alcester in my constituency and then further afield to Evesham. But beyond the feasibility studies, the fragmentation of land ownership is an issue. That is why I support new clause 22, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), which strengthens powers to compulsorily purchase land for active travel routes.
Richard Foord
That sounds similar to the Otter Trail in my patch, which would link Feniton to King’s School at Ottery St Mary. Does my hon. Friend agree that these new active travel paths will enable young people to get to school safely?
Manuela Perteghella
Yes, absolutely. We need to ensure that our new generation of young people are fit and healthy and able to cycle. That would also reduce carbon emissions in our towns. We need high-quality cycling infrastructure to ensure that all this happens.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is making a principled speech. Can she explain to the House why she does not think the current local plan regime is adequate to ensure that we have sustainable travel routes? Bringing CPOs into such areas would be regressive to people’s rights and responsibilities.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Let me take the case of the disused railway in my constituency. It is not in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented. We can fund as many feasibility studies as we want to invest in cycling infrastructure, but an incidental green space is not used by landowners at all. If we compulsorily purchased such land—obviously we would offer compensation—we could have high-quality cycling infrastructure that would link up villages to the major towns, so that people can attend GP appointments, schools and so on. The paths are also off-road—away from our gridlocked roads.
Development must come with green and wild spaces, not just tarmac and bricks. That is why I strongly support new clause 114, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), which would ensure that development corporations include green space provision in all new developments. Green spaces are not a luxury; they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Like green spaces, playing fields and recreational facilities are fundamental for the development of grassroots sports and for youth opportunities, and therefore I support amendments 88 and 89 of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
We also need serious, measurable action on climate. Development corporations are being handed significant powers, yet the Bill fails to guarantee that they are delivering in line with the UK’s climate targets. That is why amendment 151 is so important. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on whether development corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. With so much at stake, we need transparency and accountability built into the system.
Finally, we need new homes that are genuinely affordable, warm and built to high standards. In Stratford, many families and young people are priced out of their own community. It is not enough to build houses; we must build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, green spaces and recreational and sports facilities that create communities.
I urge the Government to back these amendments and take this opportunity to deliver a planning system that is fair, sustainable and community led.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a thoughtful and, largely, well-informed debate about a piece of legislation that is, to quote the shadow Minister, “groundbreaking”. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. Can I take the opportunity to thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for their robust but civil and fair approach to scrutiny in Committee?
I want to respond to the key amendments and the arguments that have been made this afternoon. Among other reforms and interventions, the Government are clear that significantly boosting our housing supply requires a renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are vital vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The Bill creates a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework to ensure that they can operate effectively. While there is clearly widespread support across the House for the effective use of development corporations where appropriate, a number of amendments have been tabled that seek to impose specific requirements on them.
New clause 114 in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments. The Government absolutely agree that delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects must include the provision and stewardship of green space, which has a wide range of benefits, including supporting health and wellbeing, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity and wildlife.
We do not believe that the new clause is necessary to deliver on these objections. First, development corporations have a strong track record of providing suitable green space. Ebbsfleet development corporation, for example, has a target for the delivery of parks, open spaces and recreation areas, providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.
Secondly, development corporations that take on local plan-making powers are already subject to national planning policies, including those concerning green infrastructure. This means that where development corporations take on local planning authority powers, any planning decisions made should be informed by the national planning policy framework, which, as hon. Members will be aware, is a material consideration when determining planning applications.
As the House will know, the NPPF sets out policies to encourage the provision of green infrastructure and outlines that plans should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The NPPF also sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision that plans should seek to accommodate. It is the Government’s view that the duty proposed in this new clause may unhelpfully constrain some development corporations—for example, where development corporations are designated specifically for the redevelopment of smaller commercial spaces.
On the stewardship of green spaces, each development corporation has a designated oversight authority, which is either the Secretary of State, a mayor, or local authorities, and it is for them to set specific frameworks for stewardship arrangements. Although I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for once again highlighting this important issue, I hope that with the explanation I have provided he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to the reforms to compulsory purchase in the Bill, which are designed to improve the CPO process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. New clause 127 and amendment 153 tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) would repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Let us be clear: the amendments propose to repeal a power introduced by the last Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member served and in which he voted for the specific piece of legislation containing the power.
The power allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. The hon. Member’s amendments do not seek, as proposed in the Bill, to limit the extension of the power to parish and county councils or to the use of compulsory purchase powers as they apply to Natural England. The amendments seek to repeal a power contained in a piece of legislation that he voted for, and it is frankly embarrassing to listen to him try to explain that sharp U-turn.
To support the delivery of the housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are often frustrated by unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused and overpriced, with the result that the building of homes, transport links and schools becomes prohibitively high.
Chris Hinchliff
In the debate today, Conservative Members have robustly defended the principle of paying landowners the uplift from the current-use value to the value that land would have with planning permission. Given how Winston Churchill said such unearned increments in land are “positively detrimental” to the general public, are they not attacking their own best traditions?
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a shame that the Conservative party has seemingly changed its view. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State said, “Yes, that’s right. We’ve changed our view. It was a bad piece of legislation.” Many provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 were some of the best introduced by the previous Government. There is lots in the previous Government’s record that Conservative Members should rightly feel embarrassed about; these powers are not among that. Far from removing that power, we want acquiring authorities to use the power. For that reason, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Member’s amendment.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) suggested that market value would not be paid for such land in compulsory purchases. Will the Minister confirm that the amount paid in compulsory purchases is the market value for the existing use of that land?
Matthew Pennycook
The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.
That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.
However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.
I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.
I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.
The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Could the Serjeant at Arms investigate the cause for delay in the No Lobby?
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a real privilege to take this crucial piece of legislation through the House—“groundbreaking legislation”, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), described it earlier. I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for her unwavering support throughout the Bill’s passage; I thank the Department’s Bill team, led by Alex Bush, for their prodigious efforts over many months; I thank my consistently excellent private office, including its head, Grace Doody, and my brilliant private secretary Gabe Allason; I thank the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel for facilitating the Bill’s progress; I thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee; and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who provided valuable input and challenge, today and at earlier stages.
This landmark Bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth, and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve their ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament, to making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, and to supporting the clean power 2030 target and transforming Britain into a clean energy superpower.
As the House will know, the Bill will deliver five key objectives. First, it will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a crucial part of the Bill. Upgrading our country’s economic infrastructure—electricity networks, clean energy sources and public transport links—is essential to basic services and a growing economy. The Bill makes a number of changes. It will ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date by providing for a reflective amendment process so that the Government can quickly make minor policy changes or factor in legal impacts.
Secondly, the Bill adopts a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for development and the environment. As we discussed at length yesterday, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development, and—let me be clear—that is because constraints such as nutrient neutrality are stifling development and disincentivising planning applications across the country, which is having an impact on house builders, particularly small and medium-sized house builders. We need to remove those constraints. The status quo is also not working for the environment: all too often, the site-by-site process of assessment and meeting obligations is not driving nature recovery. Instead of retaining that suboptimal status quo, we want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies, ensuring that Natural England presents plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery as well as unlocking development.
Thirdly, the Bill will improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. There has been widespread support for the measures on mandatory training for local councillors and on fee localisation. Local planning authorities, which we know have been hard-pressed in recent years, will be able to set their own fees and ensure that more of the burdens that they face in processing applications can be covered by those fees. The House has welcomed that.
We have taken the decision to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I appreciate that that is controversial, but we think it is an absolutely necessary means of introducing more certainty and clarity into the decision-making process. We have launched a technical consultation on the measure, and I urge hon. Members from across the House to engage with the detail of that consultation. I think that when they do so, they will understand that a category of planning applications should be delegated to expert local planning officers. However, with the agreement of the relevant chair of the committee and the lead planning officer in the authority, it will always be possible for the most serious and controversial applications to come before elected members, just as it should be the case that they take decisions on the most significant applications.
Fourthly, we are unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment. Today we have debated changes to development corporations, which will play an essential role in driving the delivery of more large-scale communities across this country, and we have discussed CPO powers. We want to see those CPO powers, including the very important CPO reforms passed by the previous Government, which I am sad to hear the Conservatives regret they passed—the shadow Secretary of State said very clearly from the Dispatch Box that it was a mistake. We think those powers are useful, and we want to see their application taken forward. The Bill makes targeted changes to those powers to ensure that they can be used by parish and county councils and, when it comes to nature recovery and the production of environmental delivery plans, by Natural England in certain circumstances.
Fifthly, the Bill introduces effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. We must do planning on a larger than local scale if we are to get the best outcomes, and the Bill introduces new spatial development strategies. These are not big local plans; they are higher-level strategies for different sub-regions of the country to come together and decide, in co-operation, the most appropriate places for housing growth and the best way for infrastructure to be delivered across those areas. In response to feedback, we made a series of targeted changes in Committee: we are removing the statutory pre-consultation requirements from the NSIP regime, which we know are driving perverse outcomes, and we have introduced targeted improvements to the nature restoration fund and a new funding mechanism for statutory consultees.
When it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure, the status quo is patently failing the country and the British people. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. It is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country and, in doing so, help us to tackle the housing crisis and raise living standards in every part of the country. This Labour Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this Bill, we will do just that. I wish Baroness Taylor and Lord Khan all the best with progressing the Bill in the other place, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for all his hard work? He is an incredibly decent and polite man. He may be misguided at times, but we cannot agree on everything. I thank him and his team for all their work, and I thank my shadow ministerial team who did a fantastic job of subjecting the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, the other Front-Bench teams, the Committee and the Clerks. I also thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions.
We are told that this Bill is about accelerating house building, unleashing growth and meeting a national target of 1.5 million homes in England alone in this Parliament. On the face of it, those aims are worthy, but what price are we prepared to pay for the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition? Make no mistake: what is being proposed could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of our towns, our villages, and the green and pleasant land that makes Britain what it is.
This is not an attack on new homes—I am unashamedly pro-business and pro-development. Unlike the Secretary of State, the Minister and half the Cabinet, I have never objected to a housing development in my constituency. Let me be clear: we need homes. We need homes for first-time buyers, for young families, for key workers and for the next generation, but we need the right homes in the right places, shaped by the right principles. Instead, we are being offered a top-down model driven by arbitrary targets and central diktat. The result is soulless settlements, identikit developments and rows of uninspiring concrete boxes that bear no relation to the history, the heritage or the hopes of the communities they are built in.
Crucially, in the Government’s “centralising zeal”—as the excellent shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), calls it—local voices are being sidelined. Local councillors, and those who live in, love and understand their communities best, are being cut out of the process, with their role reduced and their judgment overlooked. The individual has been subordinated to being a cog in the machine. The Bill in its current form is not just flawed, but dangerous. It risks eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and the governed.
The Bill must be considered in conjunction with the changes to the national planning policy framework. The Government’s approach of shifting housing targets from urban areas to rural areas is cynical and economically illiterate. While I welcome the restoration of mandatory targets in principle, raising targets by up to 400% in rural areas while simultaneously reducing them by over 11% in London, 30% in Birmingham and Newcastle, and over 50% in Coventry is unfair and wrong-headed. Their grey belt policy—presented as a few disused garage forecourts and wasteland in green belts—is a con. What they have actually done is remove important protections that prevent villages from merging into nearby villages and towns.
Of course, there is also the matter of the environment. Anyone who cares about our natural world knows that once a habitat is destroyed, a woodland torn up or a biodiverse landscape bulldozed, no cheque can bring it back. There is zero confidence on this side of the House that Natural England can successfully mitigate the significant environmental harms that will ensue through the environmental delivery plans. That is why we propose that they be delivered locally through local or strategic plans.
The truth is that we cannot concrete our way to community, we cannot meet our housing needs by overriding the very people we are building for, and we cannot call it progress if the Bill leaves our countryside degraded and our communities disempowered.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Residents in Bexley village in my constituency—it is one of London’s outer villages—are particularly concerned about the erosion of their green areas around the village. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and surprise that, when the outer London green belt issue was discussed in the London Assembly last week, Reform backed Mayor Khan in building over the green belt? Reform backed Khan against the interests of Bexley residents.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and the failures of the London Mayor to build more houses are well documented. What is perhaps not a surprise is that Reform would take the further step of supporting the London Mayor in the pursuit of Labour votes.
We have grave concerns about the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers for councils, mayors and even Natural England, without hope value or market value. This undermines one of the most important principles of our economy: property rights. Not only is this unfair, but it will face legal challenge after legal challenge in the courts.
During the passage of the Bill, we attempted to work with the Government to make sensible changes to make it fit for purpose, but to no avail. Let us not be seduced by false choices. We do not have to choose between development and democracy, between homes and heritage, or between ambition and accountability. We can build and we must build, but we must do so in a way that listens, respects and safeguards.
I urge the Government, yes, to be ambitious, but also to think again. They should rethink the Bill, and restore the local voice and reinstate environmental protections. Let us chart a path to progress that honours our need for homes, our obligation to communities and to the environment, and our duty to future generations. In its current form, we cannot support this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
It has been an honour and a privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the pleasure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in Committee and at all stages of the Bill. I thank my staff team for their work and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their spirited amendments across all topics; in fact, we put forward 78 amendments in Committee, which I can only imagine was an absolute joy for the Minister and his officials to respond to.
I pay tribute to Members across the House for their work on this Bill. It has stimulated amendments from all corners of the House, as well as great debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) working with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on their amendment on rural housing exception sites, to give just one example of the cross-party approach from different corners of the House towards improving the Bill.
On Second Reading, where the Liberal Democrats were the only party—except Plaid Cymru—to vote against the Bill because of our principled concerns about it, we set out to address our concerns about people’s rights, communities and fairness, and the effects the Bill will have on nature. We sought to address all those topics with our amendments.
First, on rights for people and individuals, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), pointed out yesterday, what greater right could there be than the right to a decent, affordable home to bring up one’s family? We championed our proposal for 150,000 social homes a year to be built as a key target for this Government, and continue to encourage them through all means, including votes in this place, to move towards a target for building social homes, rather than simply a target for building millions of homes; without that, the target will be led by private market housing, which, on its own, is no solution to the problems we face.
We sought to address communities and fairness by seeking to remove the power that the Government will grant themselves, and all future Governments, to interfere in the running of councils and to give decisions to employees and planning consultants over and above the heads of the councillors who employ them, and who are meant to be accountable for those decisions. For the first time, decisions could be made by council officers and consultants, and, though every single elected councillor of that authority may disagree, those decisions will stand in their name, and councillors will not have the power to do anything to change them. That cannot be right.
It will undermine communities’ trust in politics and our planning system—a system in which people engage more at a local level than perhaps any other aspect of local government. The more people see the centralisation of planning powers, the standard method and guidance written by Whitehall, the appeals process dominated by Whitehall, and now even their own councillors not allowed to make decisions, the more we will damage communities’ trust in politics and their belief in the planning system and the system of local democracy, which is so important to our country. That is the principal reason that we object so strongly to the removal of powers from councillors in the Bill.
We support a number of the measures in the Bill; there are many good measures. In passing, I pay tribute to the Minister for his work on bringing back strategic planning, on which he has worked for a number of years. However, we are gravely concerned about its effect on nature. The National Trust has called the Bill a “licence to kill nature”. It is right, of course, to bring in a system for phosphates, for instance, which could be mitigated at a strategic level through environmental delivery plans, but it is wrong to completely remove from that process the principle of “first do no harm” on the site on which we are developing. We should enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in this new system in the Bill, so that, first, we seek to avoid harm to the site, then to mitigate it and, finally, to offset it, but only where that is absolutely necessary. Our new clause 1 would have put that protection of nature into this new system.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am sure my hon. Friend knows his legislation very well, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 stated that Ministers have a duty to further the purposes of protected landscapes such as national landscapes. Does he think that we have missed an opportunity in this Bill by not giving national landscapes a seat at the table as statutory consultees, like, for instance, Chichester harbour in my constituency?
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has done so much work to champion national landscapes and the need for them to have a seat at the planning table. In my own national landscape, the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills of Somerset also deserve a seat at the planning table. We do not believe that cutting out consultees, consultation and voices such as Sport England from the planning process is the way to deliver more homes or better communities. We need to bring in voices such as those who support our national landscapes, and we would dearly like to put forward amendments to achieve that.
On the rights of people to genuinely affordable homes, the rights of communities to fairness in the process, and rights to nature, we do not believe that the Government have gone far enough and we cannot support the Bill as it stands.
Wendy Morton
Fear not, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my comments very, very brief. I cannot let this Planning and Infrastructure Bill go without saying that it was an opportunity to create the homes that we need, to support our communities, to support our farmers and farming, to support the environment, and to ensure that good development is supported by good infrastructure. I have sat in this Chamber for two days listening to amendments and debating amendments, including my own on battery energy storage systems. Time and again, the Government have just rejected them. What we have ended up with is legislation that drives a coach and horses through accountability. It seeks to steamroll over local people and to concrete over our precious green belt. It gives local people no rights, no voice and no say over how their communities are shaped for the future. On that basis, I will be voting against the Bill on Third Reading.
Richard Foord
I, too, will keep my remarks brief, but I wish to put it on the record that Devon, which is rightly celebrated across Britain for its rugged coastline, its rolling farmland, its spectacular moorlands and its ancient woodlands, is subject to the diggers of developers who are encouraged by this Government. Although we all need houses and we all need the protection that they afford, this Bill, if enacted, will only damage nature. Nature in Devon is part of who we are and we face a nature crossroads. The Devon Local Nature Partnership tells us that the loss and decline of Devon’s wildlife has accelerated rapidly over the past 50 years. The wooded valleys of the Blackdown hills and the wildflower meadows of East Devon are priceless, but once they are gone, they cannot be brought back.
Yesterday in the Tea Room, we were talking about the darkening clouds of the international system and how this Government are having to deal with such grave matters of state. Somebody then pointed out that, never mind grappling with wars and conflict, we cannot even create a system where a £44 swift brick is put in a new house to encourage nature in our rural areas.
Healthy natural systems underpin our economy and our communities, but unless we restore nature, we will have nothing left. Building homes does not need to come at the cost of nature. We must build in the right places with nature embedded at the heart of planning.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Thursday 12th June 2025
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 25th June 2025
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Lord Khan of Burnley
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I would first like to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords with whom my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have already spoken about the Bill. I know that there is consensus in this House that the country could and should be better served: better served by more decent housing, with a better, faster process for agreeing what infrastructure is needed to support the communities we build; better, greener infrastructure to help the country meet its climate targets; a better deal for nature, which we know the public deeply cares about. Britain deserves better than the status quo, and it is for that reason that we have brought forward this Bill.
We have already delivered significant changes to our planning system in a revised, pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that these changes will increase our real GDP level by 0.2% by 2029-30—the equivalent of £6.8 billion in today’s prices. We are creating a system that is not only fit to address our present challenges but agile enough to respond to our future needs.
For too long, the approach was a mismatched tapestry of ill-fitting, short-termist reforms that tinkered around the edges rather than resolving our problems. In the process, layers of bureaucracy and gold-plating have been created rather than genuine improvements. This House should not mistake the Government’s ambitions or the speed at which the Bill has been taken forward for a lack of careful consideration. The situation is stark, and these issues merit prioritising.
The time it takes to secure planning permission for major infrastructure projects has almost doubled in the last decade to more than four years. Home building has also fallen from already insufficient levels. There are simply not enough homes. The number of new homes built is estimated to drop to around 200,000 this year, which would be the lowest year for net additional dwellings in England since 2015-16. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will help turn this around, sending us on our way to building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and reaching planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament.
The Bill will further support the Government’s clean power 2030 target, enabling essential clean energy projects to be built as quickly as possible. As a key component of our Plan for Change, this ambitious package of reforms will unblock the planning system to secure the infrastructure this country needs. Upgrading the country’s critical infrastructure is essential to boosting economic growth and improving the quality of life that Britain has to offer. That is why the Bill introduces a range of reforms to the consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects to create a faster and more certain system. These changes have been informed by feedback from developers, planning and technical experts, ENGOs and local authorities.
Reforms brought forward by the Bill include ensuring that national policy statements, which are the cornerstone of the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, are kept up to date. New powers will allow for projects to be directed out of the NSIP system where they can be better served by another consenting route. We are replacing overly prescriptive statutory consultation requirements, which encourage risk aversion and gold-plating, with guidance that will encourage the development of high-quality applications through meaningful engagement.
The Government still expect that development proposals are fully scoped before submission to the Planning Inspectorate. These measures will tackle the huge volume of inaccessible paperwork that slows the process without adding value to communities. This could reduce consenting times by up to 12 months and pave the way for new roads, railways and wind farms to bolster the country’s connectivity and energy security.
Building on recommendations proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, KC, the paper permission stage for judicial reviews of national policy statements and development consent orders has been removed, as has the right of appeal when cases are deemed totally without merit. Taken together, these changes will address the biggest barriers to delivery. They are targeted specifically at fixing elements of the system that slow down applications, decisions and, ultimately, development.
On top of these overall changes to the NSIP regime, the Bill will also deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for transport infrastructure projects. Boosting transport connectivity will support economic growth across the country, tackle congestion and keep Britain moving. Measures brought forward in the Bill will streamline the Highways Act and the Transport and Works Act process to ensure that it is proportionate, is fit for purpose and supports the effective and timely delivery of transport projects.
Additionally, the Bill will introduce a number of changes to speed up the delivery of our energy infrastructure. It supports vital reforms to the electricity network’s grid connection process. The current first come, first served connections queue prevents viable projects from being able to connect to the grid ahead of slower-moving ones. The Bill will ensure that projects that align with the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan are prioritised. This move to a first ready, first connected approach will avoid delays in connecting viable and needed projects to the power grid. These reforms enable strategically important energy projects needed for clean power to be prioritised for grid connection.
Reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland will also make the system more efficient and look to reduce overall consenting timescales. These have been developed jointly with the Scottish Government.
The Bill enables the launch of a discount scheme for certain communities that live nearby new or significantly upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The introduction of a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy storage will support investment in this area and help to decarbonise the electricity system. A cheaper and more efficient energy system is a key driver of growth.
I turn to Part 2. The Bill will make further changes to streamline decision-making in the planning system to ensure that the system operates as effectively and efficiently as possible. A national scheme of delegation will be introduced to set out which types of applications should be determined by officers and which by planning committees. The Government have published a technical consultation in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments. This change will not undermine the important role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. Instead, it will ensure that planning committees play their proper role in scrutinising development to the best standard possible and without delay. In fact, 96% of planning decisions are already made by officers. Introducing a national scheme of delegation will simply create greater consistency of decision-making, ensuring that planning committees have the time to deal with the most significant or contentious applications.
Some in the other place have argued that this measure represents an attack on local democracy, framing the Bill as an attempt to diminish community voices. I disagree. This reform will improve the effectiveness of local democratic oversight. There will be no more grandstanding debates about the merits of a fence or extension; instead, the committee’s focus will be on those development proposals that matter most to local communities.
Our changes, combined with further reforms in the Bill to allow the local determination of planning fees, will help to ensure that local planning authorities and wider organisations have the resources they need to deliver change for communities across the country.
We cannot meet this country’s needs without planning for growth on a larger than local scale. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce a system of strategic planning across England. Areas will be required to produce spatial development strategies, closely modelling the system which has been in place in London for over 20 years. This will help to address key spatial issues such as meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure, growing the economy and improving climate resilience and nature recovery by taking a subregional view of how growth needs can be sustainably met. It will also enable more efficient and timely production of local plans, which will provide the detail and site allocations to support the special strategy set out in the SDS.
On Part 3, I think we can all agree on the important role that sustained economic growth plays in ensuring the prosperity of our country. However, we are clear that nature cannot be an afterthought and must be placed at the heart of our reforms. The nature restoration fund will accelerate the building of homes and infrastructure, while unlocking the positive impact that development can have in driving the recovery of protected sites and species. This will move us from a system that simply offsets impacts to one that actively supports the recovery of protected sites and species. The more strategic approach to nature recovery brought forward by the Bill will be delivered through the creation of environmental delivery plans. EDPs, made by the Secretary of State and delivered by Natural England, will set out a package of conservation measures sufficient to address the environmental impacts of development and, crucially, secure an environmental uplift. Rather than being limited to addressing the impact of a single development, an EDP will pool resources and deliver conservation measures at scale to maximise the positive outcome for the environment. At the same time, developers will benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience for development in England and up to 12 nautical miles into its territorial waters.
The Government have constructed the legislation to include a range of safeguards to ensure that the new system delivers on the ambition to go further for nature. An EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conservation measures are likely to outweigh the negative effects of development. This will ensure that our reforms will not reduce existing levels of environmental protection, with this new approach delivering more for nature, not less. It is for this reason that the Government are confident that the nature restoration fund is a progressive intervention, as supported in the Section 20 statement that accompanies the Bill. That is not to say that the Government are not listening to the views of stakeholders who have indicated areas where they may wish to strengthen the Bill. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage and I take the views of the Office for Environmental Protection seriously and continue to engage with it and environmental NGOs. We look forward to hearing and engaging with the views of noble Lords today and throughout the Bill’s passage.
Of course, the NRF is not the only measure in the Bill that will make a meaningful difference in our ongoing battle to support nature and address climate change. Measures in the Bill to prioritise network connections are a prime example—we cannot afford to delay the benefit the Bill will have on the environment as a whole.
The Bill will also strengthen development corporations to make it easier for central and local government to deliver large-scale new communities. It creates a clearer, more flexible and robust legislative framework for the operation of development corporations. These are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. Ensuring that we have up-to-date and clear legislation on their remit, duties and powers will allow development corporations to unlock more housing across the country, co-ordinating that with infrastructure and transport for sustained economic growth.
The Government are keen for authorities to make greater use of their compulsory purchase powers to support the delivery of housing, growth and the regeneration of their areas. Measures introduced in the Bill will enable more effective land assembly, which will speed up and lower the cost of housing and infrastructure delivery. The Bill will ensure that the process for acquiring land with a hope value direction is more efficient. It will reduce the administrative cost of making a CPO and streamline the CPO process, including by allowing notices to be served electronically.
The legislation will also expand the power to remove hope value where land is acquired by a parish or town council when the relevant project facilitates the provision of affordable housing This will reinforce the principle that landowners should not receive excessive compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. These changes have been brought forward to make the system more efficient and fairer. The Government are clear that there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for the use of a CPO.
It is in our national interest to make the planning system better, because sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. In making these changes, we can tackle some of the biggest issues facing the country today. I believe the measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are sufficiently comprehensive, robust and, crucially, balanced to meet these challenges head-on. I know that the subjects to be debated today are matters dear to many across the House. I have no doubt that, in the weeks and months ahead, Members will approach this Bill with the rigour and scrutiny that embodies the very best that this House offers. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We on these Benches support many of the Bill’s principles and ambitions, several of which build on work that we led in government during a period of record housebuilding. While not perfect, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act is a step forward, streamlining the planning system and focusing on local priorities. As a Minister, I recognised the urgent need for more homes, and I remain just as committed today to driving practical action to meet that need.
In 2019, the Conservative Party committed to delivering 1 million additional homes over the course of that Parliament. In 2024, before the general election, we delivered on that commitment. The Labour Party has now committed to delivering 1.5 million homes over this Parliament, and it is essential that it delivers on that manifesto commitment.
As the Bill progresses through this House, we will raise serious concerns: the removal of councillors’ voting rights on individual applications; sharply increased housing targets in rural areas, without sufficient protection for villages; the shift to strategic plans; and the questions over the deliverability of the 1.5 million homes target. That figure appears to be little more than the Deputy Prime Minister’s arbitrary aspiration. Announced in the other place without a road map, without detailed plans and, ultimately, without a credible delivery mechanism, the target lacks the very foundations required to make it achievable.
There are, quite rightly, widespread questions about the target’s deliverability, particularly in light of the February S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index, which reports one of the sharpest monthly declines in housebuilding and construction on record. Furthermore, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation estimated that the Secretary of State is likely to fall short of her target by as many as 500,000 homes.
Doubts about deliverability were only compounded by the recent spending review. The Chancellor’s announcement was heavily backloaded, with limited short-term impact; most of the uplift comes after 2030, with meaningful increases not projected until 2035-36. The headline figure, spread over a decade, goes beyond this Parliament and will have to withstand numerous fiscal events from a Government so often keen to change their mind.
There is, as yet, no formal multiyear budget commitment. It is a pledge, not a statutory allocation. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, the £39 billion figure is meaningful only if future spending reviews confirm it. Even if the workable aspects of the Bill are able to deliver more homes, the Government must indicate how this funding will deliver their pledge in this Parliament.
The Bill also impacts our natural environment and rural communities. Later in this debate, my noble friend Lord Roborough will outline why, from these Benches, we view Part 3 of the Bill as a particular cause for concern. The proposed nature restoration levy may, to some sitting in an office in Whitehall, seem like a welcome simplification of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system. But in reality it appears to water down existing protections, and that is not a solution. The Official Opposition want to see the right homes in the right place, without weakening our position on nature restoration and appropriate environmental protections.
There are important questions that the Government must answer. What safeguards will ensure that the levy is proportionate to the environmental impact and does not simply become another tax or barrier to development? What is the expected timeline for implementing the environmental delivery plans, and have the Government factored in potential delays, including the possibility of judicial reviews? We look forward to the Minister’s reflections on these points. Our assessment is that it could take some years from Royal Assent before the environmental delivery plans begin to make a real-world impact. If the Government believe otherwise, we would welcome reassurances on this.
On outcomes, concerns persist. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management has warned that this system risks the immediate loss of natural capital, with any benefits only realised decades later. We hope the Government can provide greater confidence that this approach will deliver meaningful and timely results for the environment.
If the Government are now concerned with the issue of nutrient neutrality, perhaps I might draw their attention to the amendments we tabled during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Regrettably, the Government—then in opposition—chose to vote them down, thereby defeating the proposition. I would, of course, be more than happy to assist the Ministers by returning these amendments to the attention of the House, in the hope that even at this stage the Government might now reconsider their position.
Additionally, this Bill touches on the crucial area of energy. My noble friend Lord Offord will speak with authority on this subject later in the debate. However, I will briefly set out why we see it as so vital. The UK continues to face some of the highest electricity costs in the world, an issue that poses a serious barrier to growth. We therefore welcome commitments to energy infrastructure and support any measures that aim to reduce energy costs. This must go hand in hand with proper community consultation, particularly regarding the installation of overhead cables and new pylons. Finally, we must ensure that we are developing a diverse and resilient energy mix, one that provides stability and equips us to meet the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world.
On planning, the Minister is correct that we are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors’ ability to vote on individual planning applications. Is the Minister not concerned about the systematic removal of layer upon layer of democratic oversight? Democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding. Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to deliver not just more houses but the right houses.
When local communities and their elected representatives have a meaningful role in the planning process, housebuilding is seen as something done with people, not done to them. Strip that away and you risk generating opposition, misdirecting development and ultimately building fewer homes. We want the right homes in the right places, and the Government need to bring communities with them if they are to deliver that. When communities are engaged and can see the shape and benefit of new housing, whether through affordable homes, infrastructure improvements or environmental safeguards, public support increases and delivery becomes more achievable.
We are particularly concerned at the proposed model of strategic planning. It could be—and is being—used to shift urban housing need into our rural areas. This is especially troubling in light of the disproportionately high increases in housing targets assigned to those rural authorities. The Secretary of State has raised the national housing target by 50%. Residents might reasonably expect that their local targets have increased by a similar amount, but that is far from the case. According to the House of Commons Library, in major urban conurbations, housing targets have risen by an average of 17%. In predominantly rural areas, they have increased by 115%.
To illustrate, London’s target is down 12%, Newcastle down 15%, Birmingham down 38% and Coventry down 55%. Meanwhile, Wyre Forest and New Forest have seen their targets doubled. Westmorland’s target has increased by almost 500%. This is neither fair nor sustainable. It erodes local trust and places significant pressures on our rural services, infrastructure and landscapes.
Worse still, it undermines the very reason we need more homes in the first place. High housing costs in major towns and cities act as a major barrier to interregional mobility. For low-income houses, households and renters, housing affordability creates a form of price lock-in, preventing them accessing areas with greater employment opportunities. If we are serious about boosting growth and supporting opportunity, we need the right homes in the right places. We need homes where opportunities are, and we need local representation to be involved in the process of building those homes. We therefore urge the Government to rethink this approach and to restore a meaningful role for democratic decision-making in the planning system.
From these Benches, we warmly welcome the Government’s greater emphasis on the local plans. A plan-led system is the right approach, and we recognise the effort to ensure that communities have a stronger voice in shaping development. However, we see opportunities to build on this. In particular, we would like to explore more ambitious support for small builders and self-builders, an important part of a diverse and resilient housing sector. The current 10% site allocation for such developments is a positive step, but we support the Federation of Master Builders’ suggestion that this could be increased to 20%. We also welcome consideration of an expanded role for Homes England in supporting microbuilders, who often face particular barriers to entry.
I turn briefly to the issue of grey belt. While we appreciate the intention to make better use of underused land, concerns remain about how these changes may impact the wider countryside, particularly village identity. Although this is not directly part of the Bill, it clearly interacts with the Bill, and we hope Ministers will continue to reflect on the balance between flexibility and long-standing protection of rural communities. There is also a risk of unintended urban sprawl. This would place significant pressure on our local infrastructure and services. We should prioritise the proper use of our existing urban centres, bringing empty properties back into use and supporting densification where appropriate to make the most of the space we already have.
Our aim in engaging with the Bill is not to obstruct its objectives but to contribute constructively to its success. We will bring forward amendments that are designed to strengthen the Bill’s ability to deliver well-designed, affordable homes, particularly for those on lower incomes and first-time buyers, while ensuring that local voices, rural character and environmental safeguards remain respected.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the stated aim of getting Britain building and kick-starting our economic growth, delivering much-needed housing and critical infrastructure. We also recognise the urgent need to fundamentally reform and improve our planning systems. We must build more homes—more affordable homes—and infrastructure to meet the challenges of our time, from improving transport systems to addressing climate change.
The current systems are clearly not working. Getting to clean power alone by 2030 will require huge investment in renewable energy and the grid. Our electricity consumption is due to more than double by 2050, and we welcome the reforms to the grid connection system.
We are at the stage of the energy transition where we need to build a lot of stuff, and we need to be able to take our communities with us to get that done. Although the intention to improve the systems and processes is welcome, some of the solutions proposed are misguided and concerning. The Government have chosen neither bats nor crested newts, because the Government want growth. These plans are much more “done to” than “done with” when it comes to our local communities. The Government suggest that existing environmental protections are a significant barrier to development and that these plans will provide a win-win for both nature and the economy, and a more strategic approach.
Nature appears to have little voice and little value within these proposals. Our planning systems need to be aligned with and support our climate and nature goals. If enacted, the Bill will degrade our nature and biodiversity, and the real reforms and funding that our planning system desperately needs will be missed. My arguments are based on the Government’s own evidence; the impact assessment admits:
“There is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development”.
Official analysis provides no data to support the argument that environmental legislation holds up building.
Removing these protections will not help. Delays are more often rooted in lengthy pre-planning application stages, poor processes, lack of data and of data sharing, outdated national policy statements and, in some cases, yet to be delivered policies such as land use frameworks and various spatial plans. In addition, our local authorities are permanently understaffed, underfunded and unable to cope. We can add to this list skills shortages, supply chain issues and market confidence.
As we have heard, more than 1.5 million homes in England have planning permission; 95% of local planning applications are approved. All too often, developers do not build, and the systems simply fail to ensure delivery. The Bill misses an important opportunity to better hold large housebuilders to account and continues a developer-led approach.
The environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposals are an alarming step backwards for nature protection. The Bill proposes that developers can pay into a nature restoration fund instead of fulfilling existing legal obligations to protect wildlife and habitats. This bypasses the fundamental mitigation hierarchy: the principle that impacts should first be avoided, then mitigated and compensated for only as a last resort. There is no requirement for developers to even attempt to avoid harm before resorting to paying the off-set fee. This is a profound weakening of our environmental law.
I do not much like the idea that nature can be transplanted in this way for a fee. It treats nature as akin to a problem as simple as house removals. Nature cannot simply be moved around to suit developers’ needs. This model is entirely unsuitable for irreplaceable habitats. All sites with nature protections should be removed from these provisions. Many of these habitats are simply impossible to recreate and move elsewhere.
The abundance of 753 terrestrial and freshwater species has, on average, fallen by 19% across the UK since 1970. How do we expect to meet our biodiversity targets with these proposals? Proposals to give these unique ecosystems stronger protections were rejected in the other place and government amendments never arrived. The Government even rejected a cross-party amendment to allow swift bricks in new homes. What hope is there for nature if adding a £36 swift brick is so easily rejected? We must work with nature, bring it into our developments and promote access. Doing so provides rewards for our quality of life and improves our health. We must restore and work with nature to help mitigate the impact of climate change.
Instead, the Bill’s overall improvement test states that the conservation measures must only be
“likely to be sufficient to outweigh”
negative impacts. This introduces uncertainty, unpredictability and subjectivity, falling far short of the rigorous scientific certainty required by our existing environmental laws. We believe this must be strengthened and that the benefits must significantly outweigh any harm. The Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed significant concerns about the Bill as drafted, saying that it reduces the level of environmental protection. It describes the provisions as a “regression”, particularly for habitats and species.
Concerns also persist regarding adequate resourcing and capacity for Natural England to administer the substantial new responsibilities. These will be in a complex system that the Government are putting in place. We are calling for independent oversight of the NRF to ensure that funds are spent effectively and transparently.
To conclude, we must properly resource our planning authorities. Some 25% of all planners have been lost in the past seven years. The Government will allow local authorities to set their own fees but these must be ring-fenced to ensure that the money and skills are available to ensure a sufficient local planning system. We must strengthen our local democratic accountability and public trust. The Bill’s approach risks alienating communities and diminishing the crucial role of our elected councils. I worry this could have a negative impact as we roll out all the stuff we need to build to get to net zero. We must ensure meaningful engagement and good communications, and that communities have a voice in and benefit from the energy transition itself.
We will work with the Government to improve the Bill, but they may well be surprised by the level of cross-party consensus that has already established itself on all sides of your Lordships’ House on these matters.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and of the Local Government Association, an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
My interest is in the Bill’s vital mission to get the homes and infrastructure built that this country needs so badly. We have a very real housing crisis, with increasing numbers of families placed in temporary accommodation at huge public expense, simply because there are not enough homes to go around. This objective will require proper resourcing of planning departments, and Part 2 of the Bill recognises this necessity.
A key question hanging over the ambition to build 1.5 million more and better homes is: who will the nation entrust to get this job done? For many years, the answer for most housebuilding has been, “We will let the volume housebuilders acquire the sites, come up with the plans, design and build the homes, and make their profits while we try to require them to allocate a modest proportion of their output for affordable housing”.
This reliance on the large housebuilders has not produced the quantity or quality of homes we need. It has seen development of expanses of greenfield land in preference to small sites and brownfield schemes that can regenerate whole neighbourhoods. It has put SME builders out of business—down from building 40% of new homes to just 10% since 2000. It has not created apprenticeships and a trained workforce, and there has been little innovation or use of modern methods of construction. It has led to so-called “fleecehold” sales to home buyers and to uniform, soulless design, and there has been little attempt to provide the green spaces and community facilities that are the making of any place. The housebuilders have worked at a pace that suits themselves—a build-out rate that ensures no reduction in house prices.
The housebuilders can reply that they are profit-making businesses with shareholders to satisfy and they cannot be expected to work for public benefit—for the common good. But surely, now is the time for a model that is driven by what is best for the place in question. This leads us to the really positive Part 4 of the Bill, which promotes new development corporations. This is the model that will be used for the eagerly awaited new generation of new towns, but which can operate everywhere else: arms-length to local authorities, but publicly accountable; and sometimes created by mayoral and other combined county authorities. Development corporations acquire sites ahead of planning consent and capture the increase in land value, if necessary using the CPO powers much improved by Part 5. Development corporations commission the necessary master plans and parcel out sites to a range of providers—to housebuilders, large and small, but also to housing associations for social housing; to providers of homes for later living; for student accommodation; for self-build and custom housebuilding; and for all the vital social infrastructure.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill enables the use of this development corporation model for any major development, introducing an alternative to the failed business model of the oligopoly of volume housebuilders. Here is the breakthrough the Bill could achieve.
So, in commending Part 4, I ask the Minister whether the necessary backup—guidance, governance, finance—is being prepared by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government for the creation of many new development corporations for urban extensions, major regeneration projects and desirable new developments that will contrast with the arrangements that have let us down for the last 30 years or more.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, it is always a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose wisdom on housing is quite unparalleled. I draw attention to my own interests in social housing, as set out in the register, and to the fact that a number of provisions in the Bill might impact on the interests of the Church Commissioners for England, who pay my stipend and own the house I live in.
I welcome the Bill. We desperately need a rapid expansion in the building of social homes, ideally at social rents. Enactment of the measures here included can be part of the architecture—please excuse the pun—we need if we are going to underpin the ambition for a mixed economy for housing, one which will live up to the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing’s values of homes that are safe and sustainable.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, I welcome efforts to tackle the long-standing issue of hope value. The rapid, inflation-busting rise in the value of land with planning permission, compounded now over several decades, convinces me that while the position we have inherited may have been suitable half a century ago, it is now frankly untenable and immoral. However, we need to tackle this carefully; I and my colleagues will listen closely to debate on this matter in your Lordships’ House.
In Greater Manchester, attempting to achieve a spatial plan across 10 local authorities has proved taxing—that is a euphemism for impossible. I hope that, through the Bill, we will be able to break some of those log-jams. In practice, these are often due less to party-political differences than to councillors needing to attend to very localised lobby groups. Combined authorities and mayoralties have now more than proved their worth, especially when we need to take a strategic view, so I hope we can give them the powers they need. Indeed, I suspect that many local councillors, who understand the need for housing and infrastructure, may be deeply relieved not always to be blamed for agreeing to major new developments in their wards.
Turning to other aspects of the Bill, several of my noble and right reverend friends will be following with interest the rural provisions. For example, we believe that the Bill provides an important opportunity to protect chalk streams, which are both globally rare and ecologically very significant.
My noble and right reverend friend the Bishop of Hereford has drawn to my attention how multi-generational farming families struggle under current legislation to build agricultural tied accommodation so that the next generation can remain on the farm. We need to keep family farms running, not least so that very elderly farmers can retire—I know far too many who are continuing when they really should not—and we do not lose the skills and commitment to farming that have often been passed down many generations. I know he will be looking to table an amendment in Committee and, no doubt, supporting other amendments.
The notion of offsetting the impact of development on a particular site by other environmental measures elsewhere is already established in other legislation, so extending it has my support. But the case made by the Wildlife and Countryside Link—that measures to offset environmental harm should be delivered as close as possible to the site of the impact—needs to be taken seriously. Wherever possible, there should be a direct link between new infrastructure and the development of new ecosystems. That way, the public see the benefits in their own communities. I accept that that will not always be possible, and it must not become a means of blocking or delaying every major development, but offsetting at a considerable distance should be rare and exceptional.
Finally, I have long championed the needs of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. They have been part of the backbone of rural Britain for many generations, but they are increasingly pushed to the margins. I urge that we take the opportunity of this Bill to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation figures are included and explicitly referenced in the requirements of spatial development strategies. Moreover, the definition of social housing could also helpfully be amended to include local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites, along with broadening the definition of a “dwelling” in Section 1 of the Housing Act 2004 to include all those essential parts of the home on a Gypsy/Traveller site.
It may not be obvious, given the lack of any of my right reverend friends in their places, but there is considerable interest in this Bill on our Benches. This just also happens to be one of the busiest weeks of our year. Several hundred new priests and deacons will be ordained in our cathedrals across England this coming weekend. Lucie, my assistant, has worked wonders with the diary just to get me here.
I look forward to continuing to engage with the Bill at its later stages, but in the meantime, I am glad to welcome it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill, which I see as an essential foundation to building new homes and critical infra- structure. We simply cannot afford the current planning and regulatory system, which seems almost designed to stop growth and make it so expensive and damaging to our economy and basic living standards.
My main interest in the Bill is in Part 1, which will help speed up the building of new energy infrastructure, which I see as vital to achieving clean power by 2030. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that she supports much of the Bill, including the measures on energy. I noticed that she made no mention of clean power and net zero. Of course, the party opposite is in full retreat on this, despite the fact that it was Mrs Thatcher who said at the UN in November 1989:
“It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways”.
It was the noble Baroness, Lady May, moreover, who, as Prime Minister, legislated for net zero by 2050. But the party opposite is now in full retreat. It has turned its back on climate change and net zero and developed an unfathomable passion for fossil fuels, despite the volatile fossil fuel market being one of the major causes of our high energy prices.
Clean power by 2030 requires a huge upgrading of the country’s major energy infrastructure; on that, I think we are agreed. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded in 2024 that many planned renewable energy projects were hampered by persistent problems accessing the electricity grid, including slow connections, limited capacity of local planning authorities and inappropriate planning regulations. Currently, companies are waiting up to 15 years to be connected to the grid. This is leaving very promising developments absolutely gridlocked.
The advice to government from NESO—the National Energy System Operator—was to increase new transition network infrastructure by 2030 at over twice the pace it was being delivered in the previous decade. That is why the Bill’s provisions are so welcome, in particular: the removal of the burdensome statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications; the grid’s connection queue reforms to move from “first come, first served” to a “first ready and needed, first connected” approach; the new funding mechanism for statutory consultees, which will, I hope, address the lack of capacity and resources; and the proposed bill discount scheme for people living closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure.
Part 3 is also relevant to infrastructure growth. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell: I fully accept that it would be perverse if net zero were achieved at the expense of our nature, farmland and general environment, but, as it currently stands, the Bill gives a huge amount of responsibility to Natural England and the other statutory bodies, which have shown no interest in considering the benefits of delivering development, have seen a hollowing out of scientific expertise over the years of austerity, and have no experience in delivering complex infrastructure strategies.
I can see our environmental development delivery plans—to deliver strategic compensation in relation to the habitats regime—working for a given area where you might have multiple housing developers, but I am worried about the extent to which they will work for major infrastructure developments. As Catherine Howard, the head of planning at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, wrote, there is a risk that developers would
“need to twin-track the EDP process with going through the traditional Habitats assessment”
regime because an EDP was not in place in time for the consent application. This is going to be hopeless for developers. I believe that the Secretary of State needs to have a call-in power in the event of this being stuck in this way.
With that important caveat, I welcome the Bill; I see it as a great foundation for growth. However, I hope that the Government will be willing to listen to some of the issues for major developers around infrastructure in relation to Part 3.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, may I say how much the whole House will miss the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from the Dispatch Box? We welcomed the clarity of his contributions, and the Back Benches will be reinforced by his presence now that he is free to say what he actually thinks.
Here we go with another planning Bill. I start with a quote:
“Conflict is not uncommon between those in both the public and private sectors who wish to change the use of land … The planning system provides the framework for resolving these inevitable conflicts. The Bill brings the system up to date, and enhances its credibility”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/1991; col. 816.]
That was me, as Planning Minister in the other place, introducing the then Planning and Compensation Bill in 1991. My imprint on the planning system did not last long. We then had the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; the Planning Act 2008; the Localism Act 2011; the Housing and Planning Act 2016; the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was another planning Bill—and now this. The 1947 planning Act lasted until the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Since then, we have kept on digging up the foundations without, apparently, making the structure any more durable, so I wish the Ministers well.
In the time available, I want to make just one point: the success of the Bill will depend on the efficiency of local government departments in responding to the challenge in the Bill. On 5 February, the Government told all councils in two-tier areas and small neighbouring unitaries to produce, by March, plans to go unitary. Professionals in planning departments are probably more affected than anyone else because all the plans will have to change. They will, understandably, be worried about their own future and the turbulence of reorganisation as they apply for jobs in the new structures or accept redundancy.
The Bill’s success depends on up-to-date plans to deliver certainty and avoid appeals. The Government state:
“Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for meeting housing needs and addressing other economic, social and environmental priorities”.
However, as of March 2024, only a third of local authorities had adopted a plan in the last five years and 291 had plans which were more than five years old. As they attempt to address the backlog—which will still be necessary until the Bill becomes an Act—they will also have to start all over again producing a plan for the new unitary authority. The Government have stated:
“Where reorganisation occurs, new unitary authorities are expected to promptly prepare a local plan covering the whole of their area”.
This all came on top of the December 2024 devolution White Paper. In another reorganisation, all of England is to be part of one of three new categories of local authority: foundation strategic authorities, mayoral strategic authorities and established mayoral strategic authorities. Under the Bill, the planners in these new strategic authorities must produce spatial development strategies, providing strategic policies for the use of land in their area. At the moment there are only three of these. In a masterly understatement, the Government said:
“We are aware that areas undergoing local government reorganisation and devolution will experience a transition period where responsibility for spatial development strategy might transfer between authorities”.
At the same time, the Government want to reduce all the current delays in processing planning applications so that we can get on with the infrastructure and with building the 1.5 million homes that we need.
If planning departments were fully staffed with the necessary skills, they might rise to this challenge, but they are not. The Local Government Association workforce survey found that 62% of councils have difficulties recruiting planning officers and 45% have difficulties retaining planning officers, many being tempted by higher salaries elsewhere. Two-thirds of councils rely on agency staff to address capacity issues. The RTPI says:
“We continue to have concerns about the chronic under-resourcing of our planning system and therefore … a long-term resourcing and capacity strategy should be published alongside the Bill”,
but it has not been. The new town development corporations will also require planners. The Government have recognised the problem, but the steps that they have taken to address it fall way short of what is needed and risk undermining the purpose of the Bill.
I remember a discussion, when I was a Treasury Minister, with a senior economist in the Treasury. When I suggested a new policy that had been tried in New Zealand, he said, “It may work in practice, but it doesn’t work in theory”. The risk with the Bill is exactly the opposite: it may work in theory, but it will not work in practice—unless planning departments are resourced.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, while planning and infrastructure may not get everyone in this House excited, they are fundamental to everything that we do in this country, and we need to get this right—for our communities and to start delivering across the country. Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Bill, regarding transport infrastructure, has not had the focus that it deserves.
We recognise the urgent need to modernise and expand our networks, from rail upgrades to new bus corridors and active travel routes. Major projects must be delivered efficiently. However, we must not move to a position where we bulldoze through projects with no consideration for local communities and their needs or environmental concerns. It is getting that balance right.
If we travel to the continent, we experience the fantastic high-speed rail networks that have grown at pace. In 1981, France became the first nation in Europe to implement a high-speed rail link, from Paris to Lyon, which was 450 kilometres long. Since then, the network has grown, with over 2,800 kilometres. Spain started constructing its high-speed rail network in 1992. Thirty years later, it has roughly 4,000 kilometres of high-speed rail. Then we look at the UK. High Speed 1 opened in 2007, from London to the Channel Tunnel, a mere 108 kilometres. High Speed 2 we discussed last week.
Although I welcome and understand the Government’s ambition to streamline infrastructure delivery, we must ensure that the Bill does not sacrifice local accountability, local engagement, local heritage or environmental integrity in the name of speed or, indeed, progress. We can learn from our European neighbours about how best to deliver such projects at pace but bringing communities with us.
I welcome some of the progress in the Bill on EV charging. It is a huge issue as we clean up our transport network, and for too long there have been barriers. Clause 47 relates to public charge points. It is crucial that the legislation effectively addresses this issue and is future-proofed to support the continued growth of electric vehicle adoption.
My colleague, Helen Maguire MP, championed amendments to the Bill in the other House that would have enabled cross-pavement charging solutions, such as covered cable gullies, by extending the permitted development rights for on-street charging set-ups. The amendments would have broadened and clarified permitted development rights to facilitate the installation of EV charging infrastructure. Such changes are essential if we are to support the 40% of households without off-street parking and ensure that the benefits of EV adoption are shared fairly. The current bureaucratic process, which includes a street works licence and planning permission, feels too much. I hope the Minister will look favourably at similar amendments when they are tabled in this House. We also need to look at how we can establish charging infrastructure for HGVs and other supply vehicles, which will be vital for net zero. Too often companies find it difficult to secure the necessary permission, let alone the grid access, for such important infrastructure.
We must think creatively about how we power this transition. One of the most underutilised opportunities lies in our existing transport infrastructure. Across the country, vast expanses of roof space exposed to sunlight sit idle. Installing solar panels on car parks, bus garages and railway stations could generate clean energy, reduce grid pressure and power local EV chargers directly. France has already mandated solar panels on large car parks. We are playing catch-up with the recent government announcement. I hope the Government will consider provisions in the Bill to require solar installations on all suitable transport infrastructure. It is a simple, visible step towards a greener future. We have some good examples of it here in the capital, such as the stations at Blackfriars and Denmark Hill.
Let us use the Bill not just to build faster but to build better, smarter and fairer, to achieve a transport network that is clean, connected and accessible for all.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and the Oxfordshire Development Forum. I emphasise that my views on these issues are entirely my own.
A number of us are taking forward many of the issues that we discussed during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, including my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. His point about the resourcing of planning authorities is really important. Something that the Government could do straight away, outside of the Bill, is enable the retention of level 7 apprenticeships for new planning officers, because the lack of those will make things difficult for local planning authorities.
In the time available, I will focus on one thing. As we discuss many issues in the Bill, I hope we can understand more about what the Government propose to use from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, how they are going to use it, and what they propose not to use. For example, the national development management policies are potentially extremely important in enabling local authorities to produce plans more quickly and efficiently. I hope that those local authorities going into the new plan-making process have early access to NDMPs, so that they are able to limit the extent to which they have to undertake unnecessary consultation.
This links to the debate we will have about a national scheme of delegation. On the face of it, the Government’s technical proposal, in so far as it substantially deviated from the original consultation with three options, went in the wrong direction. The national scheme of delegation should be, first, that planning officers should make decisions where applications are in line with an existing up-to-date local plan. That should be very straightforward. Secondly, they should make the decisions where the decision is, in effect, directly mandated by the national development management policies. We need to look at some of these additional planning issues before we get to the debates in Committee and on Report on the content of the Bill.
I hope that the provisions in the levelling-up Act in relation to neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood policy statements might be brought into force. In the absence of that, I hope that the Bill will use that. If the Government want more homes built in the places where people want them to be built, neighbourhood planning has shown itself to be an effective mechanism.
There are provisions relating to locally led urban development areas and locally led urban development corporations in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to them. The noble Lord, Lord Best, advocated very forcibly the use of development corporations, but did not say which kind. I think we need to know from the Government whether they will make locally led urban development areas and development corporations available for this purpose, whether they plan to use government-controlled development corporations, or whether they plan, in line with the provisions of the devolution White Paper, to focus on mayoral development corporations. It is not just whether we have development corporations and what powers they have; it is what kind of development corporations. This will make a big difference when we hear from the New Towns Taskforce, which I hope we will do before the Summer Recess.
The final thing I want to say is that we all agree. I share many of the objectives of this Bill and look forward to debating it, with a view to strengthening the achievement of those objectives. We want to be able to deliver effectively on development plans, but we need up-to-date local plans to make that happen. At the moment, 70 local authorities are going to go under the old NPPF rather than the new one, and that will lose us the potential and requirement for something like 15,000 homes being built a year.
It is important that, with all these changes, we know how the Government are going to give us more pace in putting all the planning reforms in place, alongside this Bill.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, first, I declare my involvement in a family farming and land management business. Secondly, I record my thanks to the Bill team for their courtesy in coming together to answer my series of very naive questions.
I believe this Bill is essential to get our country moving again and I support what it is trying to achieve. Coming from the south-west, my favourite eternally delayed project is the road vital for bringing our tourists in and taking our manufactured goods out—namely, the A303 and its dualling. The first time I saw a planning application for the Stonehenge bypass, which is the key to unlocking it all, was in 1985—40 years ago. It still has not been built and hour-long traffic jams still happen there. That is not good.
However, the issue that desperately needs dealing with is housing. We have a major housing crisis in rural England, far worse than in the towns. We lack affordable homes, not executive houses—note the use of “homes” and “houses”. As I have said in this House many times, council houses or their equivalent would be good—affordable homes to rent in proper interactive communities, built to standards we can all be proud of. I hope this Bill will enable that to happen. Building standards need to be checked, perhaps by the development corporations that the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I are both very keen on. We also need to amend the right to buy, which I hope is just around the corner.
I am all in favour of councils charging their own ring-fenced planning fees, providing that gives speed and certainty to applications. I am in favour of delegated planning decisions, training for planning committees, limiting the use of judicial reviews, encouraging faster access to electricity supplies and so on. The Government’s biggest problem is going to be the availability of skills. Where are they going to find the hundreds of new planners needed, the thousands of new builders, plumbers and electricians, and, above all, the hundreds of new skilled ecologists that Natural England and others will need to make this Bill work successfully?
As I understand it, EDPs are only about protected sites and protected species, and developers’ current obligations to promote BNG—biodiversity net gain—will continue to run in parallel. There will be huge competition for the small supply of ecologists between developers, local authorities and Natural England. I am not sure there is the capacity out there.
Part 3 of the Bill is its biggest weakness. I hope that the promised Pennycook amendments to satisfy the OEP will be announced soon. The biggest shortfall is the lack of a mitigation hierarchy. The Bill also needs to provide for subsequent management of the land involved in an EDP. It is all very well having achieved overall improvement by 10 years, but what is to prevent that overall improvement disappearing on the land in question in future years?
In Part 4, I am pleased to see that heat networks are included in the list of necessary infrastructure—something I have promoted in this House for some time, particularly where geothermal heat is involved. I am not keen on Natural England having compulsory purchase powers. It is better and cheaper if it contracts with landowners to get the land management it wants, but I suppose, if you are trying to assemble land or a land management programme, it is probably best if, as President Roosevelt said, you talk softly but carry a big stick. I hope that the powers will not be used too often.
There is an issue with compulsory purchase generally that needs fixing—namely, the way that an acquiring authority, or more often a private sector company acting in their name, when implementing a CPO seem to think they can ride roughshod over the normal rules governing the conveyance of property. With CPO powers in their armoury, they seem to turn into badly behaved bully boys. There are stories of people whose land and businesses have been confiscated and two years later they are still waiting for payment. That is outrageous. I will propose the introduction of an enforceable code of practice to ensure that the confiscation of property by the state, which can be devastating for an individual or a business, is accomplished in as fair and civilised a manner as possible.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my long-standing interest in Persimmon plc, a middle-market mass housebuilder. This position has given me a ringside seat to observe the vicissitudes that have beset house building and planning over decades, with their cycles of ups and downs which no one has ever managed to defeat. Secondly, whatever the Bill before us sets out to do, in no way can it suddenly abolish the cycles in favour of a smooth, ever-upward movement of growth just by virtue of the men and women in Whitehall knowing best. I do not believe that is possible. This unfortunate Bill cannot by some fiat just fix those cyclical ups and downs—which rather depend on the safety of the economy, levels of taxation and availability of capital and of skilled labour—simply by grabbing more power from the centre. Indeed, the record sadly shows that no Conservative or Labour Government since 1945 have ever met their stated aspirations or hopes or pledges to build this or that particular number of homes in any one year or in any one decade.
It is amusing, but sad, to see that 300,000 per annum still is the hot-favourite target. The Prime Minister and his Ministers have since 2024 said much about their target intent. I would like to ask the Minister for a bit more clarity. He has an enviable reputation for being straightforward, saying it as it is and absolutely giving it between the eyes. I hope that he is not going to let me down—I seek not to damage him in any way by what I say in his important role. I want to ask him, therefore, what number of homes he expects to see built per year until August 2029, when his lot will come to the end of their present term. Is the number by then really still to be 1.5 million? I look forward to his answer. If his colleague who will be winding up tonight cannot give me that answer, I will be very happy to have—as drafted by the noble Lord—an answer in writing placed in the Library of the House so we can all see exactly what it is. That is because four years is a decent enough length of time over which to succeed or perhaps to be called out and be shown to have been pledging the unattainable. I do not think the massive shift of planning power away from local communities and councils will be any guarantee of success.
Thirdly, although HMG can recycle or manufacture new pledges—I think we have seen a bit of this in the last year—unfortunately we cannot manufacture new supplies of land. I have said in your Lordships’ House before that it is a scarce resource. All new housing cannot be built on reused brown, grey or green-tinged land, or built in areas once occupied by military bases—they are probably going to be reopened as military bases quite shortly. Much green or green-tinged land, alas, will need to be built on to provide new homes for young people. I accept that sometimes this will be necessary, and it is the only way that young people will get their homes. I doubt it will be easily accepted if it is from distant London SW1 and all to be decided centrally. Local involvement will always be needed to generate acceptability, for planners do not create communities; only people create communities. To make this happen, houses must look good. It is very possible to build well and build beautifully and to a human scale, as the late Sir Roger Scruton said—that very rare bird, a university moral philosopher and urban thinker. We should heed the advice that he gave.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis, a vice-chair of Peers for the Planet and co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear.
As an engineer, of course, I very keen to see Britain get building. This Bill is the single most important piece of legislation in the Government’s agenda to unlock growth and deliver for the many strategic targets the Minister outlined, including housing, clean power 2030 and defence. It is vital, therefore, that Parliament gets this right. I welcome the direction of travel in the Bill and that the Government are coming up with a number of very positive, radical ideas for the planning system.
However, the biggest problem for the Bill being able to deliver against its objectives is that Part 3, which has been presented as a solution to speed buildings and infrastructure through the system, may be a solution for housing, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, set out, there are broadly held concerns that it will not deliver for infrastructure. That is because, by the time a developer comes along and identifies a habitat’s problem, there is unlikely to be time for Natural England to put in place an EDP to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. That means there will be a twin-track approach, which could have the unfortunate side-effect of adding to the bureaucratic burden within the planning system for large infrastructure. I would be grateful if, in her summing up, the Minister could expand on how she sees EDPs delivering for large infrastructure.
At the core of many of the issues that have added billions in cost and years in delay to our large infrastructure is the habitat regulations. They are, of course, very necessary, but there have been increasing issues with how they are interpreted. As mentioned previously, Catherine Howard, partner at HSF Kramer, has been doing some sterling work with ecologists and others on straightforward, common-sense clarifications to the habitat regulations that would bring more scientific rigor to the whole process. This has been set out in her Project Nutcracker series of articles, which I hope officials have seen.
For example, the habitat regulations are worded to require the proving of a negative: in other words, proof is required that a proposed project will not have an effect on a particular habitat. This is not the way science works; instead, we come up with theories and design experiments to try to falsify them. But proving that something does not exist is not falsifiable. That means that Natural England is currently not only overburdened but wastes precious time exploring hypothetical risks that are not adequately underpinned by scientific evidence. This is the fault of a system that asks it to prove that developments will have no impact, meaning that it must investigate and account for possibilities that there is no ecological evidence for.
The fundamental change that needs to be made is the introduction of a positive duty not to grant consent where there is scientific evidence of an adverse effect. This small amendment would have an immediate effect, freeing up scarce resource at Natural England to deliver on those goals, while streamlining the planning process for all the projects going through the system.
So there is a potential common-sense reform here that many ecologists are supportive of. It would bolster the measures in the Bill to speed up delivery of infra- structure projects in this Parliament, including the much-needed projects at the centre of the Government’s spending review and infrastructure strategy, as well as delivering more effectively for nature.
I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement in this Session on embodied carbon emissions. When she sums up, could she outline what plans the Government have to introduce common guidance, or perhaps to make a Ministerial Statement clarifying the approach local authorities should take?
In conclusion, there is a significant risk here. If Part 3 does not deliver for infrastructure, all the Government’s great aspirations for infrastructure build and development will not be realised. I look forward to further engagement with the Government on our pragmatic solutions to mitigate this risk, help get Britain building in the near term and deliver for nature.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I hope he will not mind me saying that, through the expertise he has brought to this debate, he has illustrated how the hereditary system brings a comparatively youthful expertise of a non-partisan nature into our midst—one which will never come in once the constitutional vandalism this Government are planning has removed such people from this House.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill’s overall objectives of speeding up and streamlining the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. The current delays and costs are intolerable. The Lower Thames Crossing has cost £1.2 billion just for the planning process, before a single sod has been cut—if that is what you do to sod. That is more than what it cost Norway to build the longest under-river tunnel in Europe. A 25-mile bypass cost £250 million just for the planning process, and virtually every housing project in my old constituency —and in most other parts of the country—faces objections locally.
In effect, we have created a “vetocracy” in this country. Objectors can impose such costs and delays on project developers that they can effectively veto those projects going ahead. We must find ways of reducing the power of that vetocracy, and I welcome steps in the Bill to do that. We have got to stop local vetoes preventing, delaying and raising the costs of building homes, transport and energy infrastructure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, lauded the French success in building large infrastructure projects. I recall my old and much-lamented friend Nigel, the late Lord Lawson, telling me how, when he was Energy Secretary, he had asked his French counterpart how they were able to build nuclear power stations across France with so little objection. The French Minister, without realising the double entendre, replied, “When you are draining the swamp, you do not consult ze frogs”. But we do have to consult ze Brits in this country.
One less draconian way of undermining democracy is to enable developers to buy off or compensate objectors. This is most relevant in the energy sector, which is my principal concern. We need to access lower-cost and most-reliable energy sources and enable energy to reach the users without imposing extra costs. So I welcome the measures in the Bill which will enable the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to compensate people living in properties near to new transmission network structures by crediting their energy bills. But I cannot see why it should be delimited to those living near transmission networks and certain major upgrades of existing projects—that is what the Bill says at present. Why not extend the scheme so that compensation may be offered to those living near, say, proposed onshore windmills, which are the cheapest form of renewable energy? Better still, why not give companies proposing to drill for shale gas or oil onshore the right to offer compensation? I have heard of one company that would be prepared to offer £1,000 per household to those living within, say, a mile of a proposed well if a majority votes to allow such drilling to take place. It would subsequently offer a reduction in their gas bills, if the well proves successful, for the life of that well. I shall put down amendments to that effect.
Another aspect of the Bill that relates to the energy sector is the section enabling the Government to introduce a cap and floor scheme to finance long-duration energy schemes. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that that is expected to relate to new reservoirs—I mention the Dinorwig existing reservoir—but there are very few potential sites. The notes also refer to your Lordships’ House’s Select Committee report Long-Duration Energy Storage: Get on With It, which was mostly about the development of hydrogen as a form of storage. I again alert the House and the Government to the dangers of pressing ahead and investing in immature technologies prematurely. That technology has not been developed and is hugely costly at the moment, and we should not empower the Government to go ahead with it before it has proved its worth.
I add that, if we are going to build 1.5 million homes—I hope we will, and I will help the Government in their measures to make that easier to get planning permission for—we have to recognise that, at present, 40% of those will be taken up, in effect, by the rate of immigration foreseen by the Office for National Statistics over the next five years. We have to remember that it is about not just supply but demand—but no one will ever mention that.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I am the chair of Annington, a housing company that specialises in affordable homes, but I will not talk about that because, for many years now, I have been the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, which also includes utilisation. Frankly, I never thought the day would come when a Government would put CCUS at the heart of such a significant piece of legislation, so I want to say thank you.
The Bill has the potential to turn our net-zero ambitions into real-world jobs, investment and long-term economic renewal. The Climate Change Committee has acknowledged that there is no credible path to net zero without carbon capture and storage. The confirmation of funding for HyNet and the East Coast Cluster build-out, alongside the support for Acorn and Viking to reach final investment decisions in this Parliament, has put a spring in my step—noble Lords can probably tell from my accent which one gives me the biggest spring in my step. The recent financial close for net-zero Teesside and Liverpool Bay CCS further highlights the momentum, but risk still remains: inconsistent planning frameworks that are crying out for updating could threaten delay or even derail progress, right at the time when we need to accelerate.
For those of us, like me, brought up in the heartlands of coal, iron and steel, and shipbuilding, this is not just a climate solution. The opportunity analysis by the CCSA points to 50,000 skilled jobs and almost £90 billion in economic value by 2050. That should not be sneezed at. Add to that the potential for large-scale CO2 storage and industrial decarbonisation.
Traditional industries, such as coal, iron and steel, and shipbuilding, can reform into clean energy industries. That means a lot to the kind of communities that I used to represent in the other place. The same skill sets are required for carbon capture and storage, but the planning must reflect the national role of CCUS infrastructure, even if it is only for short distances.
I know that there is a possibility of some pretty minor amendments that can have a great impact on the future of carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Reforming current guidelines, such as those in the Pipe-Lines Act 1962, can streamline the consenting process for CO2 pipelines, and that kind of modernisation will allow us to keep with partners such as Norway, which is already planning cross-border CO2 transport. Norway has been very much in the lead with a lot of this technology, and it is worth looking at.
This is all about boosting investor confidence. It will take investment from outside government to make this work, and work in the long term. In Committee, we will need those amendments to designate CO2 spur pipelines and carbon capture equipment as nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008, and to remove the requirement for special parliamentary procedures in the Pipe-Lines Act 1962 for pipeline compulsory purchase orders. That will help unlock the £9.4 billion already committed by the Government to CCUS delivery, and enable clusters such as Scotland, Teesside, the north-west and Humberside to move forward.
We have the potential to be a global leader in the development and export of carbon management technologies. Let us seize the moment—let us go for it, because there are great reserves of energy out there that can help us.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it takes a lot to shock me, but this Bill did, and still does. It will take a lot of amendments to get it right. I was particularly distraught at Part 3. I am conscious that in the previous Parliament, as my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook mentioned, some of the amendments to LURB that were rejected by this House were much smaller in scale than in Part 3, which can only be considered a complete and utter assault on our natural environment.
In thinking about aspects to be addressed, there are plenty of briefings that I am sure we will all share. However, we need to go through the Bill very carefully and properly understand it, instead of listening to mantras designed to push the Bill forward. There is no doubt that we want more homes built. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned, it is finances that are stopping a lot of houses being built.
There are 700,000 empty homes in this country—not second homes or holiday homes but empty homes. A million planning consents are still available for homes to be built, over 250,000 of which are in London. What is stopping them? It is about financing and continuing to make the most money. I am not criticising that, but simply trashing lots of the countryside and trashing nature will not necessarily deliver the infra- structure and the homes that people in this country need.
I say this, because I looked at the human rights memorandum carefully and there is a lot in it that talks about compulsory purchase “in the public interest”. I shall declare one interest: I still live in Suffolk, and I still live pretty close to some proposed energy infrastructure. I am not a nimby; I was actually very active in supporting Sizewell C, as long as it dealt with aspects of environmental regulation, which it did satisfactorily. But I am not clear how the Bill will address one of the two projects there that come to mind.
People are concerned that it has taken so long to get a variety of projects going. I understand why, but one of the key issues for Sizewell C was that, all of a sudden, due to a High Court ruling, the local water company said that it could not guarantee that it could supply the water. That was one of the things that massively derailed the construction of Sizewell C at that point, even when it started to come up with creative solutions. For example, we have a water shortage in East Anglia, and a lot of farmers and food security would be affected by the fact that they would not be able to get the water that they were used to—and they are pretty good with their water in East Anglia; they have high productivity. So it was suggested that a reservoir should be built, because Sizewell C needed it and farmers could use it as well, but Ofgem said no. I hope that we get to a situation whereby the Bill starts to allow those sorts of creative solutions instead of some of the challenges that it will bring, as we struggle to reach the targets already set in primary legislation.
Part 2 is an affront to democracy, and I shall give another local example. There is no doubt that building housing on any greenfield—not necessarily green belt, but greenfield—often tends to be controversial locally, but I give credit to the councils that try to get this balance right. What worries me about removing decisions from local councillors and giving it to planning officers is that we now have even more housing targets going into the countryside. There are situations where, for example, plans set a density for a 2,000-house development, and then officers recommend outline planning where the density is only one-third of what it should have been in the plan. It does not take too much of a brain to work out that, to meet the rest of the housing, they will have to use three times the amount of land.
There are many clauses that I shall examine very carefully—not only Clause 89, with its extensive Henry VIII powers, Schedule 5 on compulsory purchase, or Clause 91. By the way, we can all be happy: that provision does not apply to Crown land. Why not? It should be the first considered for compulsory purchase for any nature development.
It is also wrong that Natural England gets so many powers. This is not about Natural England itself, but it should be in the hands of the Secretary of State who should devise these. If they choose to delegate to Natural England then that is a different matter, but the Secretary of State and Ministers are accountable to Parliament while Natural England is not directly accountable. That is what we need to fix.
There are a variety of issues to do with water, but I hope that the Government will be open to a variety of permitted development rights, particularly with ponds and helping our farmers, and where they are about sustainable drainage. However, we should bear in mind that a brand new reservoir has not been built in this country in a long time—and I do not really understand why Thames Water is dragging its feet over in Abingdon. Let us take Abberton, over in Essex: 10 years ago, its capacity went up by 60%. So stuff is happening in this country, and we should not just try to use every bit of nature as an excuse for why certain things are not happening. The A14 was built ahead of time and below budget.
I am very sorry, I shall press the case for a lot more social housing, but not at the expense of trashing what we hold precious in this country.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the number of speakers in this debate reflects just how seriously this Chamber is taking the issue of housebuilding and infrastructure. To start with, I will refer to Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill on spatial development strategies. For those of us who have been involved in local government for a while, this is reminiscent of the RDA era. New Part 1A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, introduced in Chapter 2 of the Bill, lists what a strategic planning authority means, but there is no mention of the national parks. That seems extraordinary, as they are vital to ensuring that strategic planning in their areas is done with empathy and sensitivity to individual environments.
The contribution that access to the countryside makes to health and well-being is well documented; this is a vital role for the national parks. They assist in the provision of affordable homes and have many permissions for housing granted. Currently, in the South Downs National Park, there are over 2,000 homes with permitted permission, of which 500 are affordable homes, but all are unbuilt.
In addition, national park authorities are not mentioned as being part of strategic planning boards. Given their role in mineral extraction and waste disposal, they should surely be present round the table and fully involved. Can the Minister say whether this omission is an oversight or deliberate; and, if so, why?
On the role of the community land trust organisations, there are currently 290 CLTs in England which own 2,100 assets, including 1,953 affordable homes. Many CLTs provide housing in AONBs and national parks, where smaller-scale affordable housing development is essential. Almost half the rural affordable housing projects in the pipeline in Devon involve CLTs. This was a result of the community housing federation’s work and shows the potential and appetite among communities to increase housing supply, if they are confident that it will result in homes that meet local needs. It is not helpful that the Government have recently ended funding for neighbourhood planning support. The Government have also not reinstated any grant funding for community-led housing. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has been very positive in writing about CLH but the Government have actually made it harder for communities to play this role.
The pipeline of new projects in the south-west has almost completely dried up, which is very disappointing indeed. Projects that were led by communities are set to be replaced by imposed government diktat. Is this really what the Minister wants?
I turn now to the lack of stopping places and permanent sites for Gypsies and Travellers, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester raised. Every local authority should provide transit and permanent sites, alongside other traditional stopping places, thus dramatically reducing the number forced to stop on what the law now classes as illegal encampments. Since the statutory duty to provide sites was repealed in 1994, barely any local authority sites have been built. Private provision has increased and, while this is welcome, it is not accessible for many. In planning for homes, it is crucial to acknowledge and include provision for all our communities. Local authority-managed sites remain vital for a culturally pertinent way of living.
Long-standing planning failures have created a severe shortage of safe and suitable sites. Children need to be considered, and their access to education and health services is almost non-existent if they are continually moved on. Treating them as an underclass reinforces their marginalisation from the rest of society.
Lastly, my first Bill, which has already been referred to, was the Housing and Planning Bill 2016—there were lots of warm words about delivery. I urge the Government not to follow the example of the previous Administration. Housing is not an also-ran. It is key to economic and personal well-being. The Housing Minister must be totally committed to delivering the government goals and stay in post for at least the length of the parliamentary Session; churn will not deliver. Being the Housing Minister should not be a stepping stone to another role. It is an essential part of delivery and needs consistency, not a yearly change of personnel.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. The Bill is trying to do what is needed to boost housebuilding. I do not think there is anyone who disputes the simple fact that the gap between demand and supply continues to widen. We know, as many noble Lords have said, that this is at least in part the consequence of a planning system that is unbelievably complex and cumbersome, and often just flies against common sense, and we have heard lots of examples today.
I will focus on one aspect of the Bill. I start by saying that I appreciated the Minister’s opening remarks in relation to nature. I know from my own experience of dealing with the Minister that he believes very much what he said, but I have concerns about the Bill.
The Bill, like others before it on this issue, seems to pitch nature as a kind of blocker to development. In addition to there not being any new measures that I can see to ensure that new developments are built in a more nature-friendly way, some valuable protections are being removed, even if by default.
Clause 67, for example, says that nature improvement needs to be
“funded … by developers in a way that does not make development economically unviable”.
But in a country such as ours, which is so nature-denuded, and where our biodiversity continues to plummet, surely some development in some genuinely sensitive and important areas should be economically unviable. In the proposed equation that we are seeing here, it is hard to see how nature can ever win that contest.
In addition, it is not clear what the Bill means for the future biodiversity net gain obligations. I remind noble Lords that this is a new market, created more or less by consensus between the two Houses, that has generated myriad businesses and schemes, exactly as intended. Students, businesses—anyone who has moved into this new space—will undoubtedly be feeling unsettled about their own future, so I hope we will have clarity from the Minister on that point.
There are lots of ways in which the Bill can be strengthened. I hope, for example, that we will see significant, stronger protections for irreplaceable habitats such as chalk streams, ancient woodlands, peatlands and so on as an insurance against the risks that have been highlighted in the Bill. We have 85% of the world’s chalk streams but only 11 out of 220 are currently protected. Given the huge cost of flooding to communities, it just makes no sense that the National Planning Policy Framework still permits development on some functional flood plains. We have an opportunity here to change that, as well as pursuing opportunities to simplify regulations and give nature a boost at the same time.
There will be plenty of opportunities to outline those examples in due course, but I want to focus on one particularly important measure, which is among the easiest, most cost-effective—and effective—steps that we can take. It is one that I previously championed in this House, with tremendous support from the then Opposition, now Government. At the time of tabling my amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said —I love these words:
“We were delighted to see Amendment 221A … relating to the provision of swift bricks … We believe that specifically including swift bricks as a measure in the Bill, to be incorporated in planning law, is justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habitats … There is definitely a clear and present threat to these species. We hope the Government will accept this relatively a small step, which could make a world of difference to protecting our swift population, and that it will not be necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to divide the House—but I hope he knows he has our full support in this amendment”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; cols. 540-541.]
So noble Lords can imagine my delight when that amendment was resuscitated in previous debates in the other House. It reappeared as Barry Gardiner’s new Clause 73, which would require the installation of swift bricks in any development higher than five metres.
Noble Lords will know, because we have debated this already, that the breeding population of swifts collapsed by a staggering 60% between 1995 and 2020. We have known since 2002 that this rapid decline in swifts—and, it has to be said, other cavity nesting birds—is primarily the consequence of a lack of cavity nesting sites. The way we build new homes and renovate older homes today just does not accommodate nature in any way.
This month, we heard a welcome—in my view—announcement from the Government: confirmation that the national insulation budget of £13.2 billion will be spent in full, mostly on wall insulations. That is good news, but there is no mitigation or protective legislation for cavity nesting habitats. The birds do not stand a chance.
We know swift boxes work; there is a reported 96% occupancy in boxes on the Duchy estates; there is unanimous support from ornithologists and zero real opposition from the developers. The parliamentary petition that was started by the author and campaigner Hannah Bourne-Taylor was, at the time that it was launched, the fastest to reach 100,000 signatures. So, there is popular support for this, and it is so easy to do. It is cheap and requires zero maintenance and expertise.
I strongly encourage the Government to look again at some of the great things that were said by the then Opposition when I was trying to get my amendment through—I failed, as noble Lords will know—and ensure that, when the times come, it will not be necessary to divide the House.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, it is very difficult to talk about anything of substance in five minutes on a subject so central to this Government. But having talked with colleagues in the industry, I would like to make the following brief points. I declare my interests.
First, my colleagues are reassured by the sense of purpose and drive that the Government are demonstrating in this policy area. We need to help the Bill get on to the statute book soon, so that we can get building.
Secondly, the Bill needs to think more about building communities and place-making, not just about building more soulless housing estates. The Government are rightly committed to addressing a range of different problems: housing, health, crime, education and net zero. The lesson from the history of failed housing estates built in the 1960s and 1970s by the public sector, and the worrying signs from too much of what is being built today, is that if we build homes in the wrong way, we will not only fail to help solve these problems but make them worse.
We need to build places and strong, humane cultures and communities, not just homes. If noble Lords are in any doubt what this means for local residents, they should take five minutes and listen to Billy Connolly’s description on YouTube of what happened to him and his family when they were moved out of their home and community in the Gorbals in Glasgow and placed in a soulless housing estate on the edge of town. No one can describe the experience more clearly than Billy.
My colleagues and I are working on addressing precisely these issues in projects across the country with some of our major developers, and we are happy to share with the Minister and her colleagues our 360-degree approach to place-making, which is focused on buildings and culture—maybe she can let me know if there is interest.
We are all very concerned about what happens to bats and newts, but how concerned are we about the young mother I was with a few months ago on a multimillion-pound new housing estate in east London whose two year-old was already picking up needles in the play area? We all need to think very carefully together about how we do not repeat those mistakes in this next phase of development.
Thirdly, it is good news that planning officers will be given greater responsibility to determine smaller applications, reserved matter submissions and schemes on allocated sites through a new proposed national scheme of delegation. This should lead to greater consistency of approach across local planning authorities, plus certainty and timeliness of decisions. The mandatory training of planning committee members should, in theory, also lead to greater consistency and certainty for applications that do not fit into the above national scheme of delegation.
Having sat on a planning committee for many years, I know how flawed these present processes are, and I have watched too many local councillors play political games with these local processes. I think His Majesty’s Opposition need to think more clearly about the connections between democracy and delivery. There needs to be more clarity in their thinking about this matter.
Fourthly, the nature restoration fund, hopefully, will remove the restriction on 160,000 homes stalled by nutrient neutrality restrictions by allowing developers to pay into a nature restoration fund that delivers habitat improvements at a regional scale, rather than requiring site-specific ecological mitigation for every scheme. This should speed up the delivery of sites. There are, however, concerns about Natural England’s ability to deliver a robust scheme on a timely basis.
Fifthly, the proposal in the Bill to speed up the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure projects is also much welcomed and should provide greater clarity and certainty over the delivery of these projects.
Having said all this positive news, I think there remain some challenges for business colleagues in the industry. The introduction of new cross-boundary regional strategic planning could be positive, driving a more joined-up approach towards housing, economic and infrastructure growth across LPAs. However, there are significant concerns about the potential delays to new local plans and housing schemes because of this structural change. LPAs, which remain critically underresourced are undergoing significant change through forthcoming devolution and the abolition of the two-tier authority system, which, when tied in with the need to deliver these regional strategies soon, mean there may be an awful lot of resource tied up in delivering restructuring and not delivering local plans and housing schemes, which are needed in the short term.
I finish with a reality check: the current length of timeframes for securing planning permission will likely not shrink by a significant amount. Bidding on a site now does not realistically generate volume for the large housing businesses until 2028, given the timescales associated with securing planning permission, selling consented land, securing reserve matters, signing Section 106 agreements, site preparation and the build and sale of homes. By and large, the Bill is seen by many in the housing industry as very positive, with several of the changes proposed leading to quicker, more consistent and more certain outcomes. However, this has to be set against the wider context and systematic issues present, which may limit the positive impact these reforms will have.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests in the register.
I think we all recognise the need for changes in the planning system to deliver really important infrastructure and housing, but we need to recall that the planning system is there to do more than “Dig, baby, dig”. It is a system whereby a balance is struck between economic, social and environmental outcomes for the good of citizens and communities.
The narrative in this country on this has become too polarised over recent months: you are either a builder or a blocker. It is either development or the environment. We are smarter than that; we can deliver both. Part 3 will need considerable change if we are going to do that. That view is shared by the Office for Environmental Protection, which regards this part of the Bill as regressing from our environmental standards.
The provisions in Part 3 on environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund are fine to deal with the delays in the planning system caused by environmental issues best solved on a wider-than-site basis—on a catchment basis. There are issues such as nutrient neutrality, which has already been mentioned, recreational pressures and other water quality and quantity issues. But the proposed system is not right for resolving many protected species issues or for dealing with irreplaceable habitats. For the latter, the clue is on the tin: these habitats cannot be replaced, and indeed both the revised NPPF and the biodiversity net gain guidelines make provision for their protection. I ask the Minister to tell the House how irreplaceable habitats will be protected under Part 3.
Part 3 also removes the snappily named mitigation hierarchy, which encourages developers and planners, as a first step, to think hard about avoiding protected sites—first do no harm. If the Government are going to meet their statutory nature conservation targets, they must both protect what is already there by way of important nature and create more strategic habitat.
The delivery of Part 3 relies on Natural England, which is already creaking for a lack of resources and staff. I ask my noble friend the Minister what assessment has been made of the capacity of Natural England. How many environment delivery plans do the Government expect Natural England to prepare, and how long will that take?
There are other issues in Part 3, which, in the interests of time, I will pass over. I could go on, but I would begin to sound like the polarised narrative I said we should avoid. I do not believe that is where I stand, because we are smarter and there is a win-win solution. Many of the elements of that system are already in place or are being put in place by the Government: the land use framework approach, regional spatial strategies and revised local plans linked with local nature recovery strategies, all of which can enable developers to steer their applications to places where they can be sure of an easy run through the planning system.
The ecological surveys and environmental impact assessments will have been done in advance at strategy and plan level, and not be a delay factor at planning application stage. There are other simple changes that will streamline the system, and I look forward to working with the Minister on alternative proposals. In the meantime, can the Minister advise us when we will see the government amendments, signalled by Minister Pennycook in the other place, to address these concerns?
One last point is that several of the larger developers, both in infrastructure and in housing, are increasingly anxious about Part 3. Sweeping away important nature protections is not a good look for a housebuilder or an infrastructure developer that has pledged to deliver a national or international environmental accreditation. They are concerned that this will be done in their name. There are also concerns that they will incur costs and complications from having one system inside EDP areas and another outside, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, highlighted. Are the Government listening to those concerns from developers? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is something like that popular old spaghetti Western, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”.
Let us begin with the good. Chief among these aspects is the strong recognition that the status quo is no longer working. Infrastructure delivery has been sluggish, housing needs remain unmet, and many local authorities are still grappling with outdated planning frameworks and, as has been said, many do not have an up-to-date local plan.
The icing on the cake for me is the welcome return of strategic planning, and with it, empowered development corporations. These aspects were missing previously, and both are welcome and overdue. The emphasis on streamlining nationally significant infrastructure is in principle sensible if we want to tackle the climate crisis, deliver on net zero and provide energy security. We simply cannot have vital infrastructure mired in red tape for years on end.
Similarly, the focus on digitisation and data-led planning is very much a step in the right direction. If digital tools mean that more people can engage meaningfully with the process, that is a win for both democracy and delivery.
I also acknowledge the proposed reforms to compulsory purchase powers. If handled fairly and transparently, that could enable more strategic regeneration in brownfield development, which has to be preferable to the continued encroachment on our green belt.
But then we come to the bad. The Bill talks a good game about speeding up delivery but, first, we must not conflate delivery with planning permissions. As has been said, there are hundreds of thousands of units already with permission that are simply not being built. Let us have some courage and address the broken land market and the incentives that currently reward land banking. That is not about red tape but about political will.
Throughout the Bill, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords, there is a concern about capacity to deliver. Our local authorities are expected to implement much of the Bill and, as we have heard, they are already overstretched, underfunded and struggling to recruit and retain skilled planning officers. I know the Minister will tell us of the Government’s plans and funding to remedy this long-standing problem, but the gap between these plans and their achieving fruit—that is, people in post, doing the job—is one of many years. How will the Government fill that gap? There certainly is not time here to comment on the capacity within the construction industry, which is also demonstrably lacking, but the Minister may well have an update for us on that.
The Bill treads worryingly into overcentralisation. I understand the driver for that after decades of failure, but we must not fall into the trap of sidelining local voices in the name of speeding up the process. From experience, I know that the best planning outcomes emerge when communities, councillors and developers collaborate within a coherent framework, which I hope the spatial development strategies will provide. The Bill needs to be clear about the value of the public’s voice and the appropriate place for it to be heard.
It is clear, even from our debate, that Part 3 has attracted the most concern: measures which replace robust environmental safeguards with a financial levy. There are concerns that changes to the environmental assessment may risk weakening vital safeguards. We need to be certain that the new processes will uphold our biodiversity, our heritage and climate commitments. We must insist that any levy achieves significant improvement, not mere compensation.
On the ugly, as we have observed in other Bills, and increasingly so, there is a tendency to present undeveloped legislation that lacks detailed policy and grants Ministers broad delegated powers to fill in the gaps later. Most notable in this Bill is the proposed national scheme of delegation. That is a significant shift, with substantial powers given to the Secretary of State and where we are yet again asked to give the Government a blank cheque on matters of national significance and some controversy.
Disappointingly absent are provisions to strengthen community engagement, empower neighbourhood planning and bolster community land trusts—measures that empower citizens to shape their places rather than merely react to what developers propose. Indeed, I urge the Government to consider that a vision for high-quality design is a core component of the spatial development strategies, created with communities rather than handed down to them. We will support the good, amend the bad, and call out the ugly.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as noted in the register as chair of Peers for the Planet.
When looking at this Bill, the one thing I think we can all agree on is that our planning system needs to be reformed, and in that sense, I welcome the Bill. But if we are to ensure a healthy and resilient future for people and the planet, we also need to ensure that our planning system, at the same time as delivering 1.5 million houses and major infrastructure, also delivers towards our environmental and climate targets.
We need a climate and nature duty which will run through the planning system and ensure consistency in decision-making by treating nature and climate targets as material considerations and giving them proper planning weight. Yet what we have in our current system is already too piecemeal, and now this Bill brings in yet another set of reforms which, if we are not really careful, will result in conflicting legislation and strategies all pulling against one another.
I know that other Lords have commented on this, but in this respect, it is Part 3 which is of most concern. If it is left as it is, it will lead to regression in the legal certainty for nature, a removal of the mitigation hierarchy, and conservation measures that can be delayed by a decade after the damage has been done. Associated with this, I have three specific concerns that will be very helpful to hear the Minister’s opinion on.
The first, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that the Bill fails to include any mention of protection of irreplaceable habitats such as protected blanket peatlands, ancient woodlands, chalk streams and species-rich grasslands. Currently, these habitats are given strict protection under the habitats directive and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as well as protection under the mitigation hierarchy. In the Bill, the EDP proposal turns this process on its head. It would allow developers to pay a levy and skip straight to compensation. But how can you compensate or restore elsewhere when habitats can take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to restore? For example, let us take the SSI blanket peat bog on Walshaw Moor in Yorkshire. It has taken 6,000 years to grow to where it is now. At its current growth rate, if we destroy it, it will take 240 human generations later to see the peatland restored. This is clearly ridiculous, and allowing harm to those irreplaceable habitats in exchange for future compensation would be a grave misstep.
Secondly, the Bill views nature as important to protect only for its inherent value, yet we now have huge amounts of evidence, including from the UK Government, that the ecosystem services provided by nature are incredibly important for their role in climate mitigation, flood risk protection, pollination, clean water, clean air and good-quality soils. It is also now widely acknowledged, including by the Treasury, that if these natural capital assets are allowed to degrade any further or be destroyed, there could be a significant financial impact. For example, the Green Finance Institute in its 2025 report on nature-related financial risk—I recommend that your Lordships read it if you do not know this data—estimated that further deterioration of our natural capital assets could lead to an estimated 6% to 12% loss of GDP by 2030. So how will this Bill protect important natural capital assets?
Thirdly, and finally, there is no mention in the Bill of the need to preserve green spaces and nature in cities. This is a major omission, in my view, given the abundance of data and population-level evidence, including papers published, most recently in the Lancet and the British Medical Journal, demonstrating that green space in cities is critically important for the health and well-being of us humans. Provision of accessible green space within 15-minutes walking distance has been agreed in international legislation, so where is it in this Bill? Alongside any new housing development, there should be provision for green space within 15-minutes walking distance.
I firmly believe that it is possible to achieve nature-positive and climate-positive urban development, but we need to be clear about how it should be prioritised within the system and ensure that decision-making is more balanced and consistent.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the cost of energy has been hinted at this afternoon. However, it is one of the most important infrastructure issues that we must address. As disclosed in the register of interests, I serve on the board of directors of a global energy company, Chevron.
Today, the United Kingdom has the most expensive industrial energy electricity costs among developed nations, with British industry paying four times as much as in the United States, according to the IEA. Meanwhile, British households are paying on average 40 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 18 cents in the United States and just 8 cents in China, according to Statista. This situation could get worse as AI data centres raise demand, constrain electricity grids and put further pressure on energy costs. It seems to me that an ideal planning and infrastructure Bill should invest in fresh capital and critical infrastructure, including transport and housing. This is much in the vein of the Government’s 10-year, £725 billion funding commitment. But Britain must also invest in bringing down its punitive energy costs.
Reducing the cost of energy is the ultimate non-inflationary economic stimulus that this country urgently needs, especially given that this month, the OECD cut the forecast for the UK’s growth from 1.4% to 1.3% for this year, and down to just 1% for 2026. Reducing the cost of energy increases both the profit margin for businesses and disposable income for households, both net goods for the economy. Moreover, lower energy costs ease the financial pressure on public goods such as the National Health Service and local authorities. I welcome the Government’s plans to reduce electricity costs by 20% to 25% from 2027 for electricity-intensive manufacturers. However, this still leaves higher energy costs for the rest of the private sector, the public sector and households.
It is my contention that an effective infrastructure policy should reflect at least three points as it pertains to reducing energy costs. First, for the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom should maximise all sources of energy, including both renewables and conventional energy, in order to bring down energy costs and secure a stronger economic future. This stance would ensure that Britain could regain a key global competitive advantage: energy production. I am pleased to see that, as a small step, the Government are looking to allow new applications in licensed oil and gas fields in the North Sea this autumn.
Secondly, AI, and agentic AI in particular, offers real, tangible promise to bring down the cost of elements of energy production such as exploration, drilling and transmission. Therefore, AI adoption should be the centrepiece of energy policy and infrastructure planning for the 21st century.
Thirdly, there is an opportunity for dematerialisation. Simply put, this is the ability to get more power out of the same unit of energy. For example, in vehicle manufacturing, this would mean using lighter materials in car bodies to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Currently, businesses and academia are leading innovation in dematerialisation, but it is vital that Governments support science and research in this area. By taking these three steps, we achieve the two goals of lowering energy costs, which catalyses economic growth, and reducing emissions, a key piece of our energy transition ambitions.
Many aspects of the path to energy transition are rooted in assumptions from three or four years ago, yet so much has changed since 2022—our energy security, our economic outlook, and our understanding of what technology can do to reduce energy costs. Britain’s natural resource wealth and the emerging era of technology thankfully allow us to pursue both economic growth and an effective energy transition. I support the direction of this Bill, but there remains considerable scope for the Government to reduce energy costs both through the Bill and through broader policy.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, who raises such an important dimension affecting this Bill. As I listened earlier this afternoon to the Minister, I was pleased at the way he delivered the Bill before us. I think he will have sensed a wish across the House for us to move forward and to help the Government succeed in the objectives they have set. I know that that sense is shared by his noble friend who will be winding up, whom I have talked to about new towns.
I would like to cover just three aspects. First, there is my own experience. I had the privilege to be elected leader and chairman of housing for the London Borough of Islington in 1968, the only Conservative leader of the London Borough of Islington so far. I am the son of an architect, and when we took power, we did a complete review with the borough architect, a man called Mr Alf Head. We looked at a place called The Crumbles, which was run by the GLC—an early Victorian building where the residents had to have the toilets on alternate floors. I said to Mr Head, “Do we really have to continue with buildings of this sort? “No”, he says, “Sir, if you’ve got some vision”—you as councillors— “I have been working on low-level intensive housing.” I invite the Minister to go to Essex Road some time and see the results of his vision and our ability as local councillors to get it built. That was an exciting exercise.
Secondly—and I think this is still relevant today—my wife and I bought a small terraced house in Gerrard Road that had a “sort of” bathroom and, maybe, a kitchen. But there was a process for young couples with a baby, which we had, to get a grant, which we had to match. We did that, and that restored that property for, to the best of my knowledge, a long, long time. That time has come again. I have visited one or two properties which are in a terrible state, and young couples have the energy and desire to bring such properties up to modernity. I actually wrote a pamphlet called The Disaster of Direct Labour, but I do not think the present Government are proposing direct labour in local government—I hope not. Anyway, those are my experiences.
I want to say a few words about new housing, which is vital, of course. One of the biggest problems today is building, or potentially building, on the flood plain. That will get worse, because we know from all the evidence that the level of rainfall is going up by approximately 10% a year, and that the intensity of the rainfall is greater now than 10 years ago. Against that background, frankly, we should not allow any building on the flood plain. That is an important element.
Conversely, I think that we should work with the major housebuilders. I am not one who is critical of the work of the major housebuilders. They have to have planning permission covering at least three years if they are to run a viable business. Although it is quite right to say to new housebuilders, “You’ve got to put on roofing material that will help get solar energy”, I do not think that you can tell them to put heat pumps in every property. That is not feasible. In my early stages with Reckitt & Colman, I worked in Hull, which had row after row of terraced housing. Those properties cannot have heat pumps.
It is against that background that I would like to see us look again at gas being used as a vehicle, with hydrogen, to provide energy for heating and cooking, particularly in areas of major terraced housing. I have done some work with the gas industry and on what goes with it. Basically, it is safe and it works. I should like to see it go forward.
I come, finally, to new towns. I represented Northampton South for 23 years. As a new town, it was not initially welcomed by the local council. I thought a lot about it and said, “No, we need to welcome it. We need more housing in this area. We need proper housing and a mix of housing”. We were getting it from the Commission for New Towns, but in the new towns of the future we must make sure that there are sufficient facilities for sport, libraries, education and all those things. The inquiry recently proposed that the Government should do 12 new towns; in my judgment, at a cost of more than £3 billion each, three or four is more than enough. There are opportunities there, and speaking purely for myself, I would certainly be delighted to work with them on any project they may have and to take it forward.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say a few words about something that has not been talked about very much. Let me turn this damn phone off first—this happened in my Select Committee yesterday and it was not very good.
I want to talk about planning, because planning comes up a great deal in this Bill—quite rightly, and it is a great Bill. There is a lot about the different ways of obtaining planning, such as through the Transport and Works Act or through the Planning Inspectorate. What I cannot find is anything about planning when it comes to railways or canals. Historically, planning permission for them has been obtained through a hybrid Bill. I have been involved in a number of hybrid Bill projects: the Channel Tunnel was the first one; then there was HS1; and, more recently, HS2. I also chaired a Select Committee on a river project in east London—no, in the north-east somewhere.
There is one common thing that worries me; with greater pressure on people’s time, I have a serious worry. Who you would call a judge in any court, or an inspector in planning, becomes a group of a dozen or half a dozen Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships’ House. They are expected to act as a judge with full transparency and full fairness; to listen to all the evidence, both from the promoter and from the people who are petitioning; and then to make a decision.
This all sounds very easy until you look at things and ask, “First of all, how is the Select Committee selected?” It is not like a Select Committee that we have here. It is a special Select Committee to act as judge and jury, so to speak, for the particular project—usually one promoted by the Government. I have to say, when you start looking at who is selected, a lot of the time the selection is based on: “Have you behaved in the House? Have you voted with your party, or have you not been there?” If you are speaking against the party too often, you are going on that committee. I could give several examples, which I will not do now, but it has got to a stage where you can look at the committee and say, “Well, I’ve got to open my correspondence in the morning meeting. Maybe I’ll be asleep after lunch, but nobody will notice”. That happens quite often.
The poor petitioners, who are not helped by the very expensive lawyers whom the promoter is employing, often have to speak on their own. They are told throughout the process, “It’s all very difficult. You’re probably not going to win, but I suppose you could try”. They then have to accept, more or less, the decision of this so-called court, which is under a lot of pressure from Ministers and everyone else to come out in favour of the promoter. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister—I do not necessarily need an answer tonight, but I think that this deserves a petition when we get to Committee stage—do we need to use the hybrid Bill process for railways and canals anymore? The planning process that we have through the Planning Inspectorate and the Transport and Works Act seems to work very well and people have confidence in it. Certainly on the basis of HS1, I could go on to compensation and things like that, but I will not do so; I shall just say that people are very upset about it. They think that they have been treated badly, and then they do not get paid their compensation—whether or not that is related, I do not know.
We ought to have a debate about this because I suspect the reason for not having a change is because Parliament sees itself as supreme. We are very good at being supreme here, and they are very good at being even more supreme down at the other end of the Corridor. However, I think that, for something like this, which is basically a court, we should give it to the professionals. So I shall try to come up with a petition, which may at least enable some debate to take place; I may be told why that will not work, but let us hope that it will.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s ambition to build more homes and infrastructure for our country is welcome. It is indeed time to get Britain building again. However, there is a danger in this Bill of council blaming and nature blaming, which ignores recent history.
According to the CPRE, a staggering 1.2 million homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. This highlights that the problem is not always the blockers in communities but is often the developers, who are banking land and failing to build. Although we strongly support the aspiration of 1.5 million new homes in this Bill, regrettably, it does not include any explicit target for the building of 150,000 social homes per year—a vital commitment in our own manifesto. How can we truly tackle the housing emergency and get families out of the insecurity of temporary accommodation without addressing the dire lack of genuinely affordable homes that are tied to local incomes?
We are deeply concerned that this Bill continues with the overcentralised, developer-led approach that has demonstrably failed to deliver. It undermines the independence of local government and deprives communities of their stake in development. Local councils, as the backbone of our planning system, are not the blockers: they approve the vast majority—86%—of applications that come their way. Sweeping powers for the Secretary of State, such as on determining which planning functions are delegated and on reducing the objection period for transport projects, will shut communities out of decisions that have a profound impact on their lives. We must ensure that local councils, not Whitehall, decide which applications go to committee, maintaining the democratic right for communities to be heard and represented.
On Part 3 of the Bill, although the concepts of environmental development plans and a nature restoration levy are noted, their success is highly dependent on substantial up-front funding. We have very serious concerns, for Committee stage, about Natural England’s capacity and resources to monitor and enforce this fund effectively.
This is a missed opportunity for mandating nature-friendly development in all new housing, including minimum biodiversity measures such as swift boxes, bat boxes and green roofs, including solar. It also fails to adequately strengthen protection for irreplaceable habitats such as our precious chalk streams. We will seek to amend to improve farming business viability through better use of environmental land management. We owe it to future generations to ensure that our planning system is sustainable, genuinely affordable and democratically accountable, enabling our communities to thrive and to enjoy nature, not diminish it.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I declare that I am on the boards of Peers for the Planet and the Conservative Environment Network. I also chair the Built Environment Select Committee—although the members who are here will be pleased to hear that I speak today purely as a Back-Bencher. I thank the Minister who will be responding, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for the time that she has given me, not just on this Bill but on the wider issues of housing and planning. It is both generous and genuinely appreciated.
This Bill is the most exciting legislation in this Session, as someone else has said, not because it is perfect—far from it—but because it opens a vital and long-overdue national debate. It is about not just housing but life, communities, connectivity; places to raise families, work, grieve and make friends. It is a chance to nationally plan land use more strategically, aligning homes with infrastructure, jobs and nature. I wish to raise three things.
The first, as has been discussed already, is planning committees. A poll found that 53% of people do not trust councils to act in their best interests and that 59% want more information on, or a greater say in, local decisions. I acknowledge that, as the Minister has said, a consultation is under way. But if the Government plan to remove a democratic element from planning, whatever the threshold, they must ensure that people still know who makes decisions, on what basis, and how they can make their voices heard. Democracy works only if people are involved. If you remove that local input or accountability, you damage that democratic link entirely.
I would like us to explore how we can front-load the planning process, using better data, earlier engagement and stronger design codes that secure local support from the outset. If you combine that with the brownfield passports that the Government are looking at, you reduce the need for repeat committee debate, you save time and you provide long-term clarity. All of this is already possible in current legislation.
The second area is Natural England. If it is to take on a stronger regulatory role, we must ensure that it is transparent and accountable. Who scrutinises its daily decisions? Who steps in when something goes wrong? Does it have the right skills and resources? Should it be the sole delivery body?
The third area is Part 3. When I looked at it the other day, it reminded me of when I put questions into AI when I am bored and out pops something which is very clever but sometimes lacks human intuition. This section of the Bill may have started with nutrient neutrality in mind. Perhaps it should have stayed there, as has been said. If it is put alongside the broader noise on biodiversity net gain and nature-friendly farming, I cannot help but feel a growing apprehension. This section risks undermining protections and creating new problems when first we should be fixing what is not working.
The fund must be for nature, not “administrative expenses”, as in in the Bill. As it stands, it risks becoming a bureaucratic cash cow, with too few guarantees of results. There is nothing about mitigation hierarchy, no requirement to embed green infrastructure and no assurance that the funds stay local. Maintaining and improving nature is not addressed. You pay the levy and the problem is offshored. Added to this, EDPs last only 10 years. What happens then? Some habitats and species cannot just be cut and pasted elsewhere.
I hope that the Bill sparks a deeper national conversation about the kinds of places we want to build and the kind of country we want to be. Growth does not have to make things worse. On the contrary, it is essential, but people must see and feel the benefits. We need to better deliver the infrastructure and services that people expect and fix this crazy situation of billions sat there in Section 106 waiting to be spent. Scrutiny and criticism of the Bill must not be mistaken for nimbyism. You can care deeply and passionately about nature but still want more homes and businesses. That is not cakeism. It is smart planning.
Recently I went to Aylesbury, where Barratt and the RSPB have partnered on 2,500 homes. Since then, the number of sparrows has risen by 4,000%, goldfinches by 200% and bumblebees by 50%. This is despite not just Brexit but the presence of roads, homes, shops and schools, and all because nature was put in at the outset. They are not alone; others are doing it. Nature is not a blocker to growth but a part of growth. It creates jobs, as my noble friend on the Front Bench knows all too well. It revives places and helps to make healthier and happier communities.
I welcome the Government’s aims, but the rhetoric must change. We must stop framing housing and nature as adversaries, where one must lose for the other to win. I have spoken to campaigners and young people who care about the environment yet want more homes. Many developers building at scale are putting nature in because it works. It is this energy that I want us all to channel, not to kill the Bill but to improve it, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to push for a more measured, more national and more ambitious plan that delivers for both people and nature.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill marks a turning point. An intention has been declared by the Government to pursue a major reconstruction of the UK economy. This intention is conveyed by the Bill.
Many years ago, a Labour Government were faced with a similar task of post-war reconstruction. An austere and purposive Government, under the unassuming leadership of Clement Attlee, faced a task of which the difficulties were widely acknowledged. The Government were supported by an able Civil Service. Its skills had been honed by the wartime exigencies. The Ministry of Supply, which had overseen the procurement of wartime matériel, was replete with technicians and staff who had managed a complex supply chain. The ministry oversaw some leading post-war technological projects, including those of the newly established nuclear industry. It also oversaw the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry.
Equal competence was demonstrated by the Ministry of Transport, which oversaw the nationalisation of the rail network, albeit that little credit was given on this account. Thereafter, the Civil Service was rapidly de-skilled. Its traditional amateurism was reasserted by means of its selection board. By the mid-1960s, critics were complaining of the lack of scientific, commercial and manufacturing skills in the Civil Service.
Current circumstances are very different from those of the early post-war years. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which is charged with overseeing our energy policy, has a dearth of technical expertise. One might expect the department to be dominated by scientists and engineers, but there are few of these. Those in charge of the nuclear policy are graduates with degrees in archaeology, history and the social sciences. Although they can be credited with supporting a nuclear renaissance, there is little understanding of the technological imperatives.
In pursuit of net-zero emissions, it will be necessary for small nuclear plants to become close-up and personal to industrial applications and to clusters of population. Reactors are required that embody fourth-generation nuclear technologies that possess inherent safety. Instead, we are developing pressurised water reactors, both on a massive scale and as small modular reactors. Both pose stringent safety requirements, which must keep them at a distance from the consumers of heat and electricity. We have allowed projects that have been pursuing fourth-generation nuclear technologies in the UK to close or to expatriate themselves to more welcoming countries. A ministry staffed by technical enthusiasts would never have allowed this to happen.
The dearth of commercial experience in the Civil Service is as striking as its technological limitations. This deficiency has been gruesomely illustrated by the experience of the HS2 rail project. It seems that successive Governments who were willing to support the project were content to issue vague outline plans and to rely on the contractors to determine the detailed specifications. Governments were inclined to make changes to the plans without regard to the costs of the resulting disorganisation. The HS2 project has been affected by a planning system that is beset by local objections and demands for judicial review. This has severely impeded its progress. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes to reform a sclerotic system.
There is a tendency to envy nations that have a more forceful regime that can override local objections. If we are not prepared to act likewise, then we must resolve to adequately compensate the affected parties. However, in pursuing the construction of new towns, if that is what we intend, we must make provision for the compulsory purchase of land in a way that will allow its enhanced value to accrue largely to the public authorities or to the development corporations. Otherwise, it will accrue to lucky but undeserving landowners.
I will make one final comparison between the past and present. After the war, the nation was fully aware of the parlous state of the economy and the physical environment. Nowadays, the electorate are less aware of the hazards we face. Our leaders should have alerted them to the realities sooner. The consequence is that we will be blamed for each emerging problem. We will be blamed for the failures in the provision of healthcare and social care, for the bankruptcies of local authorities, universities and institutions of higher education, and for much else besides.
We have been willing to listen to the nostrums of pollsters, spin doctors and political strategists, who were responsible for convincing our leadership that it was dangerous, at an election time, to admit that taxes needed to be raised to finance the reconstruction. That was surely a misreading of popular opinion that made no allowance for the possibilities of political persuasion. The consequence is that we have lost time before embarking on the project, and we have lost some credibility.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to Part 1 of the Bill and specifically to Chapter 2, which relates to electricity infrastructure. The Bill introduces many critical reforms to our planning and grid connection systems, and, if implemented effectively, could help restore a degree of realism and responsiveness to our infrastructure development.
I welcome the shift from a first come, first served model to a first ready, first connected model for grid connections. To quote my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, this should “in theory” allow viable shovel-ready projects to proceed without unnecessary delays. However, if we are to prioritise projects, we must be strategic. Not all megawatts are equal. A kilowatt hour from a nuclear plant delivered consistently is not the same as one from a wind turbine that might not be turning tomorrow. Immediately dispatchable, energy-dense sources such as nuclear and gas must be prioritised for grid access. Those technologies provide essential baseload power and enhanced grid stability. Crucially, they offer inertia—that is, resistance to frequency fluctuations—which is something that renewables such as wind and solar cannot provide. Frequency fluctuations can cause blackouts, as we saw first-hand only too recently in Spain.
We must be cautious about fast-tracking a growing queue of small-scale, intermittent renewable projects that offer low-capacity factors and often require costly network upgrades. My argument is not against renewables but against imbalance. Yes, a truly resilient grid must be cleaner, but also smarter, stronger and more stable. We should connect the right projects in the right order, in the national interest, not just to tick boxes for arbitrary 2030 targets.
Broadly, we will support efforts to streamline the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. They are critical for our energy security and economic competitiveness. Although I welcome the Bill’s legal framework for a cap and floor scheme to support long-duration energy storage, I also share my noble friend Lord Lilley’s caution about pre-empting new technologies before they are fully proven. That said, it is vital that we enable the deployment of technologies that balance supply and demand, reinforce resilience and help us move towards a cleaner energy system.
However, I must express concerns about the underlying motivation driving those projects, namely the Government’s so-called clean power by 2030 target. Although I have done so in this House many times before, I hope noble Lords will indulge me once again: it is important to lay bare the reality of the associated cost of this target. Aurora Energy Research has priced the cost of grid upgrades at £116 billion over the next 10 years. That amounts to an additional £400 per annum per household. That is before factoring in the OBR’s estimate of £96 billion more in green levies and subsidies over the next five years—an additional £600 per annum per household.
Let us be clear: the 2030 target is not just unrealistic, it is ideological. It is being pursued not with a careful eye on affordability, nor with a clear plan for technology neutrality or energy resilience, but rather to satisfy a political agenda, not a national one.
We must prioritise a balanced energy mix that combines innovation with reliability, clean energy with cost effectiveness, and growth with environmental stewardship. Ideology must not override practicality. The Government owe the British people a secure, affordable and sustainable energy future, delivered fairly and in a realistic timeframe.
I trust that the Minister has heard these concerns. I look forward to engaging further in later stages of the Bill and I hope for constructive dialogue in Committee.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I understand the ambition of the Bill to speed up infrastructure delivery. Planning frameworks are complex and can be slow. But I remind Ministers that when the Audit Commission existed, it audited planning performance, publicised poorly performing councils and required improvements from them. I accept the need to enforce shorter timescales on decision-making.
It is wrong to suggest that the planning system is responsible for not building enough homes. As we have heard, there are well over a million homes with planning permission that are not built and councils approve nine out of 10 planning applications for housing. It is not the planning system that causes low house completions but the lack of money—now partially addressed in the spending review, although not entirely—together with the lack of construction workers and materials, added to land banking by major builders that sit on planning permissions while land values rise.
The Government still want to build 1.5 million homes by 2029. That means they must build 374,000 a year from 2027. If that were to be done, at what quality might it be done? I ask that because the Bill could be the means of future-proofing our housing stock, given our ageing population and that we have more people who live with a disability. Many new homes lack quality, and some very poor housing is being produced through permitted development conversions where profits are the driving force. We need to build more healthy homes that last.
My noble friend Lord Russell and others have talked about Part 3. I agree with his conclusions, and I wish that Ministers would stop talking about this being about newts—not in this Chamber, but more generally. It is actually about 5,251 rare and protected habitats that must not lose their current legal safeguards.
Planning reform will help to deliver infrastructure, but many large infrastructure projects in this country have suffered from bad project management and huge cost overruns. It is not just about planning. The Bill includes several positive measures, such as making it easier for councils to purchase vacant land for housebuilding, localising planning fees, and increasing planning capacity. Those measures should be supported, but the national scheme of delegation will centralise decision-making when there is no evidence that decision-making will be improved. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making, which has been central to the English planning system, is at risk. Any reforms must safeguard local oversight and transparency, otherwise there is a risk that the public will not be supportive.
Planning reform will succeed only if there are qualified planning staff to do the work. To build capacity, the number of level 7 chartered town planner apprenticeships must be increased—this at a time when spending on planning has been reducing. According to the excellent brief from the Royal Town Planning Institute, we have a shortage of over 2,000 planners in local authorities and not enough chief planning officers, because that role has been downgraded over the years.
The real reason why planning has been in difficulty is that there have not been enough staff to do the work necessary, and too few chief planning officers with the necessary clout to drive progress and outcomes. Chief planning officers should be statutory, as I have said during the passage of previous planning Bills. The RTPI is right to urge the inclusion of a clause defining the purpose of planning, alongside an audit of the whole planning system and how it interlocks. Its proposed national spatial framework would be a positive improvement.
At this stage of our debate on the Bill, we have to put competency and accountability at the heart of decision-making, but Clause 51 gives too much power to Whitehall. If, under Clause 50, you train councillors to be better, why do you need to take the power away from them and give it to Whitehall? Whitehall does not need to be involved in the size of planning committees or the powers of officers and councillors. Finally, as the RTPI has said, planning is not a blocker; it is an under-resourced enabler, and this Bill could put that problem right.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and to pick up a couple of the points he made so eloquently. I am going to talk about two things: the relationship between health and planning, and between health and housing.
Second Reading is about underlying principles, and I want to start with: what is planning for? It is too often cast, and is cast at the moment, as an obstacle. I understand why, and we have heard already about the frustrations with major infrastructure projects—how does one explain to a foreigner why we cannot manage those projects in this country?—and with the costs and delays involved, and about the need to speed up decision-making more generally. It has not always been like that, and it need not be like that.
Planning can be a positive force for transformation, for creating places and communities that support health and well-being, prosperity and the environment. These three have been linked, for example, in Ebenezer Howard’s original concept of garden cities, and today we must all recognise those links between health, prosperity and the environment. For example, the creation of healthy environments and a healthy, stable workforce is vital to a thriving economy, and the opposite is damaging to growth, as we have already seen from the chronic levels of sickness around the country at the moment. My noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown pointed out how the natural environment enhances our health and is vital in cities as well as in the countryside.
There is almost nothing in all the various aspects of planning today that addresses health, and where there is it relates almost exclusively to healthcare facilities. There is some increasing emphasis on prevention, but nothing yet on creating health, by which I mean creating the conditions for people to be healthy and helping them to be so, which is a pretty good starting point, it seems to me, for planning for community and places. We need to recreate the link that people have understood in the past.
Turning to housing, many noble Lords will know that Nye Bevan and other previous Health Ministers were also Housing Ministers. Perhaps it is not surprising, though I am not about to make an amendment suggesting a change in the responsibilities of government at the moment. But there is no need, I suspect, to tell noble Lords about the links between health and homes. Mould, damp, cold, heat, unsafe construction, fires, falls, accessibility, extraordinary mental stress from the worries about repairs and risks, and other mental health aspects are an important part of this. But there is also a positive side: if we get our housing right, it provides great stability, a great foundation for life. It allows children to do their homework, if the rooms are big enough. It allows us all to live through life’s changes without having necessarily to move.
We need new homes which promote health and well-being and provide a foundation for a healthy and productive life, rather than, as so many do, damage health and add to the feelings of insecurity and helplessness that are sadly so prevalent today. The TCPA has published a booklet entitled A Home to Die For?, which has pictures of some of the worst homes being created today, particularly through permitted development rights. I see nothing in this Bill that will address those issues.
Some noble Lords will recall that I introduced the Healthy Homes Bill in the last Parliament and attempted to get a set of healthy homes standards in the levelling-up Bill, with excellent support from His Majesty’s then Opposition, and the Liberal Democrats and many others. Indeed, we won a vote on it in this House and lost the ping-pong by only one vote. I hope there may still be some warm feelings towards these ideas on the now government side, and that we may still make some progress on them. I will of course be looking for support elsewhere.
I know the Minister will point me towards policies—and there are some very positive policies, although even there, without enough reference to health and well-being—but they are too easily ignored or overruled in the name, ultimately, of viability. People start the planning with all good intentions, but in the end, we lose those vital aspects. The evidence is all around us, as shown in the booklet I referred to. My noble friend Lord Best described very well the mechanics of this. But he also pointed to the very positive role that development corporations could have in the future, and we have many good examples of that, including the Olympic legacy. I hope this is something we will explore.
In conclusion, I want to quote from my great friend Professor Omaswa, who used to run the Ugandan Health Service:
“Health is made at home, hospitals are for repairs”.
Planning can do a great deal to create health, support the new localised NHS agenda that I believe we will be having, and help create sustained growth—and I mean sustained growth, not just a short dash of growth—by providing the support people need to lead fulfilling and economically productive lives.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I am very glad that he mentioned healthy homes. It is just one of the many issues missing from the Bill.
I like this Bill. I like the ideas and principles behind it, and I thank the Minister for the way he introduced it, but I take issue with him on one point in particular. When he was talking about the current problems the planning system faces, he did not mention the lack of planning officers, which was raised by a number of noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham mentioned it, and the lack of skilled workers was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Is the Minister concerned about the lack of planning officers? There has been a huge decline in the last 10 years, and these are going to be key people in the transformation the Government wish to see happen. I think I was not the only noble Lord to be very struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I hope the Government pay attention to it and take action on it. It is far too easy for the Government to say they listen, but it is time they acted on the listening.
My Lords, I welcome Clause 32 and the ring-fencing of planning fees. Of course we all need some new development, but we also need nature with the new development. I was very saddened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who went to nutrient neutrality as an excuse for not building new houses. That is a housebuilder’s old chestnut and a nonsense. I give the example of the Hampshire Avon, where so much has been done on nutrient neutrality. There is enough land now for 10 years of housebuilding, and that is a very precious area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, was absolutely right about the missed opportunity of this Bill to make all development more nature friendly. There is a huge opportunity here for the Government to turn the dial to a really beneficial position: healthy homes and good, natural development that new housing can take advantage of. We get better design and a better quality of house as a result.
Let me turn to my main concern, which is Part 3 of the Bill. The more I have learned about the Bill and the more people I have talked to, the more I have decided that Part 3 has been made up on the hoof. It is a good idea but it has been totally overshadowed and destroyed by the Civil Service.
The Government, not surprisingly, are taking a very statist approach to nature and are giving more powers to Natural England. I would advise against that. Natural England has a poor record on protecting nature. It lacks effectiveness and efficiency. A lot of people have said that. I have been waiting—I am still waiting—for over two months for a reply from the chief executive of Natural England. In recent evidence reviews, it has ignored up-to-date scientific evidence which is contrary to its own thoughts.
The funding of Natural England is a concern, but there is even more of a concern when it comes to EDPs and the nature restoration levy. As Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, has told us, that is an unpredictable pipeline of money. How will Natural England do a job when it has an unpredictable supply of money?
I hope the Minister will confirm that the private sector is still going to be involved. The private sector has done a huge amount that can help in the development of nature; in particular, with chalk streams. I am glad the right reverend Prelate is back in his place. He mentioned chalk streams and I will support him all the way on that. My final plea to the Minister is: please can we clarify all these overlapping policies—spatial policies, biodiversity net gain requirements, new grey-belt plans, environment outcome regulations, the 25-year farming road map, the environmental improvement plan, and local nature recovery strategies—and how we are going to link those in with EDPs?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I have a sense of déjà vu, thinking back to when the noble Earl and I were working to get a focus on soil health in the Environment Bill, now Act, when the noble Earl was acting to push his own Government in the right direction.
I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am the first member of the Green group in your Lordships’ House to speak, so I note that in the other place the Green MPs voted against the Bill at Third Reading. That was not because they did not think there were good elements in it, but there is so much damage being done to nature—and hence, as many noble Lords have said, to human health and well-being and to the state of the nation—that they could not support the progress of the Bill. I thought it was important to set out the position that we start from.
In the Minister’s introductory speech, we heard a couple of the central misconceptions that underpin the reasons why the Government’s approach more generally in the Bill will simply not work. It will be counterproductive. The noble Lord spoke with some glee about new roads. Well, we know that new roads simply create new traffic. You cannot build your way out of a traffic jam; all you do is create more traffic jams. The noble Lord spoke about the safe and decent homes the Bill is supposed to deliver. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, just said—and many others have said—what our large handful of mass housebuilders are building is anything but that. If people have not seen it, I point them to the article in the New Statesman this month about some of the absolutely awful and incredibly expensive homes that have been built in the Prime Minister’s own constituency that the owners are not able to get sorted out.
To pick up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and many others, the health of nature is the health of human beings—we human animals living on this fragile planet in this terribly nature-depleted country. Speaking up for nature is speaking up for humans. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, just said, if we are going to have a healthy economy, we need healthy humans. We are speaking up for the economy, ultimately.
The Bill is disastrous for nature. I go to the briefing of the Wildlife and Countryside Link, but there are many briefings pointing out how the Bill undermines vital legal protections for nature. It is environmentally regressive and reduces the level of environmental protection provided by existing law.
I could take the rest of my time going through a very long list of the issues I want to address, but that would be a little dull. I will focus on a couple of points that help illustrate my general point that nature and human well-being are tied together.
We need to take a One Health approach to the Bill. I point to a briefing from the Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance, which says that the proposed environmental delivery plans will be insufficient to tackle nitrogen overloading. We need an integrated approach to nitrogen pollution that addresses, in addition to development, the impacts of intensive agriculture and wastewater and the risk of pollution swapping.
Coming back to my point about health, I go to UNEP, which notes that ammonia emissions, as well as contributing to climate change, are an important driver of fine particulate matter pollution, which reduces air quality and has increasing adverse effects on human health. I spent last weekend, in my leisure time, on a two-day course: the Field Studies Council’s introduction to lichens. I can highly recommend that to noble Lords. Any noble Lords who stand still too long in the Dining Room may find themselves bailed up by me to talk about that more. It was striking how much the tutor kept saying, “Well, you won’t find this or that wonderful species here. Everything is covered in nitrogen”. That is what our country is like. It is a human health issue as well as an issue for lichens.
In the other place, Sarah Champion MP talked about the right to grow. That is really crucial for human health; allotments and similar spaces are great for nature as well. I will mention the issue of landfill—historic and current—and the human health impacts of that; and Zane’s law is something noble Lords will be hearing more from me on. But I want to mention something that might be able to be cleaned up now before we get to that point. The Badger Trust points out that in Schedule 6, there are amendments that significantly undermine protections for badgers without improving the situation in any way for housebuilders. I hope we might be able to clean that up before Committee, so we will not have to dig through that detail.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, this is a Bill I strongly support, I want it to work, but I think it will be a waste of time. That sounds harsh, but it need not be. As I said in the King’s Speech debate last year, on 18 July, I have been involved in planning reform before as a Minister, more than once. My radical suggestion of a 30-month period of no regulation other than building control has clearly not been taken up—far too bold. But unless Ministers can remove the walls around departmental silos, the Bill will be waste of time.
New Labour was not perfect. But I was involved under new Labour, more than once, in clear major work across departments, outside the silos. It can be made to happen. Currently it is not happening. I have been at meetings with developers, industrial builders, and energy providers in the last months. The issue was getting action across departments: no give and take, examples of “all or nothing” from departments, and in some cases it has been nothing; jobs lost and companies lost—no one seems in overall control. No. 10 is the issue. We have a good Government, but they are a clumsy Government.
The Bill will not work if at the top it is awkward, all thumbs, butter-fingered, lumbering and stiff. Believe it or not, I think the Prime Minister should take a leaf out of the Arnold Weinstock management playbook, when he took GEC from a tiny company of £100 million to a manufacturing company of £11 billion, selling power plants to China and locomotives to the USA. He did not allow silos to exist in the subsidiaries. He cut out the chaff. He did not get sidetracked by consultants or third parties. It can work.
I support the Bill. I have read the briefs from at least 10 organisations: the National Trust, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Association of British Insurers, the Town and Country Planning Association, the National Association of Local Councils, the LGA, the County Councils Network, CPRE, the CLA and the NFU. All claim to support the Bill, “but”—there is always a “but”. Some of them contain good people I am happy to work with—tomorrow morning will be a good example—but, collectively, as third parties, aided by the two regulators, Natural England and the Environment Agency, they are the reason so little progress has been made over the years. That sums it up. Collectively, they have been the problem. They sidetrack the clumsy Government we have.
The Government need to embrace boldness as their friend, not their enemy. Once No. 10 is clearly in charge with a plan to stop and get rid of the silos, Ministers should be made to work across departments and just get on with it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, as they say, follow that. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He is always trenchant and always given with verve and determination. I will pick up on the issue he raised of departmental silos in a minute.
I want to make two points, one strategic and the other tactical. I will deal with the strategic one first. This is an ambitious plan for 1.5 million homes while meeting clean power targets and, at the same time, making sure we have an adequate degree of nature recovery, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. However, it does not deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Lilley: that, over the next 10 years, we will have an additional 6.6 million people in this country. That is a huge number; it is about two cities the size of Manchester. Manchester covers an area roughly the size of Berkshire. Together, all these issues will have some substantial consequences. For my part, I am concerned that some of them may be unintended. In the short time I have available, I want to draw the House’s attention to one: the growing danger and risk to our food and water security.
When this Bill comes into effect, a lot of agricultural land will be taken out of food production. Partially, obviously, that will be because we are going to have to build houses and the ancillary facilities that go with them. Also, less obviously but still very important, there will be massive amounts of agricultural land lost to solar farms—not just to solar farms but to the production of maize for feeding biodigesters to generate electricity. It is all part of the push for green energy targets.
It is obvious that you cannot eat solar panels. When the Minister comes to wind up—perhaps I could ask the noble Lord on the Front Bench to pass this on to her—could she tell the House how many acres of agricultural land are expected to be taken out of production as a result of this Bill? How will the Government square this with the conclusion of their own national security review, published today, which concludes, as headlined in the Times, that the risk of war on home soil is now the greatest in years?
People tend to forget that we grow just over half our food, about 55%, and we must go on to the world market to buy the balance. It is a question not just of buying the food but of shipping it here. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the impact of four or five pinch points, such as the Strait of Hormuz, show how vulnerable we are to world events. As an island—an already relatively crowded island—we are particularly vulnerable to these shifts. In the early 1940s, this country was within a few months of starvation until the Royal Navy was able to crack the U-boat threats to our convoys. Today, the threats are much shorter. As mentioned in the national security review, supply chains now run very thin. It is estimated that there are three days of supply for this country in the food chain at any one time. As someone put it, rather overdramatically, we are nine meals away from anarchy. The situation regarding water, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Coffey, is no better.
If the prime task of the Government is to protect citizens and keep them safe, that must include providing adequate supplies of food and water, but that does not come into this debate because—this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—it falls into another silo. It is important that, somehow, those silos interconnect, communicate and make sure that the implications of one are read into the conclusions and policies of the other.
In my last 30 seconds, I turn to my tactical point. I want to interrogate the Minister about footpaths— I declare an interest as a member of the Ramblers. The UK’s network of footpaths plays an important role in giving people a chance to exercise and to improve their physical and mental well-being, but there are 40,000 miles of footpath which are currently unrecorded and which, under the drop-dead date of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, will disappear on 31 December this year—gone for ever.
The previous Conservative Government gave an extension. Instead of 31 December this year, they would disappear on 31 December 2030. However, the incoming Labour Government bravely said that we should remove all the drop-dead dates and they should be left to be sorted out over time, but—in the hallowed phrase—when parliamentary time permits. Now, we have parliamentary time, so I hope the Minister will welcome some amendments to give effect to this very important commitment that this Government have given us.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thought I would be the only person to mention recreation and sport in this Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has stepped timidly on to the territory with footpaths.
The removal of consultees is something I have found rather worrying, and Sport England disappearing as a consultee is something I find very worrying. We are going to do away with the system and remove the roadblock by making sure that we do not have a body that defends playing fields. Now, I would say this, wouldn’t I? I cover sport; I play sport. If I have to declare an interest about my career as a rugby union player, it is a financially very strongly negative one. It is positive for physiotherapists and manufacturers of rugby boots, but the rest of it is distinctly negative.
Playing fields allow that sport to happen. The little club I started with is now known as Lakenham Union but was originally Lakenham Hewett. For the first 10 to 15 years of its career, it played its home games totally on school playing fields. It has gone on to be something bigger and has developed. But we do not have that statutory defence any more. The Bill before me says that the ultimate plan is—I give up; dyslexia comes into it, and I probably should have declared that in Questions earlier—to look at this. However, the Bill is removing the people who look at playing fields; you do not have that defence in place any more.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, spoke about government being a little bit cleverer. Did we not hear yesterday the Minister determinedly saying, “Yes, we need more sport; we need a better choice for school education; we need people to get out there to try the whole thing”? You cannot do that if you do not have playing fields. You just cannot. It is a benefit for health, communities and everything else. I hope that at the end of this process—how much I bother the Committee and Report stage depends on how soon I get the answer; you can save some parliamentary time by giving me a nice answer —we get some consideration and something solid to defend community assets.
One of the briefings I had referred to things being superfluous and no longer needed. But if you have a bit of green open space to play sport on, how can that possibly not be needed? It is ultimately reusable many times over. The way you do that is by making sure you do not have any changing rooms, but it takes a bit of investment. There is enough local government experience in this room to know that I am telling the truth. If we are not going to look after these things to make sure that the communities we are building around have some assets to make them communities, we are ultimately going to fail.
A reference was made to Billy Connolly’s description of being moved out of Glasgow. I have heard it; it is very funny, and it makes a political point. You move somebody out of somewhere and say, “You’re out of a slum now—but you’re living in a desert”. School playing fields, parks and so on are key components that allow these things to happen. I say to the Government: please make sure they are protected, and protected properly, and if you are going to get rid of them, make sure you put something much better in their place. It is these little details that turn successes into failures, and I hope the Government are listening.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I declare three interests: first, as a practising planning silk with a range of clients affected by planning and infrastructure law in different ways; secondly, as chair of the advisory committee of SAV, a developer, and director of Crossman Special Projects, a land promotion company; thirdly, Clause 12 of the Bill proposes to give legal effect to the recommendations of my independent review of legal challenges to nationally significant infrastructure projects that require primary legislation.
There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, particularly in Parts 1 and 2, and on the whole it is a step in the right direction. However, there are some missed opportunities. I hope the Government will listen to constructive proposals to improve it, and thereby further help its purpose of making the planning regime more efficient to deliver the housing and growth this country desperately needs.
I endorse the streamlining of the NSIP regime, in particular, unsurprisingly, Clause 12’s streamlining of the procedure for judicial review of NSIPs to cut down on delays caused by legal challenges. That is the only recommendation of my independent review that requires primary legislation to implement. The other recommendations require changes to the civil procedure rules, which are governed by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. I would welcome clarification from the Minister of the anticipated timescale for implementing those other changes. My recommendations were put forward as one overall package, and it would be helpful to know when the rest of that package will be delivered. I would also welcome clarification of whether the changes to the CPR will be made in relation only to infrastructure judicial reviews or to judicial and statutory reviews in planning generally. My report looked only at infrastructure, but I do see merit—as do many others—in rolling out the reforms to cover planning reviews generally.
The reintroduction of strategic planning is a positive step. Previous experiments with extreme localism failed to appreciate that, at least in the world of planning, reliance on carrots alone without any stick is and always will be ineffective. Strategic direction is essential to make a dent in the massive nationwide shortfall in both market and affordable housing. I do not share the view of some on this side of the House that rural areas should be exempt from their fair share of delivering growth. In fact, my experience of planning inquiries promoting and indeed opposing housing in rural areas is that, when done well, it can provide a necessary and welcome boost to the local economy—the pubs, post offices, schools and so on. Without that boost, they wither away and die.
In the limited time I have, I turn to the improvements to the Bill that I would most like to see. First, an express general principle of proportionality in planning would give decision-makers, applicants, consultants and the courts reassurance that less can be more. It would also put an end to the days of environmental statements being delivered in lorries and DCO-examining inspectors asking over 2,000 written questions about a single project, both of which are real examples of the current default to prolixity that only clogs up the system and causes delay and additional cost.
The second improvement concerns the basic conditions for neighbourhood plans. Currently, neighbourhood plans do not have to conform with national policy: they must have regard to it, but, having done that, they do not need to conform with it. This presents a significant loophole in the drive for greater strategic direction. Well-resourced parish councils in the areas of greatest unaffordability can, contrary to national policy, unilaterally pull up the ladder by, for example, deeming there to be no grey belt in their area or restricting development in their area to less than is required by national policy. Mark my words, this is what will happen if the basic conditions stay as they are. A single-sentence amendment to the basic conditions would put paid to this by requiring neighbourhood plans to conform to the framework, thus putting them in their proper place within the hierarchy of plan-making.
The third improvement concerns providing a legislative solution to the difficulties presented by the Hillside judgment on the relationship between overlapping planning permissions on the same site, where later permissions are sought to modify a large multi-phase development. This is a technical point, and I cannot possibly do it justice in a short speech. I know the Minister is aware of this issue, because we have discussed it. It is a huge issue for multi-phase projects; it adds massively to their risk profile, their finance costs and their attractiveness to inward investment.
I echo the comments of noble Lord, Lord Lansley: there are a number of tools in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that have not yet been exercised. LURA inserted new Section 73B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which went a modest way to addressing this issue by allowing for limited material amendments to planning permissions. Section 73B does not go far enough, but even that has not been commenced. I do not understand why, or why the Bill before the House could not go further and deal completely with the Hillside problems. It would make a real difference.
Fourthly, we have heard a lot about local authority resources but not very much about the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate is the keeper of the keys in relation to DCOs, local plans, spatial development strategies—when they come forward—and planning appeals. It is currently massively under-resourced. The inspectors are not paid enough, which is an issue in attracting the widest possible pool of people to that role. I have raised the issue of charging for planning appeals to raise money for PINS before, and I understand the block to it. There is a power to charge for appeals, but the block is that there is no ring-fencing, so if appeal fees were charged, they would go into the blob. The Bill includes ring-fencing for local authority fees, so why not put ring-fencing for the Planning Inspectorate in the Bill?
Lastly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the RTPI’s ask of statutory chief planning officers and a statutory purpose of planning would help buttress the national scheme of delegation by ensuring that officers are not unduly lent on. I support the scheme of delegation, provided that it is done properly. I appreciate that the consultation is live, but I suggest that we should see the detail before the Bill goes through. I urge the Government to consider these proposals with an open mind in Committee.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is very interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I shall take a different perspective.
The Bill’s commitment to practical measures, to get the houses we need built and long-neglected infrastructure developed, is going to change millions of lives for the better. I am also reassured by its pathways to clean and reliable energy in the context of nature restoration, and to bringing down the cost of living.
I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the RIBA. It is, of course, essential that the reforms create well-designed places where healthy, prosperous and enjoyable lives can flourish, and which cover all of our diverse population, of all ages and abilities. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised that I am in particular concerned about our long-established Gypsy and Traveller communities, who for so long have been left out of our concepts of homes, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who is not in her place, said so powerfully earlier.
I declare that I am co-chair of the All-Party Group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, and president of Friends, Families and Travellers and of the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers. Despite their centuries of contribution to our cultural fabric, our policies and legislation have consistently failed to protect the nomadic way of life of these communities, which is defined in law and has been central to their identities, even when many have been forced into bricks and mortar, to the detriment of their well-being and often their mental health.
I am proud that our Government have begun to make the planning system fairer to Gypsies and Travellers in their revision of planning policy last December. I know my noble friend will understand that there is still quite a way to go, not least in the training of local authority planners. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides this opportunity.
We must clarify the definition of “social housing”. The founding definition in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 has, by omission, made a loophole for ignoring the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, and that has been the pattern. The 6,441 caravans recorded in the July 2024 caravan count, on 267 socially rented sites owned by local authorities and registered providers, are clearly low-cost rental accommodation, as defined under Sections 68 and 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act, yet they are not explicitly recognised as social housing. The duty on the strategic planning authorities’ spatial development strategy—most interesting provisions—and the obligations on landlords need to have a basis for including them.
The Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments system—GTANA—is also not working. There is now no duty to conduct GTANAs and guidance on how they must be conducted was withdrawn in 2016, causing distressing disparities across the country. In fact, there has been a dramatic decline in the provision of local authority sites since the repeal of the statutory duty to provide them in 1994, resulting in neighbourhood friction over unauthorised sites, with no local authority rubbish collection or mains drainage, constant eviction and starkly inferior living standards.
I hope my noble friend has a copy of the Kicking the Can Down the Road report by Dr Simon Ruston and Friends, Families and Travellers, which reveals that, among the 100 local authorities that informed the research, 119 of the 149 socially provided Gypsy and Travellers sites were built before 1994, with only 30 more developed in the three decades since, across all local authorities in England. That is paralysis. Planning legislation must address that chronic damaging shortage of lawful stopping places and end legislative ambiguity to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller communities are no longer left in the margins of our planning system.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, the fact that we are facing increasing demands on our infrastructure and living in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world shows that we need to plan our new and retrofitted homes carefully. They need to be as light touch on the environment and national infrastructure as possible and, wherever feasible, they need to have a positive impact to meet our aspirations and our legal targets. This is, I am sure, the aim of all of us, but the Bill needs amendment to achieve it.
Every building that we construct or renovate should be designed to use and waste as little energy as possible and to generate as much of its own as possible. It should be designed to provide habitats for wildlife, such as through cavity nest boxes, which in effect cost nothing, and it should be designed to minimise harm to wildlife. The British Trust for Ornithology estimates that, in the UK, around 30 million birds a year die by flying into windows—yet bird-safe designs and glass cost little more and are legislated for in other jurisdictions. I shall be pressing for bird safety in planning and design, as this is such a simple measure.
At the next level up, every new housing development should be planned under the same principles. How can we help ensure that community-level energy, water or sewerage systems are designed and built to make communities more resilient and put less pressure on the national infrastructure? How can we integrate these developments properly with existing houses and communities, helping preserve their character and independence, and with their natural environment? Places where people live and thrive need to be places where other species live and thrive too. The proposed spatial development strategies and environmental development plans need to be hard-wired to the long-awaited land use framework and to local nature recovery strategies, and they also really need to reflect communities’ priorities.
The UK is committed to legal biodiversity restoration targets, and we need to legislate that all planning and development, including that by development corporations, is done with a view to biodiversity enhancement. With that in mind, I hope the Government will agree to tightening up aspects of Part 3 to ensure that it is in line with their aims. As other noble Lords have mentioned —and I think everyone will agree—there are some habitats and landscapes where no amount of money will compensate for their loss, and they cannot be moved to some other location. Ministers have previously said that they think that irreplaceable places implicitly fall outside the scope of the proposed environmental development plans, in which case I urge the Government to make it explicit in the Bill.
Then there are some habitats that have been so degraded already that they can be considered suitable for development, but here we must see this as a double opportunity to provide homes for people and, in doing so, to enhance the biodiversity opportunities on that land. It could be a triple win. Enhancement can go beyond designing buildings to provide natural habitats and bird safety; it can extend to giving people access to green spaces and increasing flood resilience and local water storage—nature-based solutions that benefit people and biodiversity and relieve our national infrastructure all at the same time, on that very piece of land. Amendments to the Bill are necessary but could achieve that.
Finally, land that is currently a green space but not designated irreplaceable will be damaged by development, despite all the considerations of green planning, which need to be legislated for as the first approach. This is where the Government, through the Bill, rightly see that environmental development plans can help by taking a more strategic and holistic approach to the whole area and bringing another piece of land into the equation—a piece of degraded and endangered land that can be protected and have its biodiversity enhanced to make up for the loss on the developed land.
Again, at the moment the wording needs to be amended to ensure a win-win. It is not currently stated in the Bill that the biodiversity benefits on this land need to overcompensate for the losses by the 10% or more required under the current biodiversity net gain system. If we sited that greened-up land as close as possible to the sacrificed development land, we would help wildlife displaced from one area to colonise another, and it would act as a green space for the people who move into that development. That is a win-win and can fit perfectly with existing local nature recovery strategies, but they need to be added into the Bill.
Alongside these big, broad principles, the Bill needs amending to ensure that environmental development is in place and under way before building development starts; to ensure that biodiversity benefits are carefully and scientifically measured and monitored, with further enhancements to the plan being made, if necessary, if the hoped-for outcomes are not at first forthcoming; and to ensure that the greened-up land, once allocated, is given a high and permanent level of protection so that it cannot just be built on itself in a few years’ time, negating its purpose.
I very much hope that the Government will consider putting forward their own amendments to deal with each of these. I look forward to working with other noble Lords on them.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on Part 1, Chapter 3 of the Bill, which addresses transport infrastructure—a vital sector for our country’s connectivity, economy and environmental ambitions. I welcome His Majesty’s Government’s overarching goal to modernise and streamline the planning framework for transport. It is clear that the existing system struggles to keep pace with the scale and urgency of the infrastructure demands that we face, from improving regional connectivity to meeting the needs of a growing and modern economy.
Among the key reforms proposed are amendments to the Highways Act 1980, which will grant local highway authorities powers to charge fees for administrative processes, such as stopping up, diverting highways or permitting structures on or over public roads. Although this approach is pragmatic in theory and may help authorities recover costs and enhance service delivery, I share the concern of many noble Lords that greater clarity is needed about how these fees will be set and regulated. Will there be robust national guidance to ensure consistency across local authorities? Crucially, how will the Government protect smaller developers, community organisations and voluntary groups from disproportionate financial burdens that could impede vital local projects?
The Bill seeks to simplify procedures under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for authorising transport schemes. Streamlining is undoubtedly required to cut delays and bureaucracy, but it is essential that this does not come at the expense of thorough scrutiny. It is crucial that affected communities will retain meaningful rights to consultation and that environmental and social impacts will continue to be rigorously assessed and mitigated.
I welcome the provisions empowering local authorities to mandate electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new developments, but we should be cognisant that a uniform approach may exacerbate existing regional disparities. Rural and less commercially viable areas face significant challenges, from limited grid capacity to a lack of private sector incentives. What measures will the Government put in place to ensure an equitable rollout of EV infrastructure across all parts of the United Kingdom to guarantee that those rural communities are not left behind?
Throughout the Bill, we see the Government’s continuing preference for centralisation in planning decisions. Although efficiency and timelines are obviously important, we must guard against the drift towards sidelining locally elected representatives and communities in favour of top-down control. Genuine local engagement and accountability are the cornerstones of planning that respect community needs and environmental stewardship. The Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks in the other place emphasised streamlining, but that must not come at the expense of constructive input at the local level.
Finally, I raise concerns about the introduction of fees related to harbour orders. Coastal and port communities are economic lifelines for many regions, and smaller ports in particular operate on tight margins. Although recovering administrative costs is reasonable, the Government must ensure that these fees do not deter necessary investment or stifle growth in these vital areas.
The Bill presents a valuable opportunity to lay the foundation for a more efficient, responsive and future-facing transport infrastructure system capable of supporting economic growth. But, as always, the details will determine the success of these reforms.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Effingham—I almost agreed with some of the things he said. It was quite charming.
For a passionate Green like me, who spent the first 18 years of her life living in a council house, this planning Bill does nothing to make me happy. It trashes the environment, squashes newts and builds houses for the well-off. I want the Government to focus on social housing, and I want a country where people can live in those secure, warm and cheap to rent properties, paddle on clean beaches and swim in clean rivers, and explore water meadows and ancient woodland. Instead, the Government are determined to put a smile on the face of the big developers who funded the Conservatives for decades and are probably lining up to pay for Labour’s next election campaign.
The “trash for cash” approach outlined in Part 3 will be a disaster for nature and for human health, and has to be thrown out. Developers must not be allowed to pay money to destroy natural wealth to boost their private profits. Green councillors up and down the country argue that we want the right house in the right place at the right price, but the Government are giving us the wrong type of house in any old place that the developers want at whatever price the developers feel they can charge to boost their private profits.
I find Part 3 absolutely shocking. The Chancellor has declared that developers will not have to worry about bats, newts and frogs anymore. That is a straightforward betrayal of all the promises made about the target of protecting 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. Those improvements to habitats and biodiversity simply will not happen under this Government if they pass these measures. I do not understand why they object to good ideas and reject good amendments. Swift bricks, for example, are a brilliantly simple idea, adding only a few pennies on to any new build, so why do the Government object? Why do they not stop objecting to any amendment that is not theirs, make it theirs and just do it?
The Prime Minister has declared war on the blockers and zealots. Who are these people? There are tree-huggers like me, but I am one voice in my local planning system. I do not live in Devon, Shropshire, Northumberland or Norfolk, or the thousands of local areas around the country which are full of these apparent zealots who the Prime Minister does not like. They truth is that they are just ordinary local people who stand up and object when a local woodland is threatened or a river is polluted by an intensive chicken farm. Those ordinary local people use the existing planning system to fight big developers. They try to compete with the builders, who have expensive lawyers and political access.
The Government promise us affordable housing, but that is a very misleading term. I remember the very long debates we had for 16 years in the London Assembly about what it meant—how affordable was “affordable” for a house. When the Government talk about millions for affordable housing, it is mostly a subsidy for developers to build the same houses but sell them at a reduced rate. It gives a lucky few the chance to get on the housing ladder, but it is often at the expense of the taxpayer.
We need to enable councils to build social housing again. Safe, secure, well-insulated housing would solve a lot of social and economic problems. For example, we would have schools where the parents could afford to feed pupils because their energy bills were low. The NHS would have fewer patients sick from malnutrition or from freezing in badly insulated flats, and the jobs market would have well-educated, healthy people to employ.
This is the bit where I try to be nice, so listen carefully: if the Government want Greens and the majority of noble Lords to support the Bill, they should give us guarantees that the current projections for irreplaceable habitats will not be up for negotiation, and that the environmental development plans will include an implementation schedule, enforced by Natural England—if we have to have it as a player—that is subject to judicial review. They should give us a Bill that makes social housing a priority, and give us affordable rents. They should give us a Bill that reduces pollution by removing the automatic right of developers to connect new housing with the sewerage system. Now that really would be worth voting for.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests: I am the chairman of Faraday Ventures, which was set up to provide social and key worker housing. Therefore, I am understandably keen to support any measures that will encourage the construction of a large quantity of high-quality housing, particularly if a large proportion is made up of social housing.
I welcome the spirit in which the Bill has been launched as it seeks to build on the progress made by the previous Government in delivering 2.5 million homes since 2010. However, there are some serious concerns, which I shall highlight. I question whether it is possible for the present Government to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, as they have promised.
The Bill is designed to streamline planning and infrastructure delivery for homes, but in doing so it takes away powers from local councillors by reducing the strength of the planning committees through the national scheme of delegation to be introduced by Clause 51. This specifies at a national level which planning decisions would be decided on by officers and which by planning committees.
As the shadow Secretary of State responsible for housing said in the other place, if the Bill passes in its present form, residents will feel disappointed and disenfranchised when they raise concerns to their elected councillors about proposed developments. I believe that this will break the social contract if local people feel helpless around development; it will lead to less acceptance of new housing. Does the Minister agree? London Councils shares this concern, stating that councillors must retain the ability to scrutinise and influence certain developments, especially where there is significant local concern.
The role of councillors is further diminished through Clause 93, which would amend existing legislation to increase the flexibility and use of development corporations. To be clear, development corporations are, or can be, a very good thing, particularly in the provision of new towns. I believe that they will be necessary to deliver new towns, but here in London we have seen the best and the worst of development corporations. One delivered the Olympics, which was largely considered to be a good thing, and to this day housing is still coming forward. But in the West End, many local people feel that the Mayor of London is using the mayoral development corporation to ride roughshod over their plans, under a Labour-led council, to deliver the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street. If we have to vote on corporations, we need to know what type of corporation and what flexibility they will be given above beyond the ones we already recognise.
London Councils is also right to note that the planning system is not the main barrier to delivering new homes and infrastructure here in London, where there is a healthy pipeline of nearly 300,000 homes that have been approved by council planning departments. That is enough to meet future housing targets more than three times over, but those schemes are not coming forward for development, due to viability issues. Viability in a place like London with high land values is a real problem.
Some of the measures in the Bill will help planning reform, and I sincerely wish the Government all the success in the world with delivering their 1.5 million homes—and I personally, through my role here and on the GLA, will do my level best to help. This planning Bill could be a boon to that, or it could be a missed opportunity; it is about the detail, particularly around things such as the levels of social housing that we can expect to get and what we are going to do about development corporations, which will be vital.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register—in particular, that I am a farmer and landowner in Cumbria, president of Historic Buildings and Places, and until last autumn was for six years chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. I have also been involved in rural, environmental and heritage organisations and matters for much of my life.
Forty years ago, to my own surprise—both then and in retrospect now—I chaired the Lake District planning board’s development control committee. At that time, I began to wonder whether local authority membership of itself was the right basis for the quasi-judicial function of determining planning applications, and I came to the conclusion that boards analogous to JPs might be better; hence, I welcome the idea of mandatory education for planning committees. Of course, local knowledge and views matter, but they are not the only consideration in determining applications, and planning officers on their own in the real world cannot always deflect the tsunami of local populism that sometimes accompanies controversial applications.
Part of the point of the planning system is to get it right without resorting to appeals. That is somewhat analogous to the belief that I have that perhaps the most important thing that I learned from reading for the Bar was to avoid litigation if you possibly can. Given the overriding requirements behind the Bill and the points made in this debate, there is a very good case for accountable development corporations and special regimes for national infrastructure. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said, the devil lies in the detail, and they must be transparent and accountable. In such cases, deliberations on all planning matters must be taken into account. Listed buildings remain listed, even if specific listed building consents may not be required. Changing the planning process should not affect the planning and evidential significance of heritage, nature or environmental considerations. Those matters are, in their own way, very important to our national economy and the character of the country in which we live, and are at the heart of contemporary ideas about “Place” and its generally recognised importance to the wider economy.
It is important that land use policy and its implementation is not hijacked by the public sector to promote its aspirations at the expense of the small man and local concerns and other considerations not directly measurable in economic terms. There is a temptation, which sometimes cannot be resisted, for the public sector to see the process of authorisation as a kind of bulldozer to get its own way and take forward its own agenda. I am sure that we can all think of instances where that may be happening.
While charging for planning applications may seem a bit out of kilter, in that the basis of land law and the planning system is the presumption that one can do what one wants with one’s own land, unless there is a good reason not to, which is defined inter alia by planning policies, in reality this purist approach hardly seems realistic in the world in which we live. But these charges should not be greater pro rata if the authority concerned is ineffective. Indeed, I had wondered whether perhaps, if you won a planning appeal, you should get the money back.
We have heard this evening very considerable scepticism expressed about the mechanisms of Part 3 of the Bill. I simply say that I echo them. Speaking from the perspective of a Cumbria farmer and landowner, I can say that the current arrangements are all over the place. As someone wanting to take forward these things, it is simply impossible to know what on earth you have to do. The parallel public and private regimes taken as a whole make no real sense, and much of the money talked about in this context does not seem to exist. Unless matters are sharpened up, much of this will be shown to be whatever is the proper collective word for paper tigers.
Planning is crucial. We need it in this country, because it is a form of estate management for the nation as a whole, based on the country’s disparate needs being balanced out between them. In that way, you avoid physical anarchy. Like all estate management, its implementation on the ground depends on money, which is why the implementation of much of what we are talking about this evening depends more or less entirely on the Government’s economic policy.
Clearly, the country is in a mess; if good policies prevail, that will be for the good, but the impact of some current policies will, I believe, inhibit growth, and they will have a damaging impact on what we are discussing. The state of the economy is crucial. How planning policies work out depends on landowners, developers and those running and carrying out the planning function working together. Levelling up was a response to a failure in this regard, in the north of England. There is still much more to be done. I say, “Good luck to them”, but I sense that they may need it.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Fonthill Estate in Wiltshire, and I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill today.
Everybody recognises that we have to get more new houses built, although the failure of all Governments in recent years to control both legal and illegal migration has clearly exacerbated the shortage. However, in my view, the Bill goes too far in removing councillors’ powers to vote on local planning applications. Does the Minister really think that central government knows better than local councils when it comes to decisions on which proposed developments will improve their communities and which will be harmful and ought to be refused? This will be damaging to local democracy and will discourage talented people from seeking election as councillors, because they will be allowed to do less than they are at present.
Can the Minister tell the House how the proposed scheme of delegation is going to work, and how the Government are going to demarcate those decisions which are to be taken by civil servants from those which will be left to local planning committees? Surely, such important details as these should be in the Bill. On the other hand, there are areas where the Government could provide much more encouragement to house- builders, by removing legacy EU habitat regulations, which offer a ridiculous amount of protection to bats, for example, and other EU legacy red tape, which both the last Government and this one have been too slow to abolish.
Noble Lords may remember that, during the passage of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill, some of us worked hard across the House to obtain a consensus for providing a separate and recognised status and level of protection for Britain’s wonderful chalk streams. My noble friend Lord Benyon at that time introduced a government amendment that achieved that, and it is deeply disappointing that, in Committee in another place, Labour MPs voted against Amendment 148 to this Bill, which would have mirrored the levelling-up Act by providing equivalent and necessary protection for chalk streams in this Bill. Would the Minister commit to introducing a government amendment to replicate the protection afforded to chalk streams in that Act?
I also question why the Government are prioritising building in rural areas rather than urban ones, nearer most of the jobs, where new houses are most needed. I would also ask the Minister to explain why the Government have decided to remove hope value from the value that they place on land being compulsorily purchased from farmers and landowners. It seems particularly unfair to farmers, who have already suffered enough from cuts to agricultural subsidies and changes to NICs, especially when the purpose of compulsory purchase in such cases is obviously to develop the land for housing or energy infrastructure.
Currently, local authorities can purchase land compulsorily and then pass it to parish councils for some purposes, including building affordable homes. The Bill, as drafted, stops hope value applying to this power if it is used to deliver affordable homes. The removal of hope value would also apply to the loss payments, which are additional payments based on the property’s value, designed to cover the cost and emotional burden of having to move out of and replace the property. In general, I accept that measures in the Bill are in line with the Labour Party’s pledges for planning reform, but they miss the opportunity for an enhanced recognition of rural areas within national planning policy, particularly regarding the rural economy and rural housing.
As the CLA has pointed out, the National Planning Policy Framework does not acknowledge the differences between the sustainability credentials of a rural area versus an urban area. This negatively impacts decision-making for proposals in rural areas. The Bill introduces new environmental delivery plans—EDPs. They will set out how damage to protected species, or features of protected sites which are likely to be negatively affected by development, may be mitigated. I worry about the extensive powers being extended to Natural England, including whether it is appropriately skilled or resourced to handle this extra responsibility. What does the Minister think about this? In particular, does she really think it is proportionate to provide Natural England with compulsory purchase powers to deliver the EDPs?
Lastly, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech and, in particular, I hope she will answer my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s question about the number of acres being taken out of agricultural production for solar energy schemes.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to start with my interests because they are to do with energy, specifically battery storage—I will talk about long-term storage in a minute, but I will leave that for now. I am also chair and director of a number of smaller land developers, and chair of the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. So I stand on both sides of the conflicts that the Bill looks at. In wearing those two hats, I have never had a conflict of interest. There has never been a situation in all the developments that we have been involved in—medium-sized, often mixed, not always with a lot of housing and admittedly not infrastructure—where nature has got in the way of development. It is primarily about planning resources at local authorities.
I welcome many parts of the Bill, particularly everything that will enable us to achieve net zero; it is really important that we manage that in terms of energy infrastructure. I also welcome this Government’s housing objectives. However, as many people have said, my noble friend Lord Shipley in particular, the problem is not primarily planning. My eyes were opened on housing some time ago when I looked at the time series of housing starts since the Second World War. There is a complete break around the beginning of the 1980s. Up to that point, the number of private starts was pretty equal to the number of public starts: roughly about 150,000 each through that period. When the Thatcher Government came in and, in effect, banned local authority housing, that fell off to more or less zero—social housing now is some 40,000 units—but the private sector just carried on along at the same level. Whatever the stimulus was, the volume stayed the same. Behind that, there is a message about the difficulty of stimulating private housing finishes, and it is not necessarily down to the planning system.
I welcome the measures in the Bill on long-term storage, which I am not involved in commercially, and the cap and floor mechanism—let us get on with that because it is important for grid stability. I welcome the EV changes, but let us enhance them further, exactly as my noble friend Lady Pidgeon said. I also welcome the financial compensation being by grid lines, or trying to get people involved in that energy transition.
No one has mentioned Clause 28, which concerns the Forestry Commission. It is allowed to indulge in renewable energy itself, which sounds great, but it does not mention biomass in relation to energy production. I would be concerned if the pass that allows the commission to work in that area enables it to use its own logs commercially, to make up for any government funding reductions—they would be cannibalising their own crops. I am interested in what the Minister says on that.
I am particularly concerned about the environmental delivery plans. This is not something that we are imagining; sure, we are in nature depletion and the restrictions that we have had on nature have not been good enough so far, but to me, this makes them worse. The OEP’s letter to the Secretary of State makes it very clear this is a regression. What worries me is not only the fact that the Bill is a regression but if the Government do not take notice of the OEP, in terms of their reputation and core function in Parliament, it is a real problem. It is important, as Minister Pennycook has said, that we find a way that the OEP and the matters that it has brought up are solved in the Bill as it goes through. That is crucial; otherwise, we have an important government agency that loses respect.
Lastly, local nature recovery strategies are mentioned twice in the Bill, once very positively in relation to spatial development strategies. However, when it comes to EDPs, they have very weak enforcement in how they are taken into account, and that must be changed. It has to be compulsory that local nature recovery strategies are fully taken into account in relation to any environmental development plan.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of a family company that holds a little farmland and has occasionally done small-scale development. I am also the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years.
We all recognise the need for more homes. While the Bill aims to speed up the process for building houses, like other noble Lords, I am concerned about the damage that it may do. The Bill flouts Labour’s manifesto promises to uphold local communities’ ability to shape housebuilding in their area and its pledge to preserve environmental protection, as well as being an attack on human rights. There are other ways to do this.
As other noble Lords have said, there are some half a million land-bank plots currently being held by the big house developers, with eight of the major companies holding land of a value in excess of £198 billion. The Government state that they want to build 1.5 million homes, so will they please refuse to give the big companies more planning permission until they develop what they already have?
The Government’s steps to weaken the green belt are very concerning; surely we must use brownfield sites first. The CPRE briefing said that existing brownfield sites can deliver 1.2 million houses, but allowances need to be given for cleaning up these sites over building on the green belt.
Once our lovely countryside has been concreted over, we will never get it back. Green spaces are so important for good mental health. We are the custodians of a beautiful country, and we must preserve it. Demolishing buildings leads to further climate insult, so can we give tax breaks for repurposing buildings for housing and stop councils allowing so many buildings to be torn down?
As we have already heard, this is not just about quantity but quality. I welcome the good intentions to build better, smarter and in a more environmentally friendly way, but I worry that the Bill will, in reality, help build the slums of the future. I agree with the discussions in the other place that sought to ensure we preserve the setting and special character of historical villages, rather than losing them in an unchecked sprawl. We need smaller developments with local designs using local fabrics that are in keeping with their areas. This would help boost local business by allowing small developments with local builders.
One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights, and we must resist at all costs authoritarian tendencies to wish to remove them. In the Bill are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply where it is “required” for new development. Compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used in only the most extreme circumstances. Also, in building and developing, no one should be allowed to interfere with existing housing or to undermine the foundations of a private property without the owner’s permission. People need to be reassured that their home is safe in line with the ECHR.
Government needs to be joined up, so I turn to wider issues around infrastructure. In the current climate of growing uncertainty, we see our defence policy pivoting to deterrence against possible war. Although defence is the first priority of a Government, surely our second, as an island nation, should be food security. I know my husband, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has already made this point, but plastering our countryside—and, more importantly, our productive agricultural land—with plastic solar panels is a terrible mistake. As he said, the national security strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war, and our land is needed for food production. We currently import more than 40% of our food; we need to be more self-sufficient and resilient. Instead, let us insist that all new houses should have electricity-generating panels and roll them out on commercial and industrial buildings. Will the Government commit to put solar panels on all their buildings?
I will share one example of land under threat from such a solar farm development: Lime Down, a massive project in beautiful Wiltshire countryside, mostly on good agricultural land. Lime Down threatens 2,200 acres with solar panels, 45 acres of batteries, three new electricity substations, approximately 1 million panels and a two-year construction period involving thousands of lorries thundering up tiny lanes. It takes in six villages and stretches eight by three miles, with compulsory purchase being threatened to access the site at East Pye. The proposed installation will be in place for 60 years.
I would be interested if the Minister could clarify if and why a non-UK firm can have the right to compulsorily purchase UK land. Projects such as this not only cause misery to those affected but erode our food security. In war, they will make easy targets in this era of cyber conflict and drones. We have seen what can happen with the recent electricity outage in Spain and Portugal.
To conclude, we need to use existing buildings, brownfield sites and existing planning permissions before we start eating into our beautiful countryside. Solar panels should be on roofs not agricultural land, and, most of all, as a democracy, we need to preserve our property rights.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness. I agreed with the first third of her speech. The latter part, however, I disagreed with. Less than 1% of agricultural land will be taken over by solar farms and similar sites. We need compulsory purchase to deliver some of our energy system. I therefore disagree with the latter part of her speech, but I agree with her on local control of housing developments and of other aspects of planning.
I will scrap the bulk of my speech. I will say what I agree with in the Bill, but I first appeal to my noble friends on the Front Bench, and to their colleagues, not to repeat all this stuff about blockers and builders, and not to give credence to saloon bar chat about frogs and newts preventing useful development. It was not frogs and newts that made a complete mess of a national infrastructure project such as HS2; nor is it frogs and newts—or even spiders—that are preventing us achieving our housebuilding targets.
I approve of the provisions in the Bill on providing easier access for national infrastructure, on energy and grid connections, on EV chargers and on electricity storage. However, I am dubious about much of the rest of it. Let me say something in defence of planners. The planning system is often too slow, and it is underresourced. There are bits of the Bill that attempt to address the underresourcing with the recruitment of better planners and better training for them.
Much of the countryside has been protected by the planning system. Had we not had a planning system since Lord Silkin in the 1940s we would have had urban sprawl, new modern slums, and much less protection of our natural resources and natural features. The planning system has its inadequacies, which we now have to address, but that does not mean we ought to dismantle it or make it more susceptible to the pressures.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the failure to meet housebuilding targets under successive Governments has nothing to do with the planning system itself. Indeed, the planning system has approved well over 80% of plans for housing. When there is an appeal, less than 3% of them are upheld by the appeals system. It is not the planning system that is preventing housebuilding but, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the oligopolistic nature of the large housebuilders and the way they have squeezed out the competition there used to be with family building firms, and the lack of purchasing power from national and local public bodies. That is what needs to be addressed if we are to stand any chance of meeting our targets on housebuilding; it should not be an attack on planners.
The Government have written the net-zero strategy into their recent national industrial strategy and energy strategy. It is not written in to this Bill, nor are the contributions to tackling, slowing down and off-setting climate change. The protection of the countryside and of biodiversity, and reversing the biodiversity loss we have so tragically experienced in this country over recent decades, contribute to our tackling climate change. That needs to be put more explicitly in the Bill, as do the effects of climate change and our need to adapt to it. For example, why is there not a provision on not building in areas that are susceptible to flood or any pre-empting of much of the improvement in the water supply that we need to make?
I am sorry this has been slightly rambling. It is different from what I intended to say, but most of what I intended to say has been said. The most important message I give to my noble friends is: stop regarding those in the planning system as blockers; they are enablers of a better life.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose wisdom and company I enjoyed during my time on the environment committee. I am a supporter of the Bill, by and large. I am delighted to see that the policy is shifting towards “We want more bats” and away from “No bat must be inconvenienced”, but as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, bats are not the problem when it comes to planning. As Members of an organisation that can spend enough money to build 50 houses on a pair of front doors that do not work, we should realise that.
I hope to use Committee to encourage the Government to take some of their ideas further. There is obvious scope for allowing trusted partners to work alongside the Government to achieve what they are hoping to do with environmental delivery plans. Many farmers’ groups are in a position to work on that sort of initiative. To rule them out, as the Bill does currently, is missing an opportunity.
What the Government are doing in throwing into doubt the whole structure of biodiversity net gain is a mistake. In biodiversity net gain, people are asked to commit for 30 years. It was a policy which evolved with support across the House, and now this Government, after merely 30 months of the policy, are throwing everything into doubt. Those people who had got themselves organised to be part of that system are wondering whether they made a huge mistake, and by the time the Government get around to sorting their ideas out, those people will have lost confidence. The Government really need to understand that having trusted partners in the private sector to deliver what they want is a plus, and they need to put themselves into a position where those partners can believe that the Government—and any Government that follow—will support them through the long-term commitments which this Government and the previous Government were expecting to be made.
I hope to persuade the Government to accelerate their work on biodiversity data. We have a very rich and capable set of players in this country, with the local environment record centres and a lot of amateur effort. But a lot of biodiversity data that is created through the planning system is not captured. A lot of planning applications go through without using the data we have. We need a better structure that is better thought through. I know the Government are working on those things internally. I hope to see that brought forward into this Bill, rather than left for some future occasion.
I really hope I will be able to persuade the Government to take an interest in those measures which would allow more use to be made of the settlements we already have. I had a Private Member’s Bill on permitted development rights, but we should also look at measures like land readjustment schemes, the London system of public transport accessibility zones, and the use of design codes to make it easy for developers to know what will be permitted, rather than leaving the whole question of design to be an uncertainty and a rather individual and personal decision at the end of things.
We should pick up on an aspect of the Government’s industrial strategy, where in various areas they are supporting the use of digital twins. There is a great deal that could be done in planning, which does not appear to be specifically part of the industrial strategy, to reduce costs, enable collaboration and enable imagination when it comes to what the layout of a new town should be and look like. The AI-assisted capability that is embedded in some of the British products that underlie this are tools that the Government should be seeking to support.
I will try to persuade them to make livestock markets and abattoirs critical national infrastructure. We need to sort things out: we are causing a great deal of cruelty to animals by not renewing our structure. Animals are having to travel very long distances to their deaths, and we can do better than that.
I will recommend a duty of candour for planning officers to go with Clause 50, so that they feel absolutely confident in telling members exactly what is, rather than feeling that they can in some way be criticised, and therefore giving them a duty to support their views.
I will urge the Government to redefine what a newspaper is. It was set out in 1881. Things have moved on, and if we are to have Clause 98 with duties to put notices in newspapers, it ought to recognise the modern world.
Echoing the national security strategy and our need to fight on home soil, I will draw the Government’s attention to the fact that we may not have termites here now but look at what is happening in France.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, before this debate started, I was confident that we would hear repeatedly the word “architect”, but in fact we have hardly heard it at all in a debate about housing. I want to talk about design and the role of architects and in doing so, I say that the speech I agreed with most was that of my noble friend Lord Best.
I should confess that for a time I was the unpaid chair of Design for Homes, the organisation that runs the Housing Design Awards, and therefore was exposed to the work of architects in great measure. I want to argue that building well-designed homes is a key aspiration to be realised through the Bill. I would like to congratulate the Government on their ambition to build so many dwellings, including, as I understand it, so many much-needed social housing units to enable young families, above all, to be able to remain in their own communities. That applies nowhere more than in rural areas, including the sort of community I once represented in another place.
I have been troubled by some of the grudging comments from parts of the Conservative Party. I can just about recall, having done a bit of research, what the Conservatives achieved in 1953 when Harold Macmillan was the Minister for Housing. In 1953-54, the Conservative Government built 301,000 new homes in one year, and most of those were council houses—something they trashed following the 1979 election, and I very much regret that.
In speaking about architects and design, I urge the Government to do a number of what I regard as very important things. First, have proper space standards within homes. The Parker Morris standards, now out of use for many years, served their purpose. Look at some of the best council houses—for example, in the Minister’s and my hometown of Burnley, where many council houses on the Brunshaw estate were built to Parker Morris standards, and good houses they were.
Then I would invite the Government to ensure—this is going back to my noble friend Lord Best’s speech again—that architects are not sidelined. Often in big housing developments, the architects are asked to do a design and then they are forgotten about until something goes wrong, and then if there is litigation, they may be the ones who are sued. But, actually, the truth is that architects should be there throughout, because it is only with good design that the Government will be able to build neighbourhoods predicated on creating places that people of all ages will want to remain in permanently and not leave because they cannot afford to live there or because there are only old people or young people there or other social mismatches.
I agree with the Government that compulsory purchase orders have an important role to play. If this ambition of the Government’s is to be achieved, then land should be made available, not at ridiculous prices, but certainly at fair prices. In order to achieve what the Bill is designed for, it will, frankly, be necessary to use compulsory purchase orders.
I agree too with the proposal to use development corporations, and I urge the Government to look at the equivalent of development corporations in areas where there are not per se development corporations to ensure that standards are kept up.
I would encourage the speeding up of the planning process by providing template standards and accelerated processes. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, when he advised that there should be far more people trained to do the work in planning authorities so that it can be done thoroughly, quickly and decently.
Above all, I would encourage the Government to ensure that communities are involved in the design of their own neighbourhoods so that those neighbourhoods can stretch forward into the lives of the new generations who will be living there.
The Bill is about building to scale. Building to scale gives an immense opportunity to build good, because if you are spending a lot of money on a large scale, you can demand of those who do the work—the architects and developers—that they do it well. We should build with pride and give to the generations that follow us estates and areas to live in which will stand for them and their future generations for long to come.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I agreed with every word he said.
Planning is part of the social contract. For the Government to deliver that social contract, the people for whom the planning is developed need to be part of it. If the Bill is to deliver the homes and communities that people are glad to live in, we must amend parts of it so that people are guaranteed a decent input at an early stage.
During this debate, we have heard of some of the things the public will be faced with: master plans, strategic development plans, local plans and neighbourhood plans. They have local authorities; they will have mayors and development corporations. It is jaw dropping. For a normal member of the public who is not immersed in the sort of world we have been immersed in this afternoon, they are going to really struggle to have their input, unless there is something in the Bill that makes it much easier for them. Certainly, diminishing the role of the elected councillor is a very regressive step. In fact, the Government should really be encouraging local authorities to have a bigger role.
To look back to some years ago, Planning for Real exercises really invigorated people in my local authority. The community could come out to wherever it was—the town hall, the village hall or the pub—and get truly involved. If we look at the tools that are available now—I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned digital twinning—we see that they have massively taken on the ability for people to get truly involved, because they will be able to overlay all those plans that I mentioned and the nature recovery areas so that people can see in real time what the developments being proposed will mean to them. The Bill needs to include some of that far more imaginatively, so that people are not disempowered by it, which is what I fear.
Of course, local government has not been perfect: only about one-third of local authorities have up-to-date adopted local plans. That is why it is crucial that the Bill takes forward public input much more positively. If none of those things happen, people will find it find it even harder to have a say in shaping their community’s future.
In my remaining time, I want to mention Part 3 of the Bill. Surely, we are clever enough to design legislation that allows for growing communities and for nature to be healthy. A number of noble Lords have mentioned mitigation hierarchies to avoid harm and mitigating unavoidable impacts. A very last resort is providing compensation measures, and the Bill goes straight to that last resort. We must insert a mitigation hierarchy clause.
Finally, from everything I have heard this afternoon—it will not be dying in a ditch; it will be dying in a chalk stream—we will fight to the last to have these irreplaceable habitats recognised in the Bill as such. The name is on the tin: if the Government cannot see that, that is exactly why this House should make a stand.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
It is widely recognised that we need a simpler, more consistent and faster planning system that delivers higher-quality outcomes at lower costs. As others have raised, there has been a failure to deliver infrastructure, housing and commercial premises, particularly in London, Oxford and Cambridge, as well as a failure to deliver good environmental outcomes. The last Government made some good progress, with over 1 million new homes in five years and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—I ask whether this Government will seek to build on that rather than replace it.
Developers are equally frustrated, particularly with their inability to plan and invest for the long term due to the uncertainty of their most critical raw material: building land. We support many of the Government’s ambitions and there are some positive measures in the Bill, such as taking on board the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Banner on judicial review and reviewing the consultation process. However, it falls well short in many other areas, as many other noble Lords have pointed out earlier in this debate: the Bill takes a rather simplistic, overly centralised and blunt government-knows-best approach, rather than seeking to address the details, complexity and overlapping issues needed to improve the system, one that I believe the public would be more supportive of.
I have some questions. Strategic and local plans should be the fundamental base upon which to build development. However, the Government’s proposals are top-down. They are telling authorities what they need to achieve, with the threat of government intervention if they do not do it. Where are the tools to support authorities to achieve great outcomes for their areas and to make it easier to deliver these plans? If you give someone an impossible task, do not be surprised if they fail. Who determines the balance of achieving things such as environmental, infrastructure, affordable, commercial and housing numbers while seeking to meet the requirements of all those statutory bodies? How will these proposals make it easier to deliver a plan?
Local democratic accountability is crucial. Local residents should have a voice, as many have pointed out. There may be times when local councillors, under pressure from their electorate, are too willing to call something in, but there are far more times when it is important to have this option, particularly where developers seek to push the envelope. There are already measures in place to address this, and these need to be bolstered, not completely removed.
Environmental delivery plans are an interesting concept, but are the Government seriously giving this responsibility to an unaccountable quango that has no responsibility to deliver within a wider context, with tax-raising and CPO powers, and one that marks its own homework? Why not, for instance, through the strategic or local plans, work with a variety of providers? Why have the sensible proposals from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act on CPO and development corporations not already been taken forward?
While there are some positives on delivering infrastructure, will these really move the dial? Will they stop the delays and costs that we have seen for critical infrastructure, such as the Lower Thames Crossing? Will they improve biodiversity? Will they create a better environment? Why does the Bill encourage more development on greenfield and green belts? Why have this Government not continued with a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development? What is the Bill doing to make processes simpler and provide consistency; for instance, setting national policy frameworks and standardising templates and processes?
While I can agree with many of the aims of the Bill, and there are some positive measures, overall, it is a missed opportunity. It could have built on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It could have supported councils and planning to move faster and be more consistent. It could have addressed many of the unintended consequences of the habitats directive and other nature and environmental legislation that is overlapping and in conflict. It could have done more to address the consequences of JRs. It could have turbocharged brownfield and urban generation. It could have addressed the roles of the many other public and quasi-public bodies needed to deliver. It could have a standardised process and paperwork, driving consistency. It could have set clearer priorities and ranking against which development is judged. As I said, it is a lost opportunity.
I hope the Government will engage positively on the Bill as it makes its way through the House of Lords, working with Peers across the House and the many good suggestions I have heard to address the issues in it and make it something that will deliver for our country and our communities.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, some may wonder why I, a criminal barrister, have chosen to speak in a debate on planning and infrastructure. The reason is that I have a lifelong interest in housing, which derives at least in part from my observation of hundreds of criminal cases, including those I saw during the time I spent as a judge presiding over jury trials. In so many of those cases, one of the problems of defendants is that they have never enjoyed the advantage of a decent home, which should be a place of personal safety and stability. Unfortunately, it is a depressing truth that the most comfortable and secure place in which some people spend a significant proportion of their lives is a custodial institution, and the shortage of decent homes for poorer families has contributed to this.
Against this background, I want to congratulate the Government on this Bill. It is the most ambitious programme for housing since 1953. As a member of your Lordships’ House, I wish to contribute in an effort to help the Government achieve their objectives by ensuring that what is built will be remembered for its good qualities. The best of the great Victorian architects and builders produced houses that we still want to live in nearly 200 years later. I know that the Government are fully conscious that they should be building new homes for many generations of our citizens. We should be ambitious that, in 200 years, people will talk of this project as one of the finest in housing development in our history.
I do not think it is controversial to say that good housing is about far more than providing four walls and a ceiling. It includes what architects refer to as place- making; in other words, providing the qualities that turn a house into a home, a tenement into a community, and a community into a place which you can say that you are proud to come from. When this Labour Government build a new neighbourhood, we want people in 50 and 100 years to say that they are proud to come from, and want to live in, that neighbourhood.
This means building durable spaces and places—places where people remain in their old age, alongside the new generations growing up behind them. Providing these and other requirements in the same place is how strong communities are created. In addition—reverting to my criminal law theme—another benefit is that strong communities self-regulate. It is axiomatic that there is far less anti-social behaviour—far less graffiti, for example—in places in which people are proud to live.
Since large-scale council house building effectively ended in 1979, although architects have been involved in many projects and some have produced wonderful designs, the housebuilders have been the dominant partners. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said in his powerful speech, this has led, certainly on occasion, to profit being a more important concept than community. But good design—the creation of the good place—should be at the beating heart of every development.
One of the first actions undertaken by a certain Director of Public Prosecutions—who may or may not now be the Prime Minister—was to publish a document on core quality standards, by which every prosecution could be judged and, most importantly, measured. Along with some noble friends and colleagues in your Lordships’ House, I am currently working with a group of architects and planners to draw up a list of just such core quality standards for new housing, which we will ask the Government to enshrine in policy and, if necessary, in the legislation.
We want to be sure that everyone involved in planning homes is expected to reach high standards of place-making and that these are integral to every scheme put forward. By way of example, one of the things that I think we would all like to ensure is that when housebuilders put together their applications, the word “child” appears more often than the word “car”. The Bill provides an opportunity to strengthen and clarify design requirements.
In the view of these professionals, it is not necessary to make radical changes to the current planning system in order to achieve improved quality outcomes. Rather, what is needed is to ensure that quality is embedded in all applications for new development. What is needed are clear, predictable and measurable design requirements; if these are met, this would enable planning officers to sign off significant components of planning applications. A consequence of that would be to reduce the number of areas which will then be subject to democratic debate and decision-making. Applications which demonstrate compliance with the standards could be processed speedily within the current system, and thus the promise of speedy approvals will provide an incentive for the housebuilders to incorporate these measurable standards in their applications.
In other words, if there are core quality standards in place, this should speed up delivery of the new homes which the Government have promised and are determined to deliver. The aim is to provide homes at scale and at pace which will give people better lives throughout their lives.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I declare my interest as honorary president of National Energy Action, vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, and as an officer of the water and flooding all-party parliamentary groups.
I have to ask where the interests of rural England lie in this Bill. The Bill envisages virtually no benefits for rural areas—quite the reverse. Rural communities are seen as the vehicle through which to deliver the Government’s infrastructure and energy policies. Combined with the fact that compulsory purchase compensation is dramatically reduced and curtailed, and that the power to object to a planning application is severely limited, it represents a full assault on rural communities.
The Government’s clean energy policies specifically disadvantage rural dwellers. The standing charge on energy bills is used to pay for future energy structures in a way not allowed by other utilities. The standing charge is the part of the energy bill that the householder cannot control. It is already high, and no doubt it will go higher.
The Government’s clean energy policy will also take 10% of farmland and 10% of fisheries out of production, which will inevitably have an impact on food security. The compulsory compensation provisions in the Bill need to be revisited. I urge the Government to proceed wherever possible by agreement with the landowner, and not to remove the requirement to carry out pre-application consultation on a proposed project with landowners and occupiers of the land, and not to remove the hope value. Villages and rural communities are in need of small, affordable one or two-bedroomed homes, not the three, four or five-bedroomed homes currently being offered. New build is attractive to developers as it is free of VAT. One possibility is for the Government to consider switching how VAT is charged: to put 20% VAT on new build and take the VAT off renovations and repairs of older buildings. That alone would revolutionise communities, with housing stock being refurbished, with better insulation and energy provision.
The issue of building on functional flood plains must be addressed, along with the end to the automatic right to connect, so easily achieved with the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. When we considered the levelling-up Bill, we were told that that was not the appropriate Bill for the measure. When we considered the Water (Special Measures) Bill, we were told that that was not appropriate, and that the Bill before us was the appropriate home for it. So I hope that the Government will consider supporting that.
On improvements to the Bill, I seek government support in a number of areas: implementing, as mentioned, Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010; ending the automatic right to connect to inadequate pipes; ending building on functional flood plains, particularly in zone 3b areas; implementing property flood resilience measures where buildings are built on functional flood plains; creating transparent conditions for planning approvals and consents; and envisaging a role for internal drainage boards in the planning process and in the prevention of floods. I will also seek to amend the Reservoirs Act, particularly the de minimis rules in that Act permitting the building of small reservoirs on farms and golf courses.
The Government have not published statistics on the number of houses built on functional flood plains since 2022. The statistics for 2021-22 show that in England, 7% of new residential addresses were in flood zone b, described by the Environment Agency as its best estimate of areas of land at risk of flooding. I put it to Ministers that any development in zone 3b should be resisted. When in opposition, they supported an amendment to the levelling-up Bill on not building on flood plains. I am hoping that that support will be repeated in this Bill, or perhaps the Government might even bring forward their own amendment to achieve the same end.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I must remind your Lordships of my professional involvement in aspects of this sector as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, an honorary fellow of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils and joint president of the East Sussex Association of Local Councils. I am also a CLA member and a small-scale landowner.
There is much to welcome in this Bill, especially on the need to speed up the pace of delivery. Inordinate delays involve substantial cost and risk. However—and I apologise for concentrating on some of the bits that concern me—cutting out consultees and some local deliberations, which seems to be part of the proposal, strikes me as an unlikely saving. I feel that a more systematic approach to a rather labyrinthine planning system is in fact needed. The main focus of the Bill is infrastructure rollout, but delivery seems to remain via a rather poorly regulated private sector and still risks putting commercial imperatives in front of national policy and public interest, both as to rollout and cost to the taxpayer. Look where we are with utilities and telecoms right now.
As to electrical power, for instance, the rate of transfer of carbon-based road fuel and heating loads on to a greener electricity grid remains fettered by excessive cost per unit, while generation capacity and distribution lag years behind need, arguably requiring significant redesign beyond ever more pylons—which, of course, is a challenge in itself.
Water quality and quantity affect several key regions. Limiting consumption of a finite resource by the rest of us is a necessary offset as part of new housing and water neutrality, but that is happening only at the margins. Simply adopting an aspirational cut of 40% in per capita consumption is nonsense, if my information is correct; there is a good trade in removing water flow restrictors and upgrading showers. Nobody seems to have any incentive to monitor or enforce neutrality offsets effectively.
The same could easily happen with environment and nature. Will there be eco-deserts of some sort where development takes place, but for commercial convenience ecology has been traded away to another location? Or will the immediate locality have priority, as it rightly should? Will nature offsets still be adequately managed in 100 years’ time—as mentioned by other noble Lords—and will Natural England remain the objective government conservation adviser, or become the agent for a developer-led offsetting activity based on viability? Will it continue to command respect, especially if environmental NGOs start being excluded as consultees—they are, after all, the source of one’s information.
We have a system that involves democracy and rights of public audience; that has been mentioned by other noble Lords, and needs to be fostered. Councillor training has been referred to more than adequately by others.
I am unclear what Part 3 means for urban density or long-promised reforms to tenure, for individual autonomy and exclusivity—the sort of things that go into building a concept of one’s home, whether it be by ownership or otherwise—for communities that are stable, engaged and self-sustaining, and for making the best use of urban infrastructure as a means of preventing endless development on the fringes and urban sprawl.
I am concerned about the commercial risks to urban redevelopment, in particular those caused by the expanded compulsory purchase powers in the Bill. All of these issues are interlinked and need to be dealt with together, unless coherence is to be lost.
I turn specifically to the compulsory purchase step-in powers under Part 5 of the Bill and the removal of hope value from compensation. The Bill does not actually say that it will use existing use value as the basis for land value, but the Explanatory Notes do say that. However, there is no national or international definition of this term, without which the measures are flawed, uncertain of outcomes and, arguably, expropriatory and open to challenge. Many desirable sites are under option, so I simply ask: whose existing use are we addressing? Others, including society at large, make large profits from developers on greenfield sites, whereas the landowner often gets quite a small proportion of the overall profit after it has been totted up.
I will make one point that I was not going to make. For too long, emphasis on housing development has been a proxy for growth in the economy. There is evidence that this is reaching an endpoint. Whether we are going to continue to have year-on-year increases in values, including in the value of the housing inventory, is in doubt; if that is correct, it will have profound implications, socially and economically. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best—but for other reasons—that a different delivery model is in fact needed.
Unless these critical factors are addressed, many of the measures in this Bill risk substantial failure. I look forward to pursuing these as the Bill moves forward.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will contain my remarks to Part 3 of this Bill, which rips up the current planning rules that have, for decades, ensured that the environmental outcomes of developments have been taken into account. In their place, the Government are saying great things about their proposals: that they will speed up the planning process; that they will deliver the homes we need; and that they will restore nature through this overall improvement test. To my mind, however, the proposals in Part 3 will allow developers to buy out of their obligations and will dismantle the environmental protections that we have had in favour of some vague promise that Natural England will somehow make the situation better in the long term.
Worryingly, as it stands, the Bill will get rid of three fundamental environmental governance structures. It will get rid of the precautionary principle that we do not allow environmental destruction until we know exactly what is going to be lost; with the proposals, we will move straight to buying offsets elsewhere. It will lose the mitigation hierarchy, which many other noble Lords have raised as being of great concern—not just because we need first to move to ensure that we avoid harm but because the mitigation hierarchy has been the means for, when you cannot always avoid harm, improving the area around. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, said, we need planning to help build green spaces into communities.
With the new proposals, under which you can go straight ahead without worrying about mitigation moving to support an EDP, these EDPs could be anywhere in the country. As it stands, the Bill does not say that they have to be in the same locality, and Natural England confirmed today that it does not know how many EDPs there will be or where they are going to be. For example, we could have planning applications in Burnley but the EDPs could be down in heathlands in Dorset. The Minister is looking at me—I hope that she will be able to clarify in her final remarks that there is no guarantee in this Bill about how many EDPs there are going to be or when they will come forward in the next timeframe. This is an extremely worrying point that I do not think has been picked up fully yet this evening; I am glad to have had the opportunity to make it. We need to look at this issue seriously.
The third main environmental governance tool that is disappearing is the “polluter pays” principle. In the past, people paid up front for the amount of pollution and destruction that they were responsible for. Now, there will be a fixed fee, paid at some point in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, there is even an economic viability opt-out in the Bill. Those of us who have sat on planning committees for a long time know just how much the economic viability clause has in the past prevented social housing being built in developments. We are facing the same prospect happening here with environmental projects.
I am not opposed to strategic landscape-scale nature recovery—we all know that it can have benefits—but not for irreplaceable habitats and species. I am not going to revisit that point, because others have made it so well.
What particularly worries me about these proposals is that it is the Secretary of State at DCLG who is going to determine whether these EDPs are strong enough to outweigh the harm undertaken by the developments. In the Bill, it is not that they have to; it just says that they will determine whether it is “likely” that they will outweigh the harm. That is not strong enough. Nor does the Bill say anything about the Secretary of State having to look at scientific evidence—to make sure that the decisions are robust—that can give us any form of confidence or certainty that the environmental losses we are having to take up front will be mitigated for in the future.
This Government are saying that the environmental regulations need to be changed because planning needs to be speeded up. Other Members have said why environmental regulations have not been the cause of those delays. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, made the very important point that this new system will create uncertainty, which will be legally tested. Part 3 will deliver more uncertainty, while stopping the Government delivering on their legally binding environmental targets. We need more quality affordable homes, but we also need homes for nature.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I speak today as someone who has led a council for 20 years. I have sat on more planning committees than I care to remember. I have been accountable for three local plans, and I sat on the CIL review for the Minister in 2016-17—I have even built a few homes on my own account. I chaired a district council for four years, and established a public sector environmental credits company. I am well qualified to participate in this Bill.
The Bill is defective because it does not remind us that the purpose of planning is to arbitrate between the private and the public interest. Our work is important here. We need to optimise housing and economic growth within the context of optimising the burden of well-meaning regulations. We need to get the public-private balance right.
Let us not be churlish: there are several welcome moves in this Bill. It should not take 10 years to produce a local plan, which is how long the last local plan I was involved with took. However, superficial headlines fail to finger the felons who hold up progress and, most perversely, potentially reward the biggest blockers. This Bill perpetrates the myth that councils and councillors are a block on progress. That is wrong. Local councillors should not be the scapegoats for wider failures in the rest of the regulatory public sector—those who the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned. It is a pity that he is not in his place because I agreed with every word that he said about silos. Training councillors and emasculating planning committees alone will not deliver millions of homes; that is just wishful thinking.
The Bill has a touching faith that officials can clear away the debris—as if they do not have any prejudices of their own—and get Britain building all by themselves. In my experience, too often officialdom, in its widest sense, is inflexible. It interprets the local plan grounded in data which might be several years old and stuck in the past, rather than addressing the needs of tomorrow. I have sat on enough planning committees to know that, too often, officials and other parts of the state put the black spot on proper proposals.
Too often statutory bodies claim a veto to advance their own narrow interest, and on their own timescales. The Minister will remember when we both worked together to get the Planning Inspectorate to do its job in Stevenage, when it thought that 1,000 days to start an inspection was an appropriate lead time.
If you give someone a veto, do not be surprised if they use it—Natural England, the Environment Agency, the MMO, the Highways Agency and whatever National Rail calls itself nowadays. I want to be charitable here, but often they use overly precious objections, advancing specious science or contested legal opinion, to make their “wait” points. That is before we deal with a whole new set of other regulators—for example, the building fire safety regulator, which acts as if, Canute-like, it can somehow abolish fire. This Bill does nothing to address all those other blockers.
Councillors are not the problem here. In fact, we need elected officials at all levels to arbitrate positively in the public interest, to get through these vetoes and to ensure that those bodies do not use them capriciously.
Turning to Part 3, there has been a lot of NGO shroud-waving, telling us how a cottage industry of well-meaning ecologists has turned into a drag anchor on our economy. We should not ignore them, but we must roll back their veto on environmental protections, because their demands have become disproportionate and detached from reality.
Only this afternoon, I received an email as part of my casework as a councillor. A development in Norfolk has been told, on the basis of Natural England’s calculation, that the cost of installing a loo in a proposed single dwelling in a village not far from where I live will be £32,450. We have to stop this. It is on different continents with regard to value from what is reasonable or achievable.
I am concerned that proposals to give Natural England judge-and-jury powers will effectively nationalise nature. To set mitigation measures at state-run prices is dangerous. To set the price too low would kill the incentive to innovate in an area where the UK has developed some world-leading market leadership. I am anxious that we will undermine innovative local schemes where nutrient neutrality, biodiversity net gain, GIRAMS and SANGS, whatever they are, have been contracted and executed with 80-year tail liabilities. That is completely inconsistent with the 10-year life of an EDP.
On a much more positive note, I broadly welcome the proposals for development corporations in Part 4. But I have concerns over the financial models for the organisations, and it will be important to clarify the relationship between compulsory purchase and the cat’s cradle of responsibilities between the mayor, development corporation boards, planning authorities and the interactions with the money and finance that deliver the infrastructure.
There is much more that I want to say and will later on in the process. For the moment, I welcome the Bill and will do much to improve it, as there is more polishing to be done.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, this is a crucial Bill. It is a key enabler of this Government’s programme to get Britain building again, tackle the housing crisis, and build the infrastructure that levels up the country and enables it to grow while at the same time achieving our net-zero commitments.
Strangely, I rather liked what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said when he said that the “vetocracy” has to be overcome. As someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, served for 20 years in local government, I strongly agree with him that the problem is not local councillors, who in my experience are quite keen on development, but rather the special interests, the inquiry system and the judicial review system that give far too much weight to delay and to the people who want to obstruct. It is the nonsense of the bat tunnel and the fact that we spent £1.X billion on the Lower Thames Crossing without achieving a single thing. Those are the things the Bill intends to overcome.
I have two particular points. I am a strong believer in the need for us to accept climate transition and move to net zero. I reinforce the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about the need to do more to facilitate electric cars in cities and towns. The Bill contains some useful measures on public charging points, but it neglects the key problem for the take-up of electric cars, which is the need to simplify the system whereby you can charge your car on the street from your own home if you do not have off-street parking. Something has to be put right there, and I have some ideas that we can discuss in Committee.
The other thing that I think is very important is the role of development corporations, and I back what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said at the start of this debate. When people think of development corporations, of course there is the wonderful brilliance of the then Michael Heseltine’s Docklands Development Corporation, and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is one of the great sort of enablers of modern Britain. But I also think of the post-war generation of new towns. I have a special affection for Stevenage, because I knew Shirley Williams very well and she was devoted to Stevenage as a new town, and it would not have happened without the setting up of a development corporation. Milton Keynes is one of the most successful places in modern Britain, again because of a development corporation. I think the model worked because the development corporation had the ability to borrow, to buy land at existing use value, by compulsory purchase if necessary, to prepare that land for development and then to get the money back from the developers. That then allowed it to reinvest in further schemes.
The Bill contains some progress towards this model, but I think there is a significant problem in that the borrowing of the development corporations counts against the department’s expenditure limit, even though the money will be got back as a result of the land being developed and the developers paying for it. We have to overcome what I think is this significant block on reinvestment. It is a typical Treasury thing, frankly. It wants to keep control of borrowing, but in fact you could do it in other ways by having regular audits of how the development corporations are working. I hope that our Front Bench might look at this, and I particularly hope that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for whom I have great admiration, will look favourably on enabling development corporations to do the best job they can.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and something of a challenge to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in this debate. Indeed, it is something of a challenge to follow the 50-odd other contributors whom we have had today, because there is little left to say that has not already been said. In that respect, I would like to go in to bat to defend council planning committees, notwithstanding the fact that several other people have done the job already.
I spent four years chairing the planning committee in the London Borough of Havering, on the north-east border of London, where the city meets the country. There was a great deal of pressure there between the housing demand and the green space that people wanted to build on, so it was quite a tough place to do that job. All my committee members were trained in basic planning law so that they could do their jobs better, so I do not think that is a bad idea; I think it is a bad idea to insist that they be trained and then to take their powers away from them and have them discharged somewhere else. That seems somewhat perverse.
I must admit to the Minister that, even though we were a good planning committee, occasionally we discussed people’s extensions and modifications to their homes. That was quite important because, in allowing something to change on one house, you created a precedent and the ones next door could do the same thing. You could pretty soon see whole streets, and whole neighbourhoods even, change substantially because of decisions made on a relatively small number of properties. Because of that, it is still a really good idea to allow some democratic involvement in those decisions, because people will look at their changing neighbourhood and say, “Where did I vote for this? Where did I have a say in what is happening?”
I also used to feel that it was very important to run a committee that was fair and gave people a say because, for quite a lot of the public, the planning committee was the only democratic part of the council that they met or encountered. If we did our job badly, were unsympathetic or were poorly briefed, that reflected badly not just on the committee but on the whole of the authority.
On occasions, we were quite independent. We even sent the council’s own applications back for changes to be made to them. A good committee should not be scared to do that. We had some challenges while I was there. We had a race for golf courses. Suddenly, there was a demand for lots of golf courses around north-east London—not because there was a demand for golf, but because there was a demand for space to dump inert waste from building sites without having to pay the landfill tax. It is that sort of perverse incentive that, if we are not very careful, badly drafted environment law creates. I urge Ministers to take a close look, particularly at Part 3 of the Bill, to imagine how it might be misused. If they do not take that look, I am sure people in the property industry will do so—and will take advantage of it. It is worth taking the time.
I was also impressed by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, at the start of the debate. He said some fairly strong things about the big housebuilders. The noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, said some good things about design and architecture in the future, but I think they could have been a lot more cutting than they were. I have lived in new-build flats in London for the past 30 years. There have been a considerable number of problems with not just the design but the execution of the build. We hear a lot about fire safety—quite rightly after the Grenfell disaster—but the shortcomings go much further than that. I can give the Minister, if she wants, a whole list of defects and problems that regularly occur in new builds.
I hope the Government achieve their target to massively increase housebuilding, but a wave of increased housebuilding must not come at the expense of the quality of the properties that are built. We do not want to see people who buy their houses and flats landed with the costs of repairing them and making changes to them a short time after they have been built. To allow that to happen is bad news anyway for the housing market in the UK in the long run, because people will not want to participate in it if they think that what they are buying is junk. I am really looking forward to taking part in the scrutiny of the Bill in the coming weeks. I hope we can do a constructive job of it.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Part 2 of the Bill. I declare my interests in the register, as a former practising chartered surveyor. I certainly support the Bill. I like it very much. I wish to address just a few concerns this evening.
Most of the ground has been well covered. I will try not to repeat too much. First, I want to touch on housing. One and half million homes in a short window of time is a huge undertaking. It will not be done piecemeal. It requires many vast new-build schemes. These are going to be predominantly, I am sure, on green spaces. We must learn from the mistakes of the last 30 or 40 years, when acres of matchboxes identical to each other have been built with no thought whatever to the appearance to those passing by, or nearby, or living in them. What an opportunity this is to introduce some design vision to the process—style guides and development themes. Please, let us move on from matchboxes.
Introducing design at the outset is free. It is more expensive—only slightly more expensive—because it is cosmetic, but it costs nothing to the developer. It is factored into its appraisal, and it comes off site value. Living in an attractive, landscaped environment has a great impact on society as a whole and, of course, to the people who live there themselves. The Bill refers to design training for planning committee members. This is an excellent suggestion and will inform the design vision I refer to. The RIBA states that feedback from its members over the last couple of years suggests that 54% of local planning authorities lack any design expertise.
Secondly, I am very pleased the Bill refers to brownfield land, but it is not much more than that. The reference to passports to accelerate the development process is welcome and applauded, but I regret there is no single brownfield land clause in the Bill. It merits and deserves a clause of its own. It is of primary importance because tens of thousands of residential dwelling units could be built on brownfield land. They are usually in metropolitan areas. There is no need for the additional infrastructure services of schools and transport infrastructure, medical centres and shops—simply expenditure on expanding the existing provision in the metropolitan areas.
My third concern is planning departments. I will build on the excellent words of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and support the planning system as it was structured. I do not want to refer at all to the roll call of consultants who surround and influence the planning process. The system of local planning authorities itself is well designed, but it is broken. Years of under-resourcing have taken their toll. The Government’s Autumn Statement had £45 million for 300 new apprentice planners, which is a woefully inadequate addition to the cohort. It is fewer than one per local planning authority. There are 2,200 current vacancies in the planning system among local planning authorities and 13% of planning authorities are trying to operate with a shortfall of 25% or more in their numbers. Morale is understandably low. They are under-resourced and unloved.
It is a revolving door of employment. Case handlers change, sometimes twice, for an applicant. Knowledge of the file is interrupted. Site visits, meetings and relationships are destroyed as the faces change. Delays are inevitable. The Government must act and rebuild from the bottom up. Do not break the structure, but rebuild, recruit and retrain. Return professional pride to these wonderful teams of people. Let them take pride in their work again.
Finally, there is flood risk. The Bill makes no direct reference to flood risk management. There are too many homes being built with a one in 100 likelihood of flooding, which, as we all know, is accelerating rapidly with climate change. We should not build on flood-risk land; it is madness. The Bill could stop it. To conclude, this is a good Bill, but there are gaps which need filling.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it is always a joy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. It is perhaps slightly less of a joy to be speaker number 59 on the speakers’ list and honorary tail-end Charlie. I can reassure the House of two things. First, I have only one point. Secondly, it is a new one.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I declare my interest as a practising barrister and mediator in a set of chambers that specialises in public and planning law.
The specific issue I want to discuss is, perhaps counterintuitively, the reduction of statutory appeals and contentious litigation in the planning sphere. I suggest that we do this by expanding the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. We should aim in the Bill to ensure that landowners, housebuilders, local authorities, nature conservation bodies, local people and other stakeholders are having proper and more constructive conversations. If they do, the likelihood of litigation in the planning sphere, with all its delay and division, could and should be reduced. In Committee, I hope to table amendments that will offer a way forward in this regard.
The Scots have been ahead of us in this game for some time. Section 40 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 contains a measure introduced by the Scottish Government to provide specific legislative provision that focuses on the promotion and use of mediation in the planning process. Those measures in that Act require Scottish Ministers to issue guidance on
“the promotion and use of mediation”
and other methods for resolving disagreements related to planning matters. Experience tells us that it is working.
On the other hand, while mediation within the English planning system is known and has been successfully used, it continues to be a significantly under-deployed and under-appreciated resource. Generally, while mediation has become central—and is increasingly becoming mandatory—to the civil justice system in other fields and has been greatly encouraged by repeated appellate court judgments, the planning system lags somewhat behind, despite its potential for avoiding conflict having long been acknowledged in numerous reviews and reports from 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Despite these reviews and reports, in practice there has been little sustained progress towards the formal adoption of mediation in planning. For example, when he was Communities Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, introduced “Section 106 brokers” in the summer of 2012. The initiative was then taken into legislation through the short-lived Sections 106BA to 106BC of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as inserted by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, which allowed for renegotiation in respect of those agreements. However, that measure was subject to a sunset provision and expired on 30 April 2016.
Another provision was that of the Planning Minister, Sir Brandon Lewis, who included in Sections 106ZA and 106ZB of the Planning and Housing Act 2016 a measure through which a form of dispute adjudication was to be introduced. However, it was never implemented. Most recently, in summer 2021 the then Government introduced the pathfinder scheme to deploy mediation to reduce the enforcement appeal backlog. I am told that that scheme was not a success because a lot of local planning officers were less than enthusiastic about engaging in meaningful discussion about mediation, often because they did not understand the process. The experience from Scotland is that those efforts can be facilitated only by greater education and training as to the merits of and costs that can be saved by adopting that course.
It is tolerably clear, though, that where formal mediation has been used in planning scenarios, it has often been successful. Even where its techniques have been deployed informally through the presence of a neutral facilitator or chair, negotiations have been accelerated and produced better outcomes. Consequently, public and private resources have been saved, stakeholder relations have been improved and, crucially, earlier delivery of new developments and infrastructure has been the result.
Therefore, if the Bill is truly going to succeed where other measures have failed in bringing about meaningful and lasting reform of our planning system, a culture of better, more constructive and less disputatious conversations should be a part of the changed regime. Having a statutory provision promoting mediation would be timely. In the planning context, it would reflect the new mood music from the senior courts about resolving differences through better conversations, and lead to quicker, cheaper and more certain outcomes.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am speaker number 60, and this has been a long and wide-ranging debate. I thank all noble Lords who have raised important and pertinent issues for the House to address at the next stage. Some have been new issues, and I look forward to hearing about mediation processes within the planning system. I particularly thank my 10 Liberal Democrat colleagues for their contributions, which have been, as noble Lords have heard, both supportive and challenging in equal measure. Many of us have benefited from the professional groups, charities and individuals who have provided helpful information on which we could base our debate today. I remind the House that I have a relevant interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire.
This is a very significant Bill for our nation. It has the potential to fundamentally change the foundation of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which established the principle that planning permission is required for land development. It separated land ownership from the automatic right to develop it. Enshrined in that Act is local democratic decision-making, on both what land can be developed and how it can be developed. This democratic principle has gradually and properly expanded over the years to include and involve in the process those affected by potential development.
In the era of instant and easy communication of both factual and inaccurate information, the principle of local communities having their say and elected representatives making the decisions is ever more important. Ensuring the involvement of communities is vital in both hearing local information about a site and demonstrating that those directly affected are important in the process. The erosion of the local democratic process, as proposed in the Bill, is not acceptable and will not lead to swifter planning decisions, as many noble Lords from across the House have referenced. A better balance must be found between the needs of development and of local communities and their elected representatives.
Major infrastructure projects are, as we have heard, beset with delays and eye-watering cost rises—HS2 is just one of the examples that has been referred to in our debate—and change is necessary. Reducing the time taken to reach a decision is critical. Removing the pre-application stage, however, is a false economy, as it is at that stage that interested parties are alerted to the scheme and can have input, which helps the applicant make amendments in response. As there will be increasing numbers of nationally significant infrastructure projects, it is vital that communities are informed and engaged at an early stage, both in the detail of the application and in its prime purpose for the nation. Communities must feel that they can have their say if resentment at change is not to thrive.
Turning to the more specific planning process changes, spatial development strategies will do much to inform economic development, infrastructure investment and local strategies in a mayoral authority. I too remember, and was part of helping to develop, the previous regional development strategies 20-odd years ago. However, any such strategy must have the support of communities and their local elected representatives if it is not to be constantly challenged. The new clauses introduced into the Bill when it was taken through the Commons throw some light on how this will be achieved. What is not clear is whether all constituent authorities will have a place on a joint board and what decision-making powers the board jointly and severally has in relation to the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can provide some details on the membership and powers of the joint boards. She will have thousands of questions to answer when she sums up, so maybe a note would suffice.
On the proposed changes to the local planning system, the starting point for these discussions must be the knowledge that the local authority planning procedures vary greatly according to the type and size of council. Differences reflect the communities that are served, and a one-size approach to local planning definitely does not fit all.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I agree with mandatory training for members of local planning committees. I introduced it when I was leader of Kirklees 20 years ago. Members of planning committees then understand the constraints of planning and highways legislation; it is important and it helps the debate on any planning applications to focus on planning issues.
The number of members of a planning committee is also important. Limiting the membership must go alongside the rights of ward councillors to speak to the committee on a pertinent application. That is their elected duty and responsibility. Equally, as other noble Lords have said, local councils should have the right to choose the size of their planning committee so that it suits their local needs. Imposing top-down schemes of national delegation is not the way forward. There is no evidence that planning committees are the blockers—a contemptible accusation. Some 80% of planning applications are already approved, one way or another; some 90% are already delegated to officers’ decision-making. Of those referred to the Planning Inspectorate by developers, less than 3% are overturned on appeal. The planning system works—it just needs more investment.
The real blockers to housing development are the major housebuilders which acquire planning consent and then wait for an upturn in the market or even play the system with constant applications to alter aspects of the original planning permission. The evidence is clear. The Government could easily reach their target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament if the 1.2 million currently with planning permission were built. Reform of this part of the process is desperately needed. That is what needs to change.
There are families in every community who are desperate for a home at a social rent. The scandal of the Bill is that this need is not specifically addressed, nor is the urgent need to provide a definition of so-called affordable housing.
Part 3 of the Bill has attracted a very large number of comments and challenges from across the House, and rightly so. The proposal for a nature restoration fund reads like a developers’ charter. It enables developers to disregard the impact on and destruction of nature as a result of their development and salve their consciences by contributing to the fund. That will not do. Developers must be cognisant of the effect of their construction on habitats. The Bill could well result in some localities having their local habitats and green spaces destroyed, and the recompense is miles away. That is no good for them or for the biodiversity of the area. Fundamental changes to this part of the Bill are essential, and no doubt will be proposed.
Finally, the direction of travel envisaged in the Bill is one that we on these Benches support. However, the Bill has absolutely failed in finding the right balance between the competing ambitions of infrastructure provision, housebuilding and economic development on the one hand and community involvement, democratic decision-making and nature protection and enhancement on the other. We on these Benches will do all we can to work with the Government, where this is possible, to tip the scales in support of democracy, nature and communities.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak to the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill—second last, as I am sure that noble Lords are aware. There is much to commend in the Bill, easing the path to building more homes for the people in this country and allowing strengthening of our infrastructure.
Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a farmer and landowner, an owner of residential development land, a developer of commercial property, renewable energy infrastructure and new forests, and an investor in natural capital-related businesses: Agricarbon, Cecil Earth, John Deere and Circular FX.
Planning goes to the heart of how homes are supplied. I hope that the Minister will consider the means by which we bolster much-needed supply, including the supply of planning officers, as many noble Lords have mentioned. We are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors’ ability to vote on individual planning applications. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook set out earlier, democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding. Many noble Lords clearly agree.
Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to delivering not just more homes, but the right homes. While the planning system is part of the problem in the housing shortage and slow and expensive delivery of critical infrastructure, we must also address cost of delivery, heavily impacted by inflation on labour and materials; increasing energy-efficiency regulations; tighter environmental regulations; and accessibility and safety requirements. All these add to the cost, and we need to question whether we can truly afford all of them.
Housing affordability has also been impacted by the increase in mortgage rates, thanks to inflation and this Government’s forecast expenditure remaining at 45% of GDP over this Parliament, even with optimistic productivity forecasts, undermining financial markets’ confidence. What plans do the Government have to reduce the cost of building new homes and providing their infrastructure to make houses more affordable? Does the Minister intend to drive down new and existing house prices by creating a larger supply of houses than can be absorbed by the market at current prices? The housebuilders have received a bruising this evening, but what proportion of the 1.5 million target is expected to be supplied by the private housebuilding sector and what by the public sector?
I would like to focus on the environmental aspects of the Bill, set out in Part 3. While a nature restoration levy may appear to be a welcome simplification of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system, this is a problem that is more imaginary than real. As Richard Benwell from Wildlife and Countryside Link said in giving evidence to the other place:
“It is worth noting that Natural England reckons that 99% of the housing applications that it is consulted on go through perfectly properly; only 1% receive objections on the basis of environmental concerns. It is also worth noting that … the long-term trend is that only 10% of major infrastructure projects are challenged”.
Where is the problem that the Government are trying to fix with a radical overhaul of how environmental damage is dealt with in planning? Is this really because the Government resent £100 million being spent on a bat tunnel, or because the previous Opposition, now Government, rejected our amendment to the levelling-up Bill, which would have removed the blockage by Natural England advice on nutrient neutrality rules of well over 100,000 houses?
The fingerprints of Natural England are all over those instances, and I support my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lady Coffey and others in questioning whether Natural England should really be allowed to build an authoritarian empire to deliver these EDPs. Natural England will have forcible powers of entry, the ability to set its own fees, and uncontrolled compulsory purchase order powers, extending even to gardens and allotments. This does not seem right. We will be seeking to remove or restrict these powers and to challenge the role of Natural England in Committee.
We hear major concerns about Part 3 of this Bill from the National Trust, the NFU, the Wildlife Trusts, the Woodland Trust, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Better Planning Coalition, the CPRE, the CLA, the RSPB and many more—I do not think I have ever come across an issue on which they were united. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, highlighted, even the supposed beneficiaries are very concerned about Part 3 of the Bill. Many noble Lords from all Benches have added their voices today, and I hope the Government are listening to this debate and the negative response to Part 3 from all those organisations with deep domain expertise.
The Office for Environmental Protection has been cited in passing by a number of noble Lords. In its letter to the Government, it said that
“aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species. In our considered view, the Bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”—
the Environment Act.
“As drafted, the provisions are a regression.”
I have a number of amendments that would have the effect of underpinning the Environment Act and simplifying the interrelationship between legacy EU law and our own law, which has driven confusion. I hope the Minister will take these in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
The apparent removal of the mitigation hierarchy, mentioned by many noble Lords, appears to lead to the potential for a complete loss of protection for key environmental features, which is both a destruction of nature but also a loss of access to that nature for local communities. The requirements on the Secretary of State are very weak, with only a “likely” overall improvement in the same type of feature over 10 years—a vanishingly small amount of time in the lifespans of ecosystems, let alone trees, and a very low bar for decision-making. This does not fill the House with confidence, and we would be interested in working with all noble Lords to strengthen these environmental protections and restore the mitigation hierarchy in the Bill.
I question whether it is appropriate that the nature restoration levy should be used for compulsory purchase by Natural England. Why should developers funding EDPs be subsidising the Government’s acquisition of land? In the other place, we suggested this should fall to the Treasury, and I expect to repeat those arguments in more depth in Committee.
The Secretary of State in the other place mentioned that
“we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income”.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 15/5/25; col. 427.]
That is a generous sentiment but, as my noble friend Lord Lucas highlighted, nowhere in this Bill do I see any requirement for Natural England to consult with land managers and farmers, or to work with them on delivering environmental improvement within EDPs. At a time when the Government have imposed the family farm death tax, slashed delinked payments and slammed shut SFI applications, I am surprised that the Government do not look to allow farmers and landowners to provide these services commercially to developers or Natural England.
To add insult to injury, the publication of this Bill has chilled the biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality markets, undermining an existing business activity for many farmers. I join my noble friend Lord Goldsmith in asking the Minister how she sees Part 3 of the Bill relating to those markets? What role can they play if developers are forced to pay the nature restoration levy without the option of their own full or partial mitigation activities, either on-site or through these existing markets?
The Minister was unable to tell me, in an Answer to a Written Question, what levy rate developers will be required to pay nor how large the nature restoration fund is likely to be. I wonder whether the Government have given more thought to this and whether they can answer those questions now. How can we be confident this will not undermine the financial viability of developments or, as other noble Lords have mentioned, be used as an excuse to reduce other contributions made by developers?
Moving outside of Part 3 of the Bill and addressing other concerns that impact on the environment and rural community, I have been confused by comments from the Minister and her officials in meetings, and by the Secretary of State, in their descriptions of when they see compulsory purchase orders being used without hope value. I would be most grateful if the Minister could lay out exactly those circumstances.
Depending on the answer to the previous question, I also ask the Minister how this Bill really can be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, given that it allows the compulsory purchase of property at beneath its market price. Let me remind the House of the Council of Europe’s explanation of the ECHR:
“Under the European Convention on Human Rights, people have the right to possess property that is lawfully theirs. Governments cannot take property away without proper reasons - and neither can other people. For example, if a government takes land away from someone for public use, the former owner has to be properly compensated”.
In response to a Written Question, the Government helpfully cited that in 2024, local authorities used CPOs 54 times and others used them seven times. Can the Minister indicate what increase in frequency of CPOs is expected, both by Natural England and other bodies with CPO powers? Will these CPO powers be used on land already controlled by housebuilders, by Forestry England, by university colleges or by the Church? Who is excluded, apart from the Crown Estate?
I expect we will also address in Committee whether the Government have got right the balance and extent of compensation to landowners and occupants. Agricultural tenants invest heavily in equipment, buildings, soil, and indeed their businesses. Their economic loss as a result of a CPO is very material. To back up my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I highlight that the Bill provides no protection to our best and most versatile land that is responsible for much of our food security, alongside reducing protections for other land.
The Bill is attracting considerable attention in this House and beyond. As His Majesty’s Official Opposition, we intend to play a detailed and constructive role in improving the Bill and helping to deliver a better outcome for all stakeholders. Noble Lords have raised considerable concerns, many reflecting those of rural representation groups and conservation bodies. I am grateful to the Minister for conceding that there is scope for strengthening the Bill, suggesting an openness to constructive amendments.
There have been many contributions over the course of the evening. Given the hour, I will return to those in Committee. We hope that the Government are able to take a co-operative approach, engaging with all Members of this House, and have an open mind to amendments that will allow better delivery of houses and infrastructure while restoring nature and protecting those impacted by development. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for this wide-ranging, very productive and comprehensive debate. With over 60 contributions made, I am obviously not going to be able to reply in detail to every one. I will do my best; I have tried to put first the things that were talked about the most. If I do not get to some of the questions I will of course reply in writing.
I have been very encouraged to hear the degree of consensus on the need for action and on much of the intent of the Bill, even if there has been some reference to what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to in her characteristically direct way as the bad and the ugly in the Bill. It has been a very good discussion, and I do not think there is any difference of opinion about the need for things to change.
I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his contribution to the Bill, particularly in the critical area of judicial reviews, which we have looked at in great detail; I am grateful for his support in that work. The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Liddle, from opposite sides of the House, definitely showed why the Bill is so important. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, described it well when he said the Bill is “about the kinds of places we want to build and the kind of country we want to be”. That is a very good way of describing what we are doing here.
I will make a few general points and then turn to some of the specific issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred very powerfully to the housing crisis and the broken model of relying on volume housebuilders to deliver against the housing need which we definitely have. We currently have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. That is an absolute scandal—we have to deal with these issues.
I was at St Mary’s school in Walthamstow yesterday, where the children are doing a project on homelessness, and I asked them what they would say to the Prime Minister. They said, “Can you tell the Prime Minister to build some more homes that people can afford?” I think that was quite right. I said that I will tell the Prime Minister that, so we will get on with that as quickly as we can.
Since 1990, home ownership for 19 to 29 year-olds has more than halved. Homes cost eight times the annual earnings of an average worker. The number of homes granted planning permission has fallen from 310,000 in 2021 to 235,000 in 2025 Q1. The number of new homes is estimated to drop to around 200,000 this year, and this would be the lowest year for net additional dwellings in England since 2015-16.
Infrastructure costs have increased by 30%—more than GDP per capita—since 2007, and the time it takes to secure planning permission for major economic infrastructure projects has almost doubled in the last decade to more than four years. We are not putting the blame on planning officers or councillors. I pay tribute to all those planning officers across the country who work with this system day in, day out, and to all the councillors who play their part in it as well.
We know that 96% of planning decisions were made by planning officers in the year ending March 2025, and it was that small percentage outside of that which were made by planning committees. Only 20% of planning applications for major development are decided within the 13-week statutory deadline. It is important that we focus now on how we are going to improve this system.
I will comment on the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Grender. On the 700,000 empty homes in this country, once housebuilders have been granted permission for residential development, meeting local housing needs and preferences, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Local planning authorities already have powers to issue completion notices to require a developer to complete its development if it is stalled, and if they fail to do so the planning permission for the development will lapse.
On homes being approved but not yet built, we know that too many developments secure planning permission and then are either stalled or not built out quickly, to the frustration of local planning committees and authorities and their communities. That is why we are proposing to introduce a new statutory build-out reporting framework to ensure that there is greater transparency and accountability about the build-out of new residential development. We are currently consulting on that, but we are determined to make sure that communities do not see empty homes, or homes that are permissioned and are not built, when there is such an enormous need for housing around the country.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Will the Minister accept that in many of the cases where permissions are granted, pre-commencement conditions are not yet met and that is the reason these permissions are not executed or completed? In so many cases it is because of the other statutory consultees: it is not the council; the baton passes from the council to the developers at that stage. They are the hold-up, and they are that break between the issuance of permission and commencement on site, and that is really where much of the government effort needs to be.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand exactly the point the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is making and there are measures in the Bill which will ease that pressure. We are looking at stat cons and how that process works but, overall, we need to make sure that we get a very smooth process, where we speed up the whole application process, the pre-commencement phase and the build-out phase, because that is what will start delivering housing at pace in this country.
Some noble Lords have mentioned the New Towns Taskforce. It will be reporting this summer, and we will also be publishing a comprehensive housing strategy. I cannot say exactly when; I have that Civil Service phrase “in the not too distant future”, which is frustrating, but I hope it will be very soon.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned the very excellent report of the Church housing commission and the Nationwide Foundation. I was very grateful for that piece of work; it has been incredibly helpful in shaping thinking, particularly on social, affordable and specialist housing.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, and other noble Lords mentioned that planning is not necessarily the block to growth. It is not the only key to growth, but it too often can be a substantial constraint on it. We want to move that forward as quickly as possible.
I was asked for the number of homes we are going to be building and exactly what the plan is over the years. We are working on that plan, particularly for the social and affordable housing. It was going down— I have mentioned the figures already—and it will ramp up to deliver those 1.5 million homes during the course of this Parliament. It is very important that, as we do that, we deliver the kind of homes we want to see, in relation to design and net zero, and that they do not have a detrimental impact on our environment. My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Liddell have emphasised skills and investor confidence as further parts of this picture. They are very important, and I will say a little bit more about those in a moment.
The ambition of the Bill is really transformative. We want to mark the next step in the most significant reforms to the planning system in a generation. We are building on urgent action to unlock development, including: our new pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework published in December; ending the de facto ban on onshore wind; a review of the role of stat cons, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller; supporting SME builders; and boosting local authority capacity. I have spoken before about the Government’s action on skills. All of this and the Bill will help deliver our Plan for Change, get 1.5 million safe and decent homes built and fast-track planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. We recognise the scale of the challenge. I look forward to working with noble Lords in this House to make sure that the Bill facilitates that scale of ambition.
On the specific issue of the reform of planning committees, many noble Lords have mentioned this, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Coffey, Lady Jones, Lady Miller and Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lords, Lord Mawson, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Shipley and Lord Bailey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and probably some others that I did not get round to writing down. This is a very important part of the Bill. Planning committees play a critical role in the planning system, ensuring adequate scrutiny is in place for developments and providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, they are not currently operating as effectively as they could be.
We are not taking local decision-making out of local hands. Those decisions will continue to be vested locally, but we want to engage the public and councillors more at the stage of the local plan, where they can really have an influence on place shaping and can influence what they want to see in their communities, as a number of noble Lords have said.
We will be introducing a national scheme of delegation, which will facilitate faster decision-making, bring greater certainty to stakeholders and applicants and effectively utilise the planning professionals, by doing what they are best at. We are also introducing mandatory training for committee members. We have always had compulsory training for planning members in my local authority— I did not realise that it was not compulsory. We need to make sure we do that to get well-informed decision-making and improve consistency across the country.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the role of AI in planning. I met with the digital team in our department this morning, and it is making great strides forward in planning. This is very exciting: it is not just for digitising the planning system and mapping out all the spatial issues we face in the country, including all the nature mitigation that is needed, but it is also to help with consultation. On the local government consultations we are doing at the moment, we are getting hundreds of responses. If you can digitise the assessment of that, it is really going to help with the planning process, though, of course, it always needs human oversight.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, rightly referred to resources and capacity in the Planning Inspectorate. I reassure noble Lords that consideration is being given to this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to Planning for Real; I remember it very well—just before I became a councillor, I got involved in a Planning for Real exercise. We are hoping to engage and encourage people with those kind of exercises as they draw up their local plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke about digital twins and AI, which is another thing I have been very interested in. I know that Singapore has a fabulous way of doing this, and it is very important to planning.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his contribution on mediation. We are very supportive of that and are looking at it.
Some noble Lords suggested that reforms within our Bill remove democratic control from local people and restrict the input of community voices in the planning process. That is simply not the case. Engagement with communities is, and will remain, the cornerstone of our planning system and a vital step in the design of major infrastructure. We are currently consulting on the proposals for the scheme of delegation, so everybody will have a chance to contribute to that.
I will move on to wider housing and planning issues, including affordable housing. A number of noble Lords raised the issue of social and affordable housing, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Teverson, Lord Best and Lord Evans, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Levitt. This is a vitally important issue. The Government’s manifesto commits us to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The spending review confirmed £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme. For the first time in recent memory, we will be able to give providers a decade of certainty over the capital funding they will have to build new, more ambitious housing development proposals. In the National Planning Policy Framework, we have asked local councils that, when they draw up their local plans, they assess the need not just for affordable housing, because that is a very difficult definition, but for social housing. That is critical.
On housing quality and design, the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Crisp, Lord Shipley, Lord Carlile and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, all raised this issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for meeting me to discuss this. We need to ensure that new developments are built to a high standard and the importance of good design, promoting the health and well-being of all those who live there. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that architects have not been mentioned perhaps as much as he would have liked, but the NPPF makes clear the importance of well-designed, inclusive and safe places and how this can be achieved through local design policies, design codes and guidance. That includes transport, open spaces, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
I will move on now, because time is pressing on, to the issues that I think were probably mentioned by most noble Lords: namely, the nature restoration fund and Part 3. If your Lordships do not mind, I will not read out all the names, because we would be here most of the evening.
When it comes to development and nature, the status quo is not working. We need to build on the success of policies such as diversity net gain and ensure that we do everything we can to deliver positive development. By moving to a more strategic approach to discharging obligations, the nature restoration fund will allow us to deliver environmental improvements at greater scale, with greater impact, while unlocking the development this country needs. We are confident that the new model will secure better outcomes for nature, driving meaningful nature recovery and moving us away from a system that is at the moment only treading water.
On the issue of regression, I reassure noble Lords that this new strategic approach will deliver more for nature, not less. That is why we have confirmed in the Bill that our reforms will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law. Through the NRF model we are moving away from piecemeal interventions and going further than simply offsetting harm, as is required under current legislation. We have been clear that environmental delivery plans will be put in place only where they are able to deliver better outcomes which will leave a lasting legacy of environmental improvement. I will not go into more detail on that now but will set it out in writing, because I know that lots of noble Lords are concerned about it.
On irreplaceable habitats, let me reassure everyone that we consider them to be just that: irreplaceable. The legislation is clear that an EDP can relate to a protected site or a protected species, with these being tightly defined in the legislation. As the Housing Minister made clear in the other place, the Bill does not affect existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the National Planning Policy Framework. While there may be circumstances where an environmental feature is part of both a protected site and an irreplaceable habitat, an EDP will not allow action to be taken that damaged an irreplaceable habitat, as this would by definition be incapable of passing the overall improvement test. I hope that that has provided some reassurance.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that green space in urban areas is already part of the planning system through the National Planning Policy Framework. A number of noble Lords commented on the capacity and capability of Natural England, and I will write to noble Lords on that, if that is okay.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the impact of the NRF on farmers. I know that that is a very important issue, and many in this House very ably represent the interests of farmers, so I welcome the opportunity to flag the opportunities the NRF presents for farming communities. We want to work in partnership with farmers and land managers to deliver conservation measures which will provide opportunities for them to support the delivery of such measures and diversify their business revenues.
I will write to all noble Lords about EDPs and all the other issues relating to Part 3. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that he quoted my words back to me very accurately. I have now been to Poundbury, by the way, and seen the swift bricks in action. We recognise that these are a significant tool, and we have made it clear in the revised NPPF that developments should provide net gains such as that. I recognise why many would want to mandate this through legislation, but we think there is a better way of doing that, so we will be consulting on a new set of national policies, including a requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings. I hope that that answers the question.
I shall talk briefly about the Gypsy and Traveller housing, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I share their frustrations at how this has been dealt with. As part of the revised National Planning Policy Framework, we have corrected long-standing inconsistencies in the way applications for sites are considered and provided greater clarity. We have revised the definition of Gypsies and Travellers to align with domestic and European law.
I see that I have run out of time. I will not try to cover all the other issues. I have got plenty to say on development corporations, infrastructure and so on, but I will write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and answer the questions I have been asked, including on rural housing, protection of the green belt and so on.
I reiterate my thanks to your Lordships for your engagement with the Bill to this point and give particular thanks to the opposition spokespeople: I have been there, so I know what that is like, and I am grateful to you.
I look forward to working with all of you during the passage of this important and truly ambitious piece of legislation. My noble friend Lord Hanworth referred to the ambition shown by the post-war Government when reconstructing our country. It was that Government who took the pre-war planning inspiration from garden cities and Ebenezer Howard a step further to create my town and other first-generation new towns, with the boost that gave to the economy. We now have the opportunity to take the next step to clean energy, to use artificial intelligence, to have a new clean energy transport infrastructure and to plan the new homes and communities that a new generation will need. I look forward to working with all of you on that over the next few weeks and months.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Thursday 17th July 2025
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (17 Jul 2025)
Baroness Pinnock
“Purpose of this ActThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure,(b) improve the planning and consenting processes,(c) support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and(d) increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development.”
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, on the opening day in Committee it is always good to start with a discussion about the basis of the Bill—the principles that form the fundamentals of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The reason for this amendment is just that. The policy drivers for the Bill are described in the preamble to the Explanatory Notes, which says that critical infrastructure must have “faster and more certain” consenting orders; that local planning committees are to be modernised to provide more certainty; that nature recovery requires “a more strategic approach”; and, finally, that the Bill
“intends to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and … infrastructure”.
It is accepted—certainly by those of us on these Benches—that our country has failed to build vital infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective way. All accept the urgent need for more housing, especially for housing with a social rent. However, what is seen as “streamlining” by the Government may be seen as “steamrolling” by communities. What are seen as modernising planning committees may well be seen as the removal of democratic decision-making and accountability. What is seen as a strategic approach to nature recovery may well be seen as the unacceptable relegation of the value and importance of nature to our community. Hence this amendment in my name, which seeks to clarify the purpose of the Bill by careful definition of the language used.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her amendment. Although I am seeking to amend her amendment, I echo the point she raised; it is very useful to have a debate about the principles. As the noble Baroness inferred, the scope of the Bill, which is set out at the beginning, is very dry. It does not give the sense of what this is all about. I commend her perseverance in tabling this amendment and allowing us to debate this. I know that the House seems to frown on these “in principle” debates at the beginning of Committee, as I found in trying to amend her amendment.
The noble Baroness is right to identify that there are a lot of tensions and challenges in taking forward this agenda. They are not easily solved, and sometimes we have to accept that there are going to be some trade-offs. My main concern is to speed up energy infrastructure to get us to clean power and, as rapidly as possible, to net zero. I agree that balancing the need for new homes and critical infrastructure with a planning consent process that commands public confidence and supports nature recovery is absolutely right. One of the big problems is that many well-meaning agencies, regulators, planning committees and campaigners have made it almost impossible to get the kind of investment we need in our energy infrastructure. Clearly, it would be perverse for me to say we should disregard the whole issue of nature preservation and environmental issues in the charge for net zero. Equally, many of those organisations concerned about the environment have impeded our real efforts to achieve net zero. Somehow, we have to find a way through.
My noble friend the Minister will be aware of media speculation that her department is about to announce some concessions in relation to Part 3. There are many Labour MPs committed to the growth agenda who would be concerned if Part 3 is watered down and so impedes progress on the growth agenda. Whatever agreement may have been reached with some of the environmental organisations about the actions they are going to take as a result of what the media are certainly talking about as an agreement, it is my experience of the Lords that it will always pocket concessions given at an early stage and come back for more. Discussion of Part 3 is going to be very important. Many Labour MPs will be taking a close interest in the Government’s continued commitment to the growth agenda.
I do not need to say much more about the issues of energy infrastructure. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee in 2024 concluded that many planned renewable energy projects were hampered by persistent problems accessing the electricity grid. National Grid wants to spend £30 billion over the next few years to upgrade our electricity network, and it needs to have confidence that the system is not going to obstruct it in the way that it has for so many years in the past.
It is not just energy. A recent report by Dr Mann Virdee for the Council on Geostrategy basically indicated that:
“Britain’s planning system is one of the primary barriers to efficient infrastructure delivery”.
It is characterised by an
“overly complex and burdensome framework. … Developers face extensive requirements for documentation. The planning application for the Lower Thames Crossing … ran to almost 360,000 pages”—
what a waste of energy. Does anyone think that this is anything other than a risk-averse box-ticking exercise by the myriad regulators we have, who seem to have lost any sense of common sense when it comes to consideration?
Even in the case of Sizewell C, which I have a great affection for—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will know that—had an impact assessment that ran to 44,260 pages. You also then have to go through a justification process as well. This is all a complete waste of time and effort. We need to have confidence, as the Bill goes through, that we are going to see a really streamlined impact.
Following the OBR’s recent report, there has been a lot of comment about the public finances, but for me one of the most significant points in that report is its reference to this legislation and the housebuilding ambitions of the Government—which I applaud—and reckon that GDP will grow by 0.2% as a result of these planning reforms. In the current situation of the public finances, that is something to hold on to.
My amendment merely takes all of the characteristics that the noble Baroness put forward but puts growth at the top of the agenda. We need to send a very powerful message to the regulators, and to all the agencies that have obstructed progress in this country for so long, that they need to get that growth is the number one aim of this. I beg to move.
Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward a purpose clause which, as we have said, allows us to focus on the Government’s stated intent, specifically its overarching vision to enable housebuilding and support the development of critical infrastructure.
While we welcome the amendment, we on these Benches believe it can and must be strengthened. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but as things currently stand, that target is undeliverable. The Bill in its present form does little to change that fundamental reality; it does not move the dial in enhancing development across the country.
In 2019, the Conservative Party pledged to deliver 1 million additional homes over the course of that Parliament. By 2024, before the general election, we delivered on that promise. If this legislation is truly intended to unlock housebuilding, then that ambition must be explicit in the purpose of this clause. Only by doing so can we measure the Bill’s effectiveness against the Government’s target and hold them to account, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. That is precisely why I have tabled an amendment to Amendment 2, to include the Government’s goal of delivering 1.5 million homes in the Bill.
In this House, we are united in the view that this country needs more homes. Housing unlocks opportunity, enables labour market mobility, allows young people to move forward with their lives and removes the key barrier to productivity. However, quantity must be matched by quality. New homes must be well designed and sensitive to local character, and I trust the Minister will agree with that point.
If the Bill is the Government’s legislative vehicle for delivering this, then that ambition must be stated clearly and unambiguously. We must support the Government’s stated aim, but the ambition must be backed by a credible plan, meaningful partnerships and, as we have heard, the active involvement of local communities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that we have reached Committee, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on having tabled the first amendment for debate. I echo many of her comments and those of my noble friend Lady Scott. I greatly enjoyed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; it is great to see him in his new position. We very much enjoyed working with him when he was on the Front Bench, and we look forward to working with him in his new place.
My concern is not that I do not want to see the critical infrastructure and housing that we need—particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, in rural areas. In fact, I would propose to add a little “subsection (e)” to her existing Amendment 1, to protect the countryside from overdevelopment, as well as to protect and promote food security; those issues should be at the heart of the Bill.
I was delighted to hear on “Farming Today” this morning—I obviously had an early start—the CPRE mention the protection it would like to see for affordable homes. It mentioned in its briefing that the current definition of affordable homes is not accurate and should be revisited. Can the Minister—with whom I look forward to collaborating through the passage of the Bill—say whether the Government are minded to do that? The plea from the CPRE—which I believe is appropriate to Amendment 1, and particularly to a hypothetical “subsection (e)”, which I may bring forward on Report if the amendment is brought back—is that, to protect the countryside, it would like a commitment from the Government to use brownfield land first. I wonder whether the Minister would agree to that. In the CPRE’s view:
“England has space for 1.2 million homes on previously developed land”.
The benefit of building in this type of area is:
“These homes would: be close to jobs, schools, and transport connections; regenerate town centres and urban communities; protect green spaces and farmland from development”.
My concern is that, without an amendment such as a hypothetical little “subsection (e)” to protect the countryside and food security, we risk trampling over the countryside and greenfield in a mad dash to build houses at pace.
The CPRE also says, quite rightly, that there is a role for planning. As a one-time Member of the other place, if there were a development in my constituency that looked as though it was going to be wildly unpopular with a village or rural community, I would always urge the developers to meet at the earliest opportunity with parish councils before the development got into the public domain. I believe that there should be—this view is also shared by the CPRE—a clear role for local planning committees in the context of the Bill and that the role of parish councils should be cherished and strengthened. Without that, we would remove grass-roots democracy.
I very much enjoyed the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the environmental recovery programme, which is often at some distance from the damage being done. If Part 3 is to remain, I hope that it will cover the issues that were addressed successfully in the pilot project in rural North Yorkshire—the Slowing the Flow at Pickering flood scheme—where we have effectively protected the development downstream by having not a major reservoir but a small reservoir. The construction of bunds, alongside other projects such as chopping down trees and growing trees in appropriate places, has allowed us to slow the flow. It is that type of imaginative nature solution—working with nature by, for example, planting trees in appropriate places—that can achieve flood resilience and flood defences, while also not contributing to flooding going forward. I hope that the Government might be mindful of protecting the countryside and farmland for the food security that is urgently needed, while also strengthening grass-roots democracy in the way I have suggested.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to these amendments, but I am also very sympathetic to what the Government are trying to achieve in getting things built.
My colleagues and I have been at the other end of this telescope in communities trying to build things and get things done. We are now at year 41 and probably nearly a thousand projects in—some have been very small; others, such as the Olympics, became quite big. You get a perspective from practice on all that, which might be helpful to this discussion. Many years ago, we came across the challenge of what we call the two Ds: democracy and delivery. What I discovered many years ago with an East End group of people, on a failing group of housing estates where everything was failing constantly, was that local people were fed up to the back teeth with endless chatter and endless promises by councillors, when nothing seemed to happen. We only really became credible in Bromley-by-Bow, and trust began to emerge, when we delivered our first nursery with local parents and their children, which made a difference to their lives, and began to take over a derelict park where people were injecting every day in a completely dysfunctional situation.
It might be just worth me sharing the reasons why we made certain long-term choices. When I arrived in Tower Hamlets in the early 1980s, it was profoundly dysfunctional. The schools did not succeed, and the roads did not get swept. Some 97% of everything was run by the state, and it was a terrible mess. I was a local clergyman arriving in a rundown church; 12 old people sat where they had always sat in a 200-seater church, and it looked as though the dead had been carried out and no one had noticed. I had £400 in the bank. The little problem for me was to ask myself: what on earth can I do about this? The answer was: I do not have the faintest idea. As a Yorkshireman, my initial instinct was to do a runner; it is all too much for me. Phillip, the Jewish headteacher across the road at the primary school, was retiring early because it had become too much for him, so I thought, “This is me in a few years’ time, falling off my trolley”—I was 29 then.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a practising Silk in planning and environmental law, with a range of clients affected by planning regulation in various ways. I am a non-executive director of SAV Group, a property developer, and of Crossman Special Projects, a land promoter. I am the author of the independent review into legal challenges against NSIPs, which I will speak more on later in these proceedings.
I like purpose clauses in legislation. They are helpful because, in time, the courts will have to interpret the provisions of what will become the Act in due course, and if we do not spell out what the purpose is then the courts will have to define that. Surely it is far better to have a degree of parliamentary control in specifying what the purposes are. If that is to be done—it is not essential, but it is certainly nice to have—I certainly cannot improve on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, as proposed to be amended by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Scott.
I have a degree of nervousness, however, about the Bill having its own purpose without there being an overall statutory purpose of planning, as is advocated by the Royal Town Planning Institute and proposed in Amendment 132 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I do not agree with all the wording of that, but that is not the point for today’s purposes.
The Bill, once enacted, will be part of the wider framework of planning Acts, of which there are many. If it has its own stated purpose but the purpose of planning is not stated, there is a risk of a potential mismatch. That could be remedied by having an overall purpose of planning, which would have a number of advantages. For example, in the context of the increased role of planning officers, they would have that guiding beacon, which may avoid undue pressure being placed on planning officers by elected members—something that does happen, and there is a risk that it may happen to a greater extent if some of the other provisions of the Bill find their way into law. I would advocate consideration of the RTPI proposal, as outlined in Amendment 132.
I emphatically agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the need for proportionality. We have to put an end to the days of environmental statements being delivered by vans. No one will read them apart from the people who paid huge fees to produce them and review them—I declare a kind of interest in that respect too, of course. The EIA process is largely intended to help the public understand the environmental effects—it is consultation and taking into account the fruits of the consultation. No member of the public is going to read a lorry full of documents; it is simply not going to happen. Proportionality would be hugely helpful in that respect. There are recent instances of DCO examining inspectors asking 2,000-plus questions. I am sure that was with the best of intentions, but if we aim for perfection, we will not achieve anything.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, from the noble Lord’s experience, does he think it possible to legislate for regulators to use their common sense?
Lord Banner (Con)
I tried with my proportionality clause, which we will come to later in the proceedings. That is the best I can do so far; I am toying with tweaking it so that if it were to find its way on to the statute book, the Secretary of State would have the ability to publish statutory guidance on how to give effect to it. But, to echo what the noble Lord said before, if proportionality was spelled out in neon lights in legislation, it would send a message to everybody—consultees, consultants, applicants, decision-makers, the courts and the public—that less can be more. To my mind, that is a fundamental way of furthering the objectives of the Bill.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis.
I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have set out around the purposes of the Bill, and in particular what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about putting growth front and centre.
It is important to set out a bit of broader context here, because this goes all the way back to 2008. In the decades before 2008, we had that consistent 2.3% labour productivity growth over many years, but since then, that productivity growth has fallen off a cliff, with only around 0.5% per annum growth since then. That then feeds through into flat real wages. Again, there was a 2% growth in real wages for decades, but they have been flat since 2008, which has led to all those problems with debt, tax take, the NHS, and even the political problems—the frustrations of those who have been left behind.
Of course, growth is a complex picture, as are the reasons behind that slowdown in growth, but our inability to build enough productive infrastructure to invest in that is very high up on that list, whether that is new infrastructure to bring down the price of electricity; new transport infrastructure, with all the agglomeration benefits that come with that; or new digital infrastructure.
We can contrast what is going on elsewhere in the world—to expand on what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said—with electricity. China has gone from 6,000 to 10,000 terawatt hours of electricity generation in the past 10 years, whereas our electricity generation has been flat or even declining slightly, at only around 300 terawatt hours. That of course has many other implications: the cost of our electricity, which is around four times that of the United States; the knock-on effects of that to inward investment; and circling back to growth as well. Even if we look at the Government’s targets, such as the 2030 target for clean electricity generation, the amount of electricity infrastructure that we need to build to hit that target is far below what we need to hit to get to 2030, and of course that will have effects on net zero and on energy security as well.
The planning system is at the heart of this, with the key issues of judicial review and environmental regulation, which are being addressed to some extent in the Bill. But, circling back to growth, that needs to be front and centre. It is vital that the Bill delivers for critical infrastructure as well as houses, so that purpose clause which sets that out front and centre in the Bill is vital, with all the benefits it will bring for net zero, the environment, and energy security, and resolving those broader issues of net debt, government spending and quality of life.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I thank her for explaining the basis of her approach so clearly. I was not able to speak at Second Reading but I have an interest in planning, going back to the 1980s, both in government and in business, and one of my most rewarding experiences was as chair of the Built Environment Committee before I joined the Front Bench.
I am not sure it is strictly relevant, but I am the joint owner with my brother and sister of a cottage and a couple of fields in agricultural use in an AONB in Wiltshire, this is declared in the register.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly, mainly to declare my registered interests before we get to the meat of Committee. I am a director and beneficial owner of Porter and Verrells, which builds one-off bespoke homes, among other functions. I am a non-executive director of Elixr.Earth, which builds through digital twinning and finance, place-shaping at scale. I am also a non-executive director of Rentplus Homes and a strategic adviser to Inspired Solutions, both of which deliver affordable housing without any recourse to public funds.
My noble friend Lord Fuller would not forgive me if I did not mention that all the worthy things that have been discussed are not functions of the Bill. They are consequential on the Bill being pushed through. The function of the Bill is to regulate between private property ownership and perceived public good or public harm.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be in Committee. I agree with the impact of these clauses in consideration of future judicial decisions. It matters because there has been a trend in aspects of case law that then make other aspects of complying with the law rather complicated, leading to some of the adjustments that the Government are seeking to secure. When we talk about judicial review and what the Government are intending, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled some rather drastic amendments. I am not surprised. Mr Robbie Owen gave evidence in the other House that my noble friend Lord Banner’s review did not go far enough. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe hit the nail on the head. What is going to change?
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is right. At the moment nothing in the Bill ties everything together to make sure that we get more homes built and improve the natural environment. We have to make sure that happens.
In her closing speech at Second Reading, the Minister said that councils have a lot of powers. I would be interested to understand what amendments may come in at this stage to achieve the objectives that the Government say the Bill is trying to achieve. Why are we not seeing certain powers being granted to the Government to speed up housing—not just planning permission but completion? The Town and Country Planning Act allows councils to issue completion notices. As the Whip in the Commons on the Infrastructure Act 2015, I had to deal with four Ministers, so good luck to the Whips here on the Front Bench in co-ordinating all that. The Government took powers there for when councils were being slow. It was not necessarily call-in, but if they were not keeping to timetables, the decisions could be made by Ministers. I do not think that happened very often under the previous Conservative Administration, but here we seem to be going with a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Why are Ministers not using the powers they already have to achieve what they want this to do and instead putting this legislation in place? That is why I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It gives us an opportunity to ask, “What is this Bill going to do? Will it achieve the aims of what is there?”
I make a plea through the Minister for Bill managers to update the parliamentary website with all the different things that they said that they would write on. The Minister in the other place promised on 29 April to write about one of the clauses that we are debating today, but Parliament is still waiting. To my knowledge, no letter has been issued. It is certainly not on the Bill website, and it certainly has not been deposited in the House. That is a further plea about process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
The letter went out yesterday on some of the issues that were raised at the drop-in. The noble Baroness may have missed that in her inbox, but it did go out yesterday.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I appreciate that, and I have not seen it in my inbox, but I am referring to Minister Pennycook making a pledge to write in Committee in the Commons. I am not aware that has ever been issued. It is certainly not available to Members of this House. It would be great, as a general approach, if we could try to make sure that is there.
Overall, this Bill needs to be massively strengthened to make sure—to quote Ronseal—that it “does exactly what it says on the tin”, that we will get the outcome that my noble friend Lady Scott on the Front Bench has put forward in Amendment 3 and that we will get on with making sure more homes are delivered for the people of this country, as well as other aspects of infrastructure that I recognise this country desperately needs.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we need to move to consider the Statement, as the Minister delivering it must attend Grand Committee for a debate which will commence before this group finishes. While unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment do adjourn, and we will return to it after the Statement.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Thursday 17th July 2025
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (17 Jul 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their engagement both at Second Reading and at our subsequent drop-in sessions and meetings. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 1, and my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for Amendments 2 to 7, making minor changes to the amendment. As these amendments all endeavour to insert a purpose clause at the start of the Bill, I will consider them together. I just add, following the debate we had earlier today, that I have some sympathy with those who do not want to have purpose clauses as the first amendment—we had 63 speakers at Second Reading, and we have covered some of the same ground—but I understand the noble Baroness’s wish to have one. I will keep my response to Amendments 1 to 7 short, as the purpose and aims of the Bill were debated very fully at Second Reading.
The Government have been consistently clear about the purpose and aims of this Bill, and I am very pleased that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have identified many of these in their amendments. As outlined at Second Reading and throughout its passage, the Bill is a key component of the Government’s mission and plan for change. It is intended to unblock the planning system and secure the infrastructure we need in this country. We have already delivered significant changes to our planning system through a revised pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework. Combined with these changes, the Bill will help us reach our ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe, decent and affordable homes in England and fast-tracking planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament.
The Bill will do this by delivering five key objectives. The first is a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the focus of our debate today. My noble friend Lord Hunt is quite right to point to the importance of this to achieving growth. He spoke about grid connections. The fact that it can now take longer to get a grid connection than it did to build the whole A1 is a crazy factor of the way planning has blocked some of the growth we need to see. He spoke about the 360,000 pages of planning documents for the Lower Thames Crossing. I can tell him that when we embarked on the major redevelopment of Stevenage town centre, we had a great lorryload of documents turn up for the planning process, so I am very sympathetic to what he said.
The second aim is for a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature. We are clear that this will support nature recovery, and I hope to be able to say a little more about it later this afternoon.
The third aim is to improve certainty and decision-making in the planning system, ensuring that local communities and politicians play their role while maximising the expertise of professional planners. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to steamrolling; this is not steamrolling but engaging communities at the planning stage, when they can have the most influence in the planning process. Local communities and local people can do far more if they influence the plan at local plan stage than when trying to object to a particular application that is in accordance with that local plan.
The fourth aim is unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment, and the fifth is introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategy planning. That is an important dimension that sits alongside our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is currently in the other place.
The Bill will also support delivery of the Government’s clean power 2030 target, ensuring clean energy projects can be built as quickly as possible, including through measures that will increase community acceptability, such as a bill discount scheme for those living closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure.
It is in the interest of our country to make our planning system better to ensure prosperity and sustained economic growth. Many noble Lords have spoken about that already in this debate, and I have no doubt that the Bill will help us to achieve this, along with the other package of measures that we have introduced. I am sure these objectives that I have outlined align with the purpose in the noble Baroness’s amendment and lie at the heart of all our current and future decision-making. I do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary to accept the amendment, as the measures within the Bill speak for themselves.
I will cover some of the points made by noble Lords earlier in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about our ambitious target of 1.5 million safe, secure and affordable homes. This is a manifesto pledge, a pledge in our Plan for Change and a firm commitment from this Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned councils being able to determine the need for social homes. I was keen to make this change in the National Planning Policy Framework to encourage councils to identify the number of social homes that they need, as distinguished from affordable homes—the definition of affordable homes is much wider—so that was a good step forward. Our policy on brownfield is that it must be brownfield first. I know she has a number of points to make around flooding and I am sure that we will discuss that later in the Bill’s progress. Her point on food production is well made; there is a Defra land use framework which we are hoping will be published any day now, and I think she will find there is some information in that on food production.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred to place-making. As someone with a new-town background, I agree with the points he made about the importance of the holistic nature of planning and how that makes for good planning.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, spoke about an overall stated purpose of planning, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised this with me yesterday. I am sure we will consider all of that further during the course of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, rightly pointed to the link between infrastructure delivery and growth, and he makes a very important point. The purpose of the Bill is to make that connection much clearer and to make sure that the planning legislation supports the growth mission.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about some of the things that can slow down planning and some of the things that we hope will speed up planning. We are introducing a whole package here, from the National Planning Policy Framework to the national development management policies recommended by the previous Government and the devolution package. I hope that, taken together, all those things will speed up the process and encourage the growth that we all want to see.
The noble Lord, Lord Porter, spoke about the functions of the Bill. He is not in his place, but he raised the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised with me about the overall objectives of planning, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner, mentioned this as well. I will give that further thought.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, spoke about completion notices. There is a process, as she rightly identified, for completion notices. It might be helpful if I get some more information for her about how those are being used. There is definitely a power for local government to do that already. I hope that the combination of this Bill and other measures we have taken for local authorities to have the planning powers and the funding they need to move this agenda forward will mean that we see what we all want to see from this.
My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the OBR report and the potential growth that can be unlocked by this Bill. I am sure that we will continue to debate the aims and impacts of the Bill as we make our way through the amendments tabled for debate. In the meantime, I kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can I press her on the issue of delays? Saying that the whole package is going to be better and improve things, and therefore growth will come—which we all want—is an ambitious statement, but has any work been done on what the changes will be and what differences they will make? I am on her side and want to try to speed things up, but there seem to be quite a lot of things that are going to slow them down, particularly if we agree to the wrong sort of amendments. Has any academic work been done on this that I could reference? I am not yet clear that we are going to get the speed that we need in the system, particularly on things like the grid.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I asked the same questions myself, because I suspected I was going to be asked them as part of the debate on this Bill. I asked what work had been done, prior to the Bill, on consulting more widely with the sector, the academics involved in this area and a number of other bodies. I would read it all out, but it is a nearly six-page list of all the work that was done prior to the Bill being drafted. I am happy to circulate it to noble Lords, if that would be helpful.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in asking your Lordships to agree, I will withdraw my amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I thank my noble friend for an excellent winding-up; she covered the ground comprehensively. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, because it has been a real service to allow us—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Sorry, it is for the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to deal with Amendment 3 first.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord cannot withdraw his amendment until I have withdrawn mine.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her replies and I look forward to continuing to work with her throughout the Bill. I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this forward; it is a debate that is useful to have at the beginning of any Bill, just to set the tone.
I want to return to the central issue, which was raised repeatedly by nearly every noble Lord who spoke in this debate, and that is the future of local democracy under the provision of the Bill. At Second Reading and again today, the Minister insisted that this legislation does not represent an attack on local democracy. She reaffirmed the Government’s position that local decision-making remains central to the planning process. I fear we may be reading different Bills, because in clause after clause the principle of localism—the very foundation of community-led planning—is being eroded. We are witnessing the repeal of large sections of the Localism Act and seeing the introduction of powers that allow government-imposed national and significant infrastructure projects to bypass not only local consent but, in many cases, meaningful public engagement altogether. This Bill shifts power upwards, away from communities and towards the centre. That is why I believe that paragraph (d) of the purpose clause is not only helpful but essential. It reasserts a principle that should never have been up for negotiation: local voices must be heard and development should happen with communities, not to them. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to supporting this principle.
Finally, I turn back to paragraph (c) of the proposed purpose clause. This is clearly an emotive issue, and rightly so. It has drawn attention from across the Committee today, not least because of the direct relevance to Part 3 of the Bill, which risks weakening vital environmental protections at precisely the moment we should be strengthening them. It represents a step backwards, a regression from the hard-won safeguards enshrined in the Conservatives’ Environment Act. The problems do not stop there: there are gaps, inconsistencies and serious omissions. I urge the Minister to please step back, listen carefully and engage with these concerns, not just from the Committee but from a broad coalition outside it.
I hope the Committee will forgive me—it is quite personal—if I say that in my opinion it is bizarre that during the passage of LURB, noble Lords blocked reform of nutrient neutrality in this place. This leaves me curious to see whether they will raise the same concerns now that nutrient neutrality provisions are in their own Bill. We have wasted a number of years when up to 160,000 new homes could have been built in this country.
I conclude by reaffirming that we are committed to working constructively with the Government throughout Committee and in the remaining stages of the Bill. We want to deliver more homes and the important infrastructure that this country needs, but we need the process to get that right.
I had the privilege of working on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and many noble Lords will recall the year I spent taking that legislation through this House. With the same level of commitment I had to that Bill, I look forward to engaging with the Minister to ensure that we get this Bill through and get it right. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for interfering before she withdrew her amendment to my amendment. I will now withdraw my amendment to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
It has been a really good debate in which we have fleshed out some of the key tensions contained in the Bill. We have to be realistic. It is easy to take all the principles that the noble Baroness mentioned and say that at the end of the day, they will all be fine, we will get on with infrastructure investment and building our 1.5 million homes and it is all going to be straightforward. We know it is not. In fact, there are real tensions here and some things will have to give. My argument is that the most important issue here, above all else, is to get the growth agenda going. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Amendments upon amendments upon amendments is a novel approach for me. I too thank everyone who has engaged with this debate; it has been a positive and constructive one that I hope will lay the foundations for the rest of the Bill. We are all anxious to get critical infrastructure built in this country. I particularly reference the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and energy infrastructure. We have to find a way of doing that much more promptly than is currently the case.
My amendment is about not trying to prevent development and infrastructure being created but finding the right balance—the noble Lord, Lord Banner, used the word proportionality—between what the country desperately needs and how far local communities can influence those changes. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, used the word tension, and that is where I think it lies.
It always strikes me that one of the responsibilities of those of us fortunate enough to be elected politicians is to make those arguments to people, to say that we need more homes and therefore this is how we are going to do it. I have done it in my own ward just lately. Making that case is one of the responsibilities put on us if we are fortunate enough to be elected.
I take issue with something the Minister said. She said that we do not need a purpose clause but then listed the five things that are the purpose. I listed only four but we could add the fifth, which is about strategic planning. That is why it is important to lay down these points before we enter the next stages of debate.
The Minister said that local communities can engage at the local planning stage. I have taken at least two—it could be three—local plans through the area that I represent. It is extraordinarily difficult to get folk to engage in theory, because all you have is a map when you say to them, “This is going to be a housing site and this is going to be a business site”. I have tried hard, but it is very difficult to engage people on that. I have no doubt that we will return to that point.
I will make two more points before I withdraw. First, we need a definition of affordable housing; we on these Benches will pursue that. Secondly, the amendment about building 1.5 million homes, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would have been greatly enhanced if it had included the essential element of homes for social rent. On these Benches, we will keep pressing that we desperately need homes for social rent above almost anything else. I am tired and angry at some of the conditions that people in my area are living in. If we could have decent social homes for rent, it would greatly enhance their lives. With that anger, I thank everybody for their engagement and beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(4B) The Secretary of State must ensure that in each review—(a) maximum deadlines are set for statutory consultations to be completed for proposed developments which are classified as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects,(b) if no response is received from a statutory consultee within the period specified in paragraph (a), it must be taken to mean that the statutory consultee as consented to the proposal, and(c) benchmarking is published alongside the review to compare UK performance with other countries in relation to the cost and timing of developments classified as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects encompassed within the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide further detail about the review of national policy statements with the intention of improving the clarity and speed of the planning process.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to return to the previous debate, but there is a general view that the current arthritic planning and regulatory system is a barrier to efficient infrastructure delivery. In the previous debate I referred to the excellent report by Dr Mann Virdee for the Council on Geostrategy, which identified many of the problems. In essence, we have a system where doing nothing is safer than doing something, and where process has eclipsed purpose—that point was put across very well by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in our first debate.
Another signal of our problems is the cost of infrastructure investment. On projects such as rail and road, we have unacceptably high costs in comparison with comparable nations. HS2 was budgeted for £37.5 billion; it is now £110 billion. The Lower Thames Crossing was budgeted for £5.3 billion; it is now £9 billion. Hinkley Point C was budgeted for £18 billion; it is now £40 billion to £50 billion. There are many more examples. It is not all due to the planning and regulatory constraints, but they have certainly played their part.
I strongly welcome much of the Bill, particularly the intent to streamline the nationally significant infrastructure projects and the reduction of judicial review opportunities; I very much acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his review on that. The Minister today sent us a letter setting out what further action will be taken in what I think is a very short space of time. I am also very interested in the Bill’s intent to scrap the specimen-by-specimen, site-by-site approach to protecting nature, and to replace it with the nature restoration fund.
I welcome the provisions on energy, partly because my old department wrote them and therefore I could not but applaud and welcome the work that DESNZ has done there. The provisions will make a real difference. The big question for us is: will this be sufficient?
From talking to developers, it is clear that they will have to navigate relevant national policy statements, the DCO regime, the EIAs, the dozens of secondary licences and consents from other regulators, judicial reviews, and the various tiers of local authorities that will be involved. Indeed, in nuclear development, we have a parallel justification process, which is lengthy and expensive. I am very hopeful that the current task force looking at nuclear regulation will come forward with recommendations on whether we can avoid that duplication.
We will come on to Part 3 at some point in September. But there are some real questions about whether EDPs can deliver for major infrastructure projects. I clearly see the benefits where you have lots of housing developments in a particular area. But there are some issues around major infrastructure developments. As Catherine Howard, head of planning at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, has written, there is a risk that developers will need to twin-track the EDP process by also going through the traditional habitats assessment regime because an EDP was not in place in time for the consent application. Clearly, that is going to be a real problem for developers.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I wish to say something about the housing regulator, because it is absolutely as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is saying. As I explained earlier, in our practical experience, we have built a very successful housing company with local residents, which is trying to join the dots between housing, education, health and placemaking. We find that the housing regulator is constantly getting in the way of the innovation that we, with local residents, need to do, which has local support and a serious track record.
This particular regulator—and I have seen it in other areas as well—is a real problem. There needs to be real thought and reflection about whether these regulators are helping us innovate and find new ways of working—or are they just getting in the way? Of course, they need to ask challenging questions on using the money right, I get all of that. We need to address these issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is telling us. It is stopping us in east London doing what we now need to do to take our work to the next stage.
Lord Banner (Con)
I want to say something about what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about the default risk aversion, and how there is a significant risk of that with regulators. There is a lot of merit in those comments. Largely, that stems from the application of the precautionary principle in much of the field of law that we are discussing now. Materially diluting the precautionary principle in a substantial way would have all sorts of troublesome consequences, but, in my judgment, some kind of counterbalance, which is what the proportionality principle is seeking to do, would help temper the effects of that. There is a later amendment in the noble Lord’s name which would seek to modify the precautionary principle in quite a sensible way. But I agree that something needs to be done to ensure that that over-precautionism does not infect the application of these provisions.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 10 to 16 are in this group. These are more about Clause 2, so the officials decided to group them together.
On Amendment 8, I respect the former Minister’s experience, and probably frustrations, but, candidly, having represented a part of the country where there are probably more NSIPs than in any other constituency, I am very concerned that trying to make sure that there are enough resources and even officials to sufficiently go through these combinations of NSIPs, which, of course, are all considered separately, is really quite a stretch. I am also conscious of what was mentioned earlier, about the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper that were generated to go with a variety of planning applications.
I remind the Committee that it is Parliament that has agreed to a lot of this legislation. Parliament has agreed for Natural England, for example, to be the regulator and, in effect, the decision-maker on a number of these matters. It is also usually Ministers who have designated many parts of our country to have these special areas of conservation, or whatever variety of designations there are, which bring in the extra challenge. I completely understand the point about the reasonableness test and proportionality—I completely get that—and that is why the last Administration tried to make some changes, particularly to unlock about 160,000 homes, but also placed various duties in terms of thinking about economic growth. So, as I say, I understand why there are concerns about timing but if we are going to adjust that, we need to make sure that the resourcing is there as well.
Clause 2 is all about the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. I expect that certain elements of the process could be speeded up, but there are key points in here which actually remove accountability to Parliament by the Executive. I had not realised this when I tabled Amendment 13 but I then checked some of the procedures in the Commons, and on Report there, the Liaison Committee—the chair of every single Select Committee in the House of Commons—co-signed Amendment 87 in the other place to remove this so that the Government would have to continue to give a response to Parliament on any resolutions they passed. I find it extraordinary that the Government want to remove that. It is quite a simple thing to lay a Statement, or whatever it is.
The assessment of Minister Pennycook was, “Well, we have a variety of debates; we might ask the Select Committee to look at something”—by the way, he did not refer to the Select Committee in the Lords—“and, yeah, we have these sorts of Statements”. Statements are quite different at the other end, but still, they are not proper debates—they are not proper consideration—and I am concerned about that.
One of my other amendments in this group follows on from something that happened with the first national policy statement on nuclear that I was engaged in. There was a debate in the other House, and I suspect there may have been a debate at this end too. Along the way, something changed in the process. It relied entirely on the Liaison Committee getting a Select Committee to look at something and send it back, so that the Government would then respond to say that, as a consequence of that, they were making all these changes, but it then never came back to the House. There was a process where you could do something once the Secretary of State had laid it, but for Back-Benchers there was no mechanism to get a debate on the final national policy statement—it was impossible. It could have been done in the name of the Government, but it was not done—they were a Conservative Government, so do not worry; I had a pop at them at the time.
I do not understand why, given that the impact of national policy statements is so huge, the Government are going further in removing a key part of parliamentary scrutiny. I genuinely hope that the Government will think again. I would have no problem if the Government had other ways of dealing with the timing but we have to remember—we see it more in this House, where we have a wider range of not just parties but Cross-Benchers, and until this Parliament that has not been the same at the other end—that it is not fair on minority parties, particularly those representing constituencies where such NSIPs are being proposed, to remove their opportunity to stand up and represent their communities on what the future impact might be of a number of national policy statements.
My other amendments are somewhat technical, regarding not wanting the effects to be retrospective and so on. I will not cover every minutia, but that is what they intend to do, and to get some clarity from the Government on what they are planning to do with the timing.
On the wider point, Amendment 16 is where I am trying to pull together some of the threads of what this Bill should be about: improving nature, improving the speed of infrastructure and increasing the number of homes. In its recent report, the Office for Environmental Protection said that it would like the Government to make it standard practice that, when dealing with new policies, they routinely produce, publish and consider assessments within departments. That is necessary, because every Minister is legally required to consider the correlation between their policies and those in the environmental principles policy statement. That is in law. There is no way in this House to do that, apart from through trust, to see how it works together. It matters that we work together on making this happen.
There are frustrations that people might have. I appreciate that there is a legal case at the moment about whether what is in the Bill is compliant and whether it will reduce the impact of environmental law. I am not getting into that. However, one thing Ministers can experience is external bodies issuing legal action. They start off with a pre-action protocol letter. Under that, there is a duty of candour on the Government to release lots of information that the Minister will have considered on whether they were being compliant with the law in how they addressed the matter. That is not available to Parliament. I want to make it available to Parliament. I had a debate with the clerks about whether we should use the words “duty of candour” or similar. In essence, when we are trying to scrutinise not only the role of the Executive but how legislation is being applied, it is fair to this House and the other House to have a basis of information so that if, for whatever reason, the Minister decides, “We’re not going to worry about that bit, but we’re doing that consciously because we believe there’s a greater good under various articles”, we can accept that but be transparent about it.
This comes up in a similar principle later, under planning applications—based, by the way, on something that the chief executive of Natural England said in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place. What I am trying to do is get the cards on the table. Let us make sure the Environment Act 2021 and the targets in primary legislation are not all of a sudden ditched because of the rush to do X, Y and Z without this House or the other House knowing about it, so it can be challenged and potentially revised, and, if necessary, we can come forward with other amendments to legislation to make the Government comply with the law without waiting until whatever deadline it is, only for them to say, sorry, but they have not managed to do it.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to which I have added my name. I emphasise the points he made, in that I think the biggest risk with this Bill is that it will not deliver for large infrastructure, in the sense that it will not address the concerns around environmental regulation.
Part 3 is very well set up for housebuilding, but if we look at the high-profile issues with environmental regulation that we have seen with some of our large projects, such as the HS2 bat tunnel or the acoustic fish deterrent—the fish disco, as it is called—we find that those were all habitats issues that were uncovered when the developers started to assess the site and figure out how they were going to operate their specific piece of infrastructure. Those are not the kind of things that would have been addressed through the proposed environmental delivery plan mechanism or the nature restoration fund. It simply does not match up with the timescales of how the EDP process would work. That is something that we will come back to later in Committee.
However, there are some welcome things that the Government are looking at, and I welcome the amendment from the Government to remove the statutory requirement for a pre-application process on NSIPs. What the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has proposed sits alongside that really well, in setting out maximum deadlines and no-response provisions. This measure would be helpful to emphasise that and help speed large infrastructure through the system by making it a statutory requirement.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for leading this group on national policy and for his advocation for speed and simplicity, taking away two of the points that I was about to make. This goes to the heart of what our planning system needs to have: clarity and speed. Policy needs to be clear and consistently implemented, so that developers, planners and local councils understand what is required and how decisions will be made in a way that reduces risk and cost to all parties, while being clear and transparent to the public.
On timeliness, projects need to move through the system efficiently and effectively so that they are delivered on time and to avoid unnecessary, costly delays. How does the Minister intend to provide further detail about the review of national policy statements and ensure that clarity, consistency and timeliness are truly embedded in that process?
Amendment 9, to which I have added my name, seeks to probe the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” in the context of reviewing or amending national policy. Its aim is to clarify the intent behind the term, while still ensuring that Ministers retain the flexibility that they need for genuine national emergencies. My concern is that an amendment to the national policy statement, as required by new subsection (5A), could be delayed if the threshold for what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” is vague. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what she considers would fall within the scope of that phrase and whether the current wording risks introducing unnecessary uncertainty or even a shift in overall approach.
We need to strike a careful balance, avoiding the risk of judicial review while maintaining sufficient ministerial flexibility in genuine emergencies. Governments must be able to act swiftly when needed yet, if a decision is justified solely on the basis of exceptional circumstances, it becomes difficult to test or challenge that rationale. Courts often defer to such open-ended terms, which can weaken accountability, and your Lordships’ House may find it difficult to challenge the use of powers in this area. I would welcome reassurance from the Minister that the wording achieves the right balance.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her carefully considered and valuable contribution to this group. Her insight and experience will be vital in improving this Bill. In particular, I highlight Amendment 13 tabled by my noble friend. This amendment is vital, because it would preserve parliamentary accountability by requiring the Government to formally respond to any resolutions or recommendations from Select Committees. That, in turn, would help to clarify policy direction early, reduce uncertainty for developers and ensure timely engagement with concerns before they can cause delay. Stronger scrutiny at this stage can help catch potential issues before they escalate.
I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Mawson and Lord Ravensdale—in particular on the continuing issue of EDPs and their fitness for purpose, and the role of Natural England, which is something that I am sure we will come back to again and, possibly, again.
The amendments we have just discussed are small but significant measures. I hope that the Minister can provide your Lordships with the answers to these questions and engage the knowledge the Committee brings to ensure that we get this right.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, began this group in talking about the tensions that are to be found in creating the balance between getting the critical infrastructure that this country desperately needs and how we go about doing it. He quite rightly reminded the Committee of the escalating costs of particular infrastructure developments and gave the reason that risk aversion leads to piles of paper being produced to make sure that nobody is caught out by any of the challenges to the decisions that have been made.
I agreed with that; that is right. But the national policy statements, which are the foundation stones of planning and infrastructure development in this country, are critical. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to point out that any fundamental change to our national policy ought to have proper public accountability through your Lordships’ House and from the other place. She is quite right to do that, because accountability helps the process: it helps to maybe expose weaknesses in what is being proposed and maybe enhance the policy statement itself. In the rush for growth, we ought not to throw out the accountability that is essential in planning and infrastructure development—I think that that thread will run through discussions of the Bill. That is the dilemma and the tension we have: where do we have accountability, how much weight do we give to it and how much weight do we give to the urgent need for development? We are going to have to find our way through that.
Everybody here is, I think, anxious that the country is able to produce particularly critical infrastructure and housing without undue costs and delay. It is how we get there that is the problem. I am on board with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in wanting any changes to national policy statements at least to be brought before the House as affirmative resolutions. With that, I look forward to the Minister weaving her way through these dilemmas.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, a number of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook—whose amendment was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson—seek to amend Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which set out new expectations for the regular updating of national policy statements and also establish a streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements when select changes are made to them.
Amendment 8 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I thank him for the amount of thought that he has clearly put into improving the Bill—and some very radical thinking, which we will come to in later suggestions, but which is always welcome. His amendment was also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. While I absolutely understand and share the desire to improve the speed and clarity of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects and national policy statements, I believe that the amendment’s wholesale approach could potentially have unintended consequences.
First, the amendment proposes fixed time limits for statutory consultation. In the case of national policy statements, statutory consultation is not typically the cause of delay, unlike development consent orders, where we have removed the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation. For national policy statements, the time taken for statutory consultation varies significantly depending on the complexity of the policy area and the nature of the infrastructure involved. Imposing a uniform time limit risks undermining the quality and thoroughness of consultation, especially for those more complex or contentious sectors and projects. The Government’s own consultation principles make it clear that consultation should be proportionate—I think we will hear that word a lot during our debates—to the potential impacts of the proposal.
Secondly, the amendment attempts to tackle concerns about the timeliness of responses by statutory consultees to national policy statement consultations and requests for further information on development consent order applications. Our experience on national policy statements is that statutory consultees respond adequately and without too much delay. We appreciate that there is evidence of slower responses from statutory consultees on live development consent order applications. However, the idea that statutory consultees should completely lose their right to comment on an NPS if they do not respond within a set timeframe may be a step too far or too rigid.
Statutory consultees such as the Health and Safety Executive play a critical role in safeguarding public welfare. Their input is not optional but essential. Instead of removing their critical role in the process, the Government are actively reforming how they prioritise and resource their work across the planning system. This includes measures in the Bill that enable statutory consultees to fund their services across the broader planning system more sustainably and requires them to have regard to government-issued guidance on their role in the NSIP regime.
For the first time, this provides a statutory mechanism to ensure that consultees engage appropriately and in a timely manner, without compromising the integrity of the process. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the NSIP consenting process. I recognise that the spirit of these amendments is in keeping with wider approaches taken to make the system more productive and streamlined. However, the issues faced by national policy statements manifest themselves differently. In practice, these amendments would have unintended consequences that risk damaging how the NSIP system operates.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The reason I know so much about this and there was a debate on the national networks is that I kicked off a hell of a fuss and the Leader of the House then pledged that the Government, despite it not being in the law, would do these resolutions. My concern is about the fact that so much depends on what the Front Bench decides to do with time. That is why I am concerned about it, but I appreciate what the Minister has said.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, and I understand her expertise in these matters. If she still has concerns, I am happy to have another conversation with her.
Amendment 16 would require the environmental principles policy statement to be considered in the development of national policy statements. The environmental principles policy statement is a statutory document that aids policymakers in how to interpret and proportionately apply the five environmental principles. Policymakers are assisted in assessing the environmental impact of policy, but this is not a replication of the environmental impact assessment process. The principles are not rules and do not dictate policy outcomes. Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when developing policy, including NPSs. This is a matter of legal compliance and is embedded in the policy-making process.
Furthermore, national policy statements are also required by statute to be accompanied by an appraisal of sustainability which incorporates the sustainability appraisal as well as the strategic environmental assessment and ensures that environmental considerations are fully integrated. A habitat regulation assessment must be undertaken for a national policy statement to comply with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The preparation of an assessment of sustainability is a comprehensive process and includes an examination of the likely environmental effects of designating a national policy statement and the reasonable alternatives to a national policy statement. It also requires the Government to set out measures to mitigate any significant negative effects identified and any enhancement measures.
The assessment of sustainability is an iterative process done in conjunction with the updating of a national policy statement. For example, I encourage Members to read the assessment of sustainability that was published alongside the National Networks National Policy Statement, which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will already have done. It sets out a clear methodology of all the above and the environmental principles considered when developing the policy and potential alternatives.
I know that has been quite a long explanation, but I felt that the detailed nature of the amendments warranted going into some detail. For those reasons, I do not believe that a separate written assessment within each national policy statement is necessary.
I turn to some of the points raised by other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the capability and capacity of Natural England. That issue has been raised many times—it was raised in the other place and has been raised again here—and we will come to it when we start to debate Part 3 of the Bill.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, meant the building safety regulator. I was not quite sure which regulator he was talking about but am happy to answer any questions about that. We have done significant work with the building safety regulator to try to speed up the process. We have increased its resources and changed the chief executive. Things are moving much more quickly already, and the development industry is already seeing a change.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, spoke about the precautionary principle. We have already had discussions about that today. We have to look out for the proportionate use of precautionary principles without going over the top and gold-plating everything, which I am afraid has been too much of a feature of the planning system in the past.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contribution to the debate. With all that said, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I thought she gave a very comprehensive and helpful response, and obviously I will withdraw my amendment.
It seemed to me that there were a number of threads, but a particular one is the relationship between what the legislation is seeking to achieve, the role of regulators and planners and the interface with the democratic process. The noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, had some important points to raise here. In the end, we have collectively created—and Parliament is guilty of this—a whole panoply of quangos and regulators, and I suspect that those who have been Ministers are all guilty of that. Some of that seems to be entirely justified; for instance, you want the Office for Nuclear Regulation to be robust and independent. As a Health Minister, far too many years ago, I was part of the team that created independent reconfiguration panels because Ministers were not able to take decisions on the closure of hospitals as it was all too difficult, so sometimes there is a justification for offshoring. But I agree that we have gone too far and that we need to draw a distinction between the independence of regulators in making judgments and our role as parliamentarians and as Ministers in being tough about their performance, which is what lies behind my amendment.
I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, means about the issue, particularly in her patch, where a number of different NCOs go through under different NSIP regimes—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, could talk about cumulative impacts, which I understand—where regulators seem unable to work together, and the box ticking and the judgments they make mean that a collaborative enterprise becomes very difficult. I suspect that is what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was talking about in the East End. He, with a fantastic track record in doing this, has a scheme that is partly about improved NHS primary care provision, with housing attached and maybe even commercial development. We are dealing with a host of different bodies, all of which deal with these things in a compartmentalised way, and somehow we have to get through it.
This is partly about the work that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is doing on the relationship between the proportionate and precautionary principles, and it is also partly about making sure—as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said—that the new system we introduce asks whether EDPs fit with major infrastructure projects.
Parliamentary oversight, in one way or another, is one way we can overcome some of the barriers, and I have later amendments that put forward some ideas about that. If the democratic process can legitimise the speed-up of what we seek to do, that would be a very helpful move forward. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Member’s explanatory statement
This is to probe why it is necessary for Government-imposed NSIPs to have no planning consent or public engagement.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
With Amendment 17 I will also debate Amendments 18 to 23 in my name. These have been described as a “redirection”; I am not exactly sure what that means, but there is a theme that I hope will become clear. I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench for adding their names to Amendments 17 and 23.
As the Explanatory Notes and various bits of memoranda make clear, this clause is designed to try to speed up aspects of planning, and I understand that flexibility may be wanted. I was a bit surprised when Minister Pennycook in the other place suggested in Committee, talking about offshore generation, that perhaps the MMO could become the planning authority in that regard. The MMO is simply not big enough to get into that.
The theme through my amendments is the fact that a Secretary of State has some literally very special powers, called special development orders. That is why I have tabled some quite detailed amendments. While the narrative, including in Committee and in various memoranda, has been that it can go to an alternative consenting authority, the reason I have tabled these amendments is that there is an alternative consenting authority: the Secretary of State himself or herself.
Amendment 17 tries to probe why the Bill refers to Section 59. You do not need to go through the NSIP and DCO process because the Secretary of State could, more or less, just authorise this tomorrow, without any public consultation, engagement and all sorts of things. The Secretary of State already has the power to do that. I expect that it is usually used for things such as MoD land, so the reasons may be somewhat related to national security infrastructure and so on, but I am concerned that this hands a heck of a lot of power to the Secretary of State, and we should at least be considering that carefully.
That is particularly true when thinking about nuclear and other energy generation, which my Amendment 23 covers. The amount of land taken by most energy projects is pretty significant, not just land for the station itself or the transmission network but the preparation land. That is why I would like to see a commitment, ideally in law, that this will never apply to where a Secretary of State themselves can, on request, give planning permission to something from a developer.
I turn to another aspect of my amendments. This is a novel process—I think that is the explanation in various memoranda—and it will be done by regulations. Putting in the Bill three months for the Secretary of State to make a particular decision seems reasonable if the whole point of this is that it be done quicker. By the way, that is just considering whether something should go through the DCO process or an alternative consenting authority.
In the debate on the first group, I clumsily mentioned the Minister’s commitment to write. It was actually Minister Pennycook, in the House of Commons Committee where this was considered, who pledged several times in the debate on this clause to write to the Committee. That letter may have been sent to the members of the Committee, but it certainly has never appeared on the Bill website or been deposited in the Libraries of either House. He pledged to give more examples of how this would work in practice. The reason for me probing this today is that we could end up with some kind of Stalinist Secretary of State who is determined to build whatever they like anywhere and everywhere. As it stands, through this amendment and this new clause, we will give them the powers to do that, and I do not think we should. That is why I wanted to look at this clause.
I turn to Article 6 of the convention on human rights. Again, a back-up memorandum says:
“These alternative consenting regimes are likely to be … the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Highways Act 1980, Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964”.
But it does not say that it will be only that, which, again, is part of my concern.
So, in a variety of ways, this is probing to see whether we can properly get, in effect, a commitment from the Government on the Floor of this House or through a letter from the Minister—if it is not in legislation—that can candidly be used in a future court case when somebody might want to oppose the Secretary of State doing something so draconian. It would show that it was made clear to this House and this Parliament that that would never happen. So far, none of the back-up memoranda or Explanatory Notes makes that explicit, and that is what I hope to achieve today.
I am particularly concerned about energy projects. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is no longer in his place, but I explained on the previous group that I have extensive experience of trying to handle NSIPs as a Member of Parliament and now as a Peer in this place, and I am still very concerned about my local community and what is happening in that regard. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for explaining this group. That leaves me no need to go through it again, but I am pleased to support her Amendments 17 and 23. I will be brief, but I wanted to say something about both of them, especially Amendment 17. This amendment is vital because it probes the fundamental issue of democratic accountability and local consent. If the government-imposed national significant infrastructure projects can proceed without planning consent or public engagement, we risk undermining public trust by excluding communities from decisions that directly affect them. This also weakens local accountability by sidelining local authorities and stakeholders, and it increases the risks of legal and political challenges, as the lack of consultation may well lead to resistance or even to judicial review.
Probing this issue is essential to ensure that any such powers are used only when they are truly justified—when they are proportionate to the situation and exercised with true transparency. I raised this concern in the opening group today, and it is one on which we really need some clear answers. I ask again, why is it necessary for government-imposed NSIPs to bypass both planning consent and public engagement? How is this consistent with the Government’s continued claims that localism is protected?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not preceding the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
Amendment 17 would remove the required consent for the construction of or extensions to a generating station for electricity. Can the Minister explain why, in this instance, the government proposal is that it be disapplied from the existing requirements for going through a proper process? It is important to understand the reason. If it is for timeliness, what causes the delays? If it is for reasons of cost, is that related to timeliness? Is there another way to have accountability and public discourse without creating delays and cost pressures? Otherwise, why would we want to disapply the current requirements for consent? Again, there is a thread of accountability running through this: there is a tension, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, between getting things done and accountability for local communities.
With those few comments, I look forward to a detailed answer from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling these amendments. As she said, they are probing amendments, and I hope to be able to give her an explanation. She again mentioned the letter that Minister Pennycook promised. I have asked to be informed whether that letter was sent. If it was, I will provide the noble Baroness with a copy, but it would not be usual, I suspect, for copies of letters that were circulated to a committee in the other place to be automatically circulated here. If that letter exists, I will send it to her.
All the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seek to amend the operation of the redirection process as set out in Clause 3, including the replacement of regulation-making powers with time limits or statutory guidance. I recognise that Amendment 17 is probing, so I will first seek to explain how the redirection process has been designed before addressing some of her concerns head on and then turning to Amendment 23. I apologise if these explanations seem very detailed, but it is important to take the time to explain properly.
The NSIP regime was designed to provide a single route through which to consent all types of large-scale infrastructure schemes. As we know, on occasion this one-size-fits-all approach is not proportionate for specific developments. Clause 3 seeks to address this by creating a new power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction disapplying the requirement for schemes above the NSIP thresholds to seek development consent. Clause 3 sets out the circumstances in which a request for a direction may arise, what a request may contain and the steps the Secretary of State must follow in responding. Crucially, the Secretary of State may direct development out of the NSIP regime only if they consider an alternative consenting route to be appropriate given the particular circumstances of the development in question. Enhancing the flexibility of the planning system in this way should reduce burdens on applicants which are otherwise disproportionate and support the Government’s ambitions to have a streamlined planning system. This level of flexibility already exists under the Planning Act.
Section 35 enables the Secretary of State to direct into the NSIP regime those projects which fall outside of the statutory thresholds but which have none the less requested to follow the process for nationally significant infrastructure schemes. This has been invaluable, as we know, for enabling numerous water schemes to progress.
Clause 3 provides that flexibility but in the other direction. It may be that a transport scheme is located in an area with a supportive local authority and does not require the acquisition of land. Instead of requiring the entire scheme to become an NSIP, an applicant could now request to follow the route that is most appropriate to their project. As the Government’s working paper on proposals to streamline the consenting process for infrastructure acknowledged, the existing thresholds have not kept pace with technological advancements. This has held back projects from coming forward—for example, medium-sized schemes—because the process of obtaining development consent was out of kilter with the relatively straightforward nature of the scheme.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. On Amendment 19, I gently say that it would be “within” three months, so ideally it could be within a day—however, I do not want to quibble unduly.
There is definitely concern about what sort of development orders could be in place. The Government are currently publishing in the Bill, and elsewhere, all sorts of things about devolution, and there is still some anxiety about whether local development orders or simplified planning zones could become part of this when they would not necessarily be suitable. Perhaps I will write to the Minister and we can have nice cup of tea and chat further. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 24 and 25, in my name, relate to Clause 4, in which the Government seek to remove certain pre-application requirements. I am concerned about two of these. The first omits the duty to consult and the second omits the duty to consult the local community. These are very significant changes to pre-application requirements that were introduced in the Planning Act 2008. In my experience, pre-application is an extremely helpful part of the process, as it enables information to be shared and discussed by the communities that will be affected and their elected representatives—councillors and Members of Parliament.
The value of a pre-application duty to consult seems to me to be vital, particularly in relation to infrastructure schemes. The opportunity for communities that are affected to understand the proposals and their impact is much reduced by the process that is followed for large-scale infrastructure applications. For example, the process for large-scale infrastructure is set out very well in the Explanatory Notes, which talks about the pre-application process followed by the submission and acceptance of the application, then the pre-examination stage where members of the public can register as interested parties—although that is subject to some change—and then the examination in public. The opportunities for the general public, as opposed to those who feel they are able to take part in an examination in public, are extremely limited. Therefore, the pre-application stage becomes even more important in relation to large-scale infrastructure applications.
In my experience, the importance of the pre-application process is that it can be invaluable to both the developer and the local community. I will refer to an example not of a large-scale infrastructure application but for 400 homes on a site near where I live. There was a pre-application consultation stage with members of the public. The application was for a site that was known to have been used for coal workings, and the official coal board documents did not identify precisely where all the mine shafts were—they actually did not even know how many there were. However, residents whose families had lived in the area for a long time knew where the mine shafts were and shared that local knowledge with the developer. They were also able to share information, which did not seem to exist formally at all, of the shallow tunnelling on the site.
In this instance, the housing developer gained considerably from the pre-application process in knowing where the mine shafts were that would have to be capped off, and knowing where the shallow tunnels for the coal workings were, which could require attention during the construction phase. The local residents benefited because it enabled them to understand and be provided with factual information by the applicant.
In my view, the changes proposed in the Bill to remove the duty to consult with the local community would be totally counterproductive. Members of the community will get information about the proposals which may not be accurate if there is not a pre-application opportunity. I know from experience that, once inaccurate information is shared on social media sites, it is very difficult to counter and to get the actual situation accepted. The climate in which development takes place these days is for the public to believe that the worst is going to happen.
If the pre-application stage for large-scale infrastructure is believed to be too lengthy with too many parts to it, it seems to me that the best way forward would be to retain the principle of pre-application but to reform the process so that it was not so time-consuming and did not delay the construction processes. That is why the pre-application process is absolutely vital. Removing the duty will simply make the process more challenging for the developer and resentment and frustration will grow, both against the development and at the failure of the democratic process. Living in a democracy involves making time for debate and challenge; it is the price we on these Benches are willing to pay. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering degrouped some of her amendments. Because I signed some of them, there is a risk that I might end up duplicating my words in the next debate, but that is not my intention.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as it is Committee stage, I have some simple questions about pre-application with a view to trying to move this important conversation forward. First, are the pre-application arrangements different if a use is already in the local plan? On the coal mine example and water extraction, those should be in the local plan. We have a big problem, because more than half of local plans are not up to date, which was certainly a big concern of mine when I was sitting on the committee.
Secondly, presumably, a developer can do a voluntary pre-application process, or is that not practical? A lot of my experience was in large retail developments. We did a lot of this sort of stuff because we wanted to get local consent. It is a question of what you can do which is voluntary and what is required.
Thirdly, what are the biggest delay factors in the pre-application process? Is it transport objections, heritage, environment features—such as nutrient neutrality or bats—or lawyers going around in circles? Have the Government had a look at what the problem is?
Fourthly, is there an alternative route where you have a much shorter process, perhaps with a deadline and only for the big schemes and not for a small house? This is an important area in local communities, but we want to get the delays down.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s amendment. Pre-application consultation, as she correctly said, not only gives communities a chance to shape proposals but can speed up things further down the line. It is not necessarily a delaying factor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just raised an interesting issue in that we do not know what the delaying factor is. Is it the statutory consultees, far more than the communities, for example, that are part of the delaying factor? Given the scale of the Government’s ambition, quite rightly, to develop housing and the accompanying infrastructure, and to make master plans to do that, it is much better to take the community along with you. If the community already feels left behind because it is cut out at the very first stage, which is what the Bill does, then however many nice words may be said later by the development corporations or so on, that is not really going to cut much ice. Therefore, the amendments tabled by my noble friend are particularly important.
I also really do not like the fact that, even if communities and the public have made some responses, there is no requirement for the people doing the development to take that into account. Again, that is a very disempowering issue, which undermines the whole democratic basis of our planning system.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer my strong support for the entire presentation from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and her amendments. I cannot top her example of unknown mines underground, but the example that I was thinking of is on a much smaller scale, and it addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She said that those mines, et cetera—the physical infrastructure—should be on the record; I think we all know that very often they are not.
However, there is also the question of the local community and how it works, which is never going to be written down. The example that I was thinking of comes from central London, from Camden borough. I was at a meeting where the council came along very excitedly with the idea that it was going to knock down a community centre, build housing, and build a new community centre on what most people from the outside thought were some pretty unpleasant, small, raggedy corner shops—a little row of shops which you get typically in suburban areas. The council officers and the local councillors were visibly astonished when local people, mostly elderly, were up in arms and horrified about the idea of those shops being demolished. They said, “We’re not mobile enough to get to Camden High Street and we’re scared of the traffic on Camden High Street and the speed at which it goes. Even though these shops are probably both very expensive and don’t have a great range of goods, et cetera, we hugely value them”. That is just a small-scale example of how only communities themselves know the way in which they work. If they had had input earlier on, there would not have been lots of very angry pensioners at that meeting, as we saw.
Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is really important and picks up the use of technology, and potentially its positive use, and sets out rules for it. Again, I am afraid that my next example is also from Camden, because that is where lots of my planning stories come from. The Crick centre was imposed on the local community—I declare a retrospective interest in that I was the chair of the St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action committee that opposed it, a long time ago. When it was finally built, people said, “But that doesn’t look anything like what the pictures looked like”. I think that is something that we are all extremely familiar with. The idea of creating some standards and rules—they already exist, but we should put them into statute—seems an extremely good one.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, first, my apologies: I should have mentioned my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire earlier in the debate.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her leadership on this important group of amendments. Clause 4 systematically removes several pre-application requirements. I will focus first on Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. This amendment seeks to retain Section 47 of the Planning Act: the duty to consult the local community. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Ministers have previously stated that the Bill does not in any way reduce local democratic input. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the duty to consult communities is being removed? How did the Government arrive at the decision to remove Section 47 of the Planning Act, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised, and what are the specific problems they are trying to resolve in doing so?
We know from experience that when local communities are given genuine influence over planning through mechanisms such as neighbourhood plans, they are often more supportive of new housing and infrastructure—we have heard cases from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, where the local input added significant value—especially when it reflects local needs such as affordable housing, safeguards green space or comes with vital local infrastructure improvements. Indeed, neighbourhood plans introduced under the Localism Act 2011 have in many cases led to more housing being approved rather than less. This suggests that working with communities delivers better outcomes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott of Bybrook—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, spoke to her amendments—and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their amendments to Clauses 4 and 5. I am also grateful to Members across the Committee for the way in which they have engaged with these amendments and what we in government recognise as a significant evolution to the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.
I am sure we all have experiences of the best in consultation—with a developer that not only consults but truly engages with communities over a period of time to get a better development—and those at the opposite end that carry out a half-hearted tick-box exercise and then crack on without changing anything, keeping a laser focus on their bottom line. We want to encourage the former, not the latter.
All the amendments in this group seek, in one way or another, to reverse changes made by the Government in the other place. Those changes will remove the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the preparation of an application for a development consent order. These are significant reforms to the NSIP regime and therefore deserve our attention. It may be helpful to revisit the rationale behind the Government’s decision to amend the Planning Act in this way.
As I outlined in my Written Ministerial Statement on 23 April, the Government are committed to driving economic growth and taking decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects before the end of the Parliament. The level of ambition here is high, as indeed it should be. The UK suffers from outdated and inadequate infrastructure, which is holding us back, not only in economic but in social terms. To deliver new roads, low-carbon energy infrastructure and reservoirs, the UK and its communities need to prosper. We must be open to change, and we are willing to do things differently. I sense a change in public perception on this as well. I think people are beginning to realise that if we want cheaper electricity, and if we want water available for housing and general use, we need to move more quickly to develop the infrastructure we need.
The Government will meet our critical infrastructure commitments only if we take this opportunity to address the inefficiencies that have crept into the NSIP regime over time. One of the most pressing issues is the growing duration of the pre-application phase for projects. In 2021, the average time to secure consent had risen to 4.2 years—up from 2.6 years in 2012. Over this same period, average pre-application timescales doubled. We all recognise that that trend is just not sustainable.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, over the past year, the Government have listened to feedback from the bodies and stakeholders most familiar with the development consent order process. That includes developers and practitioners, legal experts, local authorities, statutory bodies and a range of other interested bodies that play very important roles in the process. Through those discussions, it has become clear that the statutory consultation requirements under the Planning Act, though well intended, are now driving perverse outcomes and unintended consequences.
To answer the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, there are a number of reasons why that is the case, including those that she stated and others. The legislative requirements are too prescriptive; rather than fostering the meaningful dialogue that we all want to see, the process has become overly procedural, encouraging risk aversion, excessive documentation—we have already heard about this—and a reluctance on the part of applicants even to adapt proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of consultation. That has led to confusion for communities and delays for developers.
In responding to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, where there is consultation, an application would normally include key elements of that consultation in the report to the planning body. Although developers have to state their responses to that, even now they do not need to do anything about what the consultation said; they just have to say why they are not doing whatever they have been asked to do. There will often be mitigations in place, but there do not have to be.
Given all these concerns, it is clear that the statutory consultation requirements—uncommon in other planning regimes—are now acting as an absolute brake on progress. The Bill therefore proposes to align the NSIP regime more closely with other planning frameworks by removing these statutory obligations at the pre-application stage. This change is expected to reduce the average time taken to submit applications by around a year and deliver savings of more than £1 billion across the current project pipeline. In the long term, faster delivery will also help reduce household bills.
As set out in my Statement of 23 April, the Government remain firmly committed to a planning system that supports high-quality applications and delivers benefits for both the nation and local communities. We all recognise that the best applications are those shaped through early and constructive engagement. As the Housing Minister emphasised in the other place, we still expect the NSIP regime to operate on a front-loaded basis, with well-developed proposals entering the system and progressing to predictable timescales. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I do not think there is any objection to voluntary pre-consultation if that is what developers choose to do.
Experience from other planning regimes shows that meaningful engagement can and does take place without statutory compulsion, and that developers are best placed to judge how to take a proportionate approach to consult on their applications, which vary in relation to their scale, location and circumstances.
The development consent order process also incentivises high-quality submissions. In order to proceed through examination within statutory timescales, we are confident that developers will continue to engage proactively so that they are well prepared. As well as any consultation and engagement during the early stages of an application’s development, interested parties will still have the opportunity to raise objections, contribute views and present evidence through participation in the examination process.
To support and inform the implementation of these changes, the Government will launch a consultation about guidance later this summer, which will set out that best practice involves developers undertaking consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. This will help to ensure that applications remain robust and responsive to local concerns.
The NSIP regime relies on developers bringing projects forward to deliver national policy and meet the UK need for infrastructure. We know that the industry has responded positively to the removal of the statutory requirement, with many major developers reaffirming their commitment to meaningful engagement. They are committed to exploring new and better ways to engage with communities.
If these amendments were accepted, we would risk undermining the very purpose of the Bill and the will of Members in the other place, who requested this change to deliver lasting and transformative improvements to the NSIP regime. The current system would remain burdened by unnecessary delays, risk-averse behaviours and a lack of clarity for communities. For these reasons, I respectfully urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.
I turn to Clause 5 and the amendments tabled to it. However, given the importance of Clause 5, I hope noble Lords will allow me briefly to set out the intended impact of the clause before turning to the amendments in question. The clause contains important changes which will enable the Government to deliver on the policy intent of the changes through Clause 4, which, as we have discussed today, removes statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but it might be useful for the Committee to know that I had asked for my amendment to be degrouped. I am not sure what has happened here, but it is my intention to move the amendment in its place after Clause 51.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Okay, I will not go into the detail on that amendment now but come back to it. It was originally listed as being in this group. I apologise for the misunderstanding. I would just say to the noble Baroness that I am a big fan of digital twinning, so I look forward to the debate on that subject.
I ask noble Lords who have amendments in this group not to press them and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Bennett, my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their supportive words on my amendments. My noble friend Lady Miller summed it up when she said that it is very important to take the community with you. That is the message to developers. The Minister’s response was: it will be the developers’ decision as to whether they will engage in pre-application consultation. I do not know about other people’s experience of developers, but mine is that if you give them an inch, they will take at least a mile. Not requiring a statutory pre-application consultation will mean that communities do not understand or know the detail or broad-brush approach of a development that, for better or for worse, will have an impact on them.
If the issues that the Minister spelled out very clearly about the delays and costs of pre-application consultations are the problem, as she has stated, then surely the approach should be to reform what is required in a pre-application. I have just had experience of a pre-application process that involved a change to a major highways route of about 15 miles long through the area in which I live. We have had three or possibly four levels of public consultation, and in the end nobody was satisfied because nothing had substantially changed from the first one in which changes were made. The pre-application process should be reformed so that people’s voices are heard, changes are made where appropriate and then there are tweaks as the process goes on.
There is no legitimate reason for not allowing people’s voices to be heard. I feel very strongly about this and no doubt the Minister will hear from me again on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Applications for development consent: consultation with Category 3 persons(1) In the Planning Act 2008—(a) in section 44 (categories of persons to be consulted), omit subsections (4) to (6);(b) in section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 (notifying persons of accepted application), after subsection (9) insert—“(10) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to applicants about how to identify persons within Category 3 (within the meaning of section 57) for the purposes of complying with their duty under subsection (2)(d) so far as relating to such persons.(11) The guidance must be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”;(c) in Schedule 12 (application of Act to Scotland: modifications), omit 30 paragraph 5(c).(2) In the Localism Act 2011, omit section 135(8).”Member’s explanatory statement
This reinstates the requirement to consult with category 1 and 2 persons.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to the amendments in this group, and I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for signing a number of them. The reason I asked for this group to stand alone is to have an opportunity for a short debate relating to the changes in Clauses 4 and 5 that the Government have brought in at quite a late stage and to understand the background to those changes.
In summing up on the previous group, the Minister referred to the guidance and perhaps she might be able to elaborate on that, subject to what I am going to say. The Bill removes the requirement on a developer under the Planning Act 2008 to carry out pre-application consultation on a proposed project. That will, I understand, remove category 1 and 2 persons—that is, the owners and occupiers of the land. While I understand the Government’s need and desire to speed up the delivery of infrastructure, removing the duty to consult raises major concerns among the agricultural community. As we have established in previous debates on earlier groups, the consultation process is essential and can speed up the process. It is essential for both landowners and occupiers directly impacted by any project and for the developer. This process enables the developer to gain essential feedback from landowners and occupiers who will be directly impacted.
I am sure the Minister would agree that the earliest possible consultation and dialogue would allow a landowner or occupier to understand how they might be impacted by a project and to seek changes at the earliest opportunity to mitigate that impact, such as changing the location of a pylon. As my noble friend Lady Coffey stated, pylons and other major critical infrastructure impacted by this Bill will have a big impact on the farming community. Once you are at the stage of a statutory consultation, when the application for the scheme goes to PINS, it is too late to get any change to the scheme.
The Government have included an amendment, I understand, to replace pre-application consultation with guidance to developers around consultation, and the Minister referred to it in summing up the previous debate. Among others, the National Farmers’ Union is deeply concerned that if the guidance is not detailed and prescriptive enough, landowners and occupiers will not be provided with details about schemes and their intended location, and it will not, therefore, be possible to seek changes with the developer to reduce the impact of a scheme on a farm business. Pre-application consultation should be mandatory, not just guidance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, remarked in the previous group, if you give a developer an inch, they will take more than a mile.
I understand that Clause 4 was added at a late stage in the proceedings in the other place by the Government in Committee. I am trying to understand why the Government and the department brought in these changes, particularly as farming organisations, such as the National Farmers’ Union, would have supported the original drafting of the Bill in respect of pre-application requirements. In their view, it would have struck a better balance between speeding up infrastructure and adequately consulting impacted parties.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to several of my noble friend’s amendments and I agree pretty much with every word she just said. I made my main points in the previous group.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is a further iteration of the debate we had on the previous group about pre-application consultation, but this time with the specific purpose of consultation with owners and occupiers of land. I still hope that we can get to the point where the Government have a rethink about reforming the pre-application process without removing it altogether.
We are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with Clause 4. I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and, as with the previous group, there are important points to be made. Informing people about an application is important, along with the community on which it impacts, particularly with regard to information to owners and occupiers of land. It is just rude not to, quite apart from the legal responsibility. Even with an ordinary application, though not an infrastructure one, the requirement is to notify the owner of the land that something is being proposed—even if you do not own the land, as we heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I urge the Minister to think about reviewing and reforming pre-application rather than removing it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and supported variously by my noble friend Lady Coffey, speak to the important principle of consulting those who will be affected by changes, who are often best placed to provide information about development ahead of time. I appreciated the Minister’s comments on consultation in the previous group. The Government themselves are going to a consultation on providing the optimum guidance for consultation in the future. That is a positive, despite the multiple consultations.
At this stage in our deliberations, it is important to consider what “consultation” means. We are not talking about wreckers or blockers. These Houses of Parliament—indeed, your Lordships’ House itself—are constitutionally tasked with consultation and review. That is what we are doing at this very moment: reviewing the Government’s proposal in detail and providing feedback with the intention of making a proposal better and more workable in practice.
As we have heard, category 1 and 2 persons are definitions that refer to persons with significant interests in affected land. They know, literally, the lay of the land, the conditions, the constraints and the opportunities that could be faced by any development in advance of a project being started. The benefit of the knowledge and experience that these parties have must not be understated. One obvious way to prevent bad development is to promote good consultation.
We are keen to see spades in the ground and development starting to get under way, but there is no point if we get bad developments in the wrong place and where they are not appropriate. We have a duty to deliver, but we also have a duty to deliver responsibly. Removing requirements to consult key parties means that the Government increasingly run the risk of championing bad development.
There is also the question of buy-in. The Government will find that the public do not appreciate being done to, rather than being done with. Does this not strike to the heart of what the Government are trying to do with the Bill? The Government will find that if they do not undertake this policy programme carefully, with close reference to the very people they are intending to exclude from the consultation stage—I note the Minister’s previous comments, which are much appreciated—they will not be thanked for it. Consultation with stakeholders is, as noble Lords who are business-minded will know, an important way to build support, gain approval and deliver projects that work.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 26, 27, 32, 35, 39 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I am grateful to her for her amendments, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am afraid that, in this instance, the baby has become so fat that it cannot even get out of the bath, never mind be thrown out.
As I have outlined over the course of this debate, these amendments seek to undo a number of amendments tabled by the Government in the other place to remove the statutory requirement for applicants to consult in the preparation of an application. Given that this significant change was introduced during the Bill’s passage—a point I accept from all noble Lords who have mentioned it—I will outline again the Government’s motivations for making the change.
A particular aspect of concern has been the increasing length of time spent at the pre-application stage, resulting from the way that statutory requirements are being complied with. As outlined, consultation has become a tick-box exercise—the very one I was referring to earlier—that encourages risk aversion and gold-plating. We have therefore concluded that these requirements are now serving to slow schemes down rather than speed them up, and that the consultation taking place is not meaningful to the people involved. It just becomes that tick-box exercise.
In bringing in these changes, we want to speed up the typical period taken to submit applications and further save money in this Parliament’s pipeline of projects. We are committed to sustaining a planning system that encourages high-quality applications and delivers benefits to the nation and local communities. We all know that high-quality applications are those that have been developed through early and meaningful engagement with those impacted, including local authorities, statutory consultees, communities and landowners. Affected individuals will, of course, still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of impacts on them and participate in the process through which applications are examined.
As I have explained, in making this change the Government are clear that this signifies not that consultation and engagement are no longer important but just that the current system is not working well for either developers or communities. Guidance will be forthcoming on how engagement can be undertaken so that applicants can produce high-quality applications. We look forward to engagement on this matter. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about consultation on consultation—he is right—but, in this case, it is necessary.
The Planning Inspectorate will continue to consider whether an application is suitable to proceed to examination and be examined under statutory timeframes. The guidance will outline best practice—to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I cannot give her any absolute detail yet because, as we said, we are consulting on it, but it will outline the best practice, which will involve pre-application engagement. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will continue to issue advice to applicants under Section 51 of the Act and have regard to the extent to which applicants have had regard to the advice. These changes will provide flexibility so that applicants can undertake engagement in the way they consider best for their proposed development in accordance with that guidance. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks, and to all who spoke. I meant to give a big shout-out to the clerks in the Public Bill Office. I know how hard our Front Bench and the Government Front Bench are working, but I understand that there are only four clerks in the Public Bill Office, who are assisting us with all our amendments, so I am deeply grateful to them for their assistance in this regard.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jamieson for their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a good point about reforming, not removing. Together with the loss of hope value and the new provisions on the compulsory purchase of land that we will come to later, I find it staggering how shabbily treated farmers and landowners are by this Government. I am sure there will be plenty more opportunities to elaborate on those arguments.
I understand that the Government are consulting on the guidance at the moment, but it is regrettable that we are not in possession of the guidance before we are asked to remove Clause 4, or at least to reintroduce the consultation at pre-application stage of category 1 and category 2 persons. It seems profoundly undemocratic—profoundly rude, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—and I will consider whether or not to bring this back at a later stage. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(7A) Where the Secretary of State decides not to accept an application under subsection (2) and (5), the Secretary of State must publish the reasons for the decision and identify the relevant statutory or regulatory basis.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase transparency and protect developers from arbitrary rejection.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 45 seeks to enhance transparency in the development consent order—DCO—acceptance process. It would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons whenever an application is not accepted under the relevant subsections of Clause 6, along with the precise statutory or regulatory basis for such a decision. This is a simple yet crucial step towards ensuring accountability and transparency in the decision-making process.
By explicitly identifying the legal grounds on which an application is rejected, the amendment would help to eliminate ambiguity and to reinforce the rule of law within the planning system. Currently, developers face significant uncertainty and frustration when their applications are rejected without clear explanations. This can hinder timely resubmission by leaving applicants unsure of what issues need to be addressed or whether the rejection was based on procedural, technical or substantive grounds. The resulting delay not only increases the costs and administrative burden for developers but can stall projects that may be vital to meeting national infrastructure and environmental goals.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of this amendment. I can see it reducing the risk of judicial review. Quite often, not just in the planning context but in other contexts, where there is no duty to give reasons for a decision that is judicially reviewable, judicial review is the only way of teasing out the reasoning, at least in the pre-action process. Quite often, when judicial review is then commenced, the disclosure generates release of the ministerial submission, or whatever the advice may have been, on which the decision was based. If there were a duty to publish the reasons for non-acceptance of an application, it would enable the aggrieved would-be applicant to understand and take advice on the reasons without litigating. I can see that additional advantage to this proposed amendment, alongside the advantages that my noble friend Lady Scott just outlined.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is a very interesting amendment. In domestic planning applications, and commercial planning applications that are outside the infrastructure process, applications that are refused get a decision notice with a list of the reasons for refusal, which gives the developer the opportunity to review those and resubmit with relevant changes. This goes to the heart of the way the infrastructure application process works, in that we are now going to have a reduction in the pre-application process, and restricted examination in public; consequently, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, says, the only resort will be to judicial review. The whole process for infrastructure applications needs a real rethink, in my view, because the pre-application stage will throw up some of the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referenced, in terms of what might be the causes of refusal. She is quite right that for big infrastructure applications, reasons ought to be given for a rejection of the proposals.
Again, everyone here is anxious that critical infrastructure gets the go-ahead, but it must be given the go-ahead within the right framework of openness, consultation and listening to communities. At the minute, it seems that some of that framework is being removed and is going to be in the hands of the developers, come what may. I hope the Minister will give us some clues that the Government are going to change the process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we are all optimists.
Clause 6 amends the acceptance stage for applications for development consent. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has tabled an amendment to this clause, seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State publishes the reasons for the decision and identifies the relevant statutory or regulatory basis. At the acceptance stage, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will consider whether an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project should proceed to examination. This test grants acceptance to applications for the country’s largest and most complex schemes on the basis of whether they can be examined within the strict statutory timeframes set out in the Planning Act 2008. Let us not forget that these statutory timeframes are what applicants admire most about the regime. They provide much needed certainty and clarity.
In our Planning Reform Working Paper: Streamlining Infrastructure Consenting published in January, we indicated that applicants often take a risk-averse approach to the acceptance test, as a refusal or a withdrawal can delay projects and harm investor confidence. Applicants will often gold-plate their application by undertaking additional consultation, delaying applications from coming forward. Accordingly, Clause 6 updates the acceptance test, not just to account for the removal of consultation at the pre-application stage but to increase the flexibility of the acceptance stage, so that applicants are more likely to come forward sooner. In doing so, Clause 6 amends the test to be applied from a “satisfactory” standard to “suitable to proceed to examination”. This wording brings the test closer to the objective of this part of the process.
The amendment proposed would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons why an application has been rejected, explaining where it has not complied with new Section 55A (2) and (5). It is rightly intended to increase transparency and to protect developers from arbitrary rejection. The Government fully agree with the intention behind this amendment, which is to prevent arbitrary rejections for applicants. That is in part what has motivated the Government to introduce Section 55A. We want to allow for corrective actions, where needed, to enable acceptance rather than outright rejections or the withdrawal of applications. However, for the reasons I will outline shortly, we do not think this amendment is necessary, as the existing provisions in the Planning Act 2008 and new Section 55A provide sufficient transparency and protection for applicants.
The Government expect that this new provision will be used where an application does not strictly comply with requirements but where the application could quickly address any deficiencies or gaps. For example, regulations under the Planning Act require plans and drawings to be of a specified size and scale, and this includes specific requirements where multiple sheets are provided. Where applications need revision to comply with these or other such requirements, this process will allow for changes to be made easily where an application would previously have been rejected. Subsections (2) and (5) of the new section also require the Secretary of State to inform the applicant of what changes are needed and when these are needed by.
Moreover, the NSIP regime is built around strong principles of transparency and fairness. The Secretary of State will still be required to provide the applicant with the reasons why an application has not been accepted. The Planning Inspectorate routinely provides advice to potential applicants under Section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 before an application is submitted and is required to publish such advice on its website. Therefore, advice to the applicant at the pre-application stage, which can be used to highlight any more significant concerns, is already made publicly available. Given that the Planning Act 2008 and new Section 55A already require an explanation to be provided to applicants for why an application has been rejected, we do not believe that these amendments are required.
The Government have committed to consult on guidance to support consultation and engagement for nationally significant infrastructure projects this summer, as I have already outlined. As part of this consultation, we would very much welcome views on the acceptance of applications and the guidance needed to support the changes in the Bill. In particular, we recognise the importance of ensuring that requests made to applicants to provide additional information are proportionate, and we will ensure that guidance sitting alongside this change makes that clear. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and, for all these reasons, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, but I am not reassured. I am still not at all clear what the developers are being asked for, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Banner, and we have heard from developers as well. There needs to be clarity not about what they should change but why they have been turned down. I hope the Minister and I can talk more about this, but I am considering bringing it back on Report if we do not get the reassurance that the clarity that developers need from the Secretary of State will be delivered by any changes that the Government are making. If not, we will press to make changes ourselves. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ravensdale
“Applications for development consent: low carbon energy infrastructureAfter section 35A in the Planning Act 2008 (timetable for deciding request for direction under section 35) insert—“35B Representations by relevant authorities, net zero and sustainable development(1) In relation to relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects, relevant authorities should have special regard to the matters in subsection (5) when carrying out the activities in subsection (6).(2) The relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects are —(a) the construction or extension of a generating station within the meaning of section 14(1)(a) for the purpose of low carbon electricity generation, or(b) the installation of an electric line above ground within the meaning of section 14(1)(b) for the conveyance of electricity generated by a station in subsection (a).(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) it does not matter whether the electric line is also used or intended for use in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated from other sources.(4) The relevant authorities are—(a) the conservation bodies in section 32 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (UK conservation bodies),(b) the Environment Agency, and(c) such other bodies as may be prescribed in regulation by the Secretary of State.(5) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are the need to contribute towards—(a) achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (Carbon target and budgeting),(b) the achievement of biodiversity targets under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,(c) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(d) achieving sustainable development.(6) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are any representations under Part 5 and Part 6. (7) In discharging their duty under subsection (1), the relevant authorities must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by Secretary of State.(8) In this section “low carbon electricity generation” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Energy Act 2013.””
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis, director of Peers for the Planet, and co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear.
We have had a number of discussions already in earlier groups about the tensions that potentially exist between competing objectives, such as growth, nature and net zero, and the issues with the regulators and the precautionary principle when it comes to large infrastructure. This has resulted in a regulatory system that is stopping large energy infrastructure being built—solar farms, wind farms, nuclear power stations—and is therefore destructive to our environment, not to mention the growth agenda.
Some of the well-known examples, such as bat tunnels and acoustic fish deterrents, have already come up in previous groups, but a lesser-known example is a worm called Sabellaria that builds and lives in tubes on the seabed—I hope noble Lords will bear with me for a minute. This information is courtesy of Catherine Howard, partner at HSF Kramer. For offshore wind projects, the conservation body advised compensation for impact to Sabellaria when placing rock on the seabed, even in areas where Sabellaria is not present—I repeat, even in areas where it is not present. That resulted in a two-year delay to offshore wind farms, including the trio of Norfolk offshore wind projects: Norfolk Vanguard East, Norfolk Vanguard West and Norfolk Boreas. These projects, consented to in 2021-2022 by Vattenfall and since sold to RWE, have been delayed by approximately two years due to the inability to satisfy seabed compensation requirements. This is holding up infrastructure that is a top priority for net zero and energy security for the UK.
Examples such as this are commonplace across our infrastructure, adding billions in cost and years in delay. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned the 44,000 pages of the Sizewell C environmental assessment: a stack of paper 5 metres high—taller than a double-decker bus. The planning application for the Lower Thames Crossing was 359,000 pages—if all that was laid end to end it would total 61 miles, five times the length of the crossing itself.
Part of the solution here comes later in the Bill, in Part 3. A really important piece of the puzzle is the regulators themselves and how they are set up. My Amendment 46 in effect would put duties on the relevant regulators, with a scope limited to electricity generation projects, to take account of the benefits as well as the local environmental impacts of projects. By putting a net-zero duty on the Environment Agency and the statutory nature conservation bodies, the regulators would be directed to consider the broader benefits of electrical generation infrastructure and balance these with the local environmental impacts. It is really that macro versus micro view.
At the moment, the regulators are concerned purely with the local environmental impact of a particular piece of infrastructure, not with the potential macro benefits that the piece of infrastructure may bring. There could be a number of different duties to consider here—for example, energy security—but a net-zero duty is easiest to define for coherence with government targets.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to my Amendment 46A, which is a good example of trying to knit the Bill together. We are trying to speed up aspects of planning decisions on infrastructure, yet also—I will not go heavily into Part 3—create environmental improvement.
This is quite a simple, straightforward amendment. I am very grateful for the counsel of Alexa Culver, with whom I have been engaging through LinkedIn. She is counsel at RSK and is doing a very good job of seeing how this is coming together. In essence, in the Bill as it stands, Natural England is tasked with creating this environmental delivery plan—I am concerned about certain aspects of Part 3—which will hopefully, to paraphrase, improve the environment. That document will be created and approved by the Secretary of State for Defra to make sure that we see improvements.
Therefore, for me it is exceptionally logical that whenever a Secretary of State in another department makes a decision on NSIPs and considers where the national policy statement has effect, they should also, in effect, consider the environmental delivery plan as it is. Under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State already has to consider national policy statements, marine policy documents if relevant, other aspects regarding local impacts and
“any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are … important”.
That is absolutely critical. In all the changes, particularly in Part 3, the Government are saying that they can have the best of both by doing this. My amendment would make certain that they have to consider it and that it will actually get delivered. That is why I have tabled it at this stage of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on his Amendment 46. On Amendment 46A, I would be very surprised if the Secretary of State did not take account of EDPs. From the provision that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, read out, the Secretary of State clearly has the power to do so.
On Amendment 46, we partly return to the role of regulators. There is a perverse output of regulators making it difficult to achieve net-zero targets, which I find very difficult. Some regulators find it difficult to go wider than the very narrow remit that they seem to work under. One of the questions to the Government is: do they really think it will make a difference? It is easy to make fun of bats or acoustic fish deterrents, but it is fair to ask whether, as a result of this legislation, we will see an end to the ludicrous behaviour of regulators, which has cost so much money, delayed projects by so much time and, as we know, achieved absolutely zilch for conservation or nature preservation. Ultimately, that is the test.
It seems that the regulators do not come under enough challenge on their performance. Somehow, we need to put some mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that the regulators come under the microscope much more on how they behave and that they are held accountable. That is why the amendment is very well judged.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will chiefly offer support to Amendment 46A from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
In response to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who said that of course the Government would not do this, I am afraid that we hear that very often in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord may be speaking for his own Government, but we are making law for potential future Governments, and we cannot know how they will behave. That is a reason to put Amendment 46A in the Bill.
I respond to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Hunt, with a little reminder that we are one of the most nature-depleted corners of this battered planet. If our regulators have not succeeded in doing the job they should have done in protecting nature, the answer is not to take away more power from the regulators. By all means, make them work better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, we will undoubtedly discuss this at great length in relation to Part 3, but the Bill currently takes away an enormous amount of protection for nature, which is a huge problem.
In talking about Amendments 46 and 46A, I will refer to Defra’s own words from a blog post in 2025 that, we can assume, represents the Government’s view. It starts with a statement with which I can only agree:
“Nature is the bedrock of our entire way of life”.
As I often put it, the economy is a complete subset of the environment; none of the economy exists without a healthy environment. That blog seeks to defend the nature restoration fund, the environment delivery plans and all the other steps that this Government are introducing. You might say that the blog post is a little too vehement for its own good and that its tone sounds extremely defensive. None the less, we can all think of examples of where the Government have, on the one hand, done something for nature, but, on the other, done enormous damage with other policies.
One of the obvious examples that comes to mind here is peat. Peatland is terribly important for nature and for climate. Large amounts of money are spent on restoring peatlands. We also have continued use of the land for driven grouse shooting and the burning of large amounts of peat causing great damage—and continual horticultural use of peat. So we have the Government trying to expensively restore something while continuing to allow the destruction of it. That is why this needs to be in the Bill. I could give many more examples, but given the hour I will not, of where the Government are, in essence, facing in two directions at once and nature is torn down the middle as a result.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is a very good amendment, but it refers only to low-carbon energy infrastructure. Of course, he is an expert in that, and that is fine. The comments made by him, my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to a much wider subject: are regulators a good thing or not and are we controlling them? To say that we want to make changes to the regulations on low-carbon energy infrastructure without looking at others means we are missing something. We have big problems with many regulators, but it should be a consistent policy. It needs to be done on a much more scientific and level playing field rather than it being just something which relates to whether we think what they are doing is a good thing or a bad thing. I do not think that is the right way to look forward. Maybe when the noble Lord comes to wind up, he can explain why the amendment refers just to low-carbon energy infrastructure.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord now. I thank him for his comments. He is absolutely right that there is a broader point here, but the amendment took into account the scope limitations of the Bill, which is why we raised it in that way. He is right that there is a broader point on regulators, but that would take it outside the scope of this legislation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these have been two very interesting amendments to think about. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, quite rightly points to the fact that there are significant delays in wind farms in the North Sea because of demands by regulators in relation to Sabellaria. There is the tension that we started this Committee day with, which is if, as a country or as a world, we do not go down the net-zero route, there will not be nature to protect, because most of Norfolk and Suffolk will disappear under the waves of the North Sea. There has to be some balancing act between retention and restoration of nature, and not wilful destruction of it, but at the same time enabling the move towards net zero that we must do at speed. I am glad I am not in a ministerial position where I have got to do that balancing act, but that has to happen. We will not please everybody; that is also true.
The other issue that has come into this debate is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put it—I think I quote him correctly—“the egregious behaviour of regulators”. But it is this Parliament that provides the duties for regulators. A Parliament some time ago demanded that regulators look after the marine environment—or Natural England and all the rest of it.
It is about trying to pull all the moving parts together and understanding where we have to do the trade-offs. I have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, but also with the emphasis on the importance of continuing to protect and preserve nature. That is what the Bill ought to be able to do, but I am not sure that it does—in fact, at the moment, I am convinced that it does not. I hope that by continual discussion we will find a route through if the Government are willing to listen.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Krebs. It is interesting, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Pinnock, that we keep coming back to this issue of prioritisation, hierarchy and the role of regulators. I particularly note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we need to start resolving this issue. I am sure that on this side of the House we shall come back to it as we progress through the Bill, but I want to focus on this amendment.
There is no doubt that we have to address the issue of low-carbon energy and low-carbon infrastructure. It will be essential to hitting our zero-carbon targets and addressing the challenges of climate change. Although we support the efforts to advance clean energy, we must also guard against an unbalanced approach, particularly one that risks compromising the reliability and resilience of our energy systems. Low-carbon generation should not be considered in isolation, as I believe the noble Lord mentioned, or privileged above all other forms of infrastructure. The grid as we know it is undergoing rapid change; the Government’s ambition to rebuild it around renewable sources within just five years is rooted in ideology. Solar and wind are by nature intermittent. They cannot provide the stable backbone that the grid requires.
The stability of our electricity system depends on what is known as inertia, the capacity to resist sudden fluctuations in frequency. This essential property is delivered by turbines in energy-dense technologies such as nuclear, hydro and gas-fired power stations. It is not delivered by wind or solar farms. Without sufficient inertia, we run the risk of system destabilisation, leading to the worst case of failures and blackouts. We need a serious, detailed plan to safeguard the resilience and sovereignty of the UK’s energy supply. That means ensuring a mix of technologies, including those that deliver system stability and resilience, as well as decarbonisation.
On the amendment, we have a number of questions which we hope noble Lords can address. First, it refers to “sustainable development”, a term that invites interpretation. In planning, there is already a well understood definition of sustainable development in relation to planning applications for housing and commercial development, but I do not believe that that is intended here. What precisely is meant here and how is it to be applied in practice? How do we avoid confusion with the existing interpretation of sustainable development?
Secondly, on the list of regulators, why were these specific bodies selected and by what criteria? We welcome collaboration, but it must be clear and consistent.
Finally, there is the matter of the Secretary of State’s powers to prescribe other relevant bodies by regulation. That is a significant authority, and I would be grateful for clarity on how it would be exercised and scrutinised. Although we support the spirit of this amendment, we urge caution and a desire to have a balanced approach.
Briefly, on Amendment 46A tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, she raises an important point, so we will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply. Ensuring that planning consent has considered environmental protections is of course vital and must not be overlooked.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lords, Lords Ravensdale and Lord Krebs, seeks to ensure that in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities such as the Environment Agency should have special regard for the need to contribute to certain government environmental targets when making representations as interested parties under the Planning Act 2008.
The amendment refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting; adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008; achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021; and achieving sustainable development. As we have heard throughout the debate today, and at earlier stages of the Bill, it is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure that we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. As my colleagues in the other place noted, the Bill can deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery.
To pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, regarding the Corry review, which was important, the review recommended that the Government publish a refreshed set of outcomes and strategic policy statements for regulators, with the aim of restating the Government’s priorities and mandating regulators to use constrained discretion to deliver them. This might answer some of the noble Lord’s questions about this. The Government have accepted this recommendation, one of the nine Corry recommendations being fast-tracked. We are moving quickly to publish the first set of strategic policy statements. I hope that this is helpful.
I thank the noble Lords for their constructive and helpful proposals in this amendment, which seeks to ensure that input from specific statutory consultees is given with the wider context of government targets in mind. The Government agree with the intention behind the amendment. I reassure noble Lords that the Government already have the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process.
The national policy statements for energy infrastructure take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. In particular, these national policy statements grant critical national priority status to low-carbon projects. This means that the types of projects that the noble Lord is most concerned with have additional weight in the planning balance. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a duty on public bodies to have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State in making those representations which are referred to in the noble Lords’ amendment.
The Government will consult later this summer on what guidance about consultation and engagement on the NSIP process should contain, as I have already outlined. As we review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider, alongside government policy in national policy statements, how we can support the intent of this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is reassured and will withdraw the amendment.
On the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the definition of sustainability, I will consult further and come back to him.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I was repeating the request from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise. I took the liberty of popping out of the Chamber for five minutes. We will reply on that.
Amendment 46A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to ensure that when determining whether planning consent should be granted for a nationally significant infrastructure project, the Secretary of State must take into account any environmental delivery plan applying to the land that will be developed. The Committee will be scrutinising Part 3 of the Bill in a later sitting. I look forward to that, but I am happy to speak to this amendment today.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill creates a new type of plan: an environmental delivery plan—EDP. Within an area defined in an EDP, Natural England will identify the impact that relevant development is expected to have on a defined environmental feature or features. These can be features of protected sites or a protected species. Natural England will then set out a package of conservation measures that will outweigh the impacts of the development on the relevant environmental feature.
This process for developing EDPs and the wider set of safeguards across the NRF will be subject to further discussion under Part 3. However, in respect of this amendment, the crucial point is that once an EDP is approved by the Secretary of State that covers development of the type in question and in the location in question, developers will be able to make a payment through the nature restoration levy, which would discharge the relevant environmental obligation being addressed through the EDP. Where a developer chooses not to utilise an EDP, they will need to address these environmental obligations under the existing system. As a decision for the developer, it would not be necessary to require the Secretary of State, when considering a development consent order, to have regard to an EDP that the developer might choose not to use. In these circumstances, the decision would need to consider whether the application was in line with existing environmental obligations.
Further to this, mandating that the Secretary of State takes account of an EDP removes flexibility for the developer on how to discharge environmental obligations. This could impact on the viability of a scheme and would undermine the Government’s commitment to decide 150 infrastructure planning consents during this Parliament, as well as wider growth objectives. I appreciate that there are still some questions in there about how EDPs will work, but that is not the subject of today’s discussion—we will cover that under Part 3.
Furthermore, while the content of an EDP is not intended to be relevant to the planning merits of a determination, if the Secretary of State determines that an applicable EDP is material, they can have regard to it. That is already the case: under Section 104(2)(d) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must have regard to any other matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision. This could include any relevant EDP. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that response. I will address some of the questions that noble Lords raised. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jameson, about sustainable development, but he mentioned the specific list of bodies. When we started out with this amendment, we had a long list of bodies and agencies that would be considered within the amendment, but we were informed by the Public Bill Office that that would present hybridity concerns, which is why we limited it to the subset that noble Lords can see in the amendment today. The reason we have gone with those is that most of the issues we have had with regulation of large infrastructure have been to do with the Environment Agency and the statutory nature of conservation bodies, but we have given that power for other bodies to be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
As I said, I thank the Minister. I am very encouraged by what she said. I note that she talked about the strategic priority statements in terms of duties on regulators, but I would note the strength of a statutory duty, which I think is quite important here in pinning down the objectives of regulators. There will be a lot of benefit in doing that within statutes. I look forward to seeing that in further detail, and I would welcome further engagement with the Minister on this point between now and Report. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“(4A) In section 104(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) at end insert—“(ba) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates,””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when determining whether planning consent should be granted for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, the Secretary of State must take into account any EDP applying to the land which will be developed.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am not moving Amendment 46A, although I would like to speak to the Minister about this, because I am not overly satisfied and may seek to bring the amendment back on Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the requirement for all planning appeals to be considered at a hearing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we come to another interesting clause. In essence, I am trying to find ways to identify those infrastructure developments that are of critical national importance to see whether there is a way in which we can streamline the process of approvals that they have to go through. Also, in picking up the points from the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, about the need for democratic legitimacy, I am seeing whether we can use parliamentary processes to help.
I am moving Amendment 47 and speaking to Amendments 48, 49, 52, 53 and 65. The two substantive amendments are Amendments 52 and 65. I have two on judicial review which, because of the mystique of groupings for the first day, should really be grouped with a number of other JR amendments that we will come to later, so I will be brief in speaking on those.
My Amendment 52, in essence, creates a short, abridged parliamentary process to confirm Ministers’ decisions to give development consent for infrastructure projects as a critical national priority. Apparently, until the late 1990s, we had a system of provisional order confirmation Bills, whereby Parliament could confirm orders made by UK Ministers for various proposals, including infrastructure projects. There are many of these on the statute book so it is, in fact, a tried and tested approach that we could use for some projects where we need to speed up delivery but we need to have parliamentary approval as well.
This kind of approach, using a development consent order confirmation Bill, could take only four to six months to go through Parliament, which is nothing like the complexity of the hybrid Bill. We have seen that with HS2, which ultimately failed to satisfy anybody and built in huge delays. We are where we are with HS2. Having said that, the station being built in Birmingham looks pretty good; we can only hope that, one day, a train is actually able to arrive there.
The point about this amendment is to give Parliament a vote. I have very much accepted this point about the need for Parliament to have a say in some of these matters. In a sense, this is another trade-off; I am saying that some projects need to be dealt with in a special way—nationally, by being taken by Ministers, by going through the necessary procedures to ensure that they are appropriate and in being given legitimacy by parliamentary vote. It would give businesses and developers much greater certainty about investment decisions and, as I have said, ensure that we have a proper democratic say in these very important decisions.
Amendment 53 is related to Amendment 52 and would repeal Section 150 of the Planning Act 2008. I well recall our debates on that regime, because I was a Minister involved in it. The NSIP regime was designed with the intention of being a one-stop shop for major infrastructure projects, in terms of the consents required. However, the effect of Section 150 of the 2008 Act has been to stop development consent orders from being as much of a one-stop shop as they could be, because certain regulators have a veto on whether a DCO can roll consents into it that would otherwise have to be obtained separately from regulators. We have already debated the problem of having multiple regulators involved; they do not seem to be able to work together and co-ordinate their response.
I know that there was a debate on a similarly worded amendment that was proposed in the other place. The Government had some concerns about it but promised guidance on how to wrap up other consents in a DCO. However, the problem with that is that the regulators’ veto remains, which is why I argue that it should be moved.
My Amendment 65 can be seen in parallel: I seek to enable the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as critical national developments; establish an expert critical national developments task force to advise on each application; and provide that planning permission and any other regulatory consent for such development is deemed to be granted six months after the application is made, unless the Secretary of State issues a written objection within that period or extends the period. Of course, here, I am anticipating the response of my noble friend, because I noted that she was not very keen on my earlier amendment on timelines because different infrastructure developments have different requirements and probably different timelines. This amendment allows the Government to be able to sort of flex the timeline according to circumstances.
I would argue that, at the moment, Ministers lack a coherent mechanism to prioritise and accelerate delivery of critical infrastructure projects. The DCO regime has not really, in the end, delivered what we hoped it would when we took it through Parliament. I hesitate again to mention Sizewell C, but eight years from application to consent is just hopeless, and I must say that on Heathrow too. I support the third runway at Heathrow, because I think that, as the Government have said, this will take place within carbon budgets, but it is just an example of how decisions here can be stuck for decades, and we really have to move on from that.
The amendment I am proposing here would centralise accountability with the Secretary of State. I would align it to my earlier amendment in relation to parliamentary consent. It would bring consents under a single process, introduce a statutory determination deadline and de-risk major investments.
There is international precedent for it. The Canadian Government have also faced great delays in major national infrastructure from fragmented approval systems, environmental litigation and federal/provincial conflicts. Recently, the Parliament of Canada has produced a law with very much the same principles as my amendment, which allows the Canadian Cabinet to designate nation-building projects, as they are called, via Orders in Council.
I refer to my other three amendments. Amendment 47 seeks to remove the requirement for any planning appeals to be considered at an actual hearing. That, in my view, is a streamlining process.
Amendments 48 and 49 are around judicial reviews. I really welcome Clause 12(1), which would restrict judicial review appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court decides the application for permission to apply for judicial review is totally without merit. Now, I have already paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his review; this clause follows that review. We received a very helpful letter from my noble friend the Minister this morning, which gives details about how the Government are going to follow up; that is very welcome indeed, but I just want to probe whether we can go further.
Amendment 48 relates to the reviews of NPSs at least every five years, which I warmly welcome. I take my noble friend’s point about the issue with NPSs that have not been subject to a review and therefore could be considered to be out of date. I just want to make sure that judicial reviews are not used in a way which unreasonably might block progress, so my amendment would remove the possibility of JR in two circumstances: in between the five-yearly reviews, by repealing Section 13(2) of the Planning Act 2008, and in relation to any revisions to NPSs that are solely non-material or are reflective changes—in other words, reflective of published government policy change legislation or court judgments which the Bill is providing for.
I am a strong believer in the judicial review process. My background is mainly in the health service, and the fact is that NHS bodies are sometimes fast and loose with legislation and guidance, particularly when it comes to the outsourcing of services, changes of use, closures of hospitals and the like. There is no doubt that the judicial review process has been necessary to ensure proper transparency. My problem with judicial review is when it is used, essentially, to try to block progress—hence the amendment.
Amendment 49 would bring legal consistency to the Planning Act so that it is the High Court where applications for JR would be made. It is not a substantive change but it would make sure that, in any future event, civil procedure rules cannot be made to divert planning appeals to any court other than the High Court. There is already precedent in Section 63 of the listed buildings Act, which makes it clear that appeals are to be made to the High Court. I think that could flow across the Planning Act.
I hesitate to talk about judicial review when the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is present, but it would be good to have at least some debate as to whether, in the light of his review, we could go further. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 52 is of prime importance. Our planning system has become sclerotic. According to the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill, the time that it takes on average to secure a development consent order, or DCO, for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. The development consent system is beset by objections and pleas and by judicial reviews, with several judicial reviews sometimes besetting the same project. The effects of the delay may be to cause an otherwise viable project to become uneconomic or unaffordable. Nowadays, such delays are often envisaged as a means of defeating a project. The conjunction of lawyers and protesters, which has given rise to a veritable industry, is a modern and unprecedented phenomenon.
Recently, I had good cause to consider such developments. I made a trip by car from London to Ilfracombe in Devon. I had intended to travel on the M4 motorway, which is a major arterial route. However, in consequence of its blockage, I was diverted, on the advice of the Google satnav system, on to the A303. In doing so, I remembered that 303 is the calibre of a rifle bullet. I had hoped to travel at the maximum legal speed, if not at the speed of a bullet. I was pleased to be able to do so until I was brought to a halt. I was then constrained to travel at a snail’s pace for a prolonged period, while passing an ancient stone monument on a single-lane road. I saw the ancient megaliths of Stonehenge on the brow of a hill, which were surrounded by a gathering of druids. I was reminded of their campaign, which has prevented the building of the Stonehenge bypass. They regret the presence of the road and resist the building of a bypass that would encroach upon Salisbury Plain. Some might regard their campaign as a worthy attempt to preserve the dignity of an ancient monument. However, there is another side to the story, which concerns the objections of residents in the neighbouring villages to the diversion of traffic on to their streets. They contend that their villages have an equal claim to preservation.
The legal wrangling has been interminable. The first grant of development consent for a bypass, in 2020, was quashed by the High Court in July 2021. It was then given the green light again, by the Department for Transport, which reissued a development consent two years later, in July 2023. The project was put on hold again, because of another series of judicial reviews, which were dismissed by the High Court in February 2024 and by the Court of Appeal in October 2024. Undeterred by those two defeats, the claimants asked the Supreme Court if they could appeal to it. On 29 January this year, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal, on the grounds that the challenge did not raise an arguable point of law.
However, this decision was immaterial since, within weeks of taking office last July, the Labour Government had scrapped the plans for a two-mile tunnel that would bypass the monument on the grounds that the cost of the project had become unaffordable. The decision to cancel the project was taken some three and a half years after the development consent order had been issued and after a full and detailed examination of all the issues. In this case, it might be said that the campaigners had won not by virtue of the strength of their case but by dint of endless legal chicanery and delay. However, the same recourse is available to many other parties who, for various reasons, wish to stand in the way of important development projects.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend spent a lot of time complaining about the A303. The simple solution is to go by train.
My noble friend is quite right that the planning process takes a very long time. I spent many years trying to do it in relation to building the Channel Tunnel. It is a long time ago now, but we still had to go through the hybrid Bill process, which took quite a long time. My French opposite number kept asking me, “Why the hell are you taking so long to get permission?” I said that we had to go through Parliament and have several debates, Select Committees and things like that. I asked him how they did it so quickly in France, where they were taking six weeks and we were taking three years. He said, “Well, it’s quite simple. It’s a bit like Canada. If you want to go quickly, you don’t consult the frogs if you are draining the pond”. That sums it up.
My worry about these amendments is that the hybrid Bill process needs reviewing. There is a lot of work to be done to make sure that, whatever goes in its place, including my noble friend’s excellent amendments, achieves what it is trying to do, which is to balance the needs of not just the Government and industry but the public who they serve. We need much more information about how that would work before we can form a view.
Something that has not been mentioned much so far in this debate is the question of a business case and viability. It is fine pushing ahead with all these things, such as Sizewell B—or is it C?—because the Government have said they are a good idea, but they have not actually said they are going to fund them. The same could have applied to HS2, but that has gone further and got into a bigger mess. A proper business case needs to be produced for any of these projects, alongside the planning regime, so that we can all form a view about whether it is likely that these projects will go ahead or whether they will fall flat on their face, which would be the worst of all worlds.
I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says. Maybe there is something in these amendments that is worth looking at, but we have to accept that there are many people in this country who do not like change and who want to do JRs or some other way of opposing what is planned, and we have to respect them as well. I look forward to my noble friend’s comments.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, it will probably already be apparent that in many respects the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I are in agreement about how the Bill can be made more effective, but on this group we are not yet quite aligned. I have a lot of sympathy with the intention behind Amendments 52 and 65 in particular, and I have immense respect for those behind the drafting. I myself wanted to go further when I was undertaking the review of legal challenges to M6, and I think it is important that I explain why I felt I could not, while I still need some convincing that it would be possible or sensible to go further.
When I did the review, I concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of judicial reviews of the M6 failed. It follows from this that the problem is not with the law, nor is it about “activist judges”, the term often used by some people about judges. It is about the time it takes for bad JRs to meet their doom. That is the problem, and to my mind the remedy for it is to shorten the judicial review process as much as possible. That is what my recommendations focused on, and I am told that Clause 12 in conjunction with the CPR changes—I have not been checking my emails so I still have not seen them—gives effect to those recommendations. That is what the changes would do.
To my mind, therefore, removing judicial review altogether, as things currently stand, would not achieve much more than a truncated JR process. For the really big stuff, the Heathrows and HS2s of this world, the system already allows for the JR process to be fast-tracked. The HS2 and Heathrow cases, both of which I was involved in, went from ground zero to the Supreme Court far quicker than normal cases—not much more than a year, in the HS2 case in particular.
The question then is: what are the downsides of going further, and does the relatively marginal benefit outweigh those downsides? In my view, the answer is no. There is a difficulty with ousters, whether done expressly through an ouster clause, which hardly ever works, or done in a more intelligent fashion than an express ouster, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, does, essentially asking Parliament to endorse a DCO and thus giving it the benefit of parliamentary sovereignty. Most DCOs involve the compulsory purchase of land and/or the acquisition of individual rights. There is a real danger, if that approach is undertaken, that there will come a point—whether because someone was denied a hearing because there was a mistake or because someone involved in the decision-making process inadvertently failed to disclose an interest—where something goes wrong in a CPO context. A person whose land, maybe their home, is to be acquired—or there is to be some other fundamental interference with their rights—is, it is said, denied any possibility of correcting an obvious legal error.
In that scenario, there is a real danger that the untested working assumption that Parliament is sovereign—for there is no written tablet of stone saying that the Supreme Court cannot quash legislation—will be tested, and we will not get the right answer. Pandora’s box would be opened and the Supreme Court would quash the legislation in question, and once opened you would never be able to put it back in the box. The lessons from the USA Supreme Court tell us that it would not stop there. This building would no longer be the most important on Parliament Square; it would be the Supreme Court building. That would clearly be a fundamental constitutional change, and most people would regard it as unwelcome to our democracy.
I also have a degree of discomfort about what is fundamentally an executive process being essentially laundered by Parliament, as opposed to it being a legislative process from start to finish, as the HS2 and Crossrail hybrid Bill processes were. I do not want to rain on the noble Lord’s parade, and that of those behind this. As I said, I see a lot of merit in trying to go further, but once you realise that the adverse delaying effects of JR can be cut down very substantially, the question is: does going further risk the constitutional crisis that it may very well facilitate, bearing in mind the very severe consequences and implications of that?
On Amendment 47, I recommended that the single shot for cases totally without merit be an oral hearing—as opposed to a written procedure, which is what Amendment 47 covers—because we are dealing with something that interferes with people’s property rights and can take away someone’s home. To my mind, given that degree of interference in fundamental rights, the individuals in question ought to have the right to at least one hearing, even if it is a 30-minute JR permission hearing that declares a case to be totally without merit. There ought to be at least one day in court—otherwise, fundamental constitutional principles and the legitimacy of the process could be undermined. There is no doubt that we need to sharpen up planning and infrastructure, but, if at all humanly possible, we need to do it in a way that carries people with us as opposed to alienating people; that is the way to make the system work.
I am yet to be convinced, but I am willing to be convinced. Ultimately, it is not me that the noble Lord needs to convince but the Minister and her colleagues. For the reasons I have given, I have a degree of nervousness about these amendments.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I do not have a huge amount to add to the comprehensive introduction provided by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but I want to pick up on a few things related to the nuclear industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned the eight years from application to consent for Sizewell C. The Government, of course, have big ambitions for the nuclear rollout. Tomorrow I am chairing a board meeting of Midlands Nuclear—a partnership organisation for nuclear across the Midlands region. We are looking at where we can site nuclear power stations within the Midlands, and at small modular reactors and advanced reactors, all in coherence with the Government’s plans through EN-7—the new national policy statement for a more flexible siting approach for nuclear.
There are big ambitions for nuclear and for the industry, but, given the experience we have had with Hinkley, Sizewell and other large infrastructure, we have to be radical. We have to think of new ideas that are going to help speed infrastructure through the system. That is why the Government should take these suggestions from the noble Lord, Hunt of Kings Heath, very seriously. I note that a lot of the principles in Amendment 52—the noble Lord mentioned the tried and tested process within that—and Amendment 65 are similar to those in a law that is being rolled out in Canada. The Government should consider these amendments very seriously.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I was astonished when I saw Amendment 52, but I will start briefly with Amendment 47. As my noble friend Lord Banner pointed out, this is just about being fair to people. As has been mentioned, effectively not allowing people to have hearings and an opportunity to speak when their livelihoods, homes or whatever it is are being ripped away is difficult.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, briefly, I feel that the discussion of this potentially extraordinarily far-reaching group of amendments has a different perspective from that of those I often work with—the environmental groups, human rights groups and groups representing disadvantaged communities that are bringing judicial reviews. The perspective I approach this from is how incredibly expensive and difficult judicial reviews are and how often they fail, even when, according to measures of common sense at least, they should have succeeded. That is very much where I come from.
The Committee does not just have to listen to me on this. We saw, particularly after the judicial review over the Prorogation of Parliament, a great deal of debate about judicial review. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed of Allermuir, the President of the Supreme Court, was quoted in the Law Society Gazette of March 2020:
“Judges are very well aware of the risk of challenges being brought in what are political rather than legal grounds. They are repelling them and are careful to avoid straying into what are genuine political matters. When this is a matter that is to be considered it should not start from the premise that judges are eager to pronounce on political issues. The true position is actually quite the opposite”.
We have a system of judicial review that very often does not work to defend the powerless in our society, and that of course includes nature as well as people. Yet it is there as a final backstop, and sometimes it works—sometimes it does protect those people—and so it is crucial that we maintain it.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his ingenuity. This single amendment has possibly the largest legal consequences I have ever seen, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, set out for us very clearly and with vastly more expertise than I can offer.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, that if we are thinking about trying to speed up judicial review, which in principle is not something that I have any problem with, one thing that undoubtedly slows it down is inequality of arms. Small community groups and environmental groups face a massive inequality of arms; it is very hard for them to go fast, because they just do not have the resources. They have to wait until the crowdfunder has raised some more money before they can keep going. Perhaps dealing with that inequality of arms would be good for the efficiency of decision-making in our society.
None the less, it is fairly self-evident, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I will say that I am strongly opposed to the approach being taken in this group of amendments.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has brought before us his own Bill. It is worthy to stand alone and provoke a significant discussion about how different procedures could deal with large-scale infrastructure applications. I am not in a position to know whether it would work or not. It is an attempt to provide an alternative, and I am looking forward to the Minister, with all the civil servants behind her, being able to explain why it will or will not work.
I always start from a different starting point, which is that, first, we are a small island. Comparing us with Canada and its vast expanse, or even with France, which is significantly geographically larger than the United Kingdom with a similar population, makes for poor comparisons.
That is the first of the challenges anyone in this country has with large-scale infrastructure. The second is this. No case was made to people about the benefits to them from either of the large-scale infrastructure projects that have been mentioned, HS2 and the A303. HS2 was never about shaving 10 minutes off a journey between London and Birmingham or 20 minutes off a journey to Leeds—though it will never get there. It was never about that. It was about congestion on the railways, but that case was never made. So it is no surprise when the public do not respond to the project in that way. Why are we going through the destruction of our villages and favoured landscapes for the sake of 20 minutes? That was the argument. You have to make the case and the case is not being made. It was the same with the A303 and various other major projects. That seems to me to be a difficulty.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, using the word “radical”. That word is always used by developers when they want something that the rest of us do not want. We might want its outcome, but we do not like what it is going to do to our environment. I think we have to try harder.
As for the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, calling planning “sclerotic”, this element of infrastructure planning is very difficult, but let us not label the whole of the planning process as sclerotic. Local planning authorities do not hold up development; the statistics demonstrate that. The issue is with infrastructure planning. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has brought forward his alternative procedure for it. Whether or not that would work, I will leave to others with more detailed backing from the civil servants to decide.
The issue with planning applications, big or small, is always that if you do not involve the public and tell them what it is for, what it will do and what the downsides are, you set yourself up for a big fight, and that is what happens. As for the judicial review, what do I know about it except that it seems to go on for ever and achieve nothing—and costs a lot of money as well. If you resort to the legal process to resolve applications which should be decided between elected people and the community, you are never going to get an answer. I look forward to the reply and a judgment on this one.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath. The amendments in this group all relate to the role of appeals and the judicial processes involved in national policy statements. As many noble Lords have said, the current system for critical national infrastructure does not work. We need to get a move on, but we also need to protect the environment and nature. I quite liked the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. He alluded to the absurdity that Stone Age man could build Stonehenge quicker than 21st-century man can build a bypass round it. This just does not make sense.
It is no secret that the court system is facing a severe backlog. This is a point we have made from this Dispatch Box on numerous occasions during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill. As we argued then, there is simply not enough capacity for courts to hear endless challenges. Continual judicial reviews of decisions made by planning bodies clog up the courts, causing significant delays to the planning and building process. If we are to have an effective programme of infrastructure development and housebuilding that will boost economic growth, we must ensure not only that vexatious legal delays are kept to a minimum but that the threat of these—which, as we have heard, cause delays and lorry-loads of paperwork—is avoided.
Amendment 52 seems to present a paradox. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is understandably seeking to speed up the planning process through his Amendment 48, which is, we believe, a somewhat reasonable proposal, although we do have concerns regarding the risk of the Secretary of State having even greater Henry VIII powers.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate on a critical issue and aspect of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath deserves a lot of credit for some interesting thinking around how we might unblock some of the serious issues that have been holding up the planning system. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this section of the debate: the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Ravensdale, Lord Jamieson and Lord Banner, whom I also thank for his work in this area, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke about the sclerotic planning system. We all know it is sclerotic. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, argued that that is not because of local government; I have a lot of sympathy with what she says, having spent a lot of time with local government. However, there is no doubt the system is blocked up. There are many reasons for that and I set out in one of my earlier speeches that that is why we require a whole package of measures to unblock the system. We require some new thinking as well, and that is why I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt.
These amendments seek to amend the various routes of appeal and rights to judicial review for both NSIPs and national policy statements, and a new designation of development called critical national infrastructure.
Amendment 47 seeks to remove the requirement for the determination of permission in judicial review cases concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects to be made at an oral hearing. At present, individuals and organisations seeking to challenge these projects have up to three attempts to gain permission from the court: a paper stage, an option to renew at an oral hearing, and, if unsuccessful, an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Each of these attempts can extend the duration of the claim by several weeks—which I think is the positive thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was talking about earlier—but in some cases, by several months. This is why we are making provision in Clause 12 to streamline this process.
As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and many stakeholders who responded to the call for evidence on this matter, the paper permission stage is not efficient with regard to challenges relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects. The majority of claims are refused permission at the paper stage; of these, most go on to renew their case at an oral hearing.
Removing the paper stage will allow any disputed question of permission to go straight to an oral hearing. This will help reduce the overall time it takes for a claim to reach a final decision, limiting the period of uncertainty for developers and local communities. This provision does not mean that all future applications will require a permission hearing as cases can still proceed directly to a substantive hearing if the question of granting permission is not disputed by the parties.
The other provision in Clause 12 will ensure that where a judge in an oral hearing at the High Court deems the case totally without merit—I presume that is a legal phrase because it has capital letters in my notes—it will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. These changes are necessary to prevent meritless claims from holding up projects by exhausting the appeals process and will ensure that legitimate challenges are heard more quickly.
Amendment 48 seeks to amend the Planning Act 2008 to make certain decisions relating to national policy statements exempt from legal challenge. By seeking to remove the right to apply for a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to carry out a review of the relevant national policy statement, the first part of this amendment would undermine the requirement introduced in Clause 1.
Regarding the second part of this amendment, I recognise my noble friend’s intention to facilitate routine changes to national policy statements by making immaterial changes exempt from legal challenge. However, the public’s ability to challenge the lawfulness of government decisions is fundamental to the rule of law, and it is for the court to determine whether a decision has been taken lawfully.
It is for the court to decide whether a legal challenge ought to be considered, and there is already a mechanism for the court to deal with challenges concerning matters which are not likely to have a material impact. Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the High Court to refuse permission for judicial review if it considers it
“highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred”
Amendment 49 seeks to clarify that legal challenges relating to development consent orders made under Section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 must be brought to the High Court. Section 118 stipulates that proceedings must be brought by a claim of judicial review. Details of the judicial review process are set out in Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and in the relevant practice directions. Further guidance can be found in the Administrative Court’s Judicial Review Guide. It is made clear in the relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents that applications for judicial review are to be made to the High Court. I trust that this reassures my noble friend that there is sufficient clarity about the process and that legislative change is not required in this regard.
I thank my noble friend for his Amendments 52 and 65, which I will consider together. As he knows, I agree entirely with the intent behind them. As noble Lords will have heard throughout this debate, it is one of this Government’s central objectives to speed up the consenting process for all major infrastructure projects. The reforms we are making to the NSIP regime through the Bill will help us go further in speeding up the consenting process for all the infrastructure this country needs.
As we have already debated, the current pre-application process is producing counterproductive outcomes and extending pre-application timeframes. That is why we are removing the statutory pre-application consultation requirements. We will issue guidance through the Bill to assist applicants, setting out what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take in relation to a proposed application, in readiness for submitting an actual application.
Doing so will give applicants flexibility in how they consult and engage key bodies, local authorities and individuals about their proposed development, leading to more meaningful and effective pre-application engagement and shorter pre-application timeframes. Through the Bill, we will also enable the Secretary of State to direct certain development out of the NSIP regime, where such development could be considered by an alternative regime that may be more appropriate. This has the potential to expedite the consenting process and deliver infrastructure more quickly.
I appreciate that my noble friend is motivated by a desire to ensure that highly critical and urgent infrastructure projects can progress more quickly. We all want to deliver these schemes as quickly as possible, but we need to make sure we can do so without unnecessary disruption and with sufficient certainty for both applicants and decision-makers. We need to weigh up whether the radical overhaul he proposes is the best way forward, given the changes that we are already making.
As my noble friend knows, a critical national priority status can already be applied to projects and sectors delivering essential infrastructure. Projects with this status are given priority in the planning process, and the CNP policy affects how certain residual impacts are considered in the planning balance. We are starting to see the positive impacts of CNP status on recent NSIP projects; for example, through the energy national policy statements, CNP status is applied to renewable and low-carbon energy projects. With the mandating of regular NPS updates, it will be easier than ever before to consider whether more or different projects should benefit from this status.
My noble friend offers two ways in which a critical status could be applied to projects, and I will speak about both in turn. He suggests introducing a specialist task force to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. This is, in essence, the role that the independent examining authority fulfils under the NSIP regime. Under the Planning Act 2008, a panel of experts is appointed to examine each NSIP application and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on whether a project should be given consent. As setting up a specialist task force would likely draw from the same pool of planning and infrastructure experts, such a proposal risks disruption to the NSIP regime and slowing down the consenting of infrastructure.
Also in this amendment, my noble friend suggests granting deemed consent for critical national development. This is an interesting proposal, but it faces a number of challenges. First, deemed consent cannot be used to consent development that is required to be assessed under the environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations regimes. Most major infrastructure projects are EIA developments and must undergo a full EIA process, including the submission of an environmental statement and an assessment by the relevant authorities. Secondly, further questions would arise around the Government’s compliance with international law, notably the Aarhus convention. This requires signatories to enable concerns about the impacts of a project to be incorporated into the decision-making process. This is what the Planning Act 2008 already enables, through the examination stage and consideration of relevant representations. Failure to account for this is likely to increase the risk of legal challenge and make planning decisions more vulnerable to being overturned by the courts.
I now turn to my noble friend’s amendment that would introduce a power for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as a critical national priority. Once designated, these projects would follow the normal process for a DCO but then be subject to additional parliamentary approval. A public Bill would be introduced, which given that it affects private interest, would then engage the petitioning process. Once petitions are resolved, the Bill would be fast-tracked through both Houses to Royal Assent. The objective of this process would be to protect the DCO from judicial reviews.
This proposal is, without doubt, interesting and thought-provoking. As we have already debated today, the Government are using the Bill to tackle meritless legal challenges that delay projects and increase costs. We have also demonstrated that we are willing to go further, if necessary, to speed up the planning system and get Britain building.
The amendment touches on complex issues around the role of the courts versus Parliament—as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, indicated—in managing the conflicts that arise between private and public interests on large-scale infrastructure projects. It has enabled us to debate novel solutions to the challenges we face in building the infrastructure we need. The measures in the Bill already make targeted and impactful interventions to the consenting system to ensure greater certainty to investors and applicants, which will speed up the delivery of national infrastructure priorities, including those of critical urgency. For those reasons, and because of the discussions we have already had, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendments.
On the amendment which seeks to repeal Section 150 of the Planning Act 2008, with the aim of reducing post-consent delays to construction, I thank my noble friend for raising this matter. It is indeed something the Government have been considering. When applicants submit their DCO for a nationally significant infrastructure project, Section 150 enables them to include other prescribed necessary secondary consents as well. The intent behind this section was to ensure that the NSIP process could be a one-stop shop, with applicants securing all the permissions they need to build via a single process. This could save them precious time and avoid them having to seek these consents separately after they have secured development consent.
However, Section 150 is drafted so that for certain prescribed consents this may be done only with the permission of the relevant regulatory body. Repealing Section 150 means that securing permission from the relevant consenting body, such as the Environment Agency, would no longer be necessary.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the whole Committee would wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for her very comprehensive response, which has been replicated throughout today’s proceedings. I am very grateful to her for the attention that she has paid.
I cannot say that this set of amendments has enjoyed uniform support among your Lordships, but I hope they have provoked a debate. I welcome the Bill. It is definitely going in the right direction, but there are still some concerns that I and a number of colleagues have about whether it is really going to cut the cake in the end, hence we are looking at the issues about judicial review. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his comments. I take his point about compulsory purchase and property rights in particular.
We need to come to an end. I will of course consider this very carefully. We still need to look at whether there are some supercharging approaches we can take to the really important infrastructure developments we need, with the benefit of parliamentary scrutiny and legitimacy. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Thursday 24th July 2025
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-II(c) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (24 Jul 2025)
Lord Lucas
“Livestock markets and abattoirsThe Secretary of State must, on the day on which this Act is passed, set in train the creation of a national policy statement under section 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (national policy statements) covering the development of livestock markets and abattoirs.”Member’s explanatory statement
Giving livestock markets and abattoirs the privileges accorded to national infrastructure would provide the foundations for the creation of a new network of livestock markets and abattoirs, with good communications and outside town centres, ensuring that animals could be dealt with locally and humanely and profitably.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, looking at livestock markets and abattoirs as critical national infrastructure would enable a coherent response to a set of problems that have been building up for many years. In the 1970s, the UK had around 2,500 abattoirs. By 2024, it had dropped to fewer than 200. That has resulted in a rising trend in animals suffering long journeys by road, and a sharp decline in the availability of abattoirs catering for independent and local food suppliers, such as butchers and restaurants wishing to supply local meat and farmers wishing to be part of local produce marketing arrangements. We should have care for both those things. We have these animals in our trust, and to treat them badly when we could treat them better is not something we should contemplate; and we need to cater for local and individual food markets if we are to have a healthy food economy.
Abattoirs and livestock markets are difficult to site—abattoirs for obvious reasons, livestock markets because of the noise and traffic. The ideal sites for them are near major road junctions, taking traffic and noise away from towns, but such sites are difficult to get planning permission for, because the need for the sites is national but the need that the application is assessed against is purely local. That makes for a very difficult and uncertain planning process.
If we are to have a rational structure, something that really works for us as a nation, we need some clear thinking as to what should go where, not instantly but over time—the evolution of a plan that makes sense. Places with good communications outside town centres would ensure that animals can be dealt with locally, humanely and profitably. The evolution of such a structure would also have the benefit of freeing up land occupied by current sites within towns, which would be appreciated by locals as well as by the industry. Altogether, it ought to be a good thing to do, but to make it happen it needs to be thought through at a national level, not developed half-heartedly and randomly, trying to make things happen locally, because that clearly does not work. We are just seeing a process of further decline, intensification and discomfort for animals, and lack of facilities for local food producers.
Such an initiative might sensibly be combined with looking at the case for strategic, logistic and supply chain hubs, which need much the same sort of location—away from town centres and near good, strong road and rail transport—and have much the same difficulties in organising and planning, in that they are judged by, “Do we need this near Basingstoke?”, rather than, “Is this a logical part of the national structure of road transport?”. I have been looking at a particular proposal for such a hub near Popham in Hampshire, mostly because I spent a lot of my young life crawling over the railway workings at Popham, which are one of the most glorious sites for chalk downland flowers. I would hope to persuade any such development to include a similar space of bare chalk, which could be allowed to develop into a botanical heaven.
There is a need for the advantages that would come through some element of national planning, some bringing in of national considerations to siting abattoirs and livestock markets at transport hubs, so that instead of everything coming in at Southampton having to go up to the Midlands and down again to service the south of England, it could be dealt with more logically—locally, or in whatever other structure works nationally. That is something that the Government, with a good long time in power ahead of them, could reasonably contemplate giving some thought to and taking forward. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lucas. In another place I represented Northampton, and when I was first elected in February 1974 it had a very active market and abattoir, not on the outskirts but on the fringes, I suppose. That has been gone now for the best part of a quarter of a century, yet the need is still there. My noble friend is right because the nature of businesses today, as opposed to 50 years ago, has changed. The demand is there for local pubs, local restaurants and other small businesses allied to the area.
Additionally, we should never forget animal welfare—I am sure that none of us does, but it does get forgotten. Today, many animals taken to an abattoir are travelling for 50 miles, 60 miles or more. That is not good animal welfare. We have only to see, as I saw the other evening on the television, the problems with some animals not being looked after properly—the specific example was of the RSPCA in relation to dogs.
I am not sure my noble friend is totally right, though, in saying that it has to be totally national. Yes, there has to be a national strategy, and I would hope very much that it would be done in conjunction with the NFU, which has always taken a positive interest in this area. I am from the east Midlands, and I suspect we could do it equally well on a regional basis, perhaps within an overall national objective. Other things are done very successfully on a regional basis. I hope, first, that the Minister has an open mind on this and, secondly, that he has an enthusiasm to take it forward, because the principle of the amendment my noble friend has moved is, in my judgment, very important.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. My interest in animal welfare and good-quality meat comes from the south-west and talking over many years with the butchers who supply good meat. The two problems which noble Lords have identified are: the distance of travel, which is a very serious animal welfare issue; and the fact that over the last 20 or 30 years the supermarkets have put pressure on government to close as many small abattoirs as possible, so that they can get a greater share of the market. Also, as we have discussed in your Lordships’ House before, you must have a vet to witness the abattoir’s work, yet there is a shortage in the competitive supply of vets. One company appears to have a very large share of the market. I wonder whether Ministers should not go a little further and look at the whole question of competition in this field and, most importantly, the distance of travel.
I live on the Isles of Scilly. We have some very nice farmers there and some very nice cattle—which taste extremely good too—but they have to go to the mainland. On a small ship going up and down in the waves, these animals are pretty unhappy. For years, the farmers there have been lobbying to have an abattoir on the islands. Finally, after years, the new Duke of Cornwall has agreed to provide some land on St Mary’s where an abattoir can be built. It will therefore be a much shorter journey from the off islands to the abattoir. All the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has mentioned are still there, but it is a much shorter distance. I hope that that the Government will look at all these things and make sure that we have a competitive market for this which is also very animal friendly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, there are 100 million animals killed for meat in the UK every month, which is quite a statistic. There are 75,000 people who work in abattoirs and associated institutions. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord, Lucas, raises an important issue. Whether this is the right way to address it I am not quite sure because, as other speakers have said, we are talking about a systemic issue here. I often speak about our broken food system. At the heart of that broken food system is factory farming and the giant chicken and pig institutions which are associated with giant abattoirs, logically enough. We are approaching a land use framework, to be coming from the Government. Many noble Lords think that this does not get mentioned enough. If we think about land use and abattoirs, this all needs to fit together in a systemic way, whatever model you think should apply. Obviously, I have views on that.
I want to cross-reference what I was doing in your Lordships’ House about 12 hours ago. I was talking about the climate emergency and the impact of rising temperatures. I note that in 2022, the Government produced guidance that animals should not be transported except in temperature-controlled environments when the temperature—or the perceived temperature, taking account of humidity—is higher than 30 degrees Celsius. That might not historically have been much of an issue in the UK, but it is only going to continue and become a larger issue if you are moving animals. The longer the distance, the more you are unable to do it in the cool hours of the day.
We need a much more localised food system, which means small independent farmers and small independent abattoirs. Five small abattoirs closed in 2024 alone, and the figure is down to 49 from 64 in 2019. There is a real issue here, but it must be looked at systemically in the round, not just as abattoirs on their own. We have a huge animal welfare issue here. We also need to think about workforce. I found some statistics suggesting that the average age of a slaughterer is 63.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and thank him for raising this. We also thank him for tabling this amendment in good time so that this Committee could consider it.
This amendment seeks to designate livestock markets and abattoirs as critical national infrastructure. This is not merely a technical adjustment but a vital step towards securing the future of our rural communities, ensuring robust food security and upholding the highest standards of animal welfare across our nation. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent about the critical importance of maintaining and investing in small abattoirs and local livestock markets. We see them not just as commercial facilities but as essential pillars for rural economies, fundamental to animal welfare and crucial for food traceability. They are the very backbone of our local food systems and they in turn enable ethical meat production, allowing for shorter supply chains and reduced food miles, about which we have heard something already.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the closure of small abattoirs: operations in England fell from 64 in 2019 to 49 in 2023. This has exacerbated pressures on our rural communities, leading to significant challenges—including thousands of farm animals being culled, with the meat unable to be sold due to a lack of workforce. I will not get into the Brexit legacy, but this is clearly part of that too. According to a 2022 Food Standards Agency report, small abattoirs are closing at the alarming rate of 10% per year and within a decade may disappear altogether. This is not just an economic loss but a profound waste and a blow to animal welfare, as animals often face longer and more stressful journeys to distant facilities.
In the House of Commons during the passage of this Bill, my honourable friend Sarah Dyke MP, whose family are sixth-generation farmers in Somerset, highlighted the impact of regulatory and cost pressures, such as the 20% rise in meat inspection fees, which disproportionately affect these vital facilities. We have consistently called for the replacement of the small abattoir fund, which was removed in November 2024, and have proposed a £1 billion addition to the farming budget to sustain and enhance these networks. Yes, it was all fully costed when we made this proposal, with revenue-raising measures. We even advocate for innovative solutions, such as authorising mobile slaughter units to improve access in remote areas.
The inclusion of abattoirs and livestock markets as critical infrastructure would provide them with the protection and longevity that they desperately need within future planning and development strategies. Our 2024 manifesto explicitly committed to:
“Investing in rural and coastal infrastructure and services, including local abattoirs”
and livestock markets, to bolster community resilience and food security and to support younger workers in rural areas. This underpins our commitment to a comprehensive new animal welfare Bill, which we would love to see, ensuring high animal welfare standards throughout the food supply chain.
This is about providing the stability and recognition that these essential facilities deserve. It is about more than just buildings. It is about safeguarding the livelihoods of our farmers, ensuring humane treatment for animals, and building a more resilient, transparent food system for all. Think of it as a circulatory system of our rural economy. The abattoirs and livestock markets are the vital arteries and veins. Without protecting this core infrastructure, the entire body of our farming sector, and local food supply, will struggle to thrive—or worse, begin to fail. By acting now, we can revitalise and safeguard our rural heartlands for the generations to come. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 50 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, which would recognise livestock markets and abattoirs as critical national infrastructure. I draw the Committee’s attention to my register of interests, in particular as a dairy and livestock farmer. This amendment, if passed, would lay the foundation for a new, modernised network of these vital rural services—positions with proper transport links, outside of town centres, and designed to ensure that animals are dealt with humanely, locally and profitably.
As others have pointed out, the abattoir sector is in crisis. In 2023, just 60 small abattoirs remained operational in the UK. That number is falling at 10% per annum, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentions. At that rate, these essential businesses could vanish entirely. This would be disastrous for rural communities, food security and animal welfare.
Over 90% of abattoirs have closed in the past 50 years. Family farms face round trips of over 100 miles to slaughter just a handful of animals. It is inefficient and undermines the very animal welfare standards that we seek to uphold. However, it is more than just a logistical problem; it is a threat to the viability of local farming and the vitality of our regional food systems. A resilient, shorter and more farmer-focused supply chain demands a well-distributed network of small abattoirs, local butchers and livestock markets. These businesses form the bedrock of local food infrastructure. They offer private kill services for farmers who wish to add value, by marketing directly to consumers, and they provide an essential lifeline to farmers breeding rare or native breeds that larger processors often cannot or will not accommodate.
Two-thirds of livestock farmers report difficulty accessing appropriate abattoir services and one-third say that their nearest abattoir has already closed. Small abattoirs in particular are struggling to survive: they face rising energy costs, increased national insurance contributions and a regulatory system that is disproportionately burdensome. The rules are designed with large-scale processors in mind, not the nuance of a local operation handling a few thousand livestock units a year.
Our previous Conservative Government introduced the small abattoir fund to help these small businesses modernise and alleviate costs. Disappointingly, the current Labour Government chose to cancel it, sending entirely the wrong message to the rural economy after the family farms death tax and the abrupt cancellation of sustainable farming incentive applications.
Livestock markets are also disappearing from market towns. These are an essential part of rural life, where farmers and other rural inhabitants can come together, generating real social cohesion and a shared sense of community. If this Government are serious about rural resilience, food security and animal welfare, they should look to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would provide abattoirs with the planning status that they need to invest, modernise and survive. It would allow new facilities to be built with appropriate infrastructure and make it clear that local food systems matter just as much as energy or transport. Livestock markets will ensure that communities can continue to bond on market days.
This amendment speaks to a wider issue in our national life, where traditional social infrastructure is made uneconomic through burdensome regulation. Large, impersonal businesses are able to cope with this far better than small ones. I urge the Government to consider, in all legislation and regulation, how they can encourage and empower these community businesses to thrive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to create a national policy statement for livestock markets and abattoirs.
The Government are committed to a resilient food supply chain. A thriving abattoir network is vital to this, providing a competitive route to market for producers, including those rearing rare and native breeds. Despite recent challenges, England’s resilient meat-processing sector continues to ensure food supply and security, and the Government remain confident in its strength.
The Secretary of State already has the power, under Section 5 of the Planning Act 2008, to designate a national policy statement for any specified description of development, should they choose to exercise their discretion to do so and where the statement meets the criteria set out in this section. This matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Another concern we have with the noble Lord’s amendment is that it attempts to override this discretionary process and would, in effect, fetter the Secretary of State’s discretion.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who spoke on this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave me hope for a moment when she said that the average age of a slaughterman was 63. I am thinking through what to do after I leave this place; unfortunately, there is no slaughterhouse close enough to make that practicable.
I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and the Government are coming from. Their answer is very much the same as the one I got out of the previous Government. It is good that the Government recognise the problem but, like the previous Government, they seem prepared just to let it get worse. I really hope that out of the processes that the Minister described comes some initiative that changes the direction. As I say, I am very grateful to all who have spoken, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Carbon capture and storage(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) In section 14(1), after paragraph (q) insert—“(r) carbon dioxide spur pipelines;(s) carbon capture equipment.”(3) After section 21 insert—“21A Carbon capture and storage(1) The construction of a carbon dioxide spur pipeline is within section 14 (1)(r) if it is a pipeline used wholly or mainly for the conveyance of carbon dioxide for the purposes of carbon capture and storage. (2) The construction of carbon capture equipment is within section 14 (1)(s) if it constitutes infrastructure or facilities used wholly or mainly for the capture, compression, or processing of carbon dioxide for the purposes of carbon capture and storage.(3) A developer is not limited from seeking consent for infrastructure projects which fall under sections 14(1)(r) and 14(1)(s) through alternative consenting routes available under any other legislation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the Planning Act 2008 to clarify that carbon dioxide spur pipelines and carbon capture equipment are eligible for designation as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 91. My noble friend Lady Liddell is not able to be with us today, so I have taken on the mantle of championing carbon capture, usage and storage. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, in his place, I hasten to add that I equally would champion the benefits of hydrogen in the future; he has spent the last year telling the House why it is so important.
CCUS, as it is known, is a technology aimed at capturing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes, power plants and other sources. It prevents them entering the atmosphere. The captured CO2 can be reused in various industrial applications or stored permanently in geological formations deep underground. The CO2 can then be monitored to make sure it is stored securely.
This is a great opportunity for the UK to lead on technology development, and our resource of the North Sea offers huge potential opportunities to store carbon from other countries in Europe. I am convinced that CCUS is safe. It clearly contributes to a low-carbon society and offers great opportunities for growth in our country.
The UK is home to seven major industrial clusters, which produce 50% of all UK industry emissions. The Government, quite rightly, are supporting development of CCUS in those clusters. Deployment in the first two of those clusters is called track 1. The first two clusters were chosen by a process called phase 1, launched in 2021. They are HyNet, in the north-west of England and north Wales, and the East Coast Cluster in Teesside. In October last year, this Government announced that they had made available £21.7 billion in funding for the first CCUS projects in the UK. Looking at the timescale, I recognise that the last Government were very supportive of CCUS as well.
We are at a pivotal moment. The first carbon capture projects in the UK have reached financial close, and the Government are clearly making strong commitments to support deployment across the industrial heartlands, but progress is at risk from outdated or inconsistent planning rules. At present, the treatment of certain CO2 infrastructure, especially short spur pipelines and capture plants, is ambiguous under the current system. As an example, projects under 10 miles in length do not fall within the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, despite being essential components of major decarbonisation efforts. There are also legacy legal barriers, such as the requirement for special parliamentary procedures under the Pipe-Lines Act 1962 for compulsory purchase of land related to CO2 pipelines. This process is not required for other comparable infrastructure and risks introducing unnecessary delay.
My two focused amendments seek to ensure that CO2 capture plants and shorter spur pipelines are designated as nationally significant infrastructure projects under the 2008 Act, and to remove the need for special parliamentary procedure under the Pipe-Lines Act where it applies to CCUS infrastructure. These are very limited but important changes. As the spirit of this legislation—despite much of the debate we have seen so far—is about growing our economy and making it easy to develop infrastructure, I very much hope that my noble friend will agree to have a look at this. I beg to move.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the principle of what the noble Lord is suggesting, but with a “but”, which I hope the Minister will give some careful thought to across the summer before we come back to debates in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is absolutely right that CCUS is extremely important to this country, needs to be progressed expeditiously and provides an important part of how we deal with carbon emissions in the atmosphere, so he is right to bring forward this proposal. My “but” is more broadly related to the range of types of project covered by NSIP. I declare my interests as an adviser to Hutchison Ports and to AtkinsRéalis.
My concern is more about the implications of more and more categories of project being covered by these processes. The issue I want the Minister to address across the summer, before we come to it in Part 3, is that this legislation, when it comes to major projects of this kind, allows developers to simply move ahead, provide compensation to the fund that the Government are setting up and, in effect, clear a site. I strongly believe that the balance of presumption should be that a developer has a duty to examine what is on a site and to take precautionary measures around the biodiversity on that site before they come to take action away from that site. The more we grant permission to those seeking to pursue major projects simply to move away from any environmental responsibilities, the more damage will be done to biodiversity and our environment.
It is not that we do not need change. I was involved very clearly as Secretary of State in the process of taking the expansion of Heathrow Airport through Parliament six years ago, and there were some issues we faced that were nonsensical around the way the habitats directive was applied and which I think defied all realistic common sense. Change is clearly needed, and I accept the principle of what the Government are doing, but I want to see the precautionary principle left in or put back into the legislation, requiring a developer, whether for CCUS or another kind of major project, to look carefully at what is on a site and at how they ameliorate the impacts before they can simply pay money into a fund and wash their hands of what is on the site. My request to the Minister, as he thinks this through across the summer, is to look at what could be done with the legislation to stop the slash-and-burn approach and to leave us with proper safeguards for nature but also to allow us to move ahead with precisely the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is rightly saying we need to do.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to both amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. On these Benches, we broadly support Amendment 51 and we support Amendment 91. Amendment 51 seeks to amend the Planning Act 2008 to clarify that carbon dioxide spur pipelines and carbon capture equipment are eligible for nationally significant infrastructure project designation. Amendment 91 seeks to directly amend the Pipe-Lines Act 1962 to remove the requirement for special parliamentary procedure in cases where a compulsory purchase order is made for a CO2 pipeline used for carbon capture and storage. Both amendments, in their different ways, seek to make practical changes to help speed up the building and development of carbon capture and storage projects.
The Climate Change Committee was clear that there is no route to net zero without carbon capture and storage. Going forward, we need this technology, particularly for the hard-to-abate industries such as cement and glass, where we have to capture CO2.
On these Benches, we support carbon capture and storage. It is a key part of our strategy on climate change and to achieve net zero, and we are committed to accelerating the development of such technologies to help further reduce and control our emissions. Indeed, the UK is in a good place for doing this: we have an estimated 78 billion tonnes of CO2 storage capacity under the seabed in the North Sea from our old oil wells and as part of that declining basin.
I spent a bit of time last night trying to understand the NSIP system around carbon capture and storage. I must admit that I ended up scratching my head a little, because it is not the clearest thing I have ever read, so the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has definitely picked up on an important issue. Trying to understand which bits of carbon capture and storage are NSIP and which are not is easier said than done, so we recognise the need for clarity around these points.
My only real worry with the amendment is that the landscape, as it exists now for planning, is complicated. I took particular note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that it was a spur of pipelines of less than 10 miles in length, but “less than 10 miles in length” is not in the wording of his amendment. I worry a little bit about whether the definitions the noble Lord has put forward will fit with the existing regulations and that complicated landscape.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. We cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of moving forward in this vital area. There has been discussion before, under the previous Government. Some questions have already been raised on the Floor this afternoon. The longer we delay, the more difficult life becomes. Carbon capture and storage is fundamental to what we need in this country. I commend the noble Lord who tabled the amendment. Amendment 91 is self-evident in any case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to his colleague’s amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the sentiment behind the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath. It is clear that, if we are to meet our net-zero targets, there is a need for long-term sustainable technologies such as carbon capture and storage. They must be part of the conversation. The potential of CCS to decarbonise sectors such as heavy industry are—I cannot quite remember the phrase used by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in referring to those that could not be done in other ways—really important and significant.
We on these Benches also recognise that infrastructure plays an important supporting role in innovation and low-carbon growth. Allowing certain carbon capture projects to be designated NSIPs could offer a more streamlined path to planning approval, removing unnecessary barriers to strategically important developments. However, like my noble friend Lord—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Grayling. As was pointed out earlier, it has been 184 days. Some of us are just getting a little tired. Like my noble friend, I must also offer a note of caution and a bit of a “but”.
Although CCS is a promising technology, it is not without its challenges. It is expensive, it is not a silver bullet, and it is somewhat untested. Therefore, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, we need closer scrutiny to make sure that it can be done commercially and at scale, which, to date, has not been done. It has not been proved to be viable. We do not want a technology that will cost the taxpayer money, and there are other technologies that could also potentially achieve this aim.
We should also consider this as part of a broader strategy. We must continue to prioritise clean energy, in particular dense technologies such as nuclear. It is our duty to ensure that the costs of decarbonisation are not unfairly borne by households and businesses already facing significant financial pressures.
So, while I support the broad intention of the amendment and agree that enabling clarity in planning and law is important, we must proceed with care. Our route to net zero must be grounded in economic and technical reality.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of King’s Heath for tabling these amendments, which relate to carbon capture and storage designation. Amendment 51 would amend the Planning Act 2008 to enable the designation of
“carbon dioxide spur pipelines and carbon capture equipment … as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects”.
As my noble friend knows well from his time as Minister of State at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, this Government recognise the pivotal role of carbon capture and storage in securing growth, achieving their climate goals and transitioning to a low-carbon economy. That is why we have committed to substantial investment to support the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage across the UK.
However, although the Government are committed to the deployment of carbon capture, transport and storage, this amendment could lead to confusion for developers, as it would, in effect, provide a choice for developers in consenting routes. Onshore electricity generating stations with a capacity exceeding 50 megawatts, including those using carbon capture technology, are classified as NSIPs under the Planning Act 2008 and require a development consent order—a DCO. Onshore carbon dioxide pipelines over 16.093 kilometres in length also classify as NSIPs and require a DCO. However, smaller pipelines and industrial carbon capture facilities sit outside the NSIP regime, and applications for development are determined by the local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This is consistent with the consenting process for pipelines and industrial facilities more broadly and, as far as we are aware, experience from the planning process for the first carbon capture and transport projects has not identified significant issues for projects determined by the local planning authorities thus far.
Nevertheless, carbon capture, transport and storage remain nascent sectors in the UK, and officials in my department are working closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to ensure that the full range of consenting and permitting regimes for carbon capture, transport and storage remain effective and appropriate.
Amendment 91 seeks to amend the Pipe-Lines Act 1962 to disapply the requirement for special parliamentary procedure in relation to pipelines or lengths of pipeline that are to be repurposed for the conveyance of carbon dioxide. It should be noted that, as drafted, the amendment would not legally achieve its intended purpose as a relevant subsection of Section 12A allows a Secretary of State to revoke a compulsory rights order rather than grant one.
Nevertheless, even with that to be addressed, and while I certainly sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, it would not be practical. Section 12A of the Pipe-Lines Act allows a Secretary of State to make an order for the compulsory acquisition of rights over land that are necessary for the conversion and use of a pipeline to convey carbon dioxide. The making of such an order is subject to special parliamentary procedure.
The Government recognise that it can be more efficient to repurpose existing pipelines for use in a carbon capture, transport and storage project compared with building new pipeline infrastructure. Where the pipeline infrastructure is considered suitable for reuse in this way, the Government support this. For example, we have recently legislated to remove a tax barrier that oil and gas companies have told us would prevent the transfer and repurposing of suitable assets from use in oil and gas, such as pipelines and platforms for use in carbon dioxide, transport and storage.
However, as the works involved in the repurposing of pipelines for the conveyance of carbon dioxide could impact local communities and landowners, enabling the compulsory acquisition of rights over land to remain subject to a special parliamentary procedure would ensure proper scrutiny of such proposals.
The Government support the repurposing of onshore and offshore infrastructure for use in carbon capture, transport and storage projects as part of the UK’s drive to net zero. We are already seeing this in practice, where the HyNet carbon capture and storage cluster in the north-west will be served by a combination of new and existing infrastructure. We are committed to ensuring that the right support and mechanisms are in place to enable the repurposing of suitable onshore and offshore infrastructure, and I hope with this reassurance my friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Before I sit down, I want to refer to the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, which I take seriously. I note that consideration of Part 3 and wider environmental issues will take place after the summer. We will consider his points over the summer, as requested. The points the noble Lord is making are mainly being debated in September, so we can pick them up in response to similar amendments, including in relation to Part 3. For the reasons I have just outlined, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I thought the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was very interesting. I very much take his point about the precautionary principle. A degree of proportionality is required by our regulators in the way they operate. One of the concerns that I and a number of noble Lords have is whether the current regulators are up for the kind of dynamic change we need in the way they perform, and that is really why there are concerns around Part 3.
There are concerns from people very concerned about nature protection, which I well understand. Equally, my concern is that we are putting a hell of a lot of responsibility on Natural England in relation to EDPs. The way I read it, this Bill is largely written around housing requirements, and I can see how EDPs can apply to housing, particularly if you have a number of housing developments within a particular area. A pretty unknown quantity is how this is going to apply to major infrastructure projects as well—but I take the noble Lord’s point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is absolutely right. We are taking a punt on CCUS. I am confident about it. His Government continued the work in this area. I think we see in Norway enough to suggest that we can pull this off. The potential for the UK here is enormous, in terms of both our approach to climate change and decarbonisation and the huge export potential.
On the wording of the Bill, I have checked the Planning Act, and in Section 14 there is an order-making power for the Secretary of State that I think can deal with the flexibilities around the length of the pipeline. I should say, as I took the energy bits of that Act through your Lordships’ House, that I feel a particular affinity towards that perfectly formed legislation.
I am grateful to the Minister, because clearly he and his officials are having a look at this. I noted that he did not think much of my Amendment 91, so I will have to go away and reflect on that. I think his main argument was “We don’t really think this is a problem, but we will have a look at it”. My intelligence is that CCUS developers think it could be a problem. If we can iron out some of these things, which are really not mega-principal, that would be very helpful. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Whistleblowing and oversight body for nationally significant infrastructure projects(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations establish an independent body for the purpose of receiving and investigating protected disclosures in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects.(2) The body must have responsibility for—(a) receiving disclosures of information from individuals or organisations relating to suspected misconduct, mismanagement, breach of environmental regulations, or any other matter of public interest connected to nationally significant infrastructure projects;(b) assessing whether such disclosures fall within its remit and merit investigation;(c) undertaking investigations where appropriate and referring matters to relevant regulatory, law enforcement, or oversight bodies; (d) providing advice and guidance to individuals considering making protected disclosures in relation to such projects;(e) reporting to the Secretary of State on the nature, volume, and outcome of disclosures received, with appropriate protections for confidentiality and whistleblower anonymity;(f) establishing and maintaining a framework setting out the protections afforded to whistleblowers, including remedies for individuals who suffer detriment as a result of making a disclosure, and procedures for seeking redress.(3) For the purposes of this section, “protected disclosures” are those that meet the conditions set out in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (disclosures qualifying for protection), as they relate to the planning, development, or operation of nationally significant infrastructure projects.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about—(a) the governance structure of the body;(b) the process and criteria for assessing disclosures;(c) collaboration between the body and other statutory regulators or planning authorities.(5) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body to receive and investigate whistleblowing disclosures relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects, including responsibilities for oversight, guidance, referral, and protections for whistleblowers.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 53A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley, who is unable to be here today. This Bill is part of the Government’s programme to unleash new infrastructure projects across sectors and in every part of the country. It is a vital part of the strategy for growth. Such projects are hugely costly and complex and contain many uncertainties, especially in their early stages. Many of them will involve public investment or have a major impact on ordinary people, which means that integrity and transparency are vital if we are not to waste money, undermine public trust and fail to get the outcomes we need.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s comments. I was not planning to speak but, given that I was the Secretary of State alongside the Mayor of London when we had the bad news about Crossrail, I thought I would contribute a thought to this discussion.
First, the noble Baroness is right about many of the issues. What happened in 2019 was a combination of head in sand and a lack of understanding of the complexity of the Crossrail project. It was outrageous that the mayor and I discovered only as late as we did that the project was as far off track as it was. That is the reason I set up the Allan Cook review into HS2 that identified the following spring that the project could not be delivered for the budget that was there. I said clearly, “That’s your budget. You have to deliver it for that amount of money—otherwise, there’s a real question over whether it can happen at all”.
Although the noble Baroness makes an important point, equally we have to remember the problem of disaffected employees. How do you deal with a whistleblower who has a separate agenda—somebody who has been dismissed, somebody who is unhappy at work and so forth? I am not convinced that setting up a separate agency is the right way to deal with what she is suggesting, but she is making a salient point. There probably needs to be a much earlier mechanism to raise a danger flag about a project that is not going the way it should, because there is a reluctance to tell truth to power. In these projects there is an optimism bias and always a feeling that, “Well, something will come along to bring it in okay after all”. I suggest to the noble Baroness and to Ministers a possible route for NISTA, the new infrastructure body, to have some form of investigatory role. If somebody says, “This project appears to be going badly wrong” early on, that might be a better way of doing it than setting up a separate body altogether.
The reality is that the mayor and I should never have been in the position we were in of discovering so late in the day about a project that we had been told clearly was on track and was going to open, with the first trains running the following December. The noble Baroness makes a valid point in saying that there should be safeguard mechanisms in the system, but the mechanisms that should exist are probably best handled through the national infrastructure bodies than through a separate organisation in its own right.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very sympathetic to what the noble Baroness said but, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, I am not sure that another statutory body is the right way to deal with this. Thinking back to my experience in the NHS, I cannot think of the number because there have been so many whistleblowing initiatives. There have been edicts and circulars, and I think we have some legislation as well. But I think we would find it hard to say that we think the NHS has a culture in which whistleblowers feel confident to come forward; they do not.
The noble Baroness has raised an important question, which I hope the Government will consider. We need to start talking to the leaders of organisations to understand what the issue is in relation to whistleblowers. It is, of course, partly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, raised; sometimes whistleblowers can be awkward people and therefore have already built up a feeling against them. Sometimes they could be making trouble, but very often they are raising legitimate points.
Part of the problem is the punitive culture for senior managers in much of the public sector. Why do NHS chief execs discourage whistleblowing? It is because we have a punitive culture. The turnover rate of CEOs in the health service is frightening; it is so rapid. Somehow, to deal with whistleblowing, you have to look at a much wider issue of whether we set conditions in which leaders have greater freedom to develop and grow their organisations from the current micromanagement they often come under. We also need a culture in which, if CEOs really do encourage their staff to raise concerns, the system then does not come down.
There is clearly a tension. I am sure that many CEOs know that, in their hospital trusts at some point, there are unsafe services. They know they do not have enough clinical staff. The penalty for admitting it, however, is to have regulatory intervention and managerial intervention from above which basically says, “You get on with it. We are much more concerned about finance and throughput”. Unless we are realistic about why senior management does not encourage whistleblowers, the reality is that any of these kinds of initiatives will not be effective in the end.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I briefly and with pleasure offer support for the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who is the House’s acknowledged expert and champion in the area of whistleblowing. Reacting to some of the comments made, the noble Baroness said she would prefer to see an overarching system rather than operating within the frame of this Bill. With the huge changes the Bill is potentially making, it is clearly very important that, if things are going wrong, we are able to see them and whistleblowers can safely speak out.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the health service. It is useful to reference our earlier debate on the infected blood scandal. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, went through a very long list and ran on a theme she has long been running on; we have this cascade of continuing scandals and crises with all sorts of harrowing outcomes. I do not think she mentioned this, but issues such as sodium valproate and vaginal mesh are quite recent and possibly ongoing. There is a systemic problem with the structure of government and the way it is working. We are potentially giving the Government much more power here.
I want to fulfil my traditional Green role and add to the thoughts about the impact on the environment and when environmental issues go horribly wrong, as they potentially will. I note that since we were last in Committee the Government have brought in some changes to the highly controversial Part 3, which the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred to. In response to those changes, the Office for Environmental Protection has said:
“We are clear that even after the material amendments the Government proposes, the Bill would, in some respects, lower environmental protection on the face of the law”.
The OEP is saying that if we are lowering environmental protections, there is a real risk—“environment” usually means human health impacts as well—and environmental whistleblowers need to be able to speak up and point out what is happening. These are people from within organisations who may be the only ones who really know what is happening.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for mentioning HS2 so that I do not have to.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for tabling this amendment. It is a clear and well-intentioned proposal that raises important questions about how individuals can share concerns relating to NSIPs. We on this side of the House recognise the value in exploring such concerns and that they are heard and addressed. Clarity in that process is undoubtedly important. However, at the same time the question of establishing independent bodies through amendments is not straightforward. There are practical and structural considerations that merit careful thought, particularly around proportionality, as my noble friend Lord Grayling mentioned.
I want to focus on what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said: this is an issue of culture. No bureaucracy can overcome the wrong culture, and we need to fix the culture if we are genuinely going to have people listening to whistleblowers. So, while we welcome the opportunity for Ministers to set out how the concerns will be raised and responded to—and clarification will be helpful in understanding whether further mechanisms are needed—it will be most interesting to hear from the Minister how he will change the culture.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 53A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seeks to insert a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body to receive and investigate whistleblowing disclosures relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects, including responsibilities for oversight and protections for whistleblowers.
The NSIP regime is responsible for delivering consenting decisions on the most complex and critical infrastructure projects. The framework, underpinned by the Planning Act 2008, is based on principles of fairness and transparency. As noble Lords have heard throughout the debates on the Bill so far, it is vital that the Government’s decisions on major infrastructure projects are properly informed by relevant expert bodies, as well as those who are affected by the application, including landowners, local authorities and local communities. That is what the Planning Act and NSIP regime enables.
This planning process includes the transparent appointment of an examining authority, which has six months to consider the views of members of the public, local authorities and other interested parties as part of the examination of an application. It also involves interested parties such as regulators, including the Environment Agency and Natural England, in examinations, and enables them to outline any concerns they have. Ultimately, based on evidence and the legal framework, the Secretary of State has the ability to grant or refuse consent for the development consent order, and must prepare and publicise a statement of reasons for their decision. Finally, the lawfulness of decisions can be challenged in the courts.
While I have been interested to hear the noble Baroness’s views today, I am afraid that I do not share the view that whistleblowing is a widespread issue within the NSIP regime or that there is currently sufficient evidence to warrant action. More broadly, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has long called for the introduction of an office of the whistleblower to centralise and triage disclosures, enforce standards and provide advice and support to those considering making a disclosure of information. However, the Government do not support the establishment of an office of the whistleblower at this time. Such a step would introduce a significant structural change to the whistleblowing legal framework, which the Government believe should be considered as part of a broader assessment of the operation of the framework. I also do not agree that this is something which should be tackled through this Bill.
The Government are keen to work with organisations and individuals who have ideas on how to further strengthen the whistleblowing framework. Our first priority is the Employment Rights Bill, which delivers on our commitment to strengthen protections for whistleblowers who report sexual harassment at work. I do not think the fact that they are not NSIPs is the best argument to make, given that they are so evocative. It is a really important issue to discuss here, with the relevant focus. No examples were given by the noble Baroness that would give consent to the NSIP regime or go through the system. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to beg leave to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am obviously not encouraged by the government response. It seems a weakness not to recognise how essential it is that there is transparency in major infrastructure projects, for the sake of everybody involved—but I was very encouraged by the comments across the Floor. I am not precious about how whistleblowing is structured, except that the channel needs to be genuinely perceived as being independent and having the power to protect whistleblowers, making sure that investigation follows where necessary.
I will make two comments. First, on grievances, part of the reason for having an expert body is that it will be expert at identifying the truth. Sometimes under a grievance there is real truth that matters, but there can be mischievous reporting. Whistleblowing expertise is very good at quickly winnowing that out, because obviously that is not where you are going to focus your time, energy and effort, and you want to make sure that it is stropped in its tracks. But we know from experience across the globe that that is very well managed.
Secondly, on the issue of changing the culture—that is what they used to say in the United States, until offices of whistleblowing were introduced widely across the financial sector and are now being picked up by the Department of Transportation. That may change with the Trump Administration, but you are seeing them picked up across other areas in the United States, because having an Office of the Whistleblower with the appropriate kind of powers has had a dramatic impact on the culture. There has been a sharp drop in bad actors, because people know that they are not safe. There is no greater deterrent than knowing that somebody will speak out, and it very much changes the whole culture within an industry.
It is also important to recognise that, with a good whistleblowing system, you get information very early—it is the canary in the mine. Therefore, in the case of the Elizabeth line, you know very early on that something is going wrong when you have scope to act, correct and manage. It is truly an important mechanism to save a project as well as protect the public.
I am fascinated that this argument is beginning to get widespread recognition and traction. I am totally supportive of a great deal of new infrastructure across the UK, so let me suggest that we must have with it a mechanism that means that disclosure and transparency happen at the earliest possible moment when things go wrong and before they turn into project-destroying phenomena.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Removal of duplicative regulatory justification decisions(1) Where a specified consent is granted for a nuclear generating station—(a) the practice of the generation of electricity or heat from that nuclear generating station which is so consented is deemed to be justified for the purposes of the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1769) (“the Regulations”),(b) the decision to grant a specified consent is deemed to be a justification decision for the purposes of the regulations, and(c) without limitation to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), regulations 14, 17, and 18 of the Regulations do not apply.(2) Where a specified consent is granted by a person other than the Secretary of State, regulation 19(2) of the Regulations is to be construed as though that provision applied to that person.(3) Nothing in a national policy statement designated under section 6 of the Planning Act 2006 (review) prior to this Act coming into force affects the operation of this section, and any national policy statement designated prior to this Act coming into force is to be construed so as to give effect to subsection (1).(4) Nothing in this section affects any power to review, take enforcement action in respect of, or otherwise vary (with conditions or otherwise), a justification decision under the Regulations. (5) In this section—“nuclear generating station” means a nuclear installation used, or proposed to be used, for the purpose of generating electricity or heat with a view to giving a supply to any premises or enabling a supply to be given;“nuclear installation” means any installation the operation of which requires a licence under section 1 of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965;“specified consent” means a licence under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, permission under Part 3 the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, development consent under the Planning Act 2008, or a consent under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (provided, in the case of that consent, the Welsh Government provides an approval for the purposes of this section), or any other equivalent planning or land use approval, permission or consent for the development of a nuclear generating station.”Member’s explanatory statement
Before a nuclear power station is built (and in addition to the planning process) an assessment must be made of whether the social, economic or other benefits outweigh the health detriment of ionising radiation. This amendment seeks to disapply the need for this assessment where planning consent is given.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 53B seeks to remove the current requirement for what is known as “regulatory justification” in relation to new nuclear power stations. I want to acknowledge the work of Mustafa Latif-Aramesh on inspiring the amendment and Stephen Tromans KC, who has produced an opinion for Last Energy on the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004.
I read with great interest the Opposition’s amendments coming from the noble Lord, Lord Offord—Amendments 346B to 346D, which have not been grouped with mine but which we will be debating later in September. He is much more radical than I am in his three amendments: he would disapply all the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in relation to the development of new nuclear power stations.
The noble Lord, Lord Offord, would give the Secretary of State the power to grant planning consent to a nuclear power station regardless of an environmental impact assessment. The Opposition also want to prevent applications for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to grant development consent for a nuclear power station on the grounds of non-compliance with habitat regulations or environmental protection obligations.
It is a bit of a turnaround from what the Opposition were saying last week. The point I am making is that my amendment is very modest in comparison with the one from the noble Lord, Lord Offord. I hoped that I would get support around the House for this.
Only a few days ago, we had the very welcome conclusion of the final investment decision for Sizewell C. That followed on just a few weeks from the decision to give Rolls-Royce financial support after an exercise conducted by Great British Nuclear to develop a fleet of small modular reactors in the UK.
Globally, we are seeing a renaissance in new nuclear power. The International Energy Agency this year reported that more than 70 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity is under construction globally, one of the highest levels in 30 years. The IEA in its report also comments that to take advantage of the opportunities that nuclear power offers, which are low carbon and essential baseload to an energy infrastructure largely moving towards renewables, we need a stable regulatory framework. I very much welcome the appointment by the Government of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, which has been asked to look at how the regulation of safety, environmental planning and other relevant areas could be improved. It is charged with publishing a final report this autumn and its recommendations will go direct to the Prime Minister.
One area that I hope the task force will be considering is the current ludicrous requirement for regulatory justification. Before a nuclear power station is built,
“its design must be assessed to find out if the social, economic or other benefits outweigh the health detriment of ionising radiation. This assessment process is known as Regulatory Justification … In the UK, this principle is set out in the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004. These regulations require any new class or type of practice involving ionising radiation (such as nuclear power stations) to undergo a generic, high-level pre-optimisation assessment of whether the social, economic or other benefits outweigh the health detriment”.
This is a completely arcane, wasteful process, costing a huge amount of money and delaying an application process by about two years. It achieves absolutely nothing, given that we have world-renowned extensive regulatory systems in place to ensure the safety of nuclear power stations.
I suspect my noble friend might say that we will have to wait and see what the task force says. I get that, but I hope the Government will be prepared to amend the Bill on Report if the task force comes up with very strong recommendations around this area. In the meantime, the Government could take a small step to improve the situation. I am grateful to Catherine Howard of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer for her work on this. Our understanding is that under the current regulatory justification procedure, each and every small modular reactor developer has to submit their design for regulatory justification. I think we should go back to why we have these regulations in the first place. Examples might be the use of X-rays in prisons or bone density scanners for sports performance assessments, which are required to obtain regulatory justification. Basically, this is to ensure that the small risks to human health that they pose are outweighed by their benefits.
The regulatory justification applies not to each and every type of X-ray machine and bone density scanner but to them as a class of ionising radiation practice. Under Regulation 5, something
“is an ‘existing class or type of practice’ if either—(a)”
it is a practice carried out lawfully without regulatory justification before 6 February 2018; or
“(b) it has been found to be justified; or both”.
I argue that the small modular reactor designs coming forward could be included within both (a) and (b). The result is that we could do away with what seems to be the current position, that each SMR developer has to make separate applications for regulatory justification.
I am very grateful to Stephen Tromans KC for the opinion he produced. It made me then look up a 2010 justification decision by the relevant Secretary of State on European pressurised reactors. In essence, the Secretary of State basically says, “It is justified because we have a strong regulatory system in practice”. So if ever a regulation was completely useless, this is it. The trouble is that once we have such a regulation, it is very difficult to move away from it. All sorts of reasons will be given, but here is a simple way of speeding up the introduction of SMRs. It is clear that Rolls-Royce has government support, and many other SMR developers are bringing forward proposals in the UK. It is perfectly possible that we may be able to get entire private sector investment in developing this. We need to encourage it, not put a wasteful, useless regulatory system in place to disadvantage those developers. I hope the Government will be sympathetic to this. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 53B, which seeks to relieve newly commissioned nuclear power stations of the burdens of the regulations on ionising radiation. These regulations have accumulated over time and become a byzantine legal code. They require justifications for a wide variety of daily practices involved in the handling of radioactive materials. Specialist firms exist to enable their clients to identify the specific compliance requirements of their organisation, to enable them to complete legal compliance audits and to develop bespoke legal registers.
The regulations are the products of successive enactments in the UK that date from the inception of the nuclear industry. They have also arisen out of the directives of the European Commission, and Euratom has been responsible for creating many of them. I observe that we are no longer a member of that organisation; had we remained a member, we would doubtless be involved in an endeavour to rationalise and alleviate the regulations.
There are two reasons why the burden of justification should not fall on newly commissioned nuclear power stations. First, their designs and operating procedures have already been scrutinised in detail by the generic design assessments conducted by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which renders further justifications unnecessary. The second reason concerns the stringent culture of safety that nowadays characterises our nuclear industry. Anyone who has visited a nuclear power station will testify to it. The Office for Nuclear Regulation is the UK’s nuclear inspectorate. Its job is to ensure that these standards are maintained, and it can be relied on to continue to do just that.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. Rolls-Royce was ready to move forward with SMRs some five years ago but, under several Governments, no decision was made. More inquiries were done on this, that and the other. The net result is that Rolls-Royce goes to do it on the ground on the continent, and gets permission within a few months. Here we are vacillating again. This important amendment is really needed, and I very much hope that His Majesty’s Government will take it on board.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it will probably not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to know that I oppose his amendment. It is well known in your Lordships’ House that the Green Party opposes new nuclear power plants. Proponents of new nuclear power should be careful what they wish for and consider the whole issue of public consent and concern.
I commend the noble Lord on managing to get this amendment considered at an extremely timely moment, given that this week the Government are seeking to go ahead with Sizewell C. As the Financial Times notes, it is
“the costliest nuclear reactor in the world”
and will see the UK taxpayer bearing huge costs and risk, with government loans of £3.8 billion and a £36 billion loan from the National Wealth Fund.
I declare an interest in that I know many of the people who have opposed the Sizewell C project and, I have no doubt, will continue to do so. There are many reasons why they oppose it. Cost is the obvious one, but there are also the local environmental impacts and concerns about future security, sea level rise and water use—a whole list of things. Safety is a big issue that people have continuing concerns about with nuclear power; it is no wonder when you consider the list from Chernobyl to Fukushima to the continuing concerns regularly highlighted by the International Energy Agency about Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine. The public are very much concerned about trust and safety.
Many in your Lordships’ House are undoubtedly familiar with the phrase “policing with consent”. When we were discussing physician associates, I spoke about regulating with consent. What has happened since with the Leng review and the many concerns expressed showed that there was a problem when the previous Government went ahead without real consent and clear understanding within the health sector. If you are looking at nuclear power, those who propone it would want to see that there is construction with consent and reassurance of security. Taking away regulatory justification is not going to play very well.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I can assure her that, having heard last week from both the chairman and the chief executive of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, who appeared before the Industry and Regulators Committee on which I serve, I was very satisfied that their regulatory process and policy would more than satisfy the consumers and residents of the area of Suffolk near the Sizewell nuclear power station.
The secret of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is in its title:
“Removal of duplicative regulatory justification decisions”.
We do not need duplicative regulatory justification decisions if, in the singular, they protect the safety of the public to a sufficient degree. I was very satisfied by the answers to questions on safety that we received in our committee last week from the senior management of the ONR. I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we fully recognise the need for nuclear power and nuclear generation to be part of our baseload capacity, which is needed to combine with renewables as we transition to clean power. I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, his work and everything that he has done for energy transition. However, I am surprised that he calls these regulations “ludicrous”, “arcane” and “wasteful”. It may be that the broader landscape needs reform and he is able to raise his points with an amendment, but clearly an amendment is not a way to look at the reform of this stuff.
I worry that, were we to rip up regulation in haste, we would repent at leisure. These measures are completely different from the planning process. They are designed for new types of nuclear generation technology, to check whether new designs are safe and fit for purpose. I do not see them as duplicative; they are separate to the operation of the planning system and fulfil different functions. My worry is that, were these two to go ahead in this way, they would serve to undermine confidence in the safety and security of the nuclear processes that we have in this country. Indeed, this is an international standard that is recognised by the ICRP and in the EU and is used around the world.
It takes up to 18 months to undergo these processes, but they start before planning. I do not see exactly how, even if this amendment was successful, it would do much to speed up the new nuclear generation that is needed. The noble Lord’s central argument is that these are duplicative—I do not agree; I think that they are separate—and that passing this amendment would speed up the process of getting new nuclear power. Since the process at issue happens first, I do not think that is the case either.
We will not support the noble Lord’s amendment. Obviously, all regulations need to be kept under review and, if the Government want to do that, we are open to it. However, I do not think that an amendment here is the way—other than to pressure the Government—to look at these things with a broader scope, so we will not support the noble Lord on his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 53B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proposes a sensible and pragmatic change to the current requirement that, before a nuclear power station is built, an assessment must be made as to whether the social, economic and other benefits outweigh the health detriment caused by ionising radiation. The amendment seeks to disapply this requirement in cases where planning consent has already been granted.
This change is both timely and necessary. We must look carefully at how to prevent nuclear power projects from being blocked or delayed, especially in the context of a wider energy landscape. Notably, the Government are currently presiding over the highest prices for offshore wind in a decade, which highlights the urgent need for diverse, affordable, reliable and resilient energy sources. Nuclear power stations provide that critical alternative—one that is essential to the UK’s growing demand for electricity in a cost-effective and secure manner.
Noble Lords across the House can agree on the vital importance of nuclear energy to our energy strategy. Nuclear energy remains a cornerstone for delivering a cheap, stable and low-carbon supply of electricity. It is crucial not only to meet our ambitious climate commitments but to safeguard energy security in an increasingly unpredictable world. The reliability of nuclear power provides a steady backbone to the electricity grid. As such, it is an indispensable part of our efforts to build a resilient energy system.
We acknowledge that we need rigorous planning and regulatory processes, but these are already in place for nuclear projects. These processes thoroughly assess health and safety concerns, including the risk posed by ionising radiation. While I might not go as far as some other noble Lords today about “wasteful”, “useless” and “byzantine” regulation, I certainly believe that it is duplicative. We therefore do not need to do it again, if planning consent has already been granted and has already assessed those risks. It would create unnecessary complexity and delays, without delivering any meaningful public benefit.
Where planning consent has already been obtained, following comprehensive scrutiny, it is entirely reasonable to disapply this further requirement. Doing so would streamline the development process, reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and support the timely delivery of vital infrastructure projects, which are so central to the UK’s energy future. For these reasons, we hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised in relation to this amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 53B would have the effect of removing the need for nuclear technologies that generate electricity or heat to undergo regulatory justification. Regulatory justification is derived from international standards. Its purpose is to ensure that all practices involving ionising radiation, including nuclear technologies, must first be assessed to determine whether the individual or societal benefits outweigh the potential health detriment from that practice. It is a key pillar of radiological protection.
That said, I am aware that there are concerns around the process of justification for nuclear reactors and that it is considered administratively burdensome—I heard that argument loud and clear from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. That is why I am pleased that it forms part of the nuclear regulatory task force’s review of nuclear regulation.
The Government are committed to stripping out ineffective, overlapping and unduly burdensome processes, but as we move forward with new nuclear, it is vital that we maintain high standards of health and environmental protection and fulfil our international obligations. The nuclear regulatory task force is examining all aspects of nuclear regulation, including regulatory justification, environmental permitting and nuclear licensing and planning. We expect it to come forward with recommendations that will streamline the regulatory processes and reduce unnecessary burden.
I believe that more effective solutions can be found to improve the process of regulatory justification by including it, as the task force is doing, in a holistic review of the nuclear regulatory framework. Therefore, we unfortunately cannot support this amendment. I hope that my noble friend Lord Hunt is satisfied with my response and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I know the Green Party does not like nuclear, and I would just point to the complete mess that Germany is in because it is turning its back on nuclear. It is then dependent on Russian oil and gas, and, geopolitically, Germany is in a very weak position still because of it.
Lord Moylan
“(ca) that fees charged must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the relevant service;(cb) requiring prescribed public authorities to publish annual accounts showing fee income and associated service costs;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent public authorities from using the fee-charging power as a revenue-raising mechanism by limiting charges to actual service costs and requiring transparent reporting of income and expenditure.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we come to a series of amendments that relate to transport and the Department for Transport. If I may, I shall begin with a few preliminary remarks. The first is to apologise to noble Lords that I did not speak at Second Reading on the Bill—I was not able to. The second is to thank the Minister and his officials for the engagement and the helpful meetings and briefings that I had in preparation for today. Thirdly, as a class, the amendments relating to the transport section of the Bill are generally very trivial and minor indeed. If this is the Government’s engine for growth, there is not a great deal of puff in it. One of the amendments—I doubt we will discuss it—is so bold as to repeal a redundant clause in the Transport and Works Act. For those of us with a tidy mind, that is not a bad thing to do, but it will hardly shake up the economy. None the less, the Government’s amendments deserve a degree of scrutiny and we shall attempt to do that in the course of the next few hours.
I turn first to amendments relating to Clause 29. As well as moving Amendment 53C standing in my name, I will speak to Amendments 53D, 53E and 53F. I shall also speak to Amendment 53M, which relates to a later clause in the Bill. What these amendments have in common is that they relate to charges. Clause 29 creates a category of legal person known as “prescribed authorities”, which are not named. These prescribed authorities will be able to charge highways authorities for their services, but the services that they will be charging for are not specified either. All this is to follow in regulation. One can hazard a guess that the sort of body that might be a prescribed authority for this purpose might be Natural England or the Environment Agency, or whatever.
My first question, and the purpose of the first few amendments, is to elicit from the noble Lord what these bodies are. The second is to try to establish what range of services they are going to be able to charge for, and whether services that are currently regarded as routine and freely available will now become a charge on highways authorities. I would also like to know whether, in setting the charges, they will be limited by the very common principle among public authorities that charges should be set only so as to cover costs, and that taking one year together with another they do not generate a surplus. Will that be the case in relation to these charges or not, and if not, what limit will be placed on their ability to set those charges?
My final question is a slightly detailed one for those who are involved with local authorities that are also highways authorities. Could the payment of these charges by highways authorities fall upon a parking revenue account and be drawn from a parking revenue account, or would it fall on the general fund? It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us that as well.
Briefly on Amendment 53M, this relates to a clause which allows highways authorities to charge applicants—this is, if you like, a mirror image, or may be to some extent a pass-through clause. It is not objectionable in itself, but there is again the question of whether these charges will be set so as to cover costs and so that a surplus is not generated, taking one year with another. I think it would be very helpful to all noble Lords if the Minister could answer those questions. I beg to move.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I support my noble friend in this probing effort to establish what the intention of the Government is. He is right to highlight the risk that this becomes a revenue-raising mechanism as opposed to a cost-offsetting mechanism. There have been many examples over the years where different public bodies have sought to do that, and he is right to seek clarification.
The one caveat I would add is that there may be some cases where it is right to levy a punitive charge, where there has been a failure on the part of the third-party body that is being charged, but that should be under only very limited circumstances and where there has been a palpable and measurable failure in what that organisation has done; for example, a lane rental that has been put in place to carry out works that have been done inadequately, leading to disruption afterwards. My noble friend is absolutely right to ensure that the Government are clear about whether these measures will allow profits to be made or whether they are simply to offset costs. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I speak briefly to make an apology. I have Amendment 71 in a later group, but I have to catch an Avanti train to Carlisle—and that, as my noble friend Lord Hendy will know, is a bit of a hazardous process these days. So I probably will not be here for the amendment that I have tabled, but it is relevant to the point about charges, because it is an amendment about trying to liberalise the regime, to enable people who cannot park their electric car off the road to charge from their home across the pavement. That will cut bills for people by a considerable amount. Lots of profit is being made somewhere in the provision of on-street charging systems, and enabling people to charge their car from their own home would be a pro-environment measure in increasing the attractiveness of electric car ownership but also a cost of living measure, to which I hope the department will give consideration. I apologise again if I am not around when this matter is discussed.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
I too did not intend to speak on this group, but it occurs to me that these are such wide-ranging provisions that the charging of one local public authority by another is probably covered, in which case I wish to refer to a matter which was referred to when we were discussing the interim report on water yesterday. Could the new regulator of the water sector make provision for charging highways authorities, whether Highways England or local authority highways authorities, for the incredible effect the run-off of water from highways has on the quality and quantity of water? If these provisions do not cover that, is it covered elsewhere? The interaction between two forms of environmental and planning arrangements are covered here, in part, and the water dimension, and the not inconsiderable run-off from the highways into the water system, is an important issue which either the Environment Agency or the new regulator will have to face up to.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I just query the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that it is a planning authority that deals with run-off. It is if there is a planning application, when appropriate measures have to be made for dealing with surface water drainage. If it is already existing infrastructure, the highways authorities are responsible for surface water drainage in gullies. Sometimes it is then the water companies which are responsible for the collection of that water, sometimes it is the river authorities.
This is an issue that ought to be resolved but never is, because it is complicated. But we should try to tease out that the run-off that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was referring to is not essentially a planning problem except where there is new development. That is when it happens. That is when you must get permissions for surface water drainage agreed with the water company if it is also a statutory drainage company.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
That is true at present, but we are about to invent a new system of regulation of the total water system, which must have some interface with the planning system that we are referring to in this Bill. It may not be in this clause, but somewhere in the Government’s mind this should be an issue to address.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the first three amendments in this group seek to ensure that the fees charged by the prescribed bodies to highways authorities under the Highways Act 1980 are not excessive, that the level of fees charged does not cause highways authorities financial hardship, and that the regulations detail financial mechanisms and arrangements to support highways authorities in meeting any charges that may be forthcoming under Clause 29. I welcome the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Grayling, raising points related to the public purse. The ability of organisations to plan and fund resources accordingly is important to the successful implementation of these reform measures.
Clause 29 is an enabling power that allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision for, through regulations, the charging of fees for services provided to support Highways Act 1980 applications. I underscore that Clause 29 is intended only to allow prescribed bodies to charge fees on a cost-recovery basis. Its implementation, through supporting regulations, will not allow them to make a profit. The ability to recover reasonable costs will support the capacity and capability of specified public bodies. This in turn will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process.
As in other infrastructure consenting regimes where cost-recovery principles have been introduced, the regulations will be used to set out that fees may not exceed the costs reasonably incurred in providing the relevant services. The clause states that the regulations may make provision in respect of
“what may, and may not, be taken into account in calculating the amount charged”.
This provides a satisfactory basis on which to achieve the intention of the amendment. As part of stakeholder engagement, the Government will rightly continue to engage to understand the potential financial implications for highways authorities, prior to introducing regulations. The Government believe that, taken together, our commitments to produce statutory guidance alongside the regulations will ensure that the fees charged by prescribed bodies are done only on a cost-recovery basis and will provide appropriate flexibility in the light of changing circumstances to review and adjust fees where necessary and justified.
In respect of transparency, local authorities are already under a duty to maintain a system of internal audit and to appoint external auditors to audit their accounts annually. Government departments and their non-departmental public bodies in England are audited by the National Audit Office on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Welsh Government and their non-departmental public bodies in Wales are audited by Audit Wales on behalf of the Auditor-General for Wales. The department allocates capital funding to local highways authorities so that they can most effectively spend this funding on maintaining and improving their respective networks based upon their local knowledge, circumstances and priorities. It is therefore for the respective highways authorities to determine how best to spend this funding to fulfil their statutory duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.
Precedent from other regimes with cost-recovery principles directs that the matters identified in the proposed amendments can be satisfactorily addressed through secondary legislation and guidance. In so doing, that will provide suitable flexibility for the operation of a cost-recovery regime in the event of changing circumstances.
The points proposed in the noble Lord’s Amendment 53F are important. It is the intention, as in other transport-consenting regimes with cost recovery, that they will be addressed through secondary legislation. The regulations will, among other things, explain how fees should be calculated and when fees can and cannot be charged, as well as specify which bodies can charge fees.
I turn finally to Amendment 53M. Clause 40 is an enabling power that allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision through regulations to charge fees for services provided to support Transport and Works Act applications. As in other infrastructure-consenting regimes, where cost-recovery principles have been introduced, the regulations will be used to set out that fees must not exceed the costs reasonably incurred in providing the relevant services. These regulations will detail not only the bodies that will be able to recover fees but the basis on which fees should be calculated. The regulations will also consider circumstances in which fees may or may not be charged and when these fees may be waived or reduced.
Taken together, the Government believe that our commitments to produce statutory guidance alongside regulations will ensure that fees charged by prescribed bodies are done only on a cost-recovery basis and provide appropriate flexibility in the light of changing circumstances to review and adjust fees where necessary and justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked what the prescribed bodies are. I am happy to write to him to set out which bodies the Government have in mind. The sorts of services that might be included are, for example, providing advice on significant adverse effects on the environment and mitigating those effects. The Environment Agency might, for example, provide advice on surface water flood risk from a new highway and how to mitigate it.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred to punitive charges in certain circumstances. While I sympathise greatly with the idea that all public bodies should behave in a timely and proper manner, I am not entirely sure that punitive charges ought to be set out in an arrangement that seeks just to make the system work better.
Lord Grayling (Con)
It may be that this is not the right vehicle for this, but most local authorities do not have the resource to inspect works carried out by utility companies, for example. As a result, the works tend to deteriorate faster than they should do. Putting in place a punitive regime to enable a local authority to apply fines would provide additional resource for extra inspections. That is something that, in hindsight, I wish I had been able to do and which the current Government could do.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I am very sympathetic to his point. He is quite right. He and I both know that, on many occasions, reinstatement works are done badly and do not last long. The recovery of inspection charges to find that out is reasonable; punitive charges beyond those levied for work reasonably incurred are probably not reasonable. This may not quite be the vehicle to do it, but I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord is saying. As he probably does, I inspect pavements and roads almost daily and despair at their condition.
I will deal with my noble friend Lord Liddle’s point on Amendment 71 when we get there, even though he will probably be in transit to somewhere else. I will take away the points about run-off water, which were debated by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and reflect on the extent to which they are covered by these amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling these amendments and appreciate his interest in these clauses. However, I ask that he withdraws Amendment 53C.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the deftness with which he developed a debate on charging fees into one about charging his electric vehicle. It demonstrates the indulgence of your Lordships that he could get away with that for the whole length of a speech. Well done is what I would like to say to him.
In the light of the Minister’s clear assurances at the Dispatch Box that these genuine concerns, which are not mentioned in the Bill, will be dealt with satisfactorily through secondary legislation—
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend not still agree that it would be much better to have primary legislation that listed who and where it is than always having to wait for secondary legislation, which we know we cannot amend, as we discovered only earlier this week? Why can we not have proper primary legislation, so that we can discuss these things more sensibly?
Lord Moylan (Con)
I could not agree more with my noble friend, and I will only say that you cannot get blood out of a stone. We are simply not going to get those changes unless we decide to bring the matter back on Report and divide the House, which we may do. I am sufficiently satisfied at this stage to withdraw my amendment.
Before I do so and sit down, I simply remind the Minister that I had a question about the general fund and parking revenue accounts as sources for paying for the charges imposed on highways authorities. It would be useful, perhaps by way of a letter after this debate, to have a response to that question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“(4H) Before making an order under this section, a strategic highways company must consult for a period of not less than 12 weeks—(a) neighbouring highway authorities;(b) local planning authorities whose area the highway passes through or would pass through;(c) where applicable, combined mayoral authorities whose area the highway passes through or would pass through.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require strategic highways companies to undertake a minimum 12-week consultation with neighbouring highway authorities, local planning authorities, and combined mayoral authorities before making trunk road designation orders.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we come now to a number of amendments that relate to Clauses 30, 31 and 32, and to my opposition to the question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill. We shall return to Clause 33 in an ensuing group. These are a bit of a ragbag, because this part of the Bill is something of a ragbag, but I have grouped them together because, although they are relatively trivial clauses, they deserve some level of exploration.
Amendment 53G relates to Clause 30, and it is to do with the power being given to the highways authority to designate trunk roads. At the moment, this designation has to be carried out by statutory instrument. Contrary to advice that I suspect would be offered by my noble friend Lord Deben, were he still in his place, the Government wish to transfer that power to Highways England. I have to grant that this is not a constitutional point on which to go to the stake, but we are at least, in this amendment, asking that it be required to undertake proper consultation with neighbouring authorities—highways authorities, planning authorities and local authorities—in so far as they are not the same body. I hope that the Minister would be able to agree to that.
I have to admit that Amendment 53H to Clause 31 is a bit of a tease. The Department for Transport, pressed to find something that it could put into the Bill, has gone so far as to say, “Wouldn’t it be a nice idea to standardise notice periods, so that instead of having six weeks under the Transport and Works Act, we move it to 30 days?” The only thing about that is that, if you turn to the Explanatory Notes, the example of standardisation given is the Planning Act, where it says the notice period is 28 days. I have tried to be helpful to the Government here in seeking to correct 30 days to 28 days so that it is compliant with the Explanatory Notes that the Government have themselves produced. Were the Government simply being inattentive? I wonder how much time we should spend debating this clause.
Amendment 53I relates to Clause 32. It raises a similar concern to that which I raised in relation to Clause 30. The clause dispenses with the need for a statutory instrument in confirming certain schemes. Again, the question here is whether the Secretary of State should be taking those powers for herself and away from Parliament. The amendment is much more honest. The Secretary of State is obliged to publish confirmation of an order or scheme when she makes that confirmation, but it does not say what deadline she has to meet when she makes that confirmation before she issues the publication. We suggest that she should have to do so within seven days.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 53G, I will reflect on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the end of the previous group. I will, of course, write to him about the question of the general fund versus the highway fund. He reflected on the deftness of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in turning his amendment to charging electric cars, but I have some sympathy as the noble Lord will be travelling on Avanti on a Thursday afternoon.
Amendment 53G seeks to require
“strategic highways companies to undertake a minimum 12-week consultation with neighbouring highway authorities, local planning authorities, and”
relevant
“combined mayoral authorities before making trunk road designation orders”.
I welcome the reasoning behind the noble Lord’s amendment and note that the existing legislation makes some provision in respect of these matters—most notably, in parts II and III of Schedule 1 to the Highways Act 1980, which set out consultation requirements in respect of every council in whose area the proposed highway order relates.
The noble Lord’s amendment could introduce an additional and unnecessary administrative burden on those neighbouring local authorities that are not directly affected by a proposed order but would necessarily be directly consulted by National Highways. Mandating engagement risks diverting resources away from the core task of delivering vital infrastructure and could lead to delays.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is an ingenious argument on the part of the Minister, but I have never come across, and I may say that he has never come across, a consultation that mandates a response from a consultee who has nothing to say.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We will differ slightly on the interpretation. I think that I agree with him.
Furthermore, imposing a 12-week minimum consultation period would introduce rigidity that would have the consequence of significantly slowing down the delivery of transport infrastructure projects. It would be contrary to the purpose of Clause 31, which is designed to make consultation more efficient while maintaining necessary safeguards.
Amendment 53H, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposes to amend the notice period from 30 days to 28 days. He did not detain us long, and neither will I. The purpose of this is to reduce it from six weeks. I note his comparison with the Planning Act. The Government’s proposal of 30 days seems, to the Government at least, to strike a good balance in this respect. That is where we propose to leave the matter.
Amendment 53I, tabled by the noble Lord, seeks to write into primary legislation that the Secretary of State must publish the notice of making a highway order and the confirmation of a highway scheme within seven days, along with the related documentation. Currently, notices are dated on the day they are published. The amendment would not have the effect of speeding up that part of the process. I appreciate the noble Lord’s interest in this clause and the intentions behind the amendments, but I ask him not to move his amendment.
The noble Lord has given notice of his intention to oppose Clause 34 standing part of the Bill. The clause contains an enabling power that allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move model clauses from legislation into guidance to make the Transport and Works Act process more efficient for applicants. The model clauses are intended to streamline the delivery of Transport and Works Act orders. They set out standardised provisions for applicants and other stakeholders to consider in the preparation of applications. They can currently be amended only through secondary legislation, so moving them into guidance will allow these helpful guiding provisions to be updated on a more responsive basis via a more efficient process. This supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport laws, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework. I urge the noble Lord not to oppose the clause standing part.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister did much less well that time round than he did on the previous debate. At least on the previous debate he said that the issues that I had raised would be dealt with one way or another in secondary legislation. Here he is moving into government blank wall approach: nothing can be changed. None the less, given the relative triviality of this part of the Bill and the fact that it does nothing whatever to promote growth but tidies up a few things here and there—that is all from the bottom of a bureaucrat’s desk—I am happy at this stage to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“(2) After section 250(8) of the Highways Act 1980, insert—“(9) Any compulsory purchase order made in exercise of powers under this Act that includes the right to take temporary possession or occupation of land must specify the maximum duration of such temporary possession or occupation, the mechanism for establishing compensation, and the condition in which the land is to be returned to the landowner.” (3) Before the powers in this section are implemented, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on the procedure for temporary acquisition, acceptable durations, calculation of compensation, and further compensation if the land is not returned in the agreed condition.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that this amendment, which started life some time ago, got lost somewhere in the system. That was identified only yesterday, so it was tabled as a manuscript amendment, but the Minister has been aware for some time that the area is of concern. It is, I think, the first substantial area of concern. I set out my stall immediately as a Conservative who believes in the rights of private property and that, consequently, the Government’s power to undertake compulsory purchase should be constrained to occasions when it is absolutely necessary.
The clause appears to create a new type of compulsory purchase altogether. It is entirely open to the Minister to correct me in all this, because I am not a planning or property lawyer, but it purports to create something that is, in effect, temporary compulsory purchase, and we have never heard of such a thing. We have heard of the temporary acquisition, compulsorily, of certain rights and usages across land that may be necessary for the purposes of construction on an adjacent site—way leaves, for example, may be acquired compulsorily—but the clause talks about the possession and acquisition of the land, and that seems to go considerably beyond what exists at the moment, unless, as I say, the Minister can correct me.
This measure is hard to find in the Bill because all this, which is at the bottom of page 48, is encompassed in five lines of text. So what I regard as potentially a very significant change—meriting, in my view, a Bill of its own, a Bill that actually has the words “compulsory purchase” in the short title—is possibly, though I am not saying deliberately, being slipped through in a way that would hardly be noticed at the bottom of a page in a Bill that on the face of it is about something very different.
My amendment does not seek to set the provision aside because it is possible that the Minister can correct me and explain that all he is doing is building on well-established precedents, which he will be able to cite. My amendment is simply to say that any order creating such a compulsion, any compulsory purchase order, must specify the manner in which the compensation is to be paid. Normally, for compulsory purchase, there is one payment and you pay to acquire the site, the land or the building. If you are doing it temporarily, what are you paying? Are you paying a form of rent, or are you paying a price together with a fixed repurchase price at the end of a defined period? None of that is known.
Then we come to the question of period. The second thing that my amendment would require is that when such an order was made, it should specify the period. Otherwise, what is to stop temporary becoming permanent—and for what purpose? If it is temporarily needed for a certain purpose, could it become permanent and used for a different purpose? If you temporarily need access to a field to put portakabins in it next to a construction site, could it somehow slip into being permanently acquired for development by the Government themselves? On what basis then would the recompense have been decided? Would that have been a valid recompense?
I think asking these questions through the amendment is more valuable than simply trying to slap the clause down completely, especially as I do not claim to be 100% sure of my ground, but this is potentially quite a dangerous clause that the Government are going to have to justify thoroughly if it is to stand, as it does, part of the Bill at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Banner (Con)
I endorse the comments of my friend Lord Moylan. I have two questions and two observations. First, “temporary” can mean different things to different people. For example, in the context of onshore wind, temporary permission tends to be granted for 25 years, whereas if one is talking about occupation or possession of land, ordinarily one would think of a considerably shorter time. Can the Minister give any elucidation of the intent behind the use of that word in the provision to which the amendment relates?
Secondly, can reassurance be given on whether the power that Clause 33 proposes to introduce would be used only where lesser alternative forms, such as those existing powers that my noble friend Lord Moylan referred to, would not do the job equally or similarly well?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
This amendment seeks to provide safeguards in legislation to implement powers of temporary possession under the Highways Act 1980. Of course, that Act already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33 would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession.
We are introducing this power because currently in the Highways Act there is no mechanism for the temporary possession and use of land through means of compulsion. Where land is required only on a temporary basis, if access to such land cannot be achieved by agreement with the landowners, the highways authority will seek powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to use the land. Powers of compulsory acquisition are disproportionate to the needs of highways authorities that need to access the land only temporarily. This measure will offer a more proportionate route, aid land negotiations and provide legal protection to landowners that they will regain their land following the carrying out of works.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, raised the definition of “temporary”. This is not defined in legislation. It has the meaning of lasting for only a limited period and not permanently. This provides flexibility to the order-making authority and landowner when considering the nature of the powers. He is right that the power would not always be used, because if the land could be temporarily used in another way, the relevant public authority would use that instead.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised some very important points on compulsory acquisition of land and rights over land. These matters are already embedded within the existing compulsory purchase mechanism that underpins not only the Highways Act 1980 but other infrastructure consenting regimes. For example, land compensation is calculated in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961. The legislation sets out the mechanism by which compensation might be calculated and, in the case of dispute, the mechanism for seeking resolution. A suite of published guidance exists to support these established mechanisms. The Highways Act 1980 therefore already embeds an existing and well-founded mechanism for consideration of compulsory acquisition of rights in and over land. The clause would not amend this but simply make it explicit that it applies to powers of temporary possession and occupation, as well as powers to permanently acquire land.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord would surely agree that those provisions do not cover one of the questions that must arise in the case of temporary possession of land, which is the condition in which you are obliged to return it. Since the permanent acquisition of land by compulsory purchase does not contemplate that it will ever be returned, there will not be any provisions that cover that. This must be another one of the issues. In what condition are you required to return it? That is also addressed in one of my amendments. Surely the Minister cannot claim that prior legislation explicates and resolves all that.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Since he asked the question, I will write to him about how the condition of the returning land is to be dealt with. In the meantime, I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but on that point, Section 252 of the Highways Act allows for a counter notice from somebody where rights over their land have been compulsorily acquired to seek to have their interest in the land purchased. I wonder whether the Government might consider whether the temporary possession of land might also reasonably give rise to an opportunity for a landowner to seek that the land be acquired on a permanent basis.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for that point. He makes a very valid point, and we will go away and consider it. I thank him very much for raising it. I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I regret to say that the Minister has confirmed one’s worst fears about this clause—that it has created something wholly new and unprecedented and has done so without proper safeguards and without being properly embedded in a piece of legislation that would invite appropriate scrutiny. Rather, it is in a very short clause in a Bill that appears to be about something else. He appears to be saying that, but I have a suspicion from what the noble Lord has said that, actually, something else might be going on: those who have drafted this clause have simply got muddled about the difference between acquiring rights over land, such as way leaves and so forth—necessary for the purpose of construction—and actually acquiring the land itself. Indeed, it is notable that, in the Minister’s response, he gave no reason and no examples as to why it should ever be necessary to acquire the land outright rather than to use the existing provisions available to those who can exercise compulsory purchase powers.
In all candour and friendliness, I suggest to the noble Lord that he consider very carefully whether this clause is necessary—and, indeed, whether it actually achieves what it was intended to achieve in the first place or goes way beyond it. It is certainly the case that, if an amendment is not tabled by the Government at the next stage of consideration of this Bill, it will be the subject of a very significant and lengthy debate as a result of amendments tabled by this Bench. In the meantime, I would be grateful for your Lordships’ permission to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“(1A) In subsection (2) (hearing after objection under section 10) omit “may” and insert “must””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to provide an opportunity for objectors to appear before and be heard by an appointed person.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we are now back on the Transport and Works Act. This clause relates to the holding of an inquiry when the powers of that Act are used. Since it will come up at some point later, it is worth reminding noble Lords, although I am sure they know all this, that for major construction works and infrastructure projects there are three methods available to a promoter for getting permission. One is planning permission from the local authority, and one—since 2008—is to go for a development consent order. When I say that there are three methods, there are really four, because there are also hybrid Bills. But there is also the intermediate thing of getting a Transport and Works Act order under that statute. In doing so, of course, one almost inevitably impinges on the property rights of others, so the possibility of having objectors and holding inquiries to examine those objectors must of necessity arise. That is the part of the Transport and Works Act that we are dealing with.
There are two things going on in the Bill, as far as I can make out. One is that it is currently the case that, if somebody raises an objection, the Secretary of State may hold an inquiry or may appoint somebody to hear the objector. However, they do not have to appoint someone to hear that objector if the Secretary of State considers that the objection is frivolous or trivial. There is a seriousness test, if you like, before the Secretary of State is obliged to respond to the objection by appointing someone to hear it or, indeed, by holding an inquiry.
One of the things happening in the Bill is that that seriousness test is being changed so that it now has to be something considered “serious enough” by the Secretary of State—no longer the very low bar of frivolous or trivial, which are terms quite well understood in legal circles, I believe, and therefore testable objectively, to some extent. Now, it becomes an entirely subjective test on the part of the Secretary of State as to whether it is “serious enough”—enough for what? No definition is offered. This moves the balance of power away from the citizen and in favour of the promoter, who is very often the Government, in a way that deserves inquiry. That is what these amendments are intended to highlight and invite the Government to comment on.
In addition, there is the question of whether the Government have to hold an inquiry or appoint a person. At the moment, in the Transport and Works Act, they “may” do so, but with the rising of the seriousness test—if that is admitted—it seems to me that, if someone passes the seriousness test, it should say “must” hold an inquiry or appoint a person on the part of the Secretary of State. After all, if it is admitted that the objection is serious enough—again, enough for what?—surely it must follow that an inquiry or a hearing should take place. If we are going to have a different balance, I am trying, not unhelpfully, to get the right balance. It would be worth hearing what the Minister has in mind here, and whether there is any give on his part.
Finally, I turn to my Amendment 53L, which relates to what is, as far as I can make out, a new power for inspectors in relation to Transport and Works Act inquiries—not planning inquiries but specifically Transport and Works Act inquiries—to impose costs on those who appear. At least in the planning realm, with which I am more familiar, inspectors can indeed impose costs on one side or the other, and in some cases on both, but only if there is some sort of delinquency on their part that has caused damage and held up the inquiry, such as a failure to provide documents on time or not turning up at hearings, which create costs for the other side.
The inspector can hold a separate costs hearing and can, and does, impose costs. I think we would all agree that that is a sensible measure to try to minimise delinquency on the part of those attending hearings. But a general power to defray the costs of the inquiry could have a chilling effect on objectors. That may be the Government’s intention—it may be that the Government want only the well-heeled to be able to appear before inquiries. If so, it would be as well to say so. But, if not, this new power needs to be either removed or very severely moderated. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support my noble friend in these amendments. This is not just something that is happening in this Bill; it is also going on in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, where the Government are looking at the conditions under which a parent is allowed to complain about their treatment by a local authority. There seems to be a general move to restrict individuals’ access to setting something right when they feel they have been hard done by by the state and really making it quite difficult. In the case of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, there are no criteria set out for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can just throw the thing in the bin without giving reasons, without doing anything. I hope we will manage to change that, but it is a big change in attitude and I am really interested to know what is going on in this Government, in that they want to change the relationship between the state and the citizen in that way.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for setting out so succinctly the choices for the routes by which infrastructure projects might be pursued. The objective of the Bill is to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for infrastructure, because a failure to build enough infrastructure is constraining economic growth and threatening the economy, climate targets and energy security. There is a strong purpose in this whole suite of amendments. In this case, it is not intended to withdraw the right of individual citizens to take action; it is designed to deal with objections to transport infrastructure projects more proportionately. Sometimes, those objections will necessitate a public inquiry. On other occasions, however, an exchange of correspondence may achieve the same goal but quicker, cheaper and more efficiently. All objections will continue to be decided entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. It does not mean less scrutiny but it is designed to speed up the Transport and Works Act process.
Currently, if an objection that is better than frivolous or trivial is raised through an application under the Act by a statutory objector—that is, an affected local authority or landowner—a public inquiry or hearing must be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. This can result in a costly and lengthy public inquiry even where objections clearly lack merit. Instead, it is proposed that a public inquiry or hearing be held only when an objection by a statutory objector is considered serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and costs for applicants and objectors, but a proportionate objection process will still remain, ensuring that objections are given due attention and decisions communicated to all parties.
On Amendment 53K—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Before the noble Lord moves to Amendment 53K, what does he understand, and what should noble Lords and members of the public understand, by the term “serious enough”?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We have to get ourselves into a position where it is possible to get schemes to move forward based on a consideration of the objections and whether they can be dealt with by means other than a public inquiry. It is evident from how the processes work at the moment that delays can be and are being incurred. Of course the definition needs to be fleshed out in due course, but the Bill seeks to streamline the whole process by introducing another bar into it. The Government have chosen the definition
“serious enough to merit such treatment”
to define what that is.
On Amendment 53K, the Government consider that procedural matters such as providing written reasons for a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry are best dealt with in guidance or secondary legislation. By reducing the current unnecessary bureaucracy or disproportionate process, this clause will help support a faster transport consenting process.
Amendment 53L would ensure that costs may be imposed on a person only when that person has acted maliciously or unreasonably during a public inquiry process. Clause 37 introduces to the Transport and Works Act a new power enabling an inspector conducting a public inquiry to make decisions on relevant cost claims rather than the Secretary of State, as is currently required. Department for Transport Circular 3/94, which governs how claims for costs during a Transport and Works Act inquiry are handled, makes explicitly clear what constitutes unreasonable behaviour and the circumstances in which it can be applied. Guidance of this type is also used for the Planning Act 2008 regime and appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspectors conducting inquiries on Transport and Works Act applications will continue to apply the circular when considering costs. The intent of the proposed amendment is achieved through existing means.
I thank the noble Lord for the amendments he has tabled but, for the reasons outlined, ask that he does not press them.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think many noble Lords—I am one of them—have general sympathy with the Government’s ambition to remove unnecessary obstacles to the approval of infrastructure projects, which is why one has tried to be as indulgent as possible in bringing forward amendments to their clauses. But in this case, it simply will not stand. It is an entirely circular definition to say that an inquiry will be held if the objection is serious enough to merit an inquiry. It is entirely self-defining; it tells us nothing whatever. It does not tell us anything objective about the seriousness required, as one of my amendments would set out. The Government will have to come back to this because, as it stands, it is completely unsustainable.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, I have a question for the Minister. He said the definition needs to be fleshed out in due course. Under what powers in what Act will that fleshing out be done?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his interjection. I will write to him after this Committee and set out some more detail.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My purpose here is not to enter a radical objection to Clause 38 but, rather, to raise a debate and to hear what the Minister has to say on the points that I would like to make. This clause allows the Secretary of State to set a deadline for inquiries to be conducted and concluded. As I understand the clause, the deadline is flexible in that the Secretary of State can subsequently amend it and extend it to make it longer. With the purpose of trying to speed up consents, that may appear, on the face of it, to be a very sensible measure. However, I want to draw a lesson from history here.
Let us go back to the Planning Act 2008, which introduced the development consent order. One of the features of the development consent order was that the inquiry phase was to be limited; it was to be six months by statute, unless it was extended. Exactly the same approach was used all the way back in 2008 in relation to DCOs. Has that resulted in DCOs being shorter processes? It has not. It has, in effect, required all the work preparatory to the inquiry to be front-loaded, carried out and presented to the inspectors before they will agree to open the inquiry; the clock does not start running until they open it, so the six-month limit does not apply.
In effect, this approach has failed in relation to DCOs. It could be argued that it has made DCOs a slower method of acquiring permission than a Transport and Works Act order currently is. To get to the point at which the inspectors are willing to start the inquiry, one has to produce every conceivable document that they might require, which sometimes results in hundreds of thousands of pages having to be produced. Under the older system—using Planning Act powers under which documents could be pulled in later on—although the overall process lasted quite a long time, it did not require as much paper as is currently required by the DCO process.
I offer that lesson from history—not even history, because we live with DCOs today—as a cautionary tale. I wonder to what extent the Minister has taken account of that. Are the Government not in fact doing something here that is seductively attractive and will achieve something that we would like to see but will, in practice, slow up the whole process? I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, makes an interesting point. I will not replicate the intention of Clause 38 because that is already pretty clear to the House. However, I am not sure that he is entirely correct in saying that what he describes as a DCO is a wholly bad thing because, in practice, it is sometimes a very good thing that the parties sort themselves out before the inspector starts the inquiry, rather than prolonging the inquiry by sorting themselves out while the inspector is sitting.
It is true that the DCO has the time limit that the noble Lord describes, whereas the Transport and Works Act does not. The Government’s view is that that leads to uncertainty in the consenting process and that introducing statutory timeframes will provide increased certainty to stakeholders, which has been valued in other transport consenting regimes. It will introduce greater accountability to the decision-makers. It should speed up the consenting process and should allow applicants to be better prepared post consent. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to oppose Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I do not intend to oppose Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Pinnock
“(1A) Any disapplication of heritage protections under this section must be exercised in a manner that—(a) recognises the value of the United Kingdom’s archaeological and architectural heritage to the nation and to local communities;(b) respects the principle that structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance; and(c) ensures that development under this Act gives due regard to the importance of conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure.”
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am awake, my Lords. It has been quite a long afternoon, has it not?
Amendment 54 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pidgeon was tabled some time ago, so everyone will have had time to think about its consequences. It focuses on the potential for significant harm to listed buildings, ancient monuments and archaeological sites and on preventing any ill-considered harm caused by the measures in Clause 41. That clause refers to Section 17 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, about which we have heard a lot in the past hour and which relates to applications for listed building consent in England and Wales where a planned transport development, such as a railway or a road, will involve the demolition, in whole or in part, of a building or site with a statutory protection. Under this regime, the application for listed building or other consents is referred directly to the Secretary of State, instead of an application to the local planning authority.
Clause 41 amends the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 so that authorisations related to heritage protection are no longer required; that includes listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled monument consent and notifications for works in areas of archaeological importance. If the clause is agreed, the process will mean that applicants can obtain all necessary consents, including those for heritage matters, through the Transport and Works Act process rather than needing to apply separately to different bodies. I guess that this is part of the so-called streamlining of planning application processes.
However, a one-stop shop approach such as this will result in local heritage structures, which are a source of local pride, being bulldozed from the local landscape. Many heritage organisations, including Historic England and the Heritage Alliance, have expressed concerns that the disapplication of separate heritage consents could weaken the checks and balances designed to protect historic assets. Applying Clause 41 in this way may have the knock-on effect of watering down the well-understood protections of our heritage and may lead to more requests for reducing enforcement and statutory protections.
Another major problem with this wholesale reduction in heritage protections is that there will be no prioritisation of the value of different historic assets. For example, will Hadrian’s Wall be regarded as having protection if there is an application for, say, a new route by rail or road into the north of our nation? Hadrian’s Wall, a world heritage site, has substantial protection but, following the changes made under this Bill, it will be treated in the same way as other, less important—but still vital—heritage assets.
As the powers under Clause 41 are discretionary, inconsistencies can creep in and cause even greater local and national outrage. For example, Hadrian’s Wall is protected, but a local monument that is very valued by a local community can be swept aside.
As far as the Bill is concerned, this measure undermines two essential elements of planning. The first is engaging with communities so that they have the full facts and can have their say. The second is that the scales by which we currently assess projects are tipped excessively in favour of development proposals to the detriment of our heritage. Further, an approach such as this gives a green light to less scrupulous developers who will gain by destroying historic assets.
Our heritage is an important part of who we are as a nation, and it has to be much more carefully weighed in the balance than is proposed in Clause 41. I look forward to hearing about the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to speak to my Amendment 55 and in support of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 54. Clause 41 provides for the “Disapplication of heritage regimes”. I declare an interest as the owner of a two-star listed property and a member of the Listed Property Owners’ Club. As this is my first substantive contribution on the Bill in Committee, I also declare that I have a registered interest as chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. But, as noble Lords would expect, all the views I express will be my own and not those of any particular forum members. Like the noble Baroness, I thank the National Trust and the Heritage Alliance for their briefing on this issue.
The Explanatory Notes to this clause state that it
“would provide an alternative to an applicant having to apply separately to each relevant consenting authority”.
The consenting authorities referred to are, respectively, the local planning authority in respect of listed building consent and conservation areas and the Secretary of State—in practice, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—in respect of scheduled monument consent. The structure of the clause is not simple, so if I may, I will explain how I think it is intended to work but raise questions thereby for the Minister.
The clause replaces Section 17 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. That section inserted a new Section 12(3A) into the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which enabled the consenting process to be referred to the Secretary of State where it forms a part of an application for a transport and works order under Sections 1 or 3 of the Act—Section 1 being on transport and Section 3 being on waterways. Such an application is a Section 6 application under the Transport and Works Act. The assimilation of the applications for consent for listed buildings and scheduled monuments into a concurrent application is provided for in the Transport and Works Applications (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Ancient Monuments Procedure) Regulations 1992.
That is why Clause 41 notes Section 12(3A) and the relevant Welsh legislation and goes on to say in subsection (4) that Section 12(3A) continues in force. To my reading, this means that if listed building and other heritage consents are required, they can continue to be included in a Section 6 application and, in consequence of Section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, would be automatically referred to the Secretary of State.
If noble Lords are staying with me, that raises the question of why Clause 41 is needed. My point is very simple. It is already possible not to send relevant consenting authorities separate applications since they can be assimilated in a concurrent application, which goes to the Secretary of State for a Section 1 or Section 3 order. Therefore, the purpose is not simply to streamline the consenting process by routing them to the Secretary of State; it is more substantial and significant. The new Section 17 will mean that where an order is made which would presently require a heritage consent, that requirement is done away with. As a consequence, the provisions in heritage legislation which attach conditions or considerations to the consenting process are also done away with.
That is why I tabled Amendment 55, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay for signing it. The key reference there, or the operative point, is the reference to Section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which prohibits
“the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised”.
There will be a similar provision in relation to scheduled monuments. The latter is distinctive in so far as it also has a requirement for advice from Historic England in relation to a scheduled monument consent.
Amendment 54, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also rightly highlights that the making of a transport and works order may involve the demolition of, or impact on, listed buildings and ancient monuments without a requirement for consent. So, when such an order is being made, where is the advice from Historic England? Where are the statutory guardrails around the preservation of our built heritage and its setting? Where are, at the very least, the “must have regard to” provisions in relation to our heritage, including all the issues set out in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock?
I look to the Minister to use this Committee debate to tell us where those safeguards are. If they are presently linked to the consenting process, on the face of it they would no longer apply. Why, given the scope already available to bring the consents together in a single Section 6 application, is it necessary to apply the consenting regime and its safeguards for heritage assets?
In the absence of reassurances, which do not appear to be in the clause itself or available in existing legislation that I can find—indeed, they are not referred to in the Explanatory Notes at all—I hope that those protections can be inserted into the Bill on Report.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Lansley says, I signed his Amendment 55, but I am also broadly supportive of Amendment 54, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Pidgeon—I thank the former for the way she opened the debate on this important set of amendments.
My noble friend Lord Lansley set out very powerfully the concerns that many of us have about Clause 41 and its potential consequences. His Amendment 55 seeks to remedy that by making sure that the provisions regarding listed buildings and conservation areas can continue to be applied. Of course, Clause 41 also applies protections for scheduled monuments, which is why I have tabled my stand-part notice on whether Clause 41 ought to stand part of the Bill at all; my noble friend Lord Lansley asked much the same question.
Like my noble friend and others, I have discussed these amendments and this clause with organisations including the Heritage Alliance and the Heritage Railway Association, which I thank for their time and insights. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, outlined, Clause 41 would sweep away the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent, and notices for works on land of archaeological importance for projects carried out under the terms of the Transport and Works Act 1992. As she said, it makes no distinction between the sites that are protected. She raised the horrifying example, for me, a Northumbrian, of Hadrian’s Wall, which is not just a scheduled monument but a UNESCO world heritage site. I know that the present Government take a different view from the previous one on another world heritage site, Stonehenge, and the suggested changes to the A303 there, but I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues share our belief in the importance of the protections that allow people to raise their concerns about the scheme proposed in that instance.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. I declare my interest as the owner of a listed building and thank the Heritage Alliance for its briefings.
Other noble Lords have already, much more eloquently than I could, put the problem of this clause to the Committee. I highlighted exactly the same quotes as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, from the Commons Committee stage, alongside the Minister in the other place saying that:
“We absolutely want to ensure a better process, with those bodies consulted and their concerns addressed”.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 13/3/25; col. 219.]
It is not clear to me where in this clause and in all the changes that it makes those bodies concerned with heritage will be consulted and their concerns addressed. Therefore, I add my voice to those who have serious concerns with Clause 41.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I share those concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others have forensically dissected this clause and demonstrated that it is, to use a technical term, a right mess.
Manor Castle is in Sheffield, for those who do not know. Sheffield is a city which has suffered enormously from the destruction of heritage, both industrial and earlier heritage. On this last day, I take your Lordships to August 1644, when there was a 10-day siege of Sheffield Castle. The castle fell. Having been held by the Royalists, it was besieged by the Parliamentarians, and Parliament—this place—ordered the castle to be destroyed. To add insult to injury, in the intervening period the castle market was built on top of the site. That has now been demolished and archaeology is being done on the site. The end point of this is a story from the last few months, when the archaeologists uncovered abatises—a word that I have just learned—which are sharpened branches that were put around the ditch by the defenders in an attempt to hold off the Parliamentarians.
This is not just a history story. This is a city that is uncovering an important, exciting piece of its past which has survived miraculously and against all odds. This is a story of how important discoveries such as this are to cities’ identities and local heritage is to the identity of a place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, set out, we cannot allow centralisation and the taking away of local control, which might see us lose stories such as this.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, the Bill stands to disapply heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is, therefore, a risk that this could harm heritage assets without proper scrutiny and probably go further than the stated ambition of the Bill. I am therefore delighted to support Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, who has outlined the technical issues, as has the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in talking about his amendment.
We all understand that building transport infrastructure is important to our economic growth. In particular, new public transport is important to support people moving away from cars where possible. However, we have got to make sure that, in building faster and more efficiently, we do not lose critical heritage. This amendment and debate are important because they flag the importance of recognising our architectural heritage and conserving the historic environment alongside the need for new infrastructure. It is a practical approach, and I urge the Government to support this small but, in some ways, significant change.
As we have already heard, in Committee in the Commons, the Minister acknowledged that these changes could have unintended consequences and committed to respond to concerns raised by my colleague Gideon Amos MP by Report—yet nothing has been forthcoming. No further comments were made by the Minister on Clause 41 during that debate. I await the response from the noble Lord the Minister to this important topic of our heritage assets and the answers to the many important questions that have been raised.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief, after this very valuable debate. I make it clear that the Opposition Front Bench is fully behind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. I seek to add nothing to the detail of their amendments, which were so eloquently argued by both of them.
I just add one reflection of my own. It is very easy to imagine that listed building consents and planning applications are much the same thing, because they are usually dealt with by the same officers in the same local authority. But they are not; they are two very distinct legal regimes, which have two very distinct bases. Planning is essentially about mitigating and shaping the externalities of development so as to minimise public harm and perhaps achieve some public good—it is to do with utility—whereas listed building legislation is about a test of absolute value. Either a building is listed and therefore is to be preserved, implicitly for ever, or it is not. Of course, there are grades of listing and it is possible to delist a building, so there is a little movement around the edges. However, in essence, it is a test not of utility—of whether something is useful to us—but of value. For the Government to mix up these two, to mash them together, is to ignore that very important distinction.
The listed building regime is not part of a trade-off as a consequence of that. You do not say that, because we can achieve something useful on the one hand—a faster railway, shorter route or whatever it might be—there is a calculus by which we can demolish so many listed buildings to achieve that. They are not commensurate regimes. The Government would do very well to withdraw this clause altogether and rely on the flexibility in existing arrangements. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say, but I suspect that we will be debating this again in due course.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the Bill seeks to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for infrastructure. It is quite clear that there are a whole range of measures within the Bill that seek to do that, and I think the general clarity of the intention of the Bill is absolutely there.
But I am going to save your Lordships quite a lot of time because, having said that and having listened very carefully to the contributions made by a series of noble Lords just now, I can say that the Government are not looking to reduce heritage protections through this clause. We are seeking to streamline the process of decision-making by creating a one-stop shop; it would sometimes be the case in the current regime that separate government departments would still need to issue separate consents.
In the light of what noble Lords have seriously said—with some passion, conviction and a great deal of clarity—I commit to go away and reflect on the arguments raised. I cannot say what happened following the discussion in the other place, but I can commit to considering all the arguments raised. We will return to this subject, bearing in mind what I have heard this afternoon. In the meantime, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
This may be a first for me in this House to have a Minister listening to the arguments and thinking, “Maybe this needs further thought and consideration”. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that today, because that is what Committee should be about: we make the arguments and question what the Government are proposing, and the Minister listens carefully and, instead of defending the indefensible, says, “Good points have been made, and I am going to go away and seriously think about them”. I thank him most heartily for doing so. It has been a really thoughtful, considered and expert debate from people who have had experience in government on the same issues and have raised—more eloquently than me—the issues that are pertinent to this clause.
None of us here wants to stand in the way of the development of important infrastructure. That is not what this is about. It is not about preserving our heritage in aspic—as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said—but finding new life for our heritage assets and respecting them. It is about having that balance between the heritage that people in this country really value, on the one hand, and the importance of having a growth in infrastructure on the other. At the minute, I think the Government have that balance wrong. I very much thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. I really look forward to the Minister coming back and helping us with this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, again I return to the Dispatch Box not to object as a matter of principle to what the Government are proposing in Clause 42 but to throw a little grit, in the hope that the Government will explain the consequences of it for us and accept that it might need some moderation.
The effect of Clause 42 is that an order under the Transport and Works Act can be made that includes a marine licence without having to apply separately to the Marine Management Organisation. The concern that I have expressed in my amendment is that there appears to be no requirement in any of this for consultation with the Environment Agency, which has considerable responsibilities for much of our marine environment. Some assurance on the existing apparatus of guardianship is necessary. It is like what we discussed earlier. Keeping the guard-rails without necessarily having excessive bureaucracy is something we are sympathetic to, but losing the guard-rails altogether is much more concerning.
The Environment Agency is part of the guard-rails system for protecting our marine environment. We should like to know that it will be properly consulted and that that will be in the Bill. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I shall seek to be brief on this matter. Clause 42 allows for a single process similar to that in the Planning Act 2008, which already provides for deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the Marine Management Organisation on a Transport and Works Act order that contains a marine licence, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.
The Marine Management Organisation’s application process includes consultation with the Environment Agency, whose representations will be given due regard during the determination process by the Secretary of State. The clause removes duplication and, therefore, streamlines the process, saving time and costs in decision-making, while maintaining the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee. It aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas.
The noble Lord’s amendment would introduce a blocking power for the Environment Agency that does not exist for deemed marine licences under the equivalent provisions in the Planning Act 2008 regime. Clause 42 reduces bureaucracy, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I appreciate the noble Lord’s interest in this clause. However, I kindly ask him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“(a) the Transport and Works Act 1992, or”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, here we come to the odious Henry VIII provisions in the Bill, which are completely unnecessary. The Government are seeking power here to make regulations that
“may amend … an Act, or … an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, passed before the end of the session of Parliament in which this Act is passed”.
I have tabled two amendments to this clause. The first would delete “an Act” and replace it with “the Transport and Works Act”. It should be enough for the Government to be able to amend the Transport and Works Act by regulation and not have a power that extends to every Act of Parliament that exists. If that is not acceptable to the Government, then it is incumbent on the Minister to explain now, or very shortly after this debate, which Acts he intends, or might intend, to amend using these powers.
The other amendment I have relates to Clause 45(3), which says:
“Regulations under this section may include incidental, supplemental, transitional and saving provision”.
My amendment would add after “may” the word “only”, so that these changes may include “only” changes of that character. Even with those two limitations, the clause raises questions, but without them it is pretty unacceptable, and the Government need to explain what they are aiming to do. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the amendments he has tabled seek to limit the making of any consequential amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. Clause 45 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments; namely, changes to legislation that may be required when changes to the Transport and Works Act as a result of Clauses 34 to 44 are added to the statute book. The power cannot be used to implement changes in policy, nor to make amendments for reasons unrelated to Clauses 34 to 44. Its purpose is simply to ensure consistency across the statute book.
If any changes were needed to primary legislation, already existing or made in this parliamentary Session, the relevant regulations would need approval from both Houses. If changes were needed to secondary legislation only, the negative procedure would apply.
The Transport and Works Act interacts with a number of pieces of primary legislation. Therefore, limiting amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992 could hinder the implementation of Clauses 34 to 44. The inclusion of this power is a practical and reasonable step to ensure the most efficient legal framework. I will endeavour to write to the noble Lord to set out examples of the legislation that might need to be altered. In the meantime, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Pending receipt of the Minister’s letter and saving our position for Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief because there are government amendments in this group. Their effect is going to be the same as what I set out to achieve; namely, that it would be interesting to hear what the Government imagine they are going to achieve by making these changes so that we can consider properly what the effect is likely to be. Since the Government are likely to do that themselves in moving their amendments, it is hardly necessary for me to press the point at this stage. I beg to move, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in support of his amendments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendments 56 and 359 relate to Clause 46. Harbour revision and empowerment orders under the Harbours Act 1964 extend or modify ports’ statutory powers. The Marine Management Organisation currently charges fees for harbour orders in England and for the reserved trust port of Milford Haven. Elsewhere in Wales and in Scotland, fees are the responsibility of the devolved Ministers. These fees are currently charged at flat rates in advance, an approach that does not align with marine licence applications. The current system does not accurately reflect the complexity or time required for each application, especially for works applications, and does not allow enough flexibility in charging, which currently leads to inefficiencies and inaccurate cost recovery and slows down application processing.
Clause 46 offers great flexibility in setting fees in relation to case work on these orders—for example, charging on the basis of actual hourly costs. The actual fee level will be subject to consultation with ports and relevant stakeholders. In line with the devolution settlement, this new, more flexible regime will be commenced by the Scottish and Welsh Governments at a time of their choosing.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove transitional provision that is no longer needed after the changes to commencement made by my amendment to clause 110.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—“(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that cross-pavement charging solutions are to be considered public charge points for the purposes of the legislation. It ensures such infrastructure falls within the scope of relevant regulatory provisions governing public electric vehicle charging.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, a lot of the discussion this afternoon has been very technical, as it would be around planning, but this group of amendments is much more practical. They are about electric vehicle infrastructure, making sure that we can easily support the next generation of electric vehicles and make it easy for people to transition to domestic electric vehicles at home, as well as in the commercial sectors. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting their names to my amendments in this group.
Amendment 57 would allow for cross-pavement solutions to be considered as public charge points in this legislation to ensure that such infrastructure fell within the scope of regulatory provisions governing public electric vehicle charging, to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for people to move to electric vehicles at home. Currently, EVs can be a more affordable and convenient alternative to petrol or diesel cars and they can save households up to £1,000 a year, but only if you have a driveway. Up to 40% of households in the UK do not have access to off-street parking, so they rely on public charge points, which can cost up to 10 times more than charging at home. For millions of households that is unaffordable, and it is unacceptable to expect only certain consumers to pay the price for the transition to electric.
Cross-pavement solutions have real potential to tackle that challenge, and they have been proven to be a workable solution in 38 local authority areas to date, but the current process for applying for one is lengthy and costly. Drivers report that you have to pay up to about £3,000 for the planning application, the permitting and charge point installation costs, and waiting up to 12 to 15 months simply for a decision from their local authority on whether permission to install one has been granted. So many residents have given up trying to secure cross-pavement solutions and electric vehicles because of these delays and costs.
This amendment seeks to make the transition to electric fair. It asks that cross-pavement solutions are treated in the same way that public charge points are being treated, simplifying the process for applying for these solutions by allowing them to be treated under street works permitting. This would make it quicker, easier and less costly for residents. Crucially, local authorities would still have some control over the decision on whether the cross-pavement solution is appropriate and safe for that location, and whether it can go ahead.
Amendment 58 would extend permitted development relating to electric vehicle charging points where there is an agreed cross-pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15 centimetres. The Government have extended permitted development rights to households wishing to install charge points where the houses are close to the street and they have off-street parking. This amendment seeks to extend these rights to households without off-street parking that wish to install a charge point so that they can get a cross-pavement solution. It does not conflate the charge point with the cross-pavement solution; they are still two separate entities. It would simply ensure that those residents who are applying for a cross-pavement solution can then install a proper charge point that allows them access to the cheaper charging rates that residents with driveways are already able to use.
Electric Vehicle Association England provided me with this quote from its recent survey. One respondent commented how the council refused to consider installing a charger gully, saying, “We got a free charger and installation along with our car purchase, but we haven’t been able to make use of it, as our local council refuses to consider charging gully solutions”. Another hybrid car owner, when asked why they did not choose an EV, said it was due to the difficulty of installing a charger. They said: “Our council has no policy or provision for pavement gulleys to make it easier. There are no on-street public chargers either”.
Another quote is:
“You shouldn’t need a driveway to own an electric car. My Plan for Change is boosting funding for infrastructure to allow cables to run safely beneath pavements. That’s cheaper, at home charging”.
Those are not my words but the Prime Minister’s a week and a half ago. There is a need to make it easier for everyone to be able to move to electric vehicles through simplifying the system and allowing people without driveways to be able to move to EVs. I hope the Minister will work with me to make this vision a reality through this legislation.
Amendments 64 and 67, which are in my name, cover HGV electric charging points. Amendment 66 covers EV charging infrastructure plans. As we transition to cleaner vehicles and technology allows for HGVs to run on electric batteries, there is a need to support charging infrastructure in the planning system. The lack of adequate charging infrastructure remains one of the major obstacles to greater e-HGV adoption. According to a report by National Grid, 70% to 90% of HGVs will be charged or refuelled overnight in their depot or at their destinations, but the remaining 10% to 30% will rely on public charge stations. e-HGVs are very much a reality—in fact, we had one outside the House only a few weeks ago. There are a number of announced plans for charging stations right across the country from a variety of companies, but I know from my inbox that, where a company might want to move to e-HGVs, they find that the local authority will not grant planning permission for the necessary infrastructure at a depot, stopping the decarbonisation of this industry.
These amendments are about a clear installation programme for HGV electric charging points at key transport points, and the provision of EV charging infrastructure at freight depots and HGV facilities when they are new or substantially renovated. This amendment would future-proof the logistics infrastructure by embedding EV readiness into the design and permitting process. This supports depots and warehouses to be ready for the transition. Depot charging, as I said, is the preferred option where possible for operators as it allows trucks to charge while at a natural stopping point, not requiring additional stops to recharge in transit, which can also leave cargo vulnerable to theft. It also reduces future retrofitting costs and planning delays by integrating charging requirements from the outset.
Amendment 67 is about the prioritisation of electricity grid connections for EV infrastructure. It tackles a major barrier to infrastructure rollout: delays in grid connection approvals. Some fleet operators may face up to a 15-year wait for a grid connection to meet their need for electric infrastructure, severely hampering a willingness to invest. This amendment recognises the strategic importance of logistics infrastructure for national supply chain security and decarbonisation.
Finally, Amendment 66 is about placing a duty on local authorities to produce a local EV charging infrastructure plan to assess the demand and need for EV charging infrastructure in their area, including both private and commercial vehicles. This will ensure a comprehensive understanding of need to focus efforts. Local authorities are critical to the rollout of EV infrastructure, but often lack a co-ordinated or strategic plan. This duty empowers them to take a proactive role while ensuring consistency across regions.
The amendment would ensure local accountability and planning for EV infrastructure deployment, aligning with national decarbonisation targets. Importantly, it establishes a recurring review cycle every three years to ensure that plans are responsive to evolving demand and technology. So this package of amendments would make a huge difference to supporting the transition to electric vehicles. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these issues and all the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who I thought admirably set out the importance of the case. Frankly, we are only a decade away from the point where we intend that all the new cars that are to be bought are to be electric vehicles. As she rightly said, something approaching 40% of the people who we expect in future to buy cars are in premises that do not have charging facilities, and we want to enable that to happen. It is all part of the green energy transition that we want to support. So I very much support everything that she said and I hope that we can find a solution.
As far as I can see, the clause to which this amendment refers intends to support the process of adding public charge points to the road architecture but does not necessarily allow individual householders to be able to find the appropriate cross-pavement charging solutions for this. My noble friend Lord Lucas has an amendment in this group the purpose of which is to give permitted development rights for this. I know that the Government will say, “Well, permitted development rights relate to the curtilage of one’s own premises, they do not extend out into the pavement for this purpose”. But I hope the spirit of this debate might be that we all agree on what we want to achieve—the question is what the best way is to achieve it.
I suggest to the Minister that one way we might look at this is to look at Section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act, which is about the process of applying for a street works licence. This clause is intended to enable those who have a street works licence to access the necessary works in the street. As the noble Baroness said, that is an expensive solution for an individual householder and not likely to be an easy route. The question to the Minister is whether we might actually find, as he is in the business today of streamlining applications, whether we can streamline applications for street works licences for individual householders, or groups of householders, in order for them to get a street works licence by what is effectively a deemed consent, rather than having to make individual applications. It is a bit like an assumption that the licence will be granted, save if there are particular exceptions or objections. That might get us to the point where householders or groups of householders can get the cross-pavement charging solutions that they require—and I think that it is urgent that we make that happen. So I hope that it is something that we can progress during the course of this Bill.
I will raise just one other point, which is about the green energy transition and the amendments relating to HGVs. I ask that we not only look at electric charging points for HGVs but recognise that HGVs—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Naseby earlier—can, very readily and unlike many other road vehicles, use hydrogen cost-effectively as a solution. But they need a network. My Japanese friends have told me that Japan is creating a network of hydrogen refuelling points for its HGV fleet. The Japanese are orders of magnitude ahead of us on this.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 57C in this group, which proposes some alternative ways of solving the same problem, so I do not propose to go into it in great depth. The point of this debate is that this is something we should be moving to find a solution to because, although it us not particularly simple, it is not particularly difficult, either.
Many of us have come across simple cross-pavement charging arrangements, which people seem to be installing ad hoc. It would be a good idea if this became something that was regularised, because we want the street to be a properly controlled environment. On the other hand, we do not want to make it expensive or difficult for an individual householder to obtain what we intend to be a general provision. But, if we are looking at a system where a lot of people have this facility, we should also be looking at how we are going to manage parking in this space. There is not much good in having an electric charging facility if someone else has gone on holiday and left their van in the space you need to charge your vehicle. An efficient use of an electric charging system is that it is used by more than one person, so how will we enable householders to allow other people to charge in that space?
Neither of these are things with instant solutions, but, if we are looking ahead to a time where we all have electric vehicles—particularly people who live in flats or other arrangements where the parking outside the building is not going to be sufficient—how will we provide that? Can we provide it in a way which is better than the one we have at the moment, where, for one reason or another, mostly because it is provided by people who have no personal interest in the facility, the prices paid by people for on-street charging are very high? If someone has installed it for their own use, they are much less motivated to charge a huge price for someone else to use it. They are much more likely to say that any margin is a good margin. So I very much hope that we can look at democratising on-street charging. I am not saying it is easy, but I am saying it is something we need to make progress with.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed a number of amendments in this group, so while noble Lords will know that I do not normally speak on transport, I am speaking on my noble friend’s behalf this afternoon.
I begin with the very interesting comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: the efficient use of a charger would mean it being used by more than one person. I would go rather further than that and say that what we want is an efficient use of cars: them being used by more than one person. The practical reality, of course, is that most cars spend the vast amount of their time stationary, occupying public space when they are parked on the road. Coming to an arrangement is where Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, comes in, requiring
“local planning authorities in England to publish and regularly update a three-year electric vehicle charging infrastructure plan”.
That charging infrastructure plan would ideally very much look at that car club kind of model, which could potentially free up large amounts of space in our cities to be put to much better use than simply being occupied by a stationary vehicle 96% of the time—that is the last figure I saw of the amount of time that cars are stationary.
It should be noted that my noble friend did not sign any of the cross-pavement charging solutions. I know that Caroline Russell, the Green London Assembly member, would not forgive me if I did not make the point that, whatever we say about charging across the pavement, the first priority has to be pedestrians, particularly vulnerable pedestrians. We must make sure that anything that is installed or allowed does not create even greater difficulties, on what is already a very difficult streetscape on many occasions, for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable pedestrians, with wheelchairs, buggies et cetera. I note, perhaps declaring an interest, that when I was in Camden I would regularly try not to trip over the electric cable that my boss at the time trailed out of his house and across the pavement out to his car on the street. Because he was my boss, I was not quite allowed to do anything about it.
I want to focus mostly on Amendments 64 and 67, which are about heavy goods vehicles. This is a crucial issue for the environment and for public health. At the moment, fewer than 1% of new HGVs sold are electric, and there are 500,000 HGVs in the British fleet. At the moment, they are emitting the equivalent of 20 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent per year—the same as 2 million homes. They are also particularly bad in terms of emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which have very significant impacts on public health. That tends to particularly strike in poorer, more disadvantaged areas—think about the homes along busy main roads, which tend to be where people who already have poorer health live. There is also the point that EVs are much quieter, which has significant public health impacts, and they are also better to drive. One of the things we have in terms of HGVs is an ageing driving population, and something that is easier to drive is a significant issue there.
I also note that the Government currently have a plug-in truck grant, with a discount for those who purchase them of up to £25,000. There is a push there, and the Government are spending money on it, but what is lacking at the moment is the general charging infrastructure, and these two amendments seek to have a programme and to make sure that when new depots and other infrastructure is being built, they are covered. I note that at the moment there is still an issue about the speed of charging, but megawatt charging is on the way. When we come to later amendments that my noble friend also signed, we also have to think about the infrastructure of distribution of electricity, to make sure that it is able to cater to that very heavy demand. I think there are very strong arguments here for a concerted, planned and organised approach. What we have now is extremely ad hoc, and in far too many cases we are seeing people literally trailing a cord across the pavement, which is a really bad idea for all kinds of reasons.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the fact that there are so many amendments on the issue of electric vehicles and electric HGVs shows, to my mind, that the Government have slightly missed a trick in not using the Bill as an opportunity to do more to roll out EVs and EV lorries and small vans, and on door-to-door delivery mechanisms, particularly as the targets and the timelines are coming up so quickly.
I hope the amendment will cause the Government to reflect on that and that more progress can be made in this Bill, because it is a real opportunity. It would be remiss of the Government not to seize it, because it lies at the heart of what they are trying to do in the stated purposes of the Bill. I very much welcome the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Pidgeon. I will speak particularly to Amendments 57 and 58, but I generally support all the amendments in this group.
Private cars are responsible for some 13% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions—some 60.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2023. They are the largest single source within the transport sector, which as a whole is responsible for around 30% of our emissions. Road vehicles, including cars, make up the vast majority of them. Emissions from cars have been declining since 2005, but we still have a long way to go if we are to hit our climate targets, and the time we have to make these changes is fast running out.
The take-up of electric cars is, thankfully, growing. As of mid-2025, around 4% of the approximately 34 million registered cars on UK roads are EVs, totalling about 1.3 million. This goes up to about 7% if we include hybrid vehicles. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that we have further to go and need to do more. Rolling out EVs and making them affordable and practical is a key part of our pathway to net zero. We need to work together as politicians to make sure that we can overcome all the practical obstacles we have heard about, including the cost of affording the car in the first place. We need to make sure that, when people own these electric cars, they can afford to charge them and get the benefits that come only from being able to do so via their home charging points—at night and on a proper tariff that saves them money. If we do not do those things, people will just not make that transition away from petrol and diesel cars in time. We need to make those pull factors work for people. It is really important.
We have seen price reductions in the vehicles, increased government support and the continuing rollout of national charging infrastructure. Taken together, all these measures are helping to change consumers’ choices. We welcome the other efforts that the Government are making: the UK now has 73,000 public charging points—that is welcome—and the charging network rollout is helping to overcome some of the real fears with these things. The projection is that we could have 25 million EVs on UK roads by 2040. The biggest barriers to the take-up of EVs commonly cited are a lack of charging infrastructure, range anxiety—although that technology is improving—and the higher costs of running the cars. This is what we have talked about—making sure that people can plug them in at home.
We really welcome these amendments. It is not good enough that people are facing £3,000 of costs to get this planning stuff done and are waiting 12 to 15 months simply to run a cable across the pavement. As my noble friend said, 40% of people do not have a driveway at home, so cannot do this. This really needs to happen.
I also welcome all the amendments on HGV charging. This is particularly important for last-mile delivery and smaller-scale vans so that we can continue to tackle the scourge of air pollution, which is so damaging to our young people in particular and is such a radical cause of asthma. Luckily, we are beginning to see changes in that space.
We welcome these amendments and we think this really needs to happen. We encourage the Government to go away and think about how they can do more to bring about a joined-up policy on these issues through this Bill. There is more that can be done through the proposed legislation to help bring about the changes that we all want.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I echo many of the comments that have been made, and I strongly welcome the intention from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in bringing this matter to the Committee towards the end of the day and considering the issue in depth through a range of amendments. She was admirably supported by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I think the Government will have taken on board the widespread enthusiasm for doing everything possible to move forward against some of the serious practical difficulties that exist.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I find myself somewhat out of temper with many noble Lords who have spoken. It would give me great pleasure to be able to say that I heartily swung behind them. I do so to some extent, but not very heartily—and with some difficulties and problems, some of which have been extremely well set out by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I have three amendments in this group—Amendments 57A, 57B and 71B—but I do not intend speak to them in detail. Rather, I will draw, to some extent, on my own experience. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that, although this is not simple, it is not difficult either. However, then he went on to explain that, in practice, it really is very difficult.
At one stage, I was in charge of the roads in Kensington and Chelsea, one of the places in London with the greatest demand for on-street parking, because very few people have an off-street place to park their car. It is not terribly different in many other parts of London, especially inner London. I was approached by a Member of your Lordships’ House, who asked me whether it would be possible for the council to install an electric vehicle charging point outside his house. As it happens, we had a programme of installing such points at the council’s expense. I said that there was no difficulty at all, and that, if he wanted it, I could put it forward and it could easily happen. Not everybody welcomed electric vehicle charging points then, so it was nice to have a resident who did. However, the charging point would of course not be for his exclusive use. For him, that was not good at all; that was not at all what was wanted—in fact, his enthusiasm for the idea waned immediately.
The discussion we have had today more or less envisages that groups of families or houses will have clusters of spaces more or less outside their front door, which they may have paid for and which will be for their exclusive use. I am afraid that, if any elected local authority in London—and, I suspect, in many other cities—did that on a sufficient scale, they would eventually be lynched from the nearest lamp-post. Local authorities know that perfectly well, because this is politically a very difficult thing to do.
It also raises an issue of principle: to what extent should we encourage what is in fact the privatisation of a public asset? It is after all the public who pay for and maintain the highway, yet what is envisaged is that people will have the exclusive use of part of it for themselves. That will create very severe difficulties, which have been raised but have not been fully addressed by noble Lords in the course of this debate.
There is another point. If one puts an electric vehicle charging point next to the carriageway, the tendency—although this is not entirely true—is to mark off the bay and write, “Electric Vehicles Only”. I see that my successors in Kensington and Chelsea are not quite doing that; they are putting up signs—this might actually be more effective—politely asking, “If your car is not electric, would you mind awfully not parking next to this lamp-post?” That might achieve as much as an outright ban, because sometimes being polite to people gets their compliance more than anything else.
While we still have a large number of people, mostly people on lower incomes, who need access to an internal combustion engine car, the threat arises that they will be increasingly squeezed out of access to the public highway they are paying for in favour of middle-class people in their Teslas. It is not simply the optics but the morality of this that is highly questionable.
Some of the things that have been suggested should be done. Nothing seems more obvious to me than the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that it should be mandatory for freight depos to have electric charging points in them that can be used by electric HGVs. That sort of thing should be happening. She gave other examples of a similar character, so not everything is difficult. When you come to that interaction, particularly of cars with the pavement edge and where people park them, there are serious difficulties not only of practical local politics but of social equity.
It is very easy to think that because something is a good idea, we should all push for it, make it happen and just shove the obstacles to one side. I do not mean this to be excessively critical of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I am very struck by her amendment that says we must prioritise grid electricity supply for electric charging infrastructure. “Prioritise” means to choose, to say that one thing is more important than another. My question is: prioritise over what? Prioritise over electricity supply to a new housing estate, hospital or care home? Those questions do not just vanish because one has enthusiasm for a subject; they are real choices. I think the Minister is already going a little too far in the Bill for what the public will bear. That is the thrust and gravamen of the amendments I have tabled.
Certain noble Lords, including, I regret to say, certain noble friends, have gone perhaps even further than the Minister. I am not following them in that direction. I shall do my best between now and Report to reason with them, as we normally do in the Conservative Party, so that we may present a united front of common sense and reason to this House when we return to this debate.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, follow that. The noble Lord says he is out of temper; I am out of energy, so I am going to be as brief as I can be.
The general tone of the discussion was very positive, stimulated by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Liddle—who was here earlier and has hopefully reached Preston by now. It is getting past Preston that is the difficulty on Avanti. That entirely accords with the Government’s intention, which is to promote the use of zero-emission vehicles. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her introduction, and I recognise the passion with which she has spoken on this matter—that too is entirely in accordance with the Government’s desire to move forward.
Other contributions have raised some choices about the form of zero-emission power, especially for HGVs and hydrogen. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised, in a slightly more positive way than the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, some issues that need to be resolved in these matters as we move forward.
The Government are working with local authorities to promote cross-pavement solutions, including the recently announced £25 million grant fund to encourage the installation of cross-pavement channels, plus published guidance for local authorities on this technology and charge point grant funding for residents. We recognise that cross-pavement solutions will not be suitable for all scenarios. Local highway authorities are responsible for deciding on each application, considering the needs and opinions of residents. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of other users of the pavements who need a safe and level surface, of which we should be very mindful. Local authorities will have to take account of this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, remarked, they will be held accountable if people fall over or sustain injury or damage in any way. This is an important issue of which the Government are well aware, and that is why we launched a call for evidence on this very matter on 6 May this year; we are currently considering responses.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for his detailed response and thank all Members who have spoken on this group. All but one of us agree on what we want to achieve. Although we understand that it can be complex, there must be a way to streamline things to make it easier, cheaper and quicker for cross-pavement solutions to help people transition to electric vehicles. I still believe that simplifying the process can be achieved through this planning Bill.
We see what happens today: either people are not able move to electric vehicles, or we have cables draped out of windows, across pavements—maybe with a mat over the cable if you are lucky so that it is not a trip hazard. We need to find a way forward. The Prime Minister committed to it in the last couple of weeks. I hope that we can continue to have dialogue on this before Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gascoigne
“Water infrastructure project licencesOmit sub-paragraph (a) of regulation 4(3) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to remove the “size and complexity” test for the awarding of a licence for a water infrastructure project, meaning that projects would be considered on value for money alone.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said in the last group that he was running out of energy, so I reassure him that he is not hallucinating: I am not my noble friend Lady Coffey. However, I am moving Amendment 59 on her behalf. I refer noble Lords to my interests on the register and declare that I am on the board of the Conservative Environment Network—although I speak completely independently of it.
I am sure that whenever I stand to speak, many of my colleagues on this side and on the Front Bench think that what I have to say is full of excrement. I am pleased to satisfy them today because when it comes to sewerage, it is not often that it can be associated with good news. But Tideway is the good news story in the UK. It was officially opened by His Majesty the King earlier this year, and London’s super-sewer is now fully connected and has, to date, captured over 7 million tonnes of sewage, which would historically have spilled into the River Thames. That is enough storm sewage to fill Wembley one and a half times. While I was waiting today, I was trying to figure out how many times it would fill this Chamber, but I will leave that to brainier folks than I.
This super-sewer is a marvel of modern engineering. It spans the length of London from Acton in the west right through to the Beckton sewage treatment works in the east, passing under iconic London landmarks as it goes. Having taken many years to build, it will continue to serve Londoners for generations to come, helping to protect our precious natural environment from sewage at the same time.
However, ambitious infrastructure projects such as Tideway do not come cheap. That is why, in 2013, the specified infrastructure projects regulations were created. I do not want to go too much into the weeds of this but these regulations made it possible for the Tideway project to be paid for using a novel financing mechanism. This reduced the political and financial risk for Tideway’s investors, reduced the cost of capital, and spread the costs over multiple generations of Londoners who will benefit from that infrastructure. The incurred debts are repaid over the long term by Thames Water bill payers, much like a mortgage.
Before work started, it was estimated that the project would cost customers between £20 and £25 per year, and that was in 2014-15 prices. The cost has remained well within that range since, which in itself is a remarkable achievement. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this makes Tideway a good news story.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 61 in this group. Its purpose follows on from what my noble friend Lord Gascoigne said: namely, that we have not built a new reservoir for a long time. The intention of the amendment is to give the Government the power to change that—to make things happen.
I would hope that the existence of such a power would mean that things happen anyway, but we need the ability to shift things onwards and to get out of the situation we are building ourselves into. We want to put in another 1.5 million houses but have no way of supplying them with water, particularly in some bits of the country that would actually welcome additional houses. It is important to get over whatever the blockage is and it would be a good idea to give the Government a bit of dynamite to do this.
I am delighted that Tideway has come in on budget. Perhaps the noble Lord could introduce whoever is responsible for that to whoever is responsible for the doors here.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, as we consider the challenge of water security, we all feel the urgency. Demand is rising, our climate is changing and not a single new major reservoir has been completed in over three decades, as we have already heard. Yet pursuing a one-size-fits-all solution rarely serves us well, especially regarding water storage and distribution. I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Lucas, for inspiring this discussion and debate.
There is consensus on building new reservoirs, but this cannot be done in isolation. Proper investment from water companies is essential, particularly in tackling leaks and improving demand management so that we use water more wisely, even as we boost supply. This is not either/or; it must be both. Yesterday, in the Statement regarding the Independent Water Commission, the full implication of the broken infrastructure that has led to so much water going to waste was laid down very clearly.
It is tempting to focus on grand, large-scale projects, but we should make space for smaller, locally led interventions that reflect the needs and fabric of our communities. Alongside ambitious infrastructure, a programme of carefully sited small and medium reservoirs, delivered in partnership with farmers, landowners and councils, can speed up progress, reduce environmental barriers and, most importantly, engage local people. We have heard not just from experts but from communities themselves that local schemes such as Slow the Flow projects, natural dams and catchment-based storage bring added benefit for flood mitigation and biodiversity, not just water supply. These nature-friendly solutions must be championed alongside larger reservoirs.
However local schemes alone are not enough. We must pair them with strategic national thinking. Regions with water surpluses should be able to support those facing deficit—a modern, integrated network for water transfer. I ask noble Lords to bear with me, because this is a little complicated. The National Infrastructure Commission, which was replaced by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority in April 2025, was praised by the National Audit Office for its proposals, which constituted a positive cost-benefit case for establishing a network of strategic transfers of water—a transfer system that enables us to balance supply across the country, smoothing out regional disparities and providing resilience against drought and flooding. The recent Commons Library briefing, Future Water Resources, highlights several proposed intercompany transfers, such as Thames Water to Southern Water—120 megalitres a day—demonstrating that active steps can be and are already being undertaken. Alongside large and small reservoirs, these transfer schemes are truly integral to future-proofing our water supply and reducing the risk of shortages.
Turning to the amendments before us, Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, proposes removing the size and complexity test for new water infrastructure to focus solely on the value for money test. But, as Ofwat’s current regulations set out, that test ensures that projects do not threaten a water company’s fundamental service to customers. Given the sector’s current state, we should tread carefully before removing this safeguard. A more prudent path may be to consider government co-funding models, such as that now being used for nuclear, if projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver and are in jeopardy of providing a poor or totally broken service—or further broken, should I say—to consumers.
Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would hand powers to the Secretary of State to dictate timelines and, crucially, permit bypassing planning controls. While there is much in the amendment that we read with interest, I worry in particular about proposed new subsection (3)(b), which is a significant centralisation of power. Yes, there has been an unacceptable delay in reservoir construction, but concentrating such powers is unlikely to foster better outcomes. Proper local engagement, as we all made very clear in our Second Reading speeches, and scrutiny need to be balanced and are vital partners to each other.
Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, aligns more closely with the objectives on these Benches. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the compelling arguments that were made on the noble Baroness’s behalf.
Above all, we must ensure that interventions, whether mighty reservoirs or smaller, community-scale schemes, work for people and for nature, and are delivered with transparency, accountability and genuine urgency. I hope the Minister will clarify the Government’s support for small reservoirs and for a robust water transfer network, so that every region and every customer in every region can feel protected, valued and heard.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I intervene in this group to flag up a couple of points. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for introducing Amendment 59, which makes an interesting point.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the size and complexity threshold test is about assessing whether an infrastructure project is of such size or complexity that the water undertaking cannot manage it or, if it attempts to manage it, it might prejudice its financial ability to meet its obligations to customers. Actually, under current circumstances, we have reached the point where many water undertakers may not have the capacity to undertake infrastructure projects in the way we expected in the past. We know that there was a substantial period when they did manage investment and they increased investment in the water industry, but in more recent years they have not done so and there is considerable risk to their ability to undertake the infrastructure projects we are looking for.
We should not be surprised that that is the case. Take Anglian Water, which is not among the most prejudiced of the water companies at the moment. I was very interested to attend a presentation about Anglian Water’s proposals for the Fens reservoir. It was fascinating, positive and optimistic. Then, in response to a question, Anglian Water mentioned that it is not going to own it. Somebody else will own it, and we do not know who.
So we have to be aware that there is substantial uncertainty about how we will fund much of this infrastructure, but the most important thing was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne in moving Amendment 59. The amendment is about which projects should go out to competitive tender. That is all it really tells us. The answer ought to be: if it will secure value for money—indeed, if there is potential for independent financing which, as he said, can be more cost-effectively delivered, and we know that the risk premium on the water undertakings themselves is making their borrowing more expensive than what may well be available through other sources of financing —then we should go down that path. The size and complexity threshold test is unhelpful, gets in the way and creates serious impediments to getting on with infrastructure projects.
Of course, the amendment is not deliverable. It does not deliver the objective in its own right. One would have to substantially change Section 36 and other sections of the Water Act 1991 to achieve the objective, because the regulation derives its power from the primary legislation. We need to look at the Water Act 1991 in substance to achieve that on Report.
What my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment says is helpful. When one looks at what it is that governs the delivery of reservoirs, as far as I can tell the Reservoirs Act 1975 basically says that it ought to be done by an appropriately approved construction engineer. That is pretty much it. There is a great deal that should be added to what is required in order to secure reservoir development.
I have two other points to make. The first is that Amendment 62 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raises a more significant point than the amendment itself says. We are aiming to secure what we need in terms of water supply. I remind noble Lords of my interests in the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and the Oxfordshire Development Forum, which of course means that two reservoirs—the Fens reservoir and the Lincolnshire reservoir—are relevant, as well as the Grand Union Canal project and related activity to try to supply the east of England. We are in a position at the moment where, by 2050, we will have a deficit in water supply equivalent to a third of our present use. That is the degree of stress that we are looking at and therefore need demand management to be substantially improved and the supply to be improved.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will address these important amendments concerning water infrastructure, each of which touches on the future resilience and efficiency of our water sector. These amendments reflect a shared desire to ensure that the regulatory framework keeps pace with the demands of modern infrastructure delivery while safeguarding value for money and service quality for consumers.
Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, proposes to remove the size and complexity test currently embedded in water regulations. This is a timely and helpful amendment, particularly in the light of the Cunliffe review published on Monday. The review highlights that, under specified infrastructure projects regulations, this test can apply only where projects are of such scale and complexity that they risk threatening the water company’s ability to provide services and value to customers. The Government have recently signalled their intention to relax this criterion. In this context, will the Minister clarify when the Government intend to relax it by? How will they do so? Could the opportunity presented by my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment be used to implement such a relaxation? We need a regulatory environment that is more flexible and better suited to facilitating timely delivery of much-needed infrastructure projects without unnecessary procedural hurdles that can cause delays and cost overruns.
Amendments 61 and 62 relate to reservoir construction and regulation. We recognise the importance of the delivery of new reservoirs, and we acknowledge their vital role in enhancing water security and supporting our long-term infrastructure goals. While I would like to support my noble friend Lord Lucas on his Amendment 61, we have a concern about whether introducing new, possibly burdensome regulation is necessary or whether it would risk creating delays or have unintended consequences.
In contrast, Amendment 62 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, seeks to deregulate low-hazard reservoirs. We believe that this approach could streamline processes where the risk is minimal, allowing resources to be focused on the highest-risk infrastructure.
Water infrastructure is a critical national priority. In the light of these differing proposals, I ask the Minister to give the Committee a clear answer on the Government’s position. How do the Government intend new reservoirs to be built? What regulatory approach will be taken to balance safety, efficiency and the urgent need for water infrastructure? I look forward to the Minister’s response on these important matters.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, it was of course a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, introduce these amendments. He referred to the success of the Thames Tideway project, and there were a number of references to who did it. The person in charge of that project is Andy Mitchell, who has done an extraordinarily good job, so it is quite right that his name should be referred to next to the project itself.
The amendments seek to insert new clauses specific to water infrastructure. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove the size and complexity test from the specified infrastructure projects regulations, known as SIPR. The Government are resisting this amendment because we have already committed to reviewing the SIPR framework. That was set out in the Chancellor’s New Approach to Ensure Regulators and Regulation Support Growth policy paper, published in March 2025, which confirmed that Defra will amend the SIPR framework to help major water projects proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. It is important that the planned review goes ahead so that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry. Removing the size and complexity threshold now would pre-empt that process and risk creating a regime that does not reflect the sector’s diverse needs or long-term priorities.
We will continue to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that the specified infrastructure projects regime remains targeted and proportionate and delivers value for customers. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked by when this review will be completed, and I can assure him that it will be completed in this calendar year. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling the amendment, but I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, to withdraw it on her behalf.
Amendment 61 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to introduce enabling regulations for milestones and enforcement for various delivery phases of all water undertakers’ reservoir proposals. The Government have already taken urgent steps to improve water security. This involves action to improve water efficiency and to reduce water company leaks alongside investing in new supply infrastructure, including new reservoirs and water transfers. We are taking action to speed up the planning process for new reservoirs. For example, we recently revised the National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure to make clear that the need for the proposed reservoirs in the water companies’ statutory management plans has been demonstrated.
Ofwat’s price review final settlement in December 2024 for the water sector has also unlocked record investment, around £104 billion of spending by water companies between 2025 and 2030. This includes £8 billion of investment to enhance water supply and manage demand, such as enabling the development of nine new reservoirs. As part of that, leakages will reduce by 17%. We have taken steps with Ofwat to improve water company oversight by increasing reporting and assurance requirements on companies’ delivery, improving protection for customers from companies failing to deliver the improvements by returning the funding to customers, and encouraging companies to deliver on time by applying time-based incentives.
The Government, as the Committee has already heard, also commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead the Independent Water Commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise the water industry and deliver resilient water supplies. The Government are grateful to Sir Jon and the commission for their work and will carefully consider their findings and recommendations, including those that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to.
We will provide a full government response to the commission’s report in the autumn, setting out our priorities and timelines. The Government will introduce root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry. Working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, the Government will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system so that it is fit for decades to come. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is therefore reassured that the proposed new clause is unnecessary, and I kindly ask him not to move his amendment.
Amendment 62, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is not necessary. It is a probing amendment to encourage the consideration of measures to facilitate the construction of small reservoirs. The Government are already encouraging building both small and large reservoirs. That improves resilience to climate change, sustains food production and water security and supports economic growth.
Reservoir safety legislation does not prevent new reservoirs being constructed but does ensure that structures are well built and maintained. The streamlining of the planning system will make them quicker and easier to build in the future. However, it is important that new reservoirs do not pose flood risks for local communities by being built in the wrong locations and that existing reservoir dams are structurally safe.
Reservoirs that store water above ground level pose risks to life, property, businesses and the environment, and could cause economic disruption to local communities if the dam structure were to fail. These risks are managed through reservoir safety regulations. Reservoirs that store water below ground level do not pose the same risks and so are out of scope of the reservoir safety regulations. Current advice to farmers and landowners who wish to build reservoirs is to consider options for non-raised water storage. The Government intend to consult in the autumn on proposals to improve reservoir safety regulations, including making the requirements more tailored to the level of hazard posed and bringing some smaller raised reservoirs in scope. These proposals do not alter the need for more reservoirs, nor prevent new ones being built. They are to ensure that reservoir dams are structurally sound and that flood risks for communities down stream are effectively managed.
I appreciate the interests of noble Lords in tabling these amendments. However, for the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that the hour is late and already the two Chief Whips are conspiring to tell us that we need to rattle through.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
Exactly—that is just what my Chief Whip says.
I am grateful to the Minister and everyone who has participated. I obviously cannot do justice to what my noble friend Lady Coffey would say on Amendment 59 in this group, but it has been a good discussion, albeit short.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Lucas who made the correct observation that this is not just about water infrastructure in itself. It is about the importance of it linking into housing and the need to build more homes. My noble friend Lord Lansley made a very good point about the Cunliffe review as a whole and the need to have a broader discussion about what was said in that review. I am sure that will happen.
I am conscious that we are heading into Recess. I am grateful for the many brainy points that my noble friend makes about the issues within the regulations and this legislation. For now, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Gascoigne
“Guidance on planting along highways(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue guidance for developers, local planning authorities and other relevant parties on the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass alongside highways constructed as part of—(a) any new transport infrastructure;(b) any other development for which consent has been granted.(2) Guidance issued under this section must outline how licence conditions under section 142(5) of the Highways Act 1980 (licence to plant trees, shrubs, etc., in a highway) are to be applied and complied with in a way which—(a) is not unreasonably burdensome on applicants for licences, and(b) does not prevent or discourage the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass,and must provide model licence conditions, standard designs, and planting palettes.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the planting of trees and other plants alongside new highways.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, yet again I have the two Chief Whips staring at me. I will be brief, but also, I hope, very cheery—this will be a cheery discussion.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the evident enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I thank him for moving this amendment.
With an amendment with the headline of planting trees next to new roads, I have to begin by pointing out that, if you are talking about highways and so on, we should not be building new roads. All too often, we are destroying wonderful pieces of nature. I am thinking of standing beside a wonderful oak tree, which would have been a sapling when Elizabeth I was on the Throne, that was threatened by the Norwich link road, Western Link. Luckily, it appears to have been saved by barbastelle bats. Sometimes the bats do win.
Nonetheless, I very much support this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has made the case for it strongly. I declare an interest, as we are talking about old times, as one of those campaigning to save Sheffield’s trees, which helped to highlight to the nation the benefits of street trees and how important they are to human health and well-being. That is what we are talking about here, as well as biodiversity and nature.
Given the time, I will say just one other thing. I think the noble Lord alluded to this, but it is worth stressing that when we think about trees and other plantings, we think that it is good for the trees, but it is absolutely crucial for other wildlife. We should be ensuring that roads are, as much as they can possibly be, wildlife corridors. Birds are the obvious thing to think about here, but many noble Lords will be aware of the phrase “insectageddon”. The populations at the base of our food web have been collapsing, and plantings beside roads and in urban areas should provide some sort of refuge and restoration here.
I referred previously to the fact that we are not meeting the legal target to reverse the decline in nature by 2030, which of course is in the Environment Act. I will just say one final thing. Noble Lords might be thinking that I am getting fairly small with insects, but I also want to focus on the importance of a rich microbial and fungal world. Just yesterday, the Society for the Protection of Underground Networks produced some really important work pointing out that very few fungal biodiversity hotspots are in protected areas, and we need to have a healthy environment. We need to think about all elements of life in the web in which all our bodies actually live. This is just a small step, but I think it is a very sensible and practical one.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I really appreciate this amendment being tabled and the manner and the style in which it was presented. I welcome the noble Lord’s comments and speeches in this space.
Amendment 60 requires guidance around the planting of trees on highways to be issued within six months of the Act coming into force. As the noble Lord said, this does not require great expense. We feel that it is a helpful, useful measure. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that this is not about development versus nature. Actually, we need both, and both need to be conjoined and considered together, because we, as people who live in the new developments, who need to thrive and not just survive, need these things to work. They are better for all of us. They reduce health inequalities, they make us happier and healthier, and they make our lives more pleasant.
One example came to my mind on this: the work that was done on the upgrade to the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, which opened in 2020. As part of the upgrade programme, 850,000 saplings were planted by the Highways Agency. Unfortunately, it was done in extreme heat and in poor soils, as a result of which three-quarters of the trees—roughly half a million—that the Highways Agency planted died. They are being replanted, at a cost of £2.9 million, which raises an issue about how we replant nature. Again, I do not want to go into Part 3, but there are obviously issues with trying to replicate nature or move nature from one place to another, and this is a very stark example of that.
Going beyond that, local communities really got involved in this area and I want to thank them, because people went out and planted trees themselves, cared for and nurtured them, and did a great job in trying to put right some of the mess. Some of the trees that were planted were the wrong types of trees; they did not have enough soil around them, so they dried out; the soil they were planted in was bad; the saplings were too young—generally it was not very well done and the trees that were planted were not cared for and nurtured. What tends to happen is that there is a concentration on numbers—it is a numbers game. Every party had a tree-planting commitment in its manifesto—“My tree-planting commitment is bigger than yours”—and that is not what we need. We need trees to be cared for and nurtured.
I suggest politely to the Government that they should focus not on numbers planted but the numbers in five years’ time. How many trees, five years after the planting, actually survive and are counted? If there are not enough, more planting should be done. Trees are really important. This is a valuable opportunity for the Government to look at the strategies and for us to have a broader look at how we do this. So I really welcome this amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support my noble friend’s amendment and the speeches that have been made. Getting good guidance published makes a lot of difference. There are always reasons why a local developer or authority will not do what is best. One can hope that a big authority would have good practices; our big local authority has decided to mow all its wildflower verges in the middle of June—sigh.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am at risk of losing my carefully nurtured reputation as an environmentalist and a nature lover. This amendment was beautifully presented by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, but perhaps somewhat extravagantly. We were told that having more trees would improve driving. Does anybody believe that? Just think what experiment you would have to conduct to be able to prove it.
Not every tree is as attractive as you might think. Right across the road from my front door, there is a mulberry tree. Most of the year it is survivable, but at the moment it is absolutely fatal. It is dropping its half-formed mulberries on the pavement, causing danger in every direction, as well as being terribly ugly. The householder was out today with a hose trying to sweep it off the pavement, I assume because he was worried about liability. Just around the corner we have some very fine plane trees in Queen’s Gate that must be 150 years old. They are aggressively pollarded. Why? It is because they suck so much water out of the clay that they cause subsidence in the houses adjacent. As it is the council’s liability if the street trees pull the houses down, to protect itself it pollards them aggressively to reduce water demand.
There is a right place for trees. Bedford Park in west London, built as a semi-rural extension, would look ridiculous without trees and of course must have them, but other fine Italianate terraces looking like palazzos are made ridiculous if you plant the odd sapling in the carriageway because you cannot fit it on the footway due to the voids under the pavement built to house coal. Everything must be judged very finely and at local level.
The idea here is that the source of wisdom on this should be a civil servant in MHCLG, producing guidance which includes, to my horror,
“standard designs, and planting palettes”.
What will that produce? It will be one ash, one poplar and one oak sapling—box ticked and that is the developer done. You will have the same trees planted in the same configuration in half the developments in the country. There are people who can produce guidance on trees, and I would encourage them to do so. There is a professional body representing local authority arboriculturists. People who really work with trees, know trees and have great affection for them have a great sensitivity to what is appropriate to plant in a particular location. Guidance from that source might be very sensible and valuable. I would encourage that, but not, I hope, box-ticking.
Let us have trees in the right places and remember that they are good in some places but bad in others. Let us have variety in the right place and perhaps fewer mulberry trees overhanging the footway, but let us not bureaucratise this with guidance from the ministry with little drawings.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I should declare that for the past year or so I have been working with the Horticultural Trades Association, which represents environmental horticulturists under the Industry and Parliament Trust scheme. The industry is very keen to improve the quality of planting. We have talked about housing, but I do not know if the noble Lord has seen, for example, the planting near warehouses or commercial estates. Far too often, there are one or two exotic species which have no value at all for wildlife. The Government could of course work with the industry and those experts to produce the guidance, so it would not just be them; it would be a co-operative effort.
Lord Moylan (Con)
That would be an indispensable approach, if this were to go ahead, but we are fundamentally forgetting local authorities and local planning departments in this. The arboriculturists to whom the noble Baroness refers are exactly the sort of people who should be involved and are the right source of information for this—more so than the Government. If the Government are to be involved, it should be at a very considerable distance from the whole process, offering encouragement, advice and light support rather than providing the guidance itself. Otherwise, I welcome everything else that my noble friend said and I am very happy to have a further discussion with him in due course.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for tabling this amendment. The Chief Whip on our side is no longer present, but I can hear him saying, “Get on with it”, so I shall.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion. The Government agree that planting schemes can mitigate the environmental impacts of new highways and make existing ones more pleasant. However, this amendment is not necessary as there is already relevant guidance on this matter, produced by a number of relevant stakeholders, that local highway authorities and others should have regard to. This includes the well-managed highways infrastructure code of practice, which provides guidance for local authorities on managing highway networks; the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; the Manual for Streets; and local authorities’ own street adoption and street works guidance documents. Some local authorities go further and encourage local residents to look after street trees—including my own. When I am not in the Chamber until late at night, I am nurturing a small but growing tree in my locality by taking it a bucket of water every so often, and it will be a pleasure to do so this evening when we finish.
Planning applications for highway development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are already subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain, and we are currently consulting on the application of biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with the aim of mitigating any environmental impact. Requiring additional or new guidance would be an administrative burden and could merely duplicate the guidance that already exists, so I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and everyone who participated in the debate; it started on a high then slowly descended. I have said many times in this Chamber that I massively respect the Minister, but I think he mentioned about five different sets of rules or guidance, and that is precisely why there should be some clear documentation that sets out the different issues and how to tackle them.
I am grateful to my own Back Benches, the Greens and the Lib Dems for their comments and support. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the perfect point that this is also about wildlife, which is often accused or neglected, and the fact that we have the 2030 targets, which we should aim for and this can play a part in that.
I am conscious of the time, but there are various things I could say to my dear and good noble friend Lord Moylan. I will take him up on the offer to engage with him. I will make three very quick points. First, while trees do not improve your driving, it is a fact that having trees on streets slows down drivers in urban areas; someone made that observation in mainland Europe, where, sadly, they have more trees than we do. It therefore improves driving, even if it does not improve the quality of the driver.
Secondly, my noble friend mentioned the issues with his mulberry bushes. That is exactly why there should be guidance on new development—that is its purpose.
Finally, I was googling frantically what sort of tree my noble friend Lord Moylan could be. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but one that I found was the great white oak. I am told that it is big and majestic in many ways, but it is also quite stubborn. I say respectfully to my noble friend: please, let us have this journey; I will come and help him clean up his mulberry bush.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Provision of solar panels in new transport infrastructure(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, require that all new transport infrastructure projects requiring approval under any enactment make provision for the installation of solar panels where reasonably practicable.(2) The regulations must include—(a) criteria for determining when installation is reasonably practicable, including structural, environmental, and safety considerations;(b) minimum surface area requirements for solar panel coverage where practicable;(c) the types of transport infrastructure to which the requirement applies.(3) “Transport infrastructure” includes but is not limited to—(a) new or refurbished rail stations and rail lines,(b) new or refurbished bus stations and depots,(c) major road-building or upgrading projects, and(d) other public transport hubs.(4) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to mandate the installation of solar panels in the construction of new transport infrastructure where reasonably practicable, through regulations made by statutory instrument.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I will speak briefly to the three amendments I have in this group.
Amendment 63 is about increasing solar panels on new transport infrastructure. This could include new or refurbished railway stations or rail lines, bus and tram stations and depots, major road building or upgrade projects, and other public transport hubs. As a country, we have so much to learn from others. For example, Switzerland has just started a new scheme of installing solar panels on the actual railways; PV panels will be rolled out like carpet between the tracks in one of their western cantons. Germany plans to install solar panels along motorways, tapping into 250,000 potential sites to boost renewable energy. France is trialling solar panels on its railway estate.
The European Commission, in a 2024 report, looked at the potential for the large-scale deployment of vertical solar panels on Europe’s major roads and railways. It concluded that the electricity generated from such PV installations would not only be cost-effective in electricity markets but serve as a viable alternative to fossil fuels in transportation. Tapping into solar PV energy along transport infrastructure can therefore significantly contribute to the EU’s energy transition, and we should do the same here in the UK. There are examples of good practice—at Second Reading, I mentioned Blackfriars and Denmark Hill railway stations—but we must do more, and that is why I tabled the amendment.
Amendment 106 is a requirement for all new car parks to include solar panels. As I highlighted at Second Reading, across the country there are vast expanses of roof space that sit idle, while exposed to sunlight. Installing solar panels on car parks could generate clean energy, reduce grid pressure and power local EV chargers directly. France has already mandated solar panels on large car parks. The Government’s recent consultation on solar panels feels like we are trying to catch up; this amendment will make that a reality, and I hope that the Minister will be able to support it.
Finally, Amendment 68 is about the prioritisation of electricity grid connections for EV charging infrastructure. This includes, as I discussed in an earlier group, the need for a focus on commercial as well as private vehicles. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, although she is not in her place, for putting her name to this amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will again speak extremely briefly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendments 68 and 106.
I already referred to Amendment 68 when discussing the need for the Government to ensure that the electricity network providers prioritise grid connections for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, particularly for freight. As I said in an earlier group, that is particularly important. It will potentially have a large draw on the grid, so this has to be planned from an early stage to make sure there is enough there to cater for HGVs.
If we were going to have a contest for the most popular amendment tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I think Amendment 106 might be it. I have heard a number of people saying, “Don’t put solar panels on farmland, put them on car parks instead”. It is a pity we are doing this before the holidays, because, when we come back, many people will have undoubtably been in continental Europe. France, for example, has a rule that all new and existing car parks with more than 80 places must install solar panels. So, this is a very modest amendment, when you compare it to what France has legislated; this is only talking about new car parks. It is absolutely common sense about where we should be putting those solar panels, for all the practical reasons, in terms of the extra shade they provide, protection for cars and to meet the Government’s energy targets.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support Amendments 63 and 106 in this group. I will speak fearlessly to them, because my noble friend Lord Moylan has already put the WD-40 on my set of thumbscrews as a result of previous amendments.
It is entirely sensible to put solar panels in places where there is the immediate local demand for electricity when it is sunny. When it is sunny, our trains are running. To have solar panels along rail infrastructure supplies a demand which is entirely local. When the sun is out in a serious way, the rail consumes extra electricity in keeping the carriages cool, so it is an entirely sensible place to put them.
Car parks are excellent places to charge your car. They are usually next to supermarkets or other similar places that are using electricity in the daytime. If we are going to generate solar electricity, this is an entirely appropriate place to do it.
I would go further than this: I would allow local authorities to have local schemes to encourage solar on all commercial roofs and would allow them to increase the level of business rates payable on roofs that do not have solar. It is ridiculous when you stand on hills above Eastbourne and look at a couple of hundred hectares of commercial estates and there are no solar panels whatever on any of them, but they are all using electricity in the daytime. The difficulties arise from fractured ownership and lease patterns. It is not easy to do, but, if we can produce a substantial incentive that basically says to businesses, “You can either generate some solar in this space or you can pay into a fund to help us to do other things elsewhere”, and if the payment is sufficiently high, I think we will get a move to solar, and that would be a good idea.
The alternative is a large solar farm on an ancient marsh in the middle of town. That would be entirely destructive in visual terms and not at all helpful in terms of wildlife and the environment generally. It would be much better if we could have the same size of solar farm on land that is already developed and entirely suitable for it. But we have not got the right structures in place in government to enable that, and I would really like to see that changed.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I declare my registered interests, including shareholdings in companies involved in renewable energy. These interests are not directly affected by the amendments under discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for tabling and speaking to these amendments so eloquently and passionately, and for her ongoing commitment to the UK’s decarbonisation ambitions in the transport sector.
Amendments 63 and 106 seek to mandate the installation of solar panels in the construction of new transport infrastructure and require solar panels to be provided as part of the construction of all new above-ground car parks. The Government are committed to achieving clean power by 2030, and it is clear that solar energy will be crucial to achieving our mission. The clean power action plan calls for the rapid acceleration of solar deployment, from around 18 gigawatts as of April 2025 to 45 to 47 gigawatts by 2030. This is an ambitious mission, which has enormous potential to create good jobs, protect bill payers, ensure energy security and reduce our exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets. The recently published Solar Roadmap includes over 70 actions for government and industry to take forward to help deliver this ambition by removing barriers to deployment of all types of solar.
We recognise that solar canopies on car parks have the potential to provide significant renewable electricity generation, shelter for cars and drivers, and localised power for EV charging points. This year, the Government published a call for evidence to assess the potential to drive the construction of solar canopies on new outdoor car parks over a certain size.
We are currently analysing the evidence that has been provided by the sector, and are conducting the essential cost-benefit analysis needed to understand the impact of any policy to mandate the provision of solar on new car parks. Having not yet concluded this process, it would not be appropriate at this stage to include this amendment in the Bill. However, the Government are considering this proposal very carefully and will explore ways to achieve its intention, including through future legislation, if the evidence supports this conclusion.
It is also the case that we do not currently have the evidence base to support requiring all transport infrastructure to include solar panel installation. We have not yet engaged with industry to fully understand the potential impact of this amendment, or conducted the necessary cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be appropriate to install solar on all the different types of transport infrastructure set out in the amendment.
The Government are committed to achieving their mission through significant solar deployment across the country. Following the publication of the road map, the solar council will be established to bring together the solar industry, the UK Government and other relevant parties. The council will work to secure, enable and accelerate the deployment of solar at all scales and identify emerging opportunities, realigning priorities and action as needed.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, notes the ongoing work the Government are doing in this area, which must conclude before any consideration of a legislative intervention takes place. I therefore kindly ask her to withdraw her amendment.
On Amendment 68, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, the Government recognise the importance of accelerating grid connections for electricity demand projects, including electric vehicle charging, as well as for generation projects. This recognition lies at the heart of the reforms we announced in the industrial strategy, which include using the powers in the Bill to amend regulatory processes and accelerate connections for strategically important projects.
Although the Government fully acknowledge the critical role of freight and logistics in national supply chain security and decarbonisation targets, it would not be prudent to enshrine in legislation a preference for one sector, as this would inevitably mean deprioritising equally important sectors listed in the industrial strategy, such as advanced manufacturing, the wider supply chain for clean energy projects, data centres, and more.
That is why we have also announced the connections accelerator service, which will support strategically important projects across all priority sectors to accelerate their connection dates. The Department for Transport will play a key role in helping to shape the framework for identifying these vital projects.
I also take this opportunity to highlight the suite of initiatives the Government are pursuing in support of the electrification of freight, logistics and the broader transport sector. This includes our ongoing efforts in national and regional strategic energy planning. We are working to support infrastructure investment ahead of need, ensuring that we not merely react to but anticipate demand. By planning strategically, we can deliver robust, future-proofed infrastructure, and support our broader decarbonisation and economic ambitions.
Furthermore, the Department for Transport is actively encouraging stakeholders in the transport sector to look ahead, to consider their future electricity needs and to feed this information directly into our strategic planning processes. By doing so, we will create a more comprehensive and responsive energy network that is able to meet the evolving requirements of our nation’s transport system.
I also highlight the work of the Freight Energy Forum. Led by the Department for Transport, this forum brings together transport and energy stakeholders from across the country, providing a platform for knowledge-sharing and collaboration. By working closely together, we can inform future action and ensure that the sector remains agile and well-equipped for an electrified future.
I trust that the Committee will appreciate the rationale for our approach and recognise the Government’s determination to deliver balanced, strategic and forward-looking energy infrastructure for the nation. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned a number of countries, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The noble Baroness cited the French Government in particular. The potential for solar canopies on car parks is significant, and we are looking carefully at international best practice, including what France has introduced. Before committing to any prospective policy, including mandating, we believe it right to properly engage with industry and stakeholders to better understand the impacts and see whether government intervention is needed.
Noble Lords alluded to a couple of points about deploying solar on rail lines and roads. Rail track solar could be a feasible solution, particularly in urban areas where the track is electrified, as there will already be a good connection. However, there are some current obstacles that may inhibit the deployment of the technology in all areas, such as the challenge of grid connections in rural areas and additional kit required to convert electricity from solar to usable electricity for trains, which may be expensive.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about car parks and agricultural land. This Government are committed to a solar revolution that enhances energy security while protecting the UK’s biodiversity and agricultural spaces. Car parks indeed offer an opportunity to utilise vast spaces for solar generation, but we must engage with industry and gather a broader evidence base to overcome the potential structural and financial barriers to widespread use of solar canopies. For the reasons outlined previously, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank Members who have spoken on this group and the Minister for his detailed answer. He talked about a solar road map. Alongside that, we want a solar rail, tram and bus map. We want to see this across transport infrastructure, and we hope to start to see some progress in due course, particularly looking internationally. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“National Lane Rental Scheme: establishment(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Lane Rental Scheme (“the Scheme”).(2) The Scheme must ensure that—(a) local authorities are able to grant lane rental permission to utility companies as standard,(b) the Secretary of State is only involved in the granting of lane rental when utility companies appeal to the Secretary of State about the local authority’s actions under paragraph (a), and(c) any public highway may be subject to lane rental provisions, irrespective of size or level of sensitivity.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) consolidate existing regulations which provide for local authorities to grant permission for lane rental to utility companies for works, and(b) ensure that any orders made under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which may contradict the provisions of the Scheme are repealed.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument vary provisions in the Scheme.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a national scheme for Lane Rental during road works with the intention of developing a simpler, less bureaucratic, and more flexible scheme replacing the existing scheme of individual applications by transport authorities to the Secretary of State.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on the two amendments in my name relating to utility works on roads. Constant disruption to our roads from roadworks—in the majority of cases, related to utilities works—is a huge frustration to all drivers, often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact. It also impacts householders, pedestrians and cyclists caught up in or impacted by the noise and fumes of idling cars. Local businesses are hugely impacted from loss of business, as customers stay away to avoid excessive journey times and, when it is on major roads, excessive traffic on smaller roads.
The frustration of drivers is doubly so when they see no work being carried out. Sometimes that is for good reason, but often it is for the convenience of the contractor. I give the example of traffic lights put out on a Friday afternoon for roadworks starting on the Monday and completed on the Thursday, but the traffic lights are removed the following Monday, so for three or four days of work the road is impacted for 10 days. While we recognise that utility and other works are essential, they should be done in a way that minimises disruption.
While councils and Governments have sought to address this through measures such as permitting regimes, and councils often do this proactively, enforcing them to keep roadworks to the permitted time, this does not stop utility companies and contractors seeking an extended time. There is also a lane rental scheme under the 2012 lane rental regulations. Four county councils and Transport for London have applied for this. However, it is a cumbersome process and, with the exception of London, can be applied to only 5% to 10% of roads, and only to those that are highly sensitive. It involves lots of consultation, specific identification of roads, applying to the Secretary of State, needing to draw up an SI and so forth.
There is a better way: there should be a national scheme, with appropriate protections and so forth but also enabling a wider range of highways to be included, that councils could simply opt into. This amendment would not only reduce the time during which our roads are held up by roadworks but reduce bureaucracy.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declared my interests in detail some two hours ago; they relate also to this amendment.
Regrettably, my noble friend Lady Coffey is, as the Committee knows, abroad. She offers her apologies and has asked me to speak to her Amendment 71A, an amendment regarding litter on the strategic road network. Essentially, her amendment asks the question: which roads are the responsibility of National Highways? Due to previous legislation, National Highways has responsibility for litter only on all motorways and some A roads. When my noble friend Lady Coffey was MP for Suffolk Coastal, she witnessed a real conflict in trying to get National Highways to work effectively with the council on litter on the A14. Most litter can be collected only when National Highways closes the road, which is often overnight and does not really fit in with local council practices on litter.
My noble friend’s points are valid. She is right that it is very difficult for National Highways and local authorities to co-ordinate and to get this work done efficiently. There are challenges in night-time operations as regards who is the principal contractor, who puts whom to work safely and who holds whom to account when litter picking needs to happen prior to grass cutting, road space management, customer complaint management, responses et cetera. Having the responsibility for litter across the entire strategic road network sit wholly with National Highways would, it seems, make complete sense.
But I know that the Minister has lengthy experience. With flat opex, the challenge of maintaining the SRN will be exacerbated. I am not completely sure that we have addressed the issue of whether sufficient moneys will be redirected from local authorities to National Highways to offset the additional service demands and risks. Litter picking under NLR is a schedule of rates activity, so it would require new and additional funding. It could not just be absorbed solely through efficiency gains.
Litter picking is a current necessity, but it is reasonable to consider it a waste of taxpayers’ money. Working as a community to dissuade littering behaviour through campaigns and technology should perhaps be the continued primary focus. How do we accelerate? How do we use technology? How do we change legislation? How can we affect the level of prosecution for littering—which then could raise moneys to fund litter-picking activity until the problem hopefully ceases to exist? With 100% strategic road network coverage with CCTV an intended outcome, and with the help of AI, I hope that we can move this industry challenge forward. I believe that we will.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, lane rental has worked well in London; it should be rolled out across the rest of England. National Highways should of course pick up its own litter. Street works should be guaranteed for a decent period. As ever, Conservatives have all the best ideas. I look forward to a short speech from the Minister in which he agrees.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, in respect of lane rental schemes, the Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks. Lane rental is an important tool to help highway authorities reduce the impact of works taking place, but it is important to recognise that such schemes may not be suitable for every area. Many local authorities do not experience the level of congestion necessary to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. However, the Government recognise the value of empowering local leaders and that is why we have consulted on devolving approval powers for lane rentals to mayoral combined authorities. We will be publishing the results of the consultation and next steps in due course. So I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for speaking to the amendment on litter. I agree with him that we must find the best way of tackling this problem. I know that the amendment has been tabled in that spirit. At present, National Highways is responsible for the collection of litter on England’s motorways, but there are other roads—trunk roads and A roads—where National Highways is responsible for the maintenance but local authorities are responsible for litter collection. The question is therefore whether we should relieve local authorities of those duties and transfer them instead to National Highways.
That sounds like a simple solution, but it is in fact a little more complicated. The collaboration methodology works well: for example, National Highways looks for opportunities to enable litter collection to take place safely when roads are closed for other reasons, such as resurfacing or maintenance. Those partnership arrangements provide the best way of tackling litter on the strategic road network, and we encourage and expect National Highways and local authorities to work closely together on them.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for tabling the amendment on extending the guarantee period following road reinstatement. He and I both recognise that high-quality reinstatement is highly desirable. It is important to note that, under the existing Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways guidance, the guarantee period begins only once the reinstatement has been completed to the required standard.
In 2023, a performance-based inspection regime was introduced that means that utility companies with higher defect or failure rates are subject to more frequent inspections and, as they pay for each inspection, this creates a strong financial incentive to maintain high standards. We are closely monitoring the recent changes in Scotland, where the guarantee period has been extended to six years, to assess whether that leads to improved standards, before considering any changes in England. For the reasons outlined, I kindly request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Liddle will now have reached the end of his journey to Carlisle, and I celebrate the noble Lords who have come on the journey for this part of the Bill by remaining in the Chamber. I wish all those who have stayed this long a happy and restful recess.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I look forward to seeing more on the rollout of the lane rental scheme to mayoral authorities, but I ask, as we do not yet have mayoral authorities right across the country, whether he could extend it to all authorities. I also look forward to the review of the practice in Scotland and hope that we will move to a five-year guarantee here. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moynihan
“Water Services Regulation Authority: transfer of functions(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for the functions of the Water Services Regulation Authority relating to planning, development and infrastructure to be transferred to the Secretary of State.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to transfer Ofwat’s functions relating to planning, infrastructure and development to the Secretary of State.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 70. I see the Chief Whip on the Bishops’ Bench praying for a short introduction to this exceptionally important amendment.
My noble friend Lady Coffey seeks to transfer Ofwat’s functions relating to planning, infrastructure and development to the Secretary of State. Of course, she was ahead of her time; the Cunliffe report is now before the House and it will be debated at significant length. Whether the functions go to the Secretary of State or, as Cunliffe suggested, form part of the remit of a new regulator is a matter for your Lordships’ House in due course. We now face the biggest overhaul of water management and, above all, water regulation since privatisation. The Government have offered to fast-track five recommendations and I hope they will take my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment to heart when considering how best to move forward. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment, which is pertinent, as has just been mentioned, given the announcements this week, including that Ofwat will be abolished. The future of water regulation is clearly in flux. We on these Benches seek clarity on the way forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise: I prematurely terminated the journey of this part of the Bill. I will seek to be very brief.
The Government are committed to ensuring effective planning, development and management of water infrastructure. To that end, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs formed an Independent Water Commission. We oppose the amendment put forth by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to transfer Ofwat’s planning, infrastructure and development functions to the Secretary of State because it would pre-empt the results of the independent review. As mentioned, we will provide a full government response to the commission’s report in the autumn, setting out our priorities and timelines, and the Government will therefore introduce root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. It was powerful. It was mistaken in not accepting the amendment, of course, but at least he put it in the context of the important work that the Government have committed to undertake. In that context, I thank him for his contribution and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 70—with the rider that I wish a well-deserved, restful and enjoyable Recess above all to the Minister, who has worked extraordinarily hard throughout this Session, and to every Member of the Committee who has been present throughout the proceedings.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 1st September 2025
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (1 Sep 2025)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting correction which would remove the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” from clause 16. The definition is unnecessary because the term is already defined for the purposes of clause 16 in clause 13(8).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 72 in my name seeks to leave out lines 12 and 13 on page 22 of the Bill, removing the additional definition of “qualifying distribution agreement”. It is a straightforward technical amendment. Its purpose is to tidy up the drafting of the Bill by removing a definition that is no longer required. The term “qualifying distribution agreement” is already defined in Clause 13(8), following other changes made during the passage of the Bill. The amendment will help ensure that the legislation is clear, coherent and free from unnecessary or redundant definitions. It will not alter the substance or effect of the policy but support the overall clarity and workability of the Bill.
I hope that the Committee will support this amendment. I look forward to the debate on the other amendments in this group; I will reserve comment on them until I make my winding-up remarks. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for being so brief and to the point and for allowing me the opportunity to explain the purpose of the other amendments in this group in my name, which are Amendments 73 to 76. Like the Minister, I look forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about grid capacity in his Amendment 79. I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire.
My amendments relate to Clause 17, which contains a power to give Ministers the opportunity to designate strategic plans for the purposes of the connection reforms that are taking place in relation to the transmission and distribution networks. I suppose it would be helpful—not least because it will connect to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will raise—for me to remind the House that this process is under way. In effect, it was commenced by the Connections Action Plan under the previous Administration in November 2023. A simple way of expressing it is by saying that there was a lot of commitment to future substantial increases in generating capacity in a range of technologies, which were increasingly forming a queue to book their potential connection to the transmission or distribution networks. However, there was considerable risk related to whether those projects would be delivered on time or at all.
The volume of such commitments made it very clear that a significant proportion of them would not be viable, because there would be an excess of what was required. The numbers varied, but I think the latest figure was something like 714 gigawatts of grid capacity relative to about 500 gigawatts of demand. Instead of the old regime, which can be characterised as “first ready, first connected”—namely, those who were planning to provide capacity simply booked a place in the queue and then, when they were ready, they were given a right to be connected—the intention now is for there to be strategic planning behind the process leading to the net-zero objectives in 2030, which were published under the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan last December.
Since then, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator have been working on this. For the avoidance of doubt, references in Clause 17 to the independent system operator and planner, ISOP, are actually to the National Energy System Operator, or NESO. Ofgem agreed on its methodologies, I think in April, and has now, after consultation, approved the processes. I think that we are in a position—but the Minister can correct me if there is more detail—where we are anticipating, potentially in a matter of weeks, the first allocation of commitments by Ofgem to what is known as Gate 2. As I understand it, Gate 2 means that Ofgem will say that it is committed to these projects and that they will be connected to the transmission or distribution networks when they are ready and because they are needed.
There are two differences with that approach. First, the queue will be straightforward; it will be not just “first ready, first connected” but “first ready, first needed, first connected”. Secondly, the two criteria that Ofgem will apply, in the first instance, will be that there is a clear timetable—with milestones, which, if they are not met, may cause such projects to lose their place in that queue—and that they will be connected when they are needed. There is therefore a direct relationship between the strategic planning for electricity capacity in a range of technologies and the projects that NESO agrees will be brought in to supply the grid at given times in the future.
If I understand it correctly, the present strategic objective is set out in the connections annexe to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. It sets out a range of technologies, and capacities that are required in those technologies, and then breaks them down by regions across the country. There is therefore a plan to which the alignment should relate. The Explanatory Notes state that the designated strategic plan according to which the National Energy System Operator should work may be, for example, the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, so we can see the relationship with that.
The Explanatory Notes do not say this, but the Delegated Powers Committee’s memorandum from the department did: in addition, the designated plans are intended to include the strategic spatial energy plan intended to be published in 2026. That is in addition to what is in the clean power plan, which has 2030 targets and ranges for its potential capacity requirements through to 2035, and will extend that to 2050 so that there is a longer strategic alignment between the people who are making substantial investments and the commitment on the part of the grid to take that supply into the grid.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my recorded register of interests: I am a non-executive director and a board member of the Water Retail Company. I will speak to my Amendment 79 and respond to the amendments on connections reform.
Amendment 79 calls on the Government to insert a new clause into the Planning and Infrastructure Bill under the heading of “increasing grid capacity” and proposes that, within three months of the Bill becoming law, the Secretary of State should publish a plan to achieve two simple yet crucial objectives: to reduce the cost and the time taken for new connections to the electrical transmission or distribution system; and to permit the development of local energy grids. The need for this amendment should be beyond reasonable doubt. I am concerned that, if these reforms are not made, we will not be capable of meeting the Government’s stated objective, which we share, to achieve clean power by 2030—a key step on our overall climate change and energy targets.
To decarbonise, we must electrify. Electricity demand is set to rise by at least 11% before 2030 and at least double by 2050. How we heat our homes, how we travel and how we power our industry must all be by electricity, which demands wiring everything up and ensuring that both low-voltage and high-voltage networks are fit for purpose. I would argue that this is one of the biggest societal energy changes since the Industrial Revolution and is only some five years away, which is merely the blink of an eye in planning terms. At present, the delay in getting grid connections is one of the greatest obstacles to decarbonisation, to developing new housing and industry, and to increasing our economic output as a country. Our businesses and communities are waiting seven to 10 years—even longer in some cases—before they can secure the right to feed clean energy into the system or to make power connections. Developers in grid hotspots—or “not spots”, potentially—are reporting connection waits of several years as being typical.
We need to be prepared and to get this stuff done. My amendment is designed to help do that. If we are going to be a leader in renewable energy and to get all the renewable energy in place, the grid connection system needs to be reformed. I very much recognise the Government’s recent reforms to try to update the grid connection system. In April 2025, working alongside Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—the Government announced reforms to prioritise clean energy and infrastructure for grid access, aiming to eliminate so-called zombie or speculative projects and to fast-track the shovel-ready schemes that are set to go. The new target model option, TMO4+, introduces stricter queue management, milestone targets and progressive penalties for lagging projects, as well as prioritising the projects that are crucial for clean power and our overall economic growth.
These reforms are intended to help deliver that 2030 clean power plan, unlocking up to £15 billion in investment and supporting a more responsive and modern grid system. These are all steps in the right direction, and we definitely welcome how the Government have made progress since they came to power, but I feel that more needs to be done, hence the amendment that I put forward here. I worry that, if we do not do more, we will simply not be ready and will not hit these targets.
The second element of my amendment touches on local energy grids. Local energy grids are still in their infancy, but my party very much supports them. They empower our local communities and help them to benefit from the clean power revolution that is coming. Their efforts are quiet, modest and determined, and I want this Government to do more to support them. I believe they are essential in galvanising public support and helping the Government to take communities with them on this journey. Alongside many others across both Houses of Parliament, I fought to get community energy into the Great British Energy Act and I am delighted to have done that.
However, more help is needed to get this stuff over the line. Local energy grids are important and will benefit the country. They help to make the grid more secure and resilient. They reduce the need for transmission and the loss of transmission time, and they reduce the need to invest in the high-voltage grid overall. They take our communities with us and bring support. We all need that: this Government need that and we need that. Our communities should benefit from the revolution that is taking place. My amendment is designed to help and to support the Government. My hope is that the Government can support this amendment, or it would be appreciated if they brought forward an amendment on Report.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. I recognise that the Minister has put forward a drafting amendment and we are fine with that. On Amendments 73 to 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we recognise what they are about and welcome the questions that the noble Lord raises. These are important issues, which we should discuss in Committee, about the replication of policy and policy statements, and how those systems are set up and will work in practice.
However, as we go into this rapid period of change, my worry is that, if his amendments are passed, we could end up with a system that is centralised more in Westminster, is less responsive to the changes that need to happen at pace and at scale and is not as well connected to the communities and those on the ground facing change. Those would be my general concerns with those amendments, if agreed, but I look forward to the Minister’s response and I think it is important that those amendments were raised. I look forward to further debate on this group.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, connections reform is very important if we are to give the grid capacity. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right in wanting to speed things up and to ensure that these connections are not too costly. That matters whether you want more renewable energy in the mix or would prefer—as I would—to continue with a mixed supply, including better and continued use of North Sea oil and gas.
However, the fact is that the grid is not resilient and everything is too slow. We have too many layers of decision-making, too much strategising, too many bureaucratic rules and, therefore, not enough speed and determination. I know that that is behind the Government’s planning reforms. I fear that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments could also slow things down, but he may be able to reassure me on that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we can ensure that these changes will speed things up and get us the reforms that we need, if the economy and the energy economy are to work well in the months and years ahead.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s approach of being specific about what it is that developers and investors should be looking at instead of what the latest designated strategy might be. This approach also makes sure that we do not end up with more reasons for judicial review, when it is left to judges to determine what is the strategy or where there is nuance and so on. My noble friend made points about making that direct link to understanding a moment in time and that the measure has been through the parliamentary aspect of the process, initiated by the Government of course. That simplicity will in fact help the Government in achieving a lot of the aims which they seek.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, which relate to the connections reform provisions within the Bill. These are largely technical and drafting amendments, but they are none the less important to ensure clarity and alignment across the legislation. I agree with many of the issues raised by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, particularly anything that slows down the grid connections process or adds more cost to the consumer.
Let me start by welcoming Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which, as she stated in her admirably brief opening, makes a simple drafting correction. It removes the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” from Clause 16, as it is already defined in Clause 13(8). This is a helpful tidying up amendment that improves the consistency of the Bill’s language, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing it forward.
Amendments 73 to 76, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would also serve to improve the clarity and coherence of the Bill, particularly in relation to NESO and its responsibilities. Amendment 73 would ensure that NESO is required to have regard to the strategy and policy statement under Section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, rather than the designated strategic plan. This helps to bring the language of the Bill in line with existing legislation and policy frameworks.
Amendment 74 makes a similar adjustment to Clause 17, ensuring that NESO must have regard to the strategic priorities set out in the strategy and policy statement under the 2023 Act. Amendment 75 then defines “strategic priorities” as those contained in the most recent strategy and policy statement issued under that Act—again reinforcing consistency and legal precision. Amendment 76 replaces references in Clause 17 to “designated strategic plans” with “strategic priorities”, to align terminology with Section 165 of the Energy Act 2023. My noble friend Lord Lansley has put forward a strong case for these changes to the Bill, and they appear to be sensible and constructive amendments.
Finally, Amendment 79, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raises an important issue by highlighting the delays and high costs associated with connecting to the national grid. This amendment addresses a key barrier to energy development and considers the use of local grids as a way of improving efficiency.
This has been a good, thoughtful and short debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is reassuring to hear such a degree of consensus across the House that we all want to deliver the same thing from this—speeding up the connections process. I have expressed my frustration many times before in this House that it can take longer to get a grid connection than it did to build the whole of the A1(M). That is a just a nonsense and we have to move on from it.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, for their comments.
I am afraid I have to oppose the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I understand how well intentioned they are and I greatly respect his experience in these areas, but they would have significant unintended consequences for the Government’s ability to respond swiftly and effectively to the evolving needs of our energy system.
At the heart of the amendments is a proposal to require that the strategy and policy statement, also known as SPS, designated under Part 5 of the Energy Act 2013 is used for the purpose of prioritising connections to the electricity network. I recognise the helpful attempt by the noble Lord to ensure consistency and clarity with regard to the obligations of Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator, NESO. I also fully recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and do not for a moment suggest that we should seek to avoid that. But we must also be honest about the practical implications of this approach.
The SPS is subject to a rigorous process that is entirely appropriate for a high-level, overarching statement of policy. But it is not designed to accommodate the pace or specificity required to support the complex and fast-moving reforms we are undertaking to unblock and accelerate electricity network connections. We are entering a period of rapid transformation. The grid must decarbonise. New technologies are emerging. Electricity demand is shifting and increasing and the connections process must evolve to keep up.
In that context, the Government must be able to designate timely targeted guidance, potentially in the form of multiple documents, tailored to different parts of the sector, such as generation or demand connections, or technology-specific plans and strategies. Indeed, the Government have already signalled their intention to designate the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Industrial Strategy—both existing documents published recently—when the necessary powers are available. These are concrete, strategic documents that will help the industry to plan and invest with confidence, hopefully meeting some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. But these amendments would prevent that. They would limit us to a single document—the SPS—and, in doing so, tie our hands at precisely the moment we need the most flexibility, creating potential delays and preventing the granular and specific strategic direction required for the grid connection process.
There is a further and more fundamental issue. Distribution network operators—DNOs—have no legal obligation to have regard to the SPS. These companies are critical to the delivery of connections reform and are responsible for connecting a significant volume of new generation and storage that will connect directly to the distribution network. They are privately owned and operated and the SPS was never intended to bind them. To attempt to do so now would be not only inappropriate but unworkable.
If we are serious about reforming the connections process—as I believe we are; we have heard that this afternoon—we must ensure that our strategic plans can apply to the full range of actors involved. That means having the ability to designate plans that are fit for purpose, timely and applicable to the right parties. The strategy and policy statement is a high-level strategic document intended to provide Ofgem and NESO with clear direction over the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes for the duration of our term to inform decision-making. In contrast, as I have said, designated plans for the purpose of connections reform may include more granular, tactical guidance. These documents are designed to complement, not conflict with, the SPS.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would also say that plans are in place and being implemented for the connections to the transmission and distribution system. In November 2023, as the noble Lord mentioned, the Connections Action Plan was published, setting out expectations for the scale and pace of reform. This formed the basis for the National Energy System Operator’s connection reform proposals, which Ofgem have just approved. The broad ambition, on which legislative measures have been based, will see faster electricity network connection dates offered, at both transmission and distribution.
The noble Lord asked me a very specific question around the Gate 2 process. The implementation of current connection reforms is under way, as I said. We are working closely with NESO and Ofgem, and we are anticipating the Gate 2 decisions in the coming weeks; “coming weeks” is one of those expressions that I have got used to as I have been a Minister.
The Bill as drafted is intended to ensure that we have the tools to deliver the energy transition effectively. The measure as drafted strikes the right balance. We believe that it provides a clear mechanism for designating strategic plans while preserving the flexibility —which we know we will need—to respond to a rapidly changing sector. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
I turn now to Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that he believes this is the biggest change since the Industrial Revolution in terms of power accessibility. I do not disagree with that statement. Let me begin by stating that we are in full agreement that the current delays arising from the first come, first served approach to grid connections are absolutely no longer tenable; I hope I have made that very clear. For this reason, in December 2024, the Government published the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. This document outlines our plan to work collaboratively with the National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem to deliver a fundamental overhaul of the connections process.
The objective is to accelerate connection timelines for the most critical projects and to unlock billions of pounds of investment for renewable energy generation. Through the implementation of these reforms, it is estimated that up to £5 billion in unnecessary network reinforcements could be avoided. In turn, this should lead to long-term savings for consumers through lower electricity bills.
The reforms in question have been developed by NESO in close consultation with both industry stakeholders and Ofgem, following all requisite formal procedures, including public consultation. Ofgem has since approved these proposals and implementation is now well under way, as I have already mentioned.
This Bill is intended to support the reforms. Notably, the Bill will confer powers on the Secretary of State to designate strategic plans. These plans must be taken into account by both NESO and distribution network operators when exercising their functions in relation to grid connections.
It is anticipated that the Secretary of State will initially designate the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Industrial Strategy, followed in due course by the proposed strategic spatial energy plan. These strategic documents are designed to reflect the needs of the nation’s energy system, including measures to address the inefficiencies of the current grid queue by prioritising projects of greatest national importance. Introducing a new statutory requirement for a further plan would risk delaying this progress and might introduce unwelcome uncertainty for industry participants.
On the matter of local energy grids, we do not consider that there is any regulatory impediment. The necessary infrastructure, including local networks that integrate both generation and demand, is already permissible. Such networks may be developed and operated by distribution network operators or independent network providers, or under private wire arrangements via statutory licence exemptions.
We are also firmly committed to supporting local and community energy initiatives. These play a vital role in the UK’s broader energy landscape and we are determined to ensure that communities continue to benefit directly from the transition to clean energy. We will be discussing more about that later this afternoon.
To that end, Great British Energy will work in partnership with mayoral combined authorities, community energy organisations and the devolved Administrations. This collaboration will include the provision of funding and strategic support, from planning advice to technical guidance, for local community energy stakeholders. I trust this explanation provides sufficient reassurance to noble Lords.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. Is it then the Government’s intention to publish a new strategy and policy statement under the Energy Act? At the moment, legislation requires Ofgem to have regard to what is effectively an out-of-date strategy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I picked up that question during my response. I will just check back to make sure that I got the wording right. I think that is the case but I will confirm it to the noble Lord in writing. Still, I think he is correct in his assumption.
I trust that explanation provides a sufficient response for the noble Lord, and I ask him not to press his amendment.
Earl Russell
“Extension of permitted developmentThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—(i) upgrading of existing electricity lines from single to three phase;(ii) alteration of conductor type;(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wooden poles;(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent required for overhead lines) and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2665);(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years;(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling electricity distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are all on the extension of permitted development. My Amendment 77 concerns the extension of permitted development rights for low-voltage electricity networks. It intends to help this Government achieve their ambition of a clean, affordable and secure energy system by 2030.
The amendment would enable clearly defined and modest upgrades to be treated as permitted development. That includes the upgrading of electricity lines from single to three-phase, the alteration of conduct type, modest increases in pole height where required by regulation, the temporary placement of lines to facilitate works and the reinforcement of existing apparatus such as pole-mounted transformers.
This is not a revolution; it is about pragmatism. These are modest technical improvements that would make our national grid fit for the 21st century. This is not about new infrastructure on green fields. This is needed simply because our electricity network, built decades ago, is fundamentally ill-equipped for the task required of it. I am increasingly worried about the capacity of the low-voltage grid and the investment in it. This is needed to bring electricity to our homes and to ensure that we can make the transitions we need to make—having electric vehicles and installing heat pumps to help us hit our clean-power targets.
At present, these modest network upgrades face planning processes that can take months and sometimes even years, often longer than building the relevant generation plant itself. That results in higher costs and, in some cases, stranded investment. Companies across the energy sector report the same difficulties: planning bottlenecks, slow permissions and land-acquisition rules that lag behind those of gas, water and telecoms. That is not right; there should be a level playing field for these things.
Without reform, costs for paying for clean generators to turn down because the grid cannot handle their power could soar from £2 billion a year today to £8 billion by the end of the decade. These costs are absorbed by companies and passed on to bill payers, who face higher bills. We need to get this stuff done and it needs to work. It takes a series of minor but essential upgrades and technical adjustments to equipment, not new developments, and relieves them of lengthy planning processes. Nothing in this amendment would reduce safety. Electricity safety, quality and continuity regulations remain firmly in place under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, which still governs overhead powerline consents. The safeguards endure. What would change is that we would no longer require the full machinery of a planning inquiry simply to raise a pole by a few feet or to replace a conductor with a modern equivalent.
The benefits are clear. First, it would speed up bureaucracy and get things moving. Secondly, it would lower costs and avoid delays. Thirdly, it would help us achieve our climate and renewable targets. Fourthly, it would provide us with security and resilience in the system and help get electricity to our front doorsteps, where we need it. This amendment would also require consultation on further measures, ensuring that where wider reforms are proposed, the public and stakeholders are fully engaged. I am not asking for a blank cheque here; this is a carefully drafted step forward. The Government have said that this Bill is central to their plan for clean power by 2030, and we agree. This amendment is modest and seeks to help unlock the arteries to make sure that electricity can be delivered.
As I have said, this is slightly complicated because it is a shopping list of very minor improvements. But it reminds me of the approach of British Cycling, which found that a number of very small incremental differences, if implemented as a philosophy, made huge fundamental strides and gains in its ability to win and achieve its goals. The same is true with these amendments. More importantly, these are reforms and changes that DNOs and wider industry bodies are calling for, and that they say they need to achieve clean power. This is about making sure that they can do what they signed up to do to help secure more investment and get things moving.
As I am opening this group, I will circle back to the other amendments at the end. I do not want to speak to other people’s amendments before they have introduced them.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 185B, and I completely agree with the noble Earl on his amendment. I have tabled amendments on permitted development elsewhere in this Bill. It is a hugely important part of getting planning right. The Government should take some courageous decisions on what delays we do not need. What do we recognise that we have to do and how do we allow people to get on with it? Getting an efficient transmission network is something we absolutely need to do.
Moving a transmission pole may upset someone locally, but it is part of a national need. That it should be delayed, that people should take huge amounts of time on whether it should be here or there or whether an extra prop to a pole should be allowed, is just ridiculous. I am very sorry that we have allowed this to accumulate over the years. I am delighted to find the Liberal Democrats in support of reducing regulation; long may this continue. This is a really constructive way forward.
I have added the idea that we ought to allow a bit more freedom for wind generation. When I grew up, it was common to see agricultural windmills—those galvanised towers with clanking blades—all over the rural landscape. They provided power of a kind, type and price which suited the local conditions.
I remember when land wind turbines were introduced, and we all thought that they would be horrid, would desecrate the landscape and that it would be miserable, but we are used to them now—they are part of everybody’s landscape, just about. If we do not overdo it, I think that we have a reasonable basis for saying that we should experiment on allowing people to put these down for local need to generate electricity where it is needed and in a way that it is needed. It will not get done unless there is a commercial requirement for it, but we should look at freeing up the restrictions that we have placed on people putting up wind turbines and ask what is really needed here. Have we not learned enough to allow us to free this up a bit?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94E, but I start with Amendment 77 and simply say that I completely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We are not talking about the horrific, huge pylons; these are quite simple, and it makes much more sense to make it as straightforward as possible to up the energy locally.
I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that there already are, I think, permitted development rights for turbines to the level that he suggests. I suggest that the permitted development right is solely for a single turbine, and I note that his amendment refers to “turbines”. I would not want this to be a back door to having significant numbers of wind farms on a variety of land, if he were to press this any further.
The reason my amendment is in this group is that also has to do with permitted development rights, regarding solar. We will debate solar today under other parts of this legislation, but this amendment seeks to try to get permitted development rights for solar on reservoirs. There are certain reservoirs, some very close to London, where sometimes a bit of sailing happens but, by and large, they sit there empty. Important as these reservoirs are for the water supply that we need, this would be quite a straightforward way of allowing for a modest amount of solar extension, which may only be that which is needed for the local facility, or perhaps a little further. I would not suggest that any would have to have an automatic connection to the grid, because that would probably be exceptionally expensive. The point is that, if we are going to increase the amount of renewable energy, why not allow reservoir owners to put this sort of solar development somewhere we are not then displacing agricultural land and where it does not require the huge extensions or connections that we see today right across agricultural land all over the country?
Floating solar is apparently seen as a nascent technology in the solar road map, so has not really been included in this Bill. I am conscious that we have read in the press this summer that there might be a second planning Bill, but I suggest to the Government that they should carpe diem. Why do we not get on and get this sort of permitted development right? Elsewhere in the Bill, I have suggested an easier way to try to include reservoirs and large ponds. In fact, the Secretary of State for Defra, Steve Reed, has been very specific in some of the open meetings that he has had that it needs to be easier for farmers to be able to access reservoirs and have them on their land. From my perspective, this could be a double win.
The other aspect that people may not be aware of with regard to the benefit of floating solar on reservoirs is that it could potentially help boost water security. One of the things with reservoirs is that it is not just about usage and them being drained ineffectively; it is also about evaporation levels, which means that we start to see a significant reduction in how much water is available. By simply having these solar panels, we can have a physical barrier between the water and the sun.
It is suggested that it is possible that such development could boost biodiversity on reservoir sites. Any opportunity that we can take, in a mutually beneficial way, to boost nature as well as energy resilience is something that I would hope that the Government could consider.
I understand that the UK is home to Europe’s largest floating solar farm, on the QEII reservoir, and I know there has been a bit of on and off, literally, about how effective it has been. Nevertheless, it is important that we consider all opportunities to make sure, at very limited or ideally no cost to the bill payer, that we maximise the amount of energy that is directly available to us.
On energy security rolling forward, trying to get more homegrown electricity is key. That is why I hope the Government will look at this carefully and consider the benefits of permitted development rights for floating solar on our reservoirs.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, like many Members in the Committee, when I read the list in my noble friend’s Amendment 77 I was absolutely incredulous that we are in the position where planning permissions still have to be given for that scale of change to our electricity distribution system. It is incredible. I hope that whichever Minister is answering on this group will be able to give us concrete guarantees that action will be taken in this area, whether through accepting this amendment or through secondary legislation. We need to get on with this and with the Government’s own programme.
I very much welcome the boldness of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which is perhaps unusual coming from those Benches, and the tenor of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. One thing that strikes me, and she mentioned it, is that a lot of reservoirs, certainly in my part of the world, the south-west, are used as recreational facilities, and obviously we would not want to squeeze that out. The other thing that occurs to me, particularly this year, is that floating solar on reservoirs is very likely to become non-floating fixed solar panels, given the rate of rainfall that we have been having, or not having, over some of these summers.
I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to these very positive suggestions for how we can move renewable energy forward in this country.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, with the solar energy that is reaching me at the moment, it is actually quite hard to see whether there is anybody out there, but I will take it for granted that there is and that they are all listening with rapt attention.
I apologise that I was unable to participate in earlier debates on the Bill, but I have been following it closely. I should declare that my family farm has some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to as “hideous”—or was it “horrendous”?—pylons and poles coming across it. My grandfather actually welcomed these as signs of the inevitable march of progress, but, even then, and certainly now, not everybody is quite as enthusiastic as he was.
While I see and support the logic of Amendment 77, it makes no provision overtly for wayleaves or compensation for those whose homes and businesses are affected by any additional poles et cetera. I hope that any amendment along these lines would accommodate such arrangements, as is the case with current power lines. Will the Minister, or perhaps the noble Earl himself, confirm that that is the intention?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, to pick up the point of the noble Lord, I remember my uncle getting pylons next to his house and how the compensation saved the day for his small business.
My own view is that it is good to have permitted development rights for minor changes, particularly if energy providers are calling for them. It makes sense to use this Bill to allow permitted development. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that it was hugely important, and I think it is hugely important to speed things up. As we have already heard, it is a surprise that some of these things require planning permission, and there is a lot of potluck as to whether you can get planning permission quickly in any particular area.
I just believe that we need to get things moving so I am not sure why the changes need to be in a regulation, as proposed in Amendment 77 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Can the Government not work out what can be easily excluded from planning control and put it in the Bill? That is how we used to do things in the Bills I remember presiding over in the 20th century when I was a civil servant. Is there anything that we can do to get rid of these things, rather than wait for further regulations and consultations, if it is straightforward?
I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey that we should be careful not to allow multiple wind turbines through a back door. Clearly, the detail of this needs to be looked at; it has to be genuinely smallish things. I am less sure about permitted development rights for floating solar simply because I know so little about it; if we were to proceed with that, it should be in regulations. I am always asking the Minister how we can speed this process up. Permitted development rights here, and perhaps elsewhere in the Bill, can play a part.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to designate certain electricity network upgrade works as permitted developments within 12 months of the passing of this Act. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, including as a developer of solar and wind energy generation infrastructure.
The amendment is detailed and specific, covering a range of necessary and often routine upgrades to our distribution network. These upgrades are not exceptional; rather, they are part and parcel of the essential modernisation of our grid. As demand for electricity grows, driven by electric vehicles, heat pumps, an increasing shift to electrified systems and the construction of new data centres, so, too, does the need for a distribution network that can meet that demand safely and efficiently.
The concerns raised by the noble Earl in bringing forward this amendment have merit. Local electricity distribution is hampered by regulatory delays, planning burdens and procedural hurdles, which can slow down or increase the cost of what are in many cases necessary infrastructure improvements. We understand the motivation to streamline these processes and provide industry with greater certainty. However, there are important questions around local engagement, visual impact and environmental considerations, which would need to be worked through. Permitted development rights by their very nature bypass certain planning safeguards, and we must take care not to undermine public confidence in the system by extending them too broadly or too quickly. I ask the Minister whether there are other ways of simplifying the decision-making on such upgrades.
Amendment 94E in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend permitted development rights to include the installation of floating solar panels on reservoirs. At a time when we are seeking every opportunity to expand renewable energy without placing additional pressure on land, utilising existing bodies of water in this way may present a pragmatic and low-impact solution. My noble friend makes an important and timely point about the potential of underused spaces to contribute to our energy goals. I hope that the Government will look closely at how permitted development rights can help facilitate the responsible deployment of floating solar technology.
In a similar vein, Amendment 185B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas seeks to expand permitted development rights for small-scale onshore wind turbines up to a height of 30 metres. This, too, is a proposal worthy of consideration. Enabling more local generation of renewable energy, particularly where there is community support, can play a valuable role in decarbonising the grid and improving energy security.
I look to the Minister to provide clarity on the Government’s current thinking in this area and to address the important questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lucas. Specifically, I hope that he can reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the need for timely electricity network upgrades and are actively considering how the planning framework can support that aim while balancing the interests of local communities and the environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this important issue through Amendment 77. The Government fully recognise the need to accelerate electricity network upgrades to support the transition to net zero. We agree with the intent behind this amendment and with many of the specific proposals that it contains. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill at this time. The amendment proposes exemptions from the consent process under the Electricity Act 1989. These are technical and regulatory matters that are generally best addressed through secondary legislation, following proper consultation.
The Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow. It includes proposals that closely reflect those in this amendment and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. The Government must undertake a thorough evaluation of consultation responses to understand any stakeholder concerns or unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, whether through primary or secondary legislation, before that work has been done would pre-empt the consultation process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowners’ rights. We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete, but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising the important issue in Amendment 94E. The Government are committed to achieving clean power by 2030. We will need to see significant increases in the development of all types of solar, whether sited on land, rooftops or water, to achieve this mission. The Government are therefore supportive of floating solar and consider it a technology ripe for development, especially considering the increased efficiency of solar panels on water and the wider benefits of preventing algal blooms and reducing climate-related evaporation. An effective planning system is pivotal to delivering our clean power mission. The system must work in a way that supports both new infrastructures, such as floating solar, and more established technologies.
The noble Baroness may have seen that the Government published their first ever solar road map on 30 June; it commits to more than 72 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. The road map includes a section on the opportunities of floating solar and identifies the needs both to provide clarity on the planning requirements for what is a relatively new technology in the UK and to ensure that these measures are proportionate. In the solar road map, the Government made a clear commitment to explore how planning levers could further support floating solar projects. This work will be overseen by a new government and industry solar council, which is being set up to assist in driving forward and monitoring progress on solar road map actions. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill. I believe that it is only right that we conduct further work to ensure a strong evidence base on potential proposals and ensure that we have considered the breadth of benefits and impacts. I hope that the noble Baroness is content with this response; I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.
Amendment 185B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to classify some small-scale wind turbines as permitted development, provided certain conditions are met. I am grateful to the noble Lord for this amendment. He may have seen that the Government published their first ever dedicated onshore wind strategy on 4 July; it commits to more than 40 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. One of the opportunities identified in the strategy regards small-scale deployment. The Government recognise the importance that small-scale onshore wind developments could play in achieving our wider decarbonisation goals and want to consider changes to the planning system to better support it—[Interruption.]
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the rules that determine whether a turbine can be classed as permitted development and not require a full planning application have not been updated for over a decade. With advances in technology and increased demand for small-scale generation, there may be opportunities to update these rules. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government committed in the onshore wind strategy to publish a consultation this year on whether existing permitted development rights are fit for purpose and could support other forms of small-scale onshore wind deployment. I believe it is only right that we conduct a full consultation to gather views, insights and evidence on potential proposals, and ensure that we have considered the breadth of the benefits and impacts.
I hope the noble Lord is content with this response. Before I ask him to withdraw his amendment, I will respond to the very important point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The Government recognise the urgency of reform and have already taken action. We have published the 8 July consultation; we will gather views on proposals and we are committed to bold and effective reform, but it is essential that we understand the full impact of these changes on all those involved. We will move at pace to bring forward any necessary legislation once the consultation analysis is complete. I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Coming back to Amendment 77, I mention one word: growth. We are trying, with cross-party effort, to reform the planning system and speed it up. I hear some good ideas from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Lucas and others, yet we are having another consultation and another quango—doing something “in due course”, at some time, somewhere else. This is the flagship planning Bill, and I want the Minister to consider whether there is more we can do in it to set a better tone on speed and growth, and to get local authorities to move forward on the things which, as many agree, are bureaucratic and unnecessary.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, can the Minister give us some idea of a timetable for this, given that there is total unanimity that we are not in a sensible position and we need growth and to move this whole proposition forward? The consultation is about to end. Will we get this fixed by the end of the year, for instance? Could we be revolutionary and have something ready for Report? I am interested to hear from the Minister.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
We all share the opinion that we need to get this Bill on to the statute book speedily and to ensure that we have the growth to which the noble Baroness alludes. However, we need to do this by reflecting on and responding to the consultation, and for that to happen, we have to wait for it to finish—which is tomorrow, by the way. We will look diligently and carefully at the responses and ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, growth and development, so that this country grows. This Bill will play its part, but there will be secondary legislation following consultation. We hear noble Lords’ desire, which is also the Government’s; we are all on the same page, and we want to move robustly and diligently in considering the consultation that we launched.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. It has been a very useful group, and I note the unanimity around the House on these issues.
I thank the Minister for his response. I note that there is a consultation, which is closing tomorrow, on some of these matters. I would be interested to know which bits of my amendment are not in the consultation and how the Government plan to take those forward. I also press the Minister to take them forward as quickly as possible. If there is any scope for having conversations between now and Report, I would welcome that. If we can collectively take action on these matters where we agree, and make progress, that would be welcomed across the House. A government amendment on Report would also be greatly appreciated.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her important amendment. It is important that floating solar is not excluded. As she said, it is a nascent technology, subject only to the issues of not taking up water and leisure space, and perhaps that of drought. I absolutely welcome her amendment and hope that it can progress as well.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. I am not certain I can promise him a bonfire of regulations from my party hierarchy, but I support the amendment he has put forward, subject only to that one drafting issue. It is in exactly the same spirit as my amendment but comes from a different place, looking at what we can do to provide permitted development for such things.
Across these amendments, there is some interesting uniformity and common purpose on getting these things done, and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 77.
Earl Russell
“Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in group three are all on electricity distribution and cabling. I apologise that there is quite a lot of crossover between my amendment in this group and those in the other group; in retrospect, it might have been better to have kept them together. A lot of the overarching general points that I made in the last group apply to this group. I am introducing a series of practical measures that I would like the Government to take forward to help them achieve their stated aim, which I share, of getting to clean power.
My Amendment 78 is about land access rights. It would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land. Land access rights need to extend to renewable energy operators as well, and that is my mistake; the drafting of my amendment was not as clear as it should have been. If the Minister, in responding to my speech, could also include the issue of renewable energy operators’ ability to access land in building renewable energy facilities, that would be greatly appreciated.
This is about using the opportunities the Bill provides. This measure, which the district network operators and industry bodies are calling for, is not in the Bill, which is why I have brought it forward. These are small, practical steps—like the British Cycling example I gave earlier—which, if implemented, would help to get done the things we all agree on.
If we do not address these issues, we will have delays, increased costs and issues in getting towards clean power. At present, electricity licence holders have fewer statutory rights when it comes to acquiring and accessing land compared with other utilities such as gas, water and telecommunications. I am not aware that the Government have done any consultation on this, but if the Minister could let me know when he responds whether consultations are ongoing, that would be greatly appreciated. We are looking to resolve the lack of parity, remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that we can get this stuff done.
The amendment would ensure that electricity distribution network operators are given carefully defined powers to acquire rights over land for overhead lines and cables, to purchase land for new substations, to enter land for the maintenance of existing equipment and to carry out vegetation management critical to the safety and reliability of the system. These powers will not be unlimited; they will be subject to both proper consultation and fair compensation for the landowners concerned, but they will mean that we can proceed with essential infrastructure works in a timely, straightforward and cost-effective way, in line with other utilities.
I welcome the fact that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has launched a consultation on land rights, published last month. However, it falls short of what is required to make clean power 2030 a reality. It does not extend to renewable electricity generators themselves, despite their central role in the energy transition. Without legislative reform in this Bill, we risk kicking the issue down the road.
As I said, the amendment enjoys the backing of the sector, which has been lobbying Members of this House—and, no doubt, the Government, including the Minister—on it. It has long been called for by the Energy Networks Association. These are the people operating on the front line, investing in green power and taking the risks. They are the people with the contracts to deliver this stuff for the Government, so it is important that the Government do what they reasonably can to help these companies succeed, so that we can share that joint ambition and achieve things together.
To conclude, my intention is to help the Government; I share their intention to hit our clean power targets. I want to work with the Minister; I am happy to look at amending my amendment and to speak to him between now and Report. The intention is for further consultation with the industry to look at these things and try to find some practical solutions to these relatively easily surmountable issues. I hope that is possible. I will circle back to the other amendments in this group after they have been introduced. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask for a point of clarity from the noble Earl, of which I gave him due warning earlier today. As neither he nor the Minister picked up my question in the debate on Amendment 77, I hope that I will be luckier in this debate on Amendment 78.
Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 78 refers to
“the acquisition of rights over land”
by network operators. Will the noble Earl confirm that he does not have in mind compulsory purchase powers? We will hear a lot about them later in the Bill—in fact, they probably should have had a Bill on their own, but we are where we are. Will he just confirm that? Giving operators compulsory purchase powers, in effect, has been a disaster in the radio mast arena. I would not want to see it happen again here.
Earl Russell (LD)
That is not my intention. I apologise for not being able to respond to the noble Lord’s email this morning. It is not my intention to give compulsory purchase powers. This is wayleaves, not compulsory purchase.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my probing Amendment 79A. They say that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. That could be extended to making the same point again and again and getting the same answer, which I have been doing over the past few months about burial and the different options for dealing with the great explosion we are going to witness of overhead power lines.
I am slightly nervous about the seeming consensus across the Committee this afternoon that nothing must stand in the way of the Government’s own date of 2030 for clean power, nothing must stop growth, and nothing must stand in the way of progress.
I fully concede that the Government have inherited a grid of which all Governments of every persuasion, over the last 20 or 30 years, have been neglectful. We have power being distributed in wrong parts of the country and shortages in other parts of the country, and the bearing loads of some of the grid are simply not up to the capacity that it is now required to meet. Additionally, we have an explosion in offshore wind, which has to be brought onshore, and that necessitates a great increase in the number of substations and, in turn, linkages to the grid.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to what my noble friend Lord Swire just said. I think it is fair to say that it was actually the previous Conservative Administration who changed aspects of a policy statement that there be a strong presumption in terms of overhead distribution. I will not pretend otherwise. I did try and fight that at the time, but failed. It is fair to say that the cost comparison has actually fallen considerably. It is still about four or four and a half times the cost of doing it via pylons, but I think there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend has put forward.
I was somewhat relieved by the clarity brought by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that he was not considering this to be compulsory purchase, given some of the issues that I have been contesting for some time. That is what has led to my Amendment 94FA—in the supplementary list—which provides for
“Electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use”.
I have shared with your Lordships before that I have quite a lot of experience dealing with energy projects and NSIPs, recognising the concentration of such projects on the Suffolk coast, and that is a theme that I will return to later. One thing that struck me was that, in consideration of getting the cabling underground because these projects were going principally through an AONB—I do not know if it is in legislation, but by default what has happened is that any cabling in an AONB ends up being underground—what was clear was a complete lack of understanding of what was there underground already. In agricultural areas, one thing that is significantly underground and is very sensitive infrastructure, which is not put in by the Government, water companies or the like but is actually put in by local farmers, is underground networks for water. Considering quite how much less water there is, particularly in the east of the country, these are critical in order to make sure that we can continue to have food being grown.
Something that is very important for water and other networks is the production of Christmas trees. Christmas trees are very hungry for water in their development, which takes some time. One thing that came to light in the consideration of the creation of various substations and cabling is the fact that the electricity companies had no clue at all about this important infrastructure that is just below the surface. Of course, there is no doubt that having the cables as close to the surface as possible is definitely an economic interest, but, candidly, it ends up disrupting the agricultural potential for a lot of this land. I do not think there is any chance that Christmas trees can be grown above electricity cables. Unfortunately, Redhouse Barn, a farm that I would recommend, grows a lot of Christmas trees—it supplied No. 10 Downing Street one year—and I know that the family there was concerned, but somewhat understood and accepted that sometimes these things happen, although I hope that the compensation they get for this is a lot more generous than they were initially offered.
Nevertheless, the Government should consider speaking a lot more to the internal drainage boards around the country. We do not have internal drainage boards in every part of this country, but I expect that, where a lot of the energy generation is happening and the initial connections through cabling need to go, there will be. They will have intricate knowledge of exactly what you need to navigate. One way to avoid having to do site-by-site surveys, which we have already been told cost a hell of a lot of money, and to do all this pre-consultation, is simply to make sure that, when cabling is put in place, those trenches go sufficiently deep that we can continue to have agricultural production as well as the benefits of the transmission of electricity.
That is why I hope that the Government, although I expect they will firmly reject my proposals, will at least start to consider what is happening in reality in our productive countryside when we are trying to have this rather complicated map of cabling, pylons and the like, in order to make sure that we continue, as far as possible, to keep farming our land as well as making sure that that land—of course I will give way.
Lord Swire (Con)
Has my noble friend heard about the possibility of growing tomatoes over these cables?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am sure that the heat that my noble friend was about to allude to will make it attractive to certain kinds of rapid acceleration of growth. It is not the only thing that would benefit there, but it is more about trying to neutralise the impact of what seemed to be necessary infrastructure with the ongoing operations rather than disrupting those who are already farming our land for the food that we need for continued food security. With that, I put forward the benefits of my amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I commend the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment and for introducing this group. I will speak to Amendments 79A and 94FA—if your Lordships will pardon the expression—tabled by my noble friends Lord Swire and Lady Coffey and will end with a question for the Minister.
There are environmental and financial reasons for undergrounding these transmission wires. The environmental reasons are mostly because they are wasteful. It is debatable how much they waste, but I think it is between 7% and 10% of the energy that is transmitted, which seems nonsensical. As my noble friend Lord Swire said, they are also unsightly, which in tourist areas is very unwelcome. They are also extremely vulnerable to storm and extreme weather conditions. We have just had the first storm names for the forthcoming season—I do not know whether my niece and god-daughter will be delighted that Storm Amy will be the first one to hit us, but there we go. I remind the Minister that Storm Arwen caused such damage to the north-east of England and North Yorkshire that large swathes of north-east England and North Yorkshire had no electricity for up to 10 days. That is unacceptable.
The second power lines, which I think I referred to at Second Reading, run through the spine of North Yorkshire, from Middlesbrough all the way down to York, where they join the national grid. Only three months prior to those being built, an ethanol pipeline had been laid, tracking more or less the same route through agricultural land that the overhead pylons were following. It makes sense that if you are digging the land up once then at the same time you put the transmission lines there. Underground lines are less vulnerable to storms, extreme weather and extreme frost. In one year, we had temperatures of minus 17 degrees for six days running in North Yorkshire in the winter. Those are the environmental reasons that I put to the Minister.
We are frequently told that we cannot afford to place these transmission wires underground. I remind noble Lords that every single customer is paying, through the standing charge, for the infrastructure. Why do we not have a say, as customers, on the infrastructure that is being used? I give three examples of the latest profits for electricity companies. They are eye-watering and beg the question: why are we told that it is not affordable to place these transmission wires underground? The latest figures I have seen from Octopus Energy are of a 0.7% profit margin, delivering a net profit of £83 million. For OVO Energy, the latest figures I can find are for 2023—I cannot find the figures for 2024, though they are probably available—when OVO Energy announced a pre-tax profit of £1 billion. That is one electricity-generating company alone. For Centrica, there was a £1 billion profit for 2024. Why are we being told that it is unaffordable when there are monstrous profits to which we are all contributing as consumers?
To sum up my short contribution, I strongly support Amendments 79A and 94FA, and argue that there are absolutely no environmental and financial reasons not to underground these transmission wires.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Swire’s application that these things should be buried. I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation; that is not relevant to this debate, but it is somewhat relevant to the discussion about renewables.
My noble friend raised a few points about how previous Governments over the last 30 years have been somewhat deficient in managing the grid. The grid was perfectly adequate when we had large, central power stations, whether coal, gas or nuclear. Of course, our nuclear fleet is diminishing and nearly all those stations will be turned off by the end of this decade—probably before any of the new ones are turned on. We have obviously closed down all our coal power stations now, and gas is rather intermittent; it has to be put on stream when renewables fail us, which unfortunately happens more and more regularly. The old system worked when we had centralised, big power stations. The problem now occurs because we have decentralised that.
We could put that right by going down a domestic gas route, which I would recommend to this nation as a means to bridge the gap before nuclear is properly on stream. We could put small modular reactors in the places where old gas and coal stations used to be, because we have the huge grids, supplies and existing pylons that served that old infrastructure, which is now a redundant and dead infrastructure.
We are being asked to despoil our countryside because of the dash to renewables, in trying to link up offshore and onshore wind farms. Each of those produces fairly small amounts of energy, but we need new pylons to get it into the grid. I agree entirely with my noble friend that the required cables should be underground. I have never believed that some behemoth of an aluminium and steel platform to carry cables can be that much cheaper than an underground cable, which does not require such support. I recommend that the Government ask for some independent advice on what these things really cost.
I am very surprised to have had a discussion—started, again, by my noble friend Lady Coffey—about Christmas trees. I will discuss Christmas trees at the appropriate time, because my family was very involved with Christmas trees and, as a young lad, every winter I bore scars all the way up my arms from selling them. I hope to discuss that in the future.
The whole concept of electrification and the problem of serious storms was raised very well by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I do worry. As I said at the time, if you live in that part of the world—and I think another storm hit Scotland at almost the same time—you rely entirely on electricity cables to run your internet, which runs your telephone, as the old 50-volt copper system is being wound down. You obviously need electricity for the internet generally, and one will need electricity to power one’s car, if the Government have their way and traditional cars are put on the scrap heap. One will also need electricity to heat one’s home. Storms go through parts of this country with some regularity, and I have always made the point that you can lend a neighbour a bucket of logs but you cannot lend them a bucket of electricity.
I agree with the amendment that was put by my noble friend Lord Swire. I request that the Government look at this rather more carefully, rather than say flippantly that “Thou shalt have dirty great pylons”. Norfolk and Suffolk in particular will be hit by this massively. I think my noble friend who is following me will make some similar observations about what will be hitting parts of Kent, including those that I used to represent.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 79A in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire about the presumption in favour of burying cables as the default method. He spoke of insanity, but I did not think I was going mad—I believed and agreed with every word he said. Not only is burying cables less visually intrusive but, storms notwithstanding, as we have seen in the Ukrainian conflict, surface infrastructure is more vulnerable to malign and military disruption. I have not seen any calculation anywhere that takes that national security angle into account. That is an omission that should be corrected, and would be if my noble friend’s amendment is accepted.
I do not stand entirely shoulder to shoulder with those who accept the construction of pylons in any circumstance but I am not the Luddite who is in denial about the difficulties of strengthening and hardening the grid. We all need to be realistic about what it takes for the lights to come on when you flick that switch, with fluctuating renewables on the one hand and new demands from electrical vehicles on the other. But that should not give National Grid a right to be judge and jury in its own court and carte blanche to ride roughshod.
My interest in the amendment has been piqued because I have experienced at first hand the process undertaken by National Grid when it seeks to promote a new pylon power line, in this case from Norwich to Tilbury to transport electricity from the wind farms off the Norfolk coast down to the smoke. At that time, I was leader of the South Norfolk Council, an area to be bisected across its entire height by new HV power lines. What I experienced was institutional arrogance from National Grid and its agents. It thought that a single consultation event, offered at short notice on an afternoon in a remote village hall for an area of 400 square miles, was sufficient. It had a boneheaded refusal to accept that burying was even an option—even just in part across the picturesque Waveney Valley or the Roydon Fen county wildlife reserve.
National Grid exhibited a steadfast refusal to demonstrate or explain why the option of providing a future-proof offshore ring main, connecting the existing infrastructure that used to serve the redundant Bradwell nuclear power station, was even a possibility. The suggestion that offshore was impractical was wholly disproven by the offshore link that is currently proposed from Sizewell to the Richborough marshes—I am stood next to the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and I expect him to intervene in a moment to say how wonderful that part of the world is and how it should not be despoiled.
National Grid had unevidenced assertions relating to the unaffordability of burying lines, as opposed to having them overhead, without either explaining or quantifying the quantum of those extra costs for the whole line or just per kilometre. There was a failure to consider parallel running to the existing pylon line to minimize visual impact, with the result that the wonderful and historic market town of Diss is now proposed to be fenced in on all four sides by huge steel pylons to an unacceptable degree. This lack of understanding, further, that the mooted community compensation schemes for overhead lines, but not for buried cables, might undermine the business case for pylons now turns out to be the case because it stands as part of Clause 26 of the Bill. There were other questions to answer, which I will not detain the Committee with.
Now, of course, there may have been good reasons why National Grid might be right on all the points I mentioned, though I struggle to see how, but with friends like these, who needs enemies? National Grid has gone out of its way to pick fights rather than bringing people together. As a council leader, I met officials from National Grid and put the points privately, to try to have a neutral forum where it could make an improved case for the proposals and build consensus. That olive branch was spurned, so it is little wonder that there is now widespread resistance to new pylon routes. Opposition has been carelessly and recklessly whipped up by a ham-fisted approach from the people who need all the friends they can get.
I like this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire because it would set the default expectation that new lines will be buried. Of course, that does not mean that they must be buried, but for the operator to go above ground as the preferred option, he will need to make the evidential case and have it scrutinised, and to build friendships and not enemies. That is a much better approach and balance of power, literally, between the parties than the regrettable and aggravating behaviours that we have seen thus far, where the lazy overhead option is chosen and everybody else be damned.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I just underline that the missing ingredient in this debate is actual numbers on the costs. There is a lot of theoretical toing and froing this afternoon but what we really need in this discussion is a hard number cost for, say, 100 metres of buried cable as opposed to, say, the cost of a pylon. I asked a Written Question about a pylon some months ago and got a wonderfully “Yes Minister” Answer: “Of course, all pylons are different and some pylons are more equal than others, but it is all very difficult so I can’t give you an answer”.
I hope that we can do a bit better than that. It would be great to know the cost of, say, 100 metres or 500 metres—whatever is the right metric—of buried cable and pylon with the equivalent cable. Until that answer is before us—I suspect that it will be a lot more expensive—we are not going to lay this debate to rest. I think that everybody, on all sides of this Committee, would like to see the cables buried. The question is at what cost and whether that cost is worth it. Until we have that number, we are just talking theory.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 78 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 79A from my noble friend Lord Swire deal with the critical issue of grid capacity and connectivity, which sits at the heart of the Government’s ambitions to decarbonise the UK’s energy system and deliver the infrastructure necessary to meet their ideological clean power 2030 target.
Amendment 78 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution operators new powers. The distribution and transmission of electricity is intrinsic to the production and utilisation of clean energy. Without access to the grid, energy infrastructure remains little more than an expensive stranded asset.
The case for action is clear. As we know, the great grid upgrade is a vital part of our pathway to net zero, yet, at present, new energy developments such as wind farms and solar parks are experiencing unacceptable delays when it comes to grid connection. Some projects face waiting times of up to 10 years—delays that threaten both investor confidence and the credibility of our decarbonisation goals. That is why the previous Conservative Government took decisive steps in commissioning the Windsor review, which examined the obstacles to timely grid connectivity. We are of course proud to say that all 43 recommendations of the Windsor review were accepted by the Government—a clear signal of our commitment to reforming the system and bringing forward vital improvements.
Yet we must recognise the scale of the challenge. Even with those reforms under way, projects without current grid connectivity may not come online until the mid-2030s. That is simply not compatible with the Government’s aim of a decarbonised grid by 2030. It is essential that the development of the national grid moves in lockstep with the pace of renewable energy production and infrastructure delivery.
Therefore, Amendments 78 and 79A raise serious and timely issues. We must ensure that our grid strategy is not only fit for today but future-proofed for the decades to come. The principles of transparency—clear delivery timelines and strategy—and strategic planning for capacity must be at the core of that effort. That said, I note that Amendment 78 would require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to establish these new powers. There is perhaps a case to make for Parliament to have a say before the Secretary of State takes steps to implement powers that have come up as part of the consultation. I would be interested to hear whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, might be open to strengthening parliamentary oversight here.
Amendment 79A from my noble friend Lord Swire is a good and thoughtful probing amendment. I recognise his continual efforts in drawing this issue to this House’s attention. It seeks to explore how the planning system might better encourage the use of buried cabling as an alternative to overhead powerlines. This is an important point, particularly for rural communities where overhead transmission infrastructure can have a significant visual, environmental and social impact. Although undergrounding is not without cost or technical complexity, the long-term benefits in certain locations can outweigh those challenges. My noble friend is right to raise this. I hope that the Government will consider whether there are planning reforms that could help to support a more strategic and locally sensitive approach to powerline deployment.
The Minister may not be aware of the very active groups in Wales resisting the march of pylons through the Teifi and Tywi valleys. These groups are uniting the opposition parties against the Senedd Labour Government. The one I know particularly well is the Llandeilo Community Group Against Pylons.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I just want to welcome that speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. It was excellent in its tone and entirely different from that of her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, when he spoke from the Front Bench. I congratulate the noble Baroness.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place on the Front Bench. I look forward to the exchanges ahead.
I turn to Amendments 78 and 79A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I thank them both for tabling these amendments and for their interest in and commitment to improving grid capacity and electricity distribution infrastructure.
Amendment 78 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to grant distribution network operator powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land, with the aim of accelerating electricity distribution network infrastructure build and maintenance. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030. It is clear that a rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. Although we agree with the intent behind this amendment, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill.
As previously outlined, the Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow, on 2 September. That consultation includes proposals on land access and rights and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. Once the consultation closes, the Government will undertake a thorough evaluation of the responses to understand stakeholder concerns and to assess any potential unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, before that work has been done, would pre-empt that process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowner rights.
We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is reassured by this response; I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment. I will take his offer forward with my officials and look forward to meeting the noble Earl, alongside my noble friend Lady Taylor, on the issues raised in this area.
I move on to Amendment 79A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. This amendment would introduce a statutory presumption in favour of undergrounding power lines. It would require developers to demonstrate that undergrounding was their preferred and initial option, and that it was infeasible on cost or engineering grounds, before overhead lines could be approved. We understand that some communities hold strong views in favour of undergrounding, particularly due to concerns about the visual impact of overhead lines. We are aware that the support is partly driven by examples seen internationally, where undergrounding is used in certain contexts.
The Government’s position is that overhead transmission lines should be the starting presumption for electricity network developments except in nationally designated landscapes, where undergrounding is the starting presumption. That is because overhead lines are significantly cheaper, as undergrounding can cost up to four and a half times more, with costs ultimately passed on to bill payers. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, cause less environmental disruption and are easier to maintain and connect to existing networks.
That said, we totally understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I reassure him that neither I nor my noble friend Lady Taylor answered the Question that he asked in relation to pylons, but we look forward to speaking to and working with officials to get more detailed examples of costs and how they work in different ways in different combinations. The noble Lord asked a question that I did not previously answer on whether the network permitted development rights proposals in the current consultation cover compulsory purchase. I can confirm they do not, but there will be a huge debate—well, hopefully not a debate, but a huge discussion—on compulsory purchases in due course.
Strategic network planning is critical to ensuring that transmission infrastructure is designed and delivered in a way that meets system-wide needs. The National Energy System Operator, NESO, through the forthcoming centralised strategic network plan, will assess technology options against key criteria—including cost, deliverability, operability and community and environmental impact—and recommend optimal solutions. Developers will then apply those recommendations at a project level, refining routes and designs within existing planning and regulatory frameworks.
Accepting the amendment would move us away from a strategic, co-ordinated, system-wide approach to grid development and towards a more fragmented process. While undergrounding is already used on a case-by-case basis where justified, the amendment could lead to more frequent project-level decisions, undermining strategic system-wide planning. That risks creating inconsistency, reducing efficiency and ultimately slowing down the delivery of the infrastructure. We need to meet our clean power 2030 and net-zero targets. Further, the amendment would shift the burden of proof onto the developer, which would add complexity, legal risk and delay to an already lengthy consenting process. Given the significantly higher costs and technical complexity of underground lines compared with overhead, the amendment is unlikely to increase the use of undergrounding but would add additional time to the planning and delivery process.
Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require that electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use must be buried to a minimum depth of two metres from the surface level, and deeper if required. Existing legislation for electrical cabling is contained in the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2022. They require that:
“Every underground cable shall be kept at such depth or be otherwise protected so as to avoid, so far as is reasonably practicable, any damage or danger by reason of such uses of the land which can be reasonably expected”.
This legislation is supported by industry codes that provide the specific standards for the relevant minimum burial depth, considering different factors and use cases. These industry codes must comply with the legislation that forms the quality standards that network operators must legally operate within.
For agricultural land, the minimum recommended depth for electricity cables, set out in the Energy Networks Association’s engineering recommendation G57 for cable laying on agricultural land, is 910 millimetres. This is intended
“to provide sufficient depth to safeguard against damage from deep ploughing and cultivation, and from the mechanical installation of drainage systems”.
Recommendation G57 says:
“This depth requirement takes account of the wishes of the National Farmers’ Union”.
Agricultural activities including deep cultivations, subsoiling and mole draining rarely extend deeper than 700 millimetres below the soil surface. Installing cables at depths greater than 910 millimetres can introduce engineering and environmental constraints, such as increased heat generation from the cables, which may require additional mitigation measures such as increased pole spacing. Deeper installation would necessitate a wider and deeper trench, raising the risk of potential detrimental impacts on the soil resource due to soil handling and storage. The existing legislation is supported by detailed industry standards, ensuring an agile framework whereby the relevant standards can be flexibly updated and refined in line with evolving circumstances such as innovation while minimising potential impacts on agricultural land.
To conclude, similarly for communication cables, the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 include a requirement that code operators must install apparatus such as cabling at a depth that does not interfere with the use of the land. This ensures that the land can continue to be used for the purpose that the landowner wishes, even where there is electronic equipment buried in the ground. Introducing a new requirement for the depth of communications cables could increase digital infrastructure deployment costs substantially, slowing network build and potentially preventing the Government’s ambition of a nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G and gigabit-capable broadband.
For the reasons outlined, I do not think that these amendments are necessary and I therefore kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting group of amendments, and I thank everyone who has tabled an amendment or taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for responding so thoroughly and welcome his commitment to work with me between now and Report in relation to Amendment 78.
My only real concern is that I am aware that renewable energy operators are not included in the Government’s consultation. Equally, they were not included in my amendment, but they are an important part of the picture. If we could work together to try to find a solution so that they could be included in the process, preferably prior to Report, it would be appreciated.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place and recognise the point that she made on parliamentary scrutiny in relation to my amendment. I will take that on board. It was not my intention to exclude it.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, it is important that these issues are raised. I welcome the fact that this was put forward as a probing amendment. These are difficult issues that need to be balanced. I do not think that anybody knows the true cost of burying cables, because it depends on what you are burying them in, so I do not think there is an absolute answer. It seems clear that some of these costs are coming down. That may be something that the Government want to look at again.
There is an important need in this debate to balance the cost, which ultimately goes to consumers, with the need for the Government to be open, able to listen, to vary plans in response to communities’ concerns and to be able to persuade and hold the energy companies to account to take more expensive options where there are particular impacts. To that end, I also welcome that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, would be against the EN-1, the overriding energy policy statement. I ask the Government to be open to the idea. I know that there are legislative conditions around areas of outstanding natural beauty, but the Government should be open and mindful of community concerns and make sure that budgets are available for burying cables where communities raise particular concerns or there are particular types of landscapes. I welcome the news that we had yesterday of the cable from Norfolk going south. In response to the consultation that took place with communities, bits of that have been buried. I think that is the right approach. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(4) Any fees received by the Scottish Ministers under paragraph (2)(d) may only be used to fund—(a) consumer benefits packages, or(b) local planning authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that any fees paid to Scottish Ministers are allocated to either community benefits packages or to support local authority planning departments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 80 I will also speak to Amendments 81 and 82, which are in my name, as well as Amendments 85A, 88B and 88C in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe.
The amendments in my name deal specifically with consent and the exercise of planning powers in Scotland under the provisions of this Bill. I begin with Amendment 80, which seeks to ensure that any fees collected by Scottish Ministers for purposes related to planning are hypothecated—that is, ring-fenced—for either community benefit packages or the direct support of local authority planning departments.
There is a simple but important principle at the heart of this amendment—that money raised locally, ostensibly for planning purposes, should be used locally for planning purposes. It is about transparency, accountability and trust in public institutions. If the Scottish Government are to charge fees for planning processes, it is only right that those funds are seen to benefit either the communities directly affected by a development or the planning departments tasked with delivering and managing this complex work.
This is not a theoretical concern. As noble Lords will be aware, Scottish local authorities are chronically underfunded by the SNP-run Scottish Government. Planning departments in particular have suffered disproportionately. According to recent studies, planning is now the most reduced and lowest-funded local authority service area in Scotland. That is simply not sustainable, and it is certainly not compatible with any Government’s stated ambitions around housing delivery, infrastructure development or environmental management. Amendment 80 is, therefore, not just a matter of good governance but a matter of necessity. Without proper funding, planning departments cannot attract the right skills, cannot deliver timely decisions and cannot properly engage with local authorities.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said a moment ago, to speak to my Amendments 85A, 88B and 88C, which seek to effect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, on this Bill. I shall speak to them briefly.
The amendments fall into two parts. The first part refers to benefits that shall arise for people who live in homes near electricity transmission projects—a very good principle and one which I am sure that we all agree. The question then follows: who should be eligible for this scheme and who should be eligible to receive these benefits? The Government say that that should be decided by regulation—and, again, that seems perfectly reasonable.
The question is about the level of parliamentary procedure that the regulations in question should receive. The Government propose that only three aspects of these wide-ranging new sections, Sections 38A to 38D of the Electricity Act 1989, which this Bill amends, require the affirmative procedure, and that all other aspects of the scheme will be made by negative procedure resolutions, on the grounds that those regulations are merely of an “administrative or technical nature”. However, the committee’s view, many aspects of the regulation-making powers proposed by the Government are
“important matters of substance rather than mere ‘administrative or technical’ matters”.
I shall cite just three of them as quoted in our report. There is:
“making provision determining whether premises or works are qualifying … conferring and delegating functions in connection with the scheme”
and
“providing for payments by electricity suppliers to meet costs incurred in the carrying out of functions in connection with the scheme”.
The argument of the committee is that those matters are not merely administrative or technical but rather more substantial, and it concluded:
“The affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made pursuant to the provisions inserted by clause 26 of the Bill, not just those matters mentioned in new section 38A(6) of the Electricity Act 1989”.
That is the first matter. The second matter is the use of forestry estate for renewable electricity, which is again a perfectly sensible aim and one with which I am sure noble Lords will agree. Clause 28 inserts new Section 3A into the Forestry Act 1967 to give forestry commissioners powers to use land in England for this purpose, and it gives the same powers to the Natural Resources Body for Wales. The Government say, in effect, that the two bodies should not worry because they will not interfere if those bodies wish to engage in small-scale projects of this kind—they will do so only if they believe that the projects that those bodies wish to undertake are significant. That is fine, but the committee noted that
“this requirement of significance does not appear on the face of the Bill”.
It went on to say:
“We do not judge delegated powers on how the Government say that they will use them but on how any Government might use them … Clause 28 should state explicitly that Ministerial consent to Forestry Commissioners’ and the National Resources Body for Wales’ renewable electricity projects should only apply to significant projects”.
In conclusion, my understanding is that the Attorney-General is of the view that delegated powers have been used by previous Governments, especially the last one, in a somewhat slipshod manner, and that this new Government will do better. If the Minister on the Front Bench is to follow in the footsteps that the Attorney-General has laid out, I look forward to him being able to give a positive response to what I have said and to the committee’s report, and I look forward to hearing from him in due course.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to Amendments 80, 81, 82, 85A, 88B and 88C, which relate to Clause 18 and consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland and delegated powers in the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling the amendments on consenting in Scotland and the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Blencathra, for supporting him. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for the amendments relating to the Bill’s delegated powers.
I turn to Amendment 80, which seeks to prescribe that any fees paid to Scottish Ministers for processing electricity infrastructure applications and for any pre-application services provided may be used only for consumer benefits or local planning authorities. Clause 18 creates a power to make regulations relating to fees to be paid to Scottish Ministers on the application for consent or anything done by them in relation to a proposed application under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
Scottish Ministers already have the power to make regulations for determining the fees to be paid on applications, with the Bill creating a power to make regulations for fees for pre-application services. This aims to allow the Scottish Government to resource their own efficient processing of electricity infrastructure applications and pre-application services. The UK Government recognise the importance that local planning authorities have in the consenting process, and that they therefore need to be appropriately resourced.
While I welcome the spirit of the amendment, the resourcing of local planning authorities in Scotland is a devolved competence. Scottish Ministers will consider the resourcing of statutory consultees and local planning authorities to ensure that they are adequately resourced and have the skilled workforce to carry out any additional responsibilities created by these reforms. It would therefore not be appropriate for the UK Government to be prescribing in statute how Scottish Ministers direct their resources.
The amendment would also provide for the directing of fees to community benefits packages. Over the past 12 months, renewable energy developers in Scotland have offered more than £30 million in community benefits. The UK Government are committed to the provision of community benefits for energy infrastructure. On 21 May 2025, the UK Government issued a working paper for public comment on proposals to mandate community benefits for low-carbon infrastructure and next steps for shared ownership. The deadline for comment has now passed and responses are being analysed which will inform next steps.
In Scotland, the provision of community benefits is already a well-established element of renewable energy developments. The Scottish Government have had good-practice principles for community benefits from renewable energy in place since 2014, and these are currently under review following the response to a public consultation that closed in April 2025. Similarly to the position on local planning authorities, it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to prescribe in statute that Scottish Ministers should direct fees received for processing consenting applications to community benefits packages.
Amendment 81 would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing whenever an objection from the relevant local planning authority is received regarding an application for consent. Additionally, Scottish Ministers would not be able to make a decision on an application until at least one month after a public hearing session has taken place. The Scottish consenting reforms are intended to make the electricity consenting process in Scotland more efficient, while retaining opportunities for local communities and planning authorities to participate meaningfully in the process. A key aspect of the reform package developed with the Scottish Government is to move away from the current prescriptive methods of handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications, which has resulted in a slower system, with decisions that can be delayed for years.
To deliver efficiencies, the proposed provisions allow for various procedures to be used in such circumstances, at the discretion of a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government. These may include holding one or more hearing sessions, or a public inquiry. Reporters are experienced specialists. In addition to considering written representations on the application, they may conduct site visits, request further written submissions from specific parties, and/or conduct hearings or inquiries. The amendment would introduce an additional requirement to the consenting process, mandating a public hearing regardless of other procedures a reporter may determine necessary, which could already include a hearing session or written representations. These reforms will bring in a more efficient consenting process that brings certainty to both applicants and communities. To achieve this, it is vital that the Scottish Government are able to examine objections by local planning authorities through the most appropriate and proportionate method.
Amendment 82 would remove Clause 18(4), which changes the way in which local authority objections to applications for consent for electricity infrastructure are managed. At present, public inquiries are required to be held in Scotland when the relevant local planning authority objects to an application under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, no matter the nature of the objection. Public inquiries tie up many electricity infrastructure consenting applications in Scotland for months and even years. This adds both time and uncertainty to the consenting process, leaving communities and applicants in limbo. It is a major barrier to the timely deployment of low-carbon electricity infrastructure when we need it most. While public inquiries have a key role to play in ensuring that there is a transparent and thorough assessment of significant objections to electricity infrastructure projects, it is not proportionate or sensible that all such objections should be referred to this process.
As noble Lords will be aware, a primary aim of the Scottish consenting reforms is to streamline the process wherever possible, while retaining the right for local communities to have meaningful opportunities to comment on and influence applications. Clause 18(4) retains the right for relevant planning authorities to object to applications for consent, while bringing in a targeted, effective process fit for a modern consenting system. This is essential to end delays in electricity consenting and put in place the infrastructure we need. The policy intent of this clause is to move away from the current prescriptive methods for handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications, which has resulted in a slow system, with decisions that can be delayed for years.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments and to those of my noble friend Lord Goodman. I am afraid that the track record in Scotland does not inspire confidence in the planning process and the application of those fees, but obviously I will withdraw my amendment today. I will just underline, though, that Amendment 80 is about fairness and accountability: the public must be able to trust that money taken for a specific purpose guarantees that that purpose is delivered. That is what we are trying to achieve with this amendment.
Amendments 81 and 82 are about clarity, co-ordination and respecting local voices. By clarifying jurisdictional processes and ensuring better co-ordination between UK and Scottish systems, we can reduce confusion, avoid unnecessary delay and make sure that communities are not cut out of the conversation.
We share the Government’s aim of speeding up the planning process and the delivery of projects and getting the balance right. These are constructive amendments. I hope the Minister will agree that proper resourcing, clear governance and meaningful local engagement are not obstacles to infrastructure but are essential to getting it right. As I mentioned earlier, we are fully supportive of my noble friend Lord Goodman’s amendments and we would very much like to see the Government make progress with implementing them. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 80.
Lord Fuller
“10Q Long duration electricity storage: safety(1) The Authority must ensure that the scheme established by section 10P includes measures to be taken by LDES operators (as defined by that section) to reduce fire risk and protect public safety.(2) The scheme must ensure that before installing long duration electricity storage, LDES operators consult the local fire authority who must assess the fire risk posed by the installation.(3) The LDES operator must pay the local fire authority a reasonable fee for their assessment of the fire risk under subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, define a “reasonable fee” for the purpose of this section.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that proposals for long duration energy storage systems, which may contain flammable batteries and equipment, are designed in consultation with the local fire authority to minimise fire risk and protect public safety.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee greatly with this amendment. It seeks to ensure that, when electricity storage systems are planned, it is with the full knowledge and consent of the local fire authority, so that fire and public safety risks are understood and mitigations are put in. Surprisingly, there is no duty for promoters of these schemes to consult the local fire authority, so my amendment would correct that omission.
As the grid is reinforced, the ability to stabilise and isolate the electricity supply from surges and shocks is essential, and a number of short-term and long-term technologies exist to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to the consumer. The people of the Iberian peninsula will attest to the consequences of failing to have network stabilisation in place, especially when dashing for renewables. Some of these smoothing technologies contain highly flammable materials such as lithium. Hydrogen is another but, given the time constraints today, I will focus on the lithium side for the purposes of proving the point.
Not a day goes by without a fire being caused by a lithium battery. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is promoting a Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill; this does not seek to trespass on that, but it demonstrates that fires caused by batteries are a thing. The issue is clear: when a lithium battery, for example, catches fire, huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. Your Lordships will recall the car-based conflagration at Luton Airport, where the multi-storey car park was totally consumed. Whether or not that fire was started by an electric vehicle, once it took hold the batteries in those cars quickly made the fire unfightable for longer—more so than had petrol or diesel alone been involved.
The dangers are further illustrated by the number of fires in bin lorries. Even a small computer battery can consume an entire refuse freighter. Airline passengers are now routinely warned about the dangers of phone batteries catching fire and imperilling the whole aircraft in an inextinguishable blaze. Imagine the scale of the flames if an entire grid-scale battery storage facility caught alight.
This issue needs to be taken seriously, and the Bill as drafted fails to do so. It just glosses over the consequences of failures in long-term and short-term energy storage, including large-scale battery systems—especially those storing huge electrical capacity and containing flammables. You do not need to be a bright spark to realise that an electrical spark can spell danger.
Many of the proposed LDES and BESS schemes are in the countryside, where the existence of fire hydrants is limited. Rivers and ponds may be far away across the fields or along narrow lanes. Water carriers may be miles away and, during a dry period, deep-seated and hard-to-fight fires can spawn secondary blazes that can run wild across a whole area. In towns, the proximity of businesses, schools, homes and buildings adds a further dimension of public safety to the mix. In both cases, consideration of the leakage of lithium, in particular to the underlying aquifer, from the firefighters’ runoff water is essential.
Of course, there are other risks: the availability of water carriers, of appliances and of specialist equipment in areas which may be staffed by part-time retained firefighters are just a few. This amendment would therefore enforce a duty for an applicant for an energy storage facility and the local fire authority to fully assess the risks, including fire and public safety, and to pay a reasonable fee to do so. If the Government resist this stipulation, we risk damage from uncontrollable fires to people, property, businesses and the environment at significant cost to the wider taxpayer and local government—costs which should be borne by the developer.
I have had representations from councils that the costs of providing water storage lagoons, additional appliances and staffing should be fully borne by the applicant, not the taxpayer. I have not gone that far with this amendment, but I wonder whether the Minister would meet me to explore this if other noble Lords feel that it is a good idea, in which case I would consider bolstering this proposal on Report. For the moment, if we just take the issue of fire safety for these high-value, high-consequence electricity storage systems, we would be doing not just this House but society a favour. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 82B in my name would require the Government to evaluate and report on how this legislation affects the UK’s capacity for long-duration electricity storage. Clause 25 outlines the introduction of a scheme intended to stimulate investment in long-duration electricity storage. Yet, as with any initiative of this scale, we must pair aspiration with scrutiny. It is one thing to launch a scheme, but quite another to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
We hear regularly that storage will solve the challenge of intermittent renewables. It is a reassuring narrative that excess wind and solar can simply be stored away, ready for when needed, but that message risks masking the scale of the task ahead. To get the facts straight, the UK’s average electricity consumption is around 780 gigawatt hours per day. Current grid-scale battery storage stands at roughly 12 gigawatt hours, enough to meet national demand for just 30 minutes. On a global scale, the picture is not much better. All the batteries in the world combined could keep the UK powered for less than a day.
Storage is not futile. However, we must acknowledge that we are starting from a very low base. We must also ensure that any storage added to our energy infrastructure does not undermine grid stability and that it is available to release power in the timeframe needed. This could be seconds for battery through to hours for pump storage. My amendment seeks to ensure transparency. We need regular reporting to Parliament on whether the measures we are introducing are expanding our storage capacity at the pace required.
Moreover, as we look to scale up these technologies, safety must be a central concern. My noble friend Lord Fuller rightly highlights the risks associated with high-capacity storage, particularly lithium-based battery systems. These systems often contain highly flammable materials and, when they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic. Fires involving lithium-ion batteries are notoriously difficult to control and demand vast quantities of water to extinguish. In rural areas, where many of these installations are proposed, access to that water is limited. Climate change and restrictions on the preventive burning of fuel load in wild environments are leading to greater wildfire incidence and severity. In urban settings, proximity to homes, schools and critical infrastructure raises additional risks. We must ensure that local fire services are not only consulted but properly resourced to assess and manage these risks. Any developer seeking to install large-scale storage must be required to engage with emergency services and contribute fairly to risk assessments and preparedness.
We must also consider the environmental impacts. In the event of a fire, runoff containing hazardous materials could seep into groundwater or flow into rivers. This is not just a fire safety issue; it is a matter of public health and environmental protection. We cannot afford to be complacent. As our electricity system becomes more complex and decentralised, so too do the risks. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that those risks are identified, assessed and addressed. Long-duration energy storage may be a useful addition to our energy mix. However, we cannot rely on this technology alone to support our renewable future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments on long-duration energy storage. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for bringing forward Amendment 82A. These are important topics. While long-duration energy storage facilities are essential to the energy transition and have a very high safety record, they are still an emerging technology and it is right that we seek to balance planning and safety regulations with the need to build these facilities. To be clear, a number of the fires that he referred to were from individual batteries and not big long-duration energy storage facilities. As far as I am aware, there have been only two such fires in the UK. These big long-duration energy storage facilities have a very strong safety record.
However, it is true that UK fire and rescue services have described BESS and long-duration energy storage facilities as an emerging risk, noting that when these fires occur, they can last for hours or days and produce toxic emissions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment, as it rightly highlights the critical importance of the safety of long-duration energy storage as we accelerate towards our energy transition.
The amendment would establish a specific statutory duty requiring operators of long-duration energy storage systems to consult local fire authorities prior to installation, with the authority empowered to assess fire risks and levy a reasonable fee for doing so. On the face of it, I recognise the merits of such an approach. These can pose material risks and it is important that the fire brigade is involved and included in some of these planning decisions. It is also important that our fire services are aware of and prepared for particular hazards and have clear plans to deal with them should anything untoward happen. That being said, there are questions as to whether a statutory provision of this kind is the right or appropriate mechanism at this stage. A number of regulatory avenues already apply, including planning law, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, and general fire safety legislation. The Government have also indicated their intention to update planning and permitting frameworks, considering the rapid growth of battery storage technologies. It is absolutely right that they do so.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 82B from my noble friends Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of this Bill on the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity. It is both reasonable and necessary. The new clause in Clause 25 makes reference to a scheme designed to encourage the development and use of long-duration electricity storage installations, but, as with any major intervention in our energy system, it is essential that we couple ambition with accountability. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to ensure.
The case for energy storage is seemingly clear. All sides of this Committee recognise the need to address the intermittency of renewable sources, particularly wind. Storage is seen as part of that solution, but we must be realistic about the scale of the challenge. We are often told that battery storage will save us; that it will plug the gap when the wind does not blow. But let us look at the numbers. The UK’s average daily electricity demand is 780 gigawatt hours. Our current battery storage capacity is roughly 12 gigawatt hours, which would keep the lights on for approximately 30 minutes. Globally, total battery storage is around 369 gigawatt hours—enough to power the UK for barely a day. This is not to dismiss the importance of innovation nor the promise of new technologies but to say we must deal in facts. We must measure progress and we must understand whether the scheme we are legislating for is delivering results. The requirement to report to Parliament on the impact of this Bill in this crucial area is not bureaucracy; it is oversight and it is responsible governance.
I now turn briefly to Amendment 82A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller, which addresses the important and growing issue of fire safety in relation to long-duration electricity storage systems. However, I should say not all long-duration energy storage systems—and I think I can probably justify squeezing in another Welsh reference here to First Hydro’s schemes at Dinorwig and Ffestiniog power stations and the proposed Dorothea pump storage scheme, none of which will cause safety or fire issues.
As we move towards decarbonising our energy grid and increasing our reliance on renewable sources, long-duration energy storage is set to play an increasingly central role in stabilising supply and ensuring resilience. These technologies, whether battery-based, thermal or otherwise, are argued to be essential to the UK’s clean energy future. But with innovation comes responsibility, and we must be alert to the safety implications that accompany some of these new forms of infrastructure.
Amendment 82A rightly recognises that some forms of long-duration energy storage, particularly those involving large-scale batteries or other flammable components, pose inherent risks, especially in the event of fire. These are not theoretical concerns. We have seen incidents, both here and internationally, where energy-storage sites have suffered fires that require significant emergency service intervention and in some cases posed serious threats to nearby communities. This amendment seeks to introduce a sensible precaution that proposals for such technologies should be developed in consultation with the local fire and rescue authority. This would help ensure that any fire risks are assessed and mitigated early in the planning process and that emergency services are properly informed and prepared should an incident occur. As we roll out more of these systems in urban and rural settings alike, that reassurance will be crucial not just for planning authorities and operators but for the public.
This is a pragmatic and proportionate amendment. It reflects legitimate public concern and supports our wider objectives without compromising safety. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, I hope, his assurance that public safety and fire risk will remain at the forefront of policy and operational planning as we deliver the energy infrastructure of the future.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 82A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. I want to assure the noble Lord that this Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate, and it risks unintended consequences. I personally want to say to the noble Lord that, since fire has come from the Home Office into MHCLG, I have the ministerial responsibility for fire, and the noble Lord is welcome at any time to drop me a line to discuss anything related to this point or any concerns around fire safety.
The Health and Safety Executive regulates battery-energy storage system—BESS—sites within a robust framework that mandates battery designers, installers, and operators to uphold high safety standards. Our planning practice guidance encourages developers of BESS sites to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of their planning application and to consider the National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance, so that matters relating to fire safety can be considered at the outset. However, we are going to go further than this. The Government are considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of BESS. Defra recently published a consultation on proposed reforms to environmental permitting for industry, including the principle of including BESS in scope of the environmental permitting regulations. This would give further safeguards for both people and the environment.
This amendment would add burdens to local fire and rescue services. Further changes to the long-duration electricity storage cap and floor scheme would add complexity to the system, which would lead to increased cost and time for the applicant. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with my response, and I kindly request he withdraws his amendment.
Amendment 82B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough, requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Act on the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity within five years of it being passed. I want to assure the noble Lords that this Government are committed to monitoring the development of the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity, as well as our wider clean power 2030 ambitions. Ofgem is proceeding at pace with the delivery of the first window of the cap and floor regime, and expects to announce final decisions on successful projects, in both the 2030 and 2033 delivery tracks, in the second quarter of next year. Ofgem will remain closely involved in monitoring delivery of those projects, and information on their features and progress will of course be made public at the appropriate stage, as they would be for any other major generation projects.
The Government publish statistics on the UK’s electricity storage capacity annually in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics—DUKES. This currently includes pumped storage hydro and grid-scale batteries. Other types of LDES will be added to the publication when they become operational. The Government also have a statutory duty to report on their carbon budget progress under the Climate Change Act 2008. For instance, the Act requires the Climate Change Committee to provide an annual report to Parliament on the UK Government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we would expect future reports to include all relevant and significant developments in this regard, including those on delivery of the LDES cap and floor. The Government have a statutory duty to lay their response to the Climate Change Committee’s progress report before Parliament.
Given these existing monitoring and reporting commitments, this amendment to create additional reporting requirements is not necessary. I trust that the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Roborough, are satisfied with our responses and I therefore kindly ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the news that my noble friend has given us about the further checks and balances and reports on fire safety are very encouraging. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised the question of the fire on top of the multi-storey carpark in Luton. There was a similar incident—just as bad, if I may say so—on a ship, somewhere between the Netherlands and the UK, which was carrying several hundred cars with these batteries. Apparently, the ship set itself on fire and the cars set each other on fire, and it was very lucky that nobody was hurt, because there was no way to put out the fires. I think the ship sank in the end.
My concern, to which I am sure my noble friend can respond, is that all these new reports are very useful, but what is missing is some transparency as to what actually happened. What happened on the roof of Luton airport carpark? We do not really know. Everybody denies that it was anything to do with lithium ion, but most people think that it probably was and that the then Government said nothing because they did not want to upset people. I hope my noble friend will agree that transparency is a very important part of the ongoing work.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Let me reassure my noble friend that transparency is absolutely important in this situation. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, provided examples; of course, it would be remiss of me to comment on them, but I am sure there will be some investigation and learning from them. If the point is to go away and find out what lessons have been learned, and look at them as part of our transparency, it is a good one and I accept it.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting, brief debate which actually had a few twists and turns. The Minister asked me whether I was satisfied with his response and I regret to say that I am not satisfied at all, for reasons I will give in a moment. Before that, I will deal with the interventions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I was not sure whether he was for or against this amendment, but I regret that he fatally undermined the Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill, brought forward by his noble friend Lord Redesdale, which now must be pointless from the Liberal Democrats’ point of view. I would have thought he would have been standing full square behind my amendment, which highlights the dangers of lithium.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, quantified the value of battery storage in terms of amp hourage and capacity. However, the value of battery storage is not necessarily purely in the storage capacity; it is in the smoothing of voltages at an aggregate level, across a whole grid, and maintaining the hertz. It is a difference of only 0.2 hertz in the Iberian catastrophe that caused the contagious knock-on effect that brought down the entire grid in Iberia, in Spain and Portugal. So we must not look at battery storage in terms not only of current but of stability.
Baroness Coffey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness Coffey extend benefits schemes to energy generation infrastructure and requires them to be in place, including for any infrastructure still being under construction at the time of Royal Assent of this Act.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 82C; I have also tabled a number of other amendments in this group. In essence, this amendment considers bill discounts and community benefits.
I think it is fair to say that the Government have recognised the need for some benefits, but they have not been generous enough, in my view. That is why I also strongly support Amendment 83, tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench, to make sure that we are sufficiently generous. I am convinced that that will go a long way to persuading—or at least giving some comfort to—householders in large parts of our United Kingdom who will suffer some of the consequential impacts of the acceleration of renewable energy involving pylons and similar.
In essence, I am also concerned that we seem to have lost the amount of electricity generation happening around the country. It seemed quite odd to me that people might get compensation for there being a pylon within 500 metres of them, but people living next to the generation of new substations and new nuclear power stations are not, as it stands, intended to receive any community benefit.
One of the successes of the French Government was to try to reduce the electricity bills of people living close to generation. That has long been considered a sensible way forward for a local community. I am not saying that everybody in those local communities wants to be, to use their words, “bought off” by a reduction on their bill, but it would go a considerable way with some of the frustration in the preparation of those huge construction projects as well as being an ongoing reminder that they are living near a nuclear power station. They may not have realised one was going to be built there—or a substation, or the like—when they moved to that area.
Clause 26 enables the establishment of the energy bill discount scheme. I have tabled a couple of amendments, that it should not be “may” but “must”. I am conscious that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has also included “must” in Amendment 86. That matters to give absolute certainty to local communities that this will happen and that we will not have to wait for further consultation, commencements and the like, and that it will actually be done.
It is important that we consider not just nuclear, which I have referred to already—I do not think that I would qualify for any of that, by the way; I do not live too far away from Sizewell C, but nevertheless, there are plenty of people who qualify. We should also consider it for other energy projects, including wind farms and the like, especially recognising the Government’s proposals.
The Government’s proposed discount is only 25% of the £1,000 bill discount that the previous Government suggested, which has already been referred to in Amendment 83. However, it is clear that we need to make sure this gets to the households, so there are parts of this clause which are absolutely right to be included by the Government.
On Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I recall that I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Fallon a long time ago. I think it was back in 2013 that we started discussing what amount of money local communities should get. That reflects quite how long this discussion has been going on for. At one point, it was about business rate revenues: what would be retained, what would be kept by the council and what would be given to bill payers. It is important to make sure that as much of this money goes directly to local people as possible.
In terms of thinking this through, the Ministers may not have the answer today, and I do not expect them to have an answer on every single part of discussions about business rates retentions. However, it would be useful to understand where the Government have ended up on how much of business rates would be retained by local councils for the operation of all these different power plants which are busy being built around the country. I am sure that local government would welcome that clarity. Certainly, if 100% of the business rates of Sizewell C were to be retained in East Suffolk—indeed, by the new unitary authority in due course—they would be very happy indeed. That is not to say that East Suffolk keeps all that money; right now, it participates in pooling. Nevertheless, it is about recognising that this significant infrastructure in a very modest way provides some local community benefit which can be used for a variety of factors. It is for those reasons that generation as well as pylons need to be recognised in any bill discount scheme. I hope that the Government will be generous in that regard.
Forgive me, but there is one other amendment that I have forgotten to speak to. It would make sure that this cost is not borne by other taxpayers or bill payers. This needs to be considered in the cost of the project. We will discuss this more in the Moses Room on Wednesday, but, too often, when it seems that the Government are being very generous about discounts, rebates and similar, it is actually bill payers in other parts of the country who simply pay for that. We need to recognise that we have an electricity system that will of course bring some disruption in certain parts of the country where generation and other aspects of transmission are happening—we all need to pay our energy bills—but, for once, we should see some of the energy companies recognising the significant profits they will be making from those projects and that, for the future, they do not have to rely on bill payers paying for those benefits in the short term. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 85 in my name seeks to explore the extent and purpose of the compensation proposed for new energy infrastructure, particularly with regard to electrical infrastructure that already exists. Can the Minister explain how the clause enhances schemes that currently exist in the form of wayleave arrangements and payments for use of land for pylons, for example? Will the new scheme, for instance, be consistent with current arrangements for compensation?
Clarity about the parameters used to determine those residents who will qualify for compensation for the new infrastructure is important in understanding the scale of the scheme as anticipated by the Government. In a press statement, the Government stated that households within 500 metres of new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure will get electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 over 10 years, and that this will see rural communities receive hundreds of pounds in their pockets for hosting vital infrastructure. It continues:
“Alongside money off bills, separate new guidance will set out how developers should ensure communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit by funding projects like sports clubs, educational programmes or leisure facilities”.
That press release sets out the principles behind what the Government are proposing for new electricity infrastructure. As I am sure the Minister will know, there are already over 20,000 pre-existing pylons, which have been associated largely with coalfields. Hence, many of the clusters of pylons are close to those sites; in Yorkshire, for example. For those communities at that time, there was an expectation by the state that electricity transmission was for the common good. The question I want an answer to today is: where has that sense of common purpose gone? Why are we not still considering the idea that for major infrastructure projects where the whole nation will benefit communities will need to accept that for the benefit of everybody, as was done in the past?
In their press release, the Government state categorically that it is rural communities that will see huge financial benefit from the scheme. Obviously, I do not have any argument with that, but I question the argument for compensating residents in those communities now when communities with infrastructure constructed in a different generation were not. Can the Minister explain, for example, whether the compensation will be extended to the Yorkshire GREEN scheme, which is upgrading existing infrastructure down the spine of Yorkshire to enable more green infrastructure to be linked to the grid? It is an upgrade of older infrastructure. Will those communities benefit from this scheme?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 86 in this group on bill discount schemes and community benefits. It sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major infrastructure schemes. The amendment proposes a new clause that would establish a statutory scheme to provide community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that those who host the infrastructure necessary for our clean energy transition are directly recognised and rewarded.
Let me begin by acknowledging and welcoming what the Government have already done in this space. The provisions now in the Bill for compensation for households living near transmission lines represent, without question, an important step forward. Households living day in, day out under new pylons or beside substations reasonably expect that there should be some benefit for them and their local communities. I welcome the fact that the Government have done that. I also take on board my noble friend’s point that this stuff is also good for all in our communities and our future.
I welcome the position that the Government have taken in the Bill but, as part of this broader group, it is important that we discuss some areas of how the Government have designed their own compensation; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, clearly mentioned, there is the point about generation not being included, as well as the fact that a fixed 500-metre distance was used in the DESNZ consultation. There are strange situations in which you could get compensation and not have visible sight of pylons, and there are other situations where you could have visible sight of pylons and not receive compensation. All of that needs a bit of working through; I welcome the other amendments in this group that are trying to do that. We should circle back to this on Report, but the important thing is that there is a compensation scheme. We on these Benches welcome that.
My amendment wants to go a bit further; it is additional to what the Government are doing. Although individual compensation is welcome, it has more limited scope and is of more limited benefit than pooling money together and using it to provide community benefits. I fundamentally believe that that is a better way of bringing real transition and change to the lives of the people who are impacted by this stuff.
Crucially, my amendment seeks to tie the benefit directly to the scale of the project, amounting to 5% of annual revenue. This is important because it requires not one or two pieces of infrastructure but lots of the stuff that we will have. As I said at the beginning, in energy terms, this is as big as the Industrial Revolution. Our communities will carry this weight; they should be able to be transformed by, and to get benefits from, it. I believe that pooling those benefits is a better way of helping our communities.
For example, I know that, over the summer, the Labour Party had a real concern about what happens to our coastal communities, which are some of our country’s poorest and most deprived communities. In the GB energy Act, we have community energy. It struck me that we could be doing a lot more if we used this type of money to help build local windmills and provide energy to these people living in poverty; that could be a really good scheme. It is important that this is about not the Government doing things to people but them doing things with people—that is, taking people with them on this journey and allowing them to be included in it, to benefit directly from it and to see it. I want people to go down the pub and say not, “Green energy is going to make my bill more expensive”, but, “We’ve got a local windmill or solar farm and we’re benefiting from it. We’re included in it. We participate and we get something back from it”. That is a very different conversation from the conversations that are happening now.
I recognise that my amendment is not fully workable; there are areas that obviously need reform and change. What I am trying to do is make a point. I am asking the Government to go further and go beyond what they have done already. In this country, there is a lot of conversation about and resentment of the Norwegian sovereign fund. When Norway started developing its oil and gas wells, it had the foresight to create that sovereign wealth fund; it has benefited from it. We did not do that in this country, and we have blown through most of the North Sea oil and gas. We do not have those long-term benefits.
As we start this new energy revolution, there is an opportunity here to make a system that compensates our communities and gets benefits flowing to our communities—indeed, to our whole society—from this new form of energy and transition. We can use that to bring people in and take them with us on this journey in order to make sure that this is about not one Government or one party but all of us working together for our communities, our future and the future of our children. I accept that there is a lot more to do but lots of other countries are doing this stuff, including Denmark, Germany and France, which has been mentioned. I encourage the Government to look at some of the schemes that other countries have, to look at what works and what does not, and to look at this again.
Turning briefly to the other amendments, I fully recognise the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. She said that this is time limited, and I also note that there are over 20,000 pylons. I am interested to know whether the Government could do an assessment on what the cost of that would be; I suspect that it would be quite big and could well be prohibitive. I do not know the answer to that, but it is a question that needs asking and it is good that it is being asked.
I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is in his place, but we do not support fracking. It is not appropriate and will not solve our energy problems; it will cause pollution to our groundwater systems as well as earthquakes. It was his own party that decided that fracking was not the answer and, as far as I am aware, the Conservatives have not changed their policy on that part of the energy transition. That is certainly one amendment—unless he is working for Reform, which I doubt—that I cannot see the point in adding to the Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 83, which seeks to introduce a bill discount scheme for eligible households living near major energy infrastructure. This amendment seeks to ensure that those most directly impacted by the presence of new energy developments, especially large-scale infrastructure, receive a tangible, meaningful benefit—namely, a £1,000 annual discount on their electricity bill for 10 years. In contrast to Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which appears to direct funding to local authorities rather than local consumers, we want to see individuals benefiting directly, not local government.
This proposal stems from a clear and pragmatic principle: if the Government are to meet their national energy and net-zero targets through new infrastructure, they must take the public with them. That includes recognising that hosting such infrastructure in their area has consequences for local communities, whether because of the visual impact or disruption from construction. It is disappointing that the current Government have chosen to step back from the community benefit scheme proposed by our previous Conservative Government. In doing so, they have shown not only a lack of ambition but a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact that these developments can have on communities.
Indeed, in a 2023 paper published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, it was recommended that
“an electricity bill discount for properties located closest to transmission network infrastructure … could offer up to £10,000 per property (£1,000 per year, ~£80 per month, over 10 years)”.
The rationale was simple: communities should be compensated for their proximity to infrastructure that serves the national interest. In achieving this compensation, there is likely to be greater community consent, limiting the length of time for the planning decision to be taken and the cost associated with it. Yet despite this recommendation, the Government have failed to follow through with a credible or generous offer. Amendment 83 seeks to correct that failure.
Amendment 84, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, would provide for the creation of community benefit schemes linked to onshore wind turbines. The amendment again recognises that, while additional energy infrastructure is essential, it is not always welcome, and that community consent is far more likely to be secured when there is tangible benefit for those living nearby. My noble friend’s amendment acknowledges that local communities must be partners in our energy transition, not passive recipients of top-down decisions. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s position on why onshore wind projects—and other energy infrastructure projects, for that matter—are not currently in scope of formalised benefit schemes and whether that could or should be changed.
Similarly, Amendment 94, also from my noble friend Lord Lilley, proposes that individuals should be entitled to financial benefits from shale gas companies. While shale gas remains a contentious issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, the underlying concern remains valid: communities affected by energy extraction and production should not be left behind. I also point out that fracking was pretty much invented in, and is commonly used throughout, the North Sea; it is simply the shale gas issue that we are addressing here.
I also support the sentiment of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These important amendments seek to extend benefit schemes to energy generation infrastructure and network transmission infrastructure and ensure that such schemes are not merely optional but required. They mirror the spirit of the amendment in my name by embedding fairness into our energy transition and making community benefit a standard, not an exception.
What links all speakers and amendments in this group is a shared concern for the people and places that bear the burden of our national energy ambitions. From onshore wind to transmission lines, from shale gas to solar farms, these projects do not exist in a vacuum; they are local and in real communities. These amendments attempt, in different ways, to ensure that the impact is matched by investment and that no community feels exploited in the name of national progress.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is uncosted, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, and concerns a retrospective scheme. The noble Baroness used the word “fairness”, and I ask: fair to whom? This provision, if implemented, would fall on bill payers and the infrastructure providers that had not anticipated these costs when they developed the infrastructure. I very much remain to be persuaded on the necessity for this amendment.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and urge her to provide clarity and assurance on the Government’s approach to community benefits. The concerns raised by this group of amendments go to the heart of fairness, consent and the long-term credibility of our energy strategy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group: the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Coffey. Their amendments relate primarily to the bill discount scheme for communities near new and certain significantly upgraded transmission infrastructure, and other community benefit schemes; these are Amendments 82C to 82E, 83, 83A to 83C, 84, 84A to 84C, 85, 86 and 94.
Before I turn to the specific amendments, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I will not cover business rates retention in my response. That is a bit above my pay grade, and I am afraid that she will have to wait, as we all will, for the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement to see whether she intends to make any changes to that. That is the responsibility of the Treasury. As the noble Baroness is very well aware, there is a redistribution mechanism in the business rates retention, which enables those areas that are less able to raise business rates to benefit as much as some of those that are more able to raise business rates. I am afraid that any adjustments to that are not in my remit, so I will not cover that.
I turn first to Amendments 82C, 82E and 83A to 83C, which aim to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near energy generation infrastructure. While I believe that the spirit of these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is certainly well intended—and the Government are committed to ensuring that communities that host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it, including clean energy generation infrastructure—I must resist these amendments for reasons that I will set out for her.
Clause 26 specifically allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, with a minded-to position of offering eligible customers a bill discount of £250 per year over 10 years. This ensures that communities living near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide the country in hosting the infrastructure and helping to achieve our clean power goals. The clause has been specifically designed to address transmission which, due to its long, linear nature, impacts communities without necessarily providing further benefits, such as local jobs or investment, that other infrastructure probably will bring. If this clause is amended as suggested, it would require further complex and detailed amendments to ensure that it operates effectively for each type of generation infrastructure, delaying the time that it would take for the scheme to be implemented.
However, I can inform noble Lords that the Government have already presented proposals to expand the delivery of community benefits to other forms of clean energy infrastructure. On 21 May, we published a working paper on community benefits and shared ownership of low-carbon energy infrastructure, the responses to which are currently under review. Our proposals would require developers of low-carbon energy generation and energy storage infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds to support families, businesses and local community groups living near these projects. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, the scheme could help regenerate our coastal and rural communities—for example, via new community facilities, apprenticeships and education schemes—boosting local economies and growth as part of the plan for change.
The paper also sets out how communities could own a stake in renewable energy infrastructure through shared ownership, resulting in profits being reinvested in the community. Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty that they will benefit from hosting new generation infrastructure. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts these reasons why these amendments would not be appropriate, is reassured that we are looking into ways to ensure that communities hosting new clean energy-generation infrastructure are properly recognised for the service they are providing to the country, and will agree to withdraw Amendment 82C.
Turning now to Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Offord, which seeks to set the discount amount for the bill discount scheme at £1,000 a year for 10 years for households living within 500 metres of eligible infrastructure, I really sympathise with the noble Lords’ intention to ensure that households closest to the new transmission infrastructure benefit, but I am going to have to resist the amendment, for reasons which I will set out. The Government’s minded-to position is to provide electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 over a maximum of 10 years for households living within 500 metres of new and significantly upgraded electricity transmission network infrastructure. This proposal provides a balance between ensuring that communities are recognised for the role they play in hosting the infrastructure and limiting the additional cost to electricity bill payers in Great Britain from the scheme.
We are still conducting final analysis on the overall cost of the scheme. On 8 August, we published a consultation on our current proposals for scheme design, and that consultation is open until 26 September. Final analysis will be published in our impact assessment, alongside secondary legislation. The Government consider that the overall level of benefit ought to be set out at that stage, which will still allow for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny once secondary legislation is laid. I hope noble Lords understand our position on this matter. I look forward to working closely with them at the appropriate time on this important detail of the scheme.
I turn to Amendment 84, which seeks to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near onshore wind turbines. I welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment. The Government are committed to ensuring that communities which host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it. Clause 26 allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, with a minded-to position of offering eligible customers a bill discount of £250 a year over 10 years. This ensures that communities living near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide to the country. While it may seem logical to extend this scheme to other infrastructure, such as onshore wind, the clause has been designed specifically to address transmission, which, as I said, due to its long linear nature, impacts communities without providing further benefits, such as local jobs or investment, that other infrastructure can bring. If this clause is amended to include onshore wind, it would require further complex and detailed amendments to make sure that it operates effectively, delaying the time it would take for the scheme to be implemented.
However, I am pleased to inform noble Lords that the Government have already presented proposals to expand the delivery of community benefits to other forms of energy infrastructure, including onshore wind. I spoke already about the paper that was produced on 21 May on the community benefits, and we are reviewing the responses to that. The proposals would require developers of low-carbon energy generation and energy storage infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds—again, to support families, businesses and local community groups who live near these projects. The scheme could definitely help to regenerate those coastal communities. The paper also set out how communities can own a stake in those. Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that we are already looking into ways to ensure that communities living near new onshore wind generation are recognised for their service to the country.
Amendments 82D, 84A and 84B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to establish the financial benefit schemes as detailed in Clause 26. They would also ensure that eligible infrastructure projects constructed prior to Royal Assent to this Bill are included within the scope of the scheme. I acknowledge the intention of the amendments: to ensure that the scheme is not confined to those who live near eligible infrastructure built after the Bill is enacted. I must resist this amendment, for the reasons I will set out.
The aim of Clause 26 is to ensure that households that will live close to new electricity transmission infrastructure are appropriately recognised for their service. The Government understand that many of these projects are planned over the next few years. It is our intention that the scheme will run for a set period of time, and the Government require the flexibility to review the effectiveness of the scheme and determine whether it ought to continue for a longer period or come to an end after a certain date. Amendment 82D would remove that flexibility and result in greater time and monetary costs to bring the scheme to a close. Additionally, Amendments 84A and 84B would expand the financial benefit scheme by including works which have already been completed.
Around twice as much new transmission network infrastructure will be required by 2030 as has been constructed over the past decade. We believe it is only right that this unprecedented increase in the pace of construction is appreciated and that communities are recognised for the service to the country. Extending the scheme to historical infrastructure would be moving away from this purpose. We must also consider the substantial additional cost in extending the scheme in this manner. The increased complexity in identifying many more eligible households, as well as the increase in the number of discounts being paid out, would vastly inflate the cost of the scheme, as well as delay current rollout plans, due to the increased administrative challenges. However, although it would not be appropriate to modify the scheme in the manner that these amendments propose, I am happy to inform noble Lords that the Government are currently finalising details on eligibility for infrastructure where construction has recently commenced, as we recognise that there are projects vital to clean power 2030 that will have begun before the commencement of the scheme outlined in Clause 26.
Amendment 84C seeks to prevent the costs of community benefit schemes being borne by energy bill payers. I understand and appreciate the intention of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to protect consumers from rising energy bills. However, I will again set out the reasons why I have to resist this amendment. One of the Government’s five missions is to make Great Britain a clean energy superpower. This will boost our energy independence and reduce electricity bills. Our electricity network is key to achieving this. As we increase low-carbon and renewable energy generation, we will need to increase the scale of the transmission network at pace to keep up with demand. It will not be possible to deliver secure electricity supply vital to growth and prosperity without a transmission network that can transport it. This financial benefit scheme aims to increase community acceptability of electricity infrastructure and, in doing so, has the potential to reduce opposition and associated planning delays.
The Government’s current intention for the scheme, as outlined in Clause 26, is for the cost to be borne by an obligation on electricity suppliers. However, although they are not mandated to do so, it is expected that suppliers will recoup these costs by passing them on to their customers. For example, the warm home discount scheme is funded via an obligation on energy suppliers that is recouped via energy bills. Using alternatives, such as funding the scheme through Exchequer funding, would not be appropriate, as the bill discount scheme forms part of a broader package which has been developed to improve acceptability of transmission infrastructure, which in turn could help reduce constraint costs, if successful in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission infrastructure. Because of this, the Government believe that it is most appropriate that the scheme should be funded through bills.
Preliminary estimates for the cost of both the bill discount scheme and the community funds guidance are around 80p to £1.50 per year per average household electricity bill, although this estimate is subject to change in our future impact assessment, set to be published alongside secondary legislation. Should this community benefit package, alongside our wider package of reforms, succeed in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission network infrastructure, we could avoid up to £4 billion in constraint payments in 2030, compared with the scenario where delays persist. Those costs will be met by the consumers. This is as outlined in analysis from the National Energy System Operator.
I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We always enjoy hearing the Yorkshire dimension on our Bills in the House. The amendment seeks to expand the financial benefits scheme from households living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near existing transmission network infrastructure. I acknowledge the good intent behind the amendment in recognising communities that have hosted infrastructure for years. However, for reasons that I will set out, I must resist this amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She has mentioned the working paper in relation to several amendments, including mine. I welcome the words that she has given and the direction of travel. However, we have the usual phrase, that “in due course” something will come forward. The Minister may not have the answer to hand, but if there is a possibility of bringing forward those proposals in time for Report in relation to this group of amendments, it would be welcomed across the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I accept the noble Earl’s point. I am not fond of “in due course”, as he well knows—he has heard me say that many times. I will endeavour to find out what the timescales are likely to be. It usually depends on the level of responses that have been received and the complexity of dealing with them, but I will respond in due course.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer on the variety of schemes and community benefits, bill discounts and similar. I am disappointed that she does not think that it is necessary to talk about generation. Not all projects are like Sizewell. Not all these potential new projects generate local jobs, although I am sure that the community will be very grateful for the ones that will be generated by Sizewell. Nevertheless, conscious of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“(1A) For renewable energy produced from biomass, the forestry authority may only supply or use forestry materials that are deemed to be waste.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents public forestry resources being used for the establishment of large scale biomass operations.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare a couple of interests that are relevant to this Bill. I chair the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership and Aldustria Limited, a company which is into grid battery storage. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their names to Amendment 87.
When I first read through this Bill before Second Reading, I went through all the big things in Part 3 and all the stuff that we have been debating. Hiding in plain sight was Clause 28 on forestry authorities—primarily one thinks of the Forestry Commission here in England—and how their land should be used. It is entitled in such a way, with renewable energy, that you think, “Oh, that sounds good: more renewable energy and forestry. What could possibly go wrong?” Then you look down this clause and think, “Hang on a minute: what goes together most with renewable energy and forestry?” Of course, the answer that springs out is biomass; what else can you do with trees for renewable energy than to produce biomass? I am not totally against biomass for renewable energy, but it is an area about which we have to be very careful.
If we read through the rest of Clause 28 to see the definitions of renewable energy, interestingly we find that it does not actually say what they are but what they are not. It goes through nuclear energy, so we are not likely to have any small modular reactors on Forestry Commission sites in the near future, and it goes through all the fossil fuels and peat, all of which is good. However, it does not mention biomass within those definitions. As we know, biomass has its issues. It is interesting that we are debating this clause at a point when the Financial Conduct Authority has looked at the behaviour of Drax over something of a completely different scale and in a different place. It shows that one of the difficult areas with biomass is how you manage it, have accountability and make sure that, if it is used, it is managed in the right way. So there are a number of issues around biomass, all of which we know. The forestry authorities have a number of ancient woodlands, which certainly should not be touched, and there are issues around clear-cutting and soil quality, particularly if we were to take away all the cuttings—the branches and fallen trees—in that natural forestry.
I am aware that the Minister will say to me—it is a positive part of this clause—that activities carried out under this clause would have to have an environmental benefit. It goes on to mention those environmental benefits to nature and other areas, and I welcome that. However, my concern—hence why I have pursued this amendment—is that it could be said that all those things would be helped if we moved more quickly towards net zero. That is true, and so you could construct an argument that having renewable energy through biomass would reduce climate change, which is positive for all those other natural environment considerations.
I am really trying to find out from the Minister—she gave part of this answer in writing after Second Reading but I want to investigate it further—what exactly was in the Government’s mind when they wrote this. Are they going to cover Forestry Commission land with solar panels or wind turbines? I am trying to understand what this allows and what those organisations’ management plans for renewable energy are likely to be. I can accept, as I put in the amendment, that waste product is acceptable. Having said that, even residual and dead timber can itself be a good springboard for biodiversity. I am really trying to find out the intent behind this, because it is one area that could go very wrong if we are not careful. I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There is widespread concern about the sustainable sourcing of all Drax wood pellets, and it is incredibly important that we ensure there are safeguards in place around the potential for the wrongful use of forestry land. As the noble Lord said, we learned just last week that Drax is now under investigation by the financial watchdog. In the past, it has been fined £25 million for supplying inaccurate data. So while the Government’s decision to reduce the subsidies for Drax is welcome, it will remain the UK’s largest emitting power station, whatever we do. We have to be watchful.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report in May, covering DESNZ’s draft regulations to extend the regime for Drax, highlighted concerns about the ability of Ofgem and DESNZ to hold Drax to account on the sustainability question and the enforcement of environmental compliance. It noted that “key documents” relating to
“Drax’s supply chain processes and reporting practices have not been published”.
A lot of this comes from whistleblowers within the company. The Public Accounts Committee has also criticised the weaknesses in the current assurances and enforcement processes.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who, alas, cannot be with us today. I declare my interest as chair the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. The noble Lord’s amendment would insert into the Bill a new duty for the Forestry Commission to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the Government’s statutory climate and nature targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 in exercising its functions related to planning, development and infrastructure.
The Forestry Commission is a really important player in the delivery of these statutory targets and, for that reason, was listed as one of the public authorities in the original Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. His Private Member’s Bill sought to apply these duties to a whole range of public authorities. During the debate on that Bill, the Government said that they were sympathetic to its aims. This would be a real opportunity for the Government to put that sympathy into legislation.
The Forestry Commission is really important to the achievement of the Government’s targets for three reasons. First, it is the single largest landowner and manager of land in the country, with 750,000 hectares under its control. Secondly, it impacts, to a much bigger extent, on other woodland and associated land in its permitting and regulatory role for other landowners. That covers in excess of 3 million hectares of land. So we are talking about an organisation that, if it does the right thing, can have a huge impact and, if it does the wrong thing, can have a huge impact. Thirdly, this amendment would simply be a natural evolution of the development of the Forestry Commission’s role.
The Forestry Commission was invented in 1919, originally with a sole focus on producing timber and encouraging the replanting of Britain’s depleted timber-producing land. This depletion had become incredibly apparent during the First World War. In 1968—we do not move very quickly when it comes to dealing with forestry—the Countryside Act extended its role to include the provision of public amenities, such as footpaths and open spaces. In 1985, the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act extended the Forestry Commission’s role to include conservation. This amendment is simply another step on that road. It would complete the extension and modernising of the Forestry Commission’s duties to include the delivery of the climate and nature targets that have been invented over the last 15 years.
I am sure the Minister will say that the Forestry Commission has already got conservation duties and is already asked to deliver for climate change. Indeed, the biomass issue that has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises some considerable questions about the way in which that extension is happening. It is messy and piecemeal. The amendment would provide an unambiguous and up-to-date duty, without which the Government will very likely not deliver their statutory nature and climate targets. We cannot simply depend on some very piecemeal roles for the Forestry Commission to deliver the right thing on that extent of land.
Noble Lords will understand from this introduction that I do not support Amendments 87A and 87B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The spirit of the land use framework, which is under preparation by government at the moment, is that our scarce land supply has to work in a multifunctional way, delivering multiple benefits. Timber production is important because we are a massive net importer of timber, but so are climate change, biodiversity, flood risk management and access for health and well-being. They are also things that the Forestry Commission needs to deliver in the way it manages land and encourages other landowners to deal with their land. The Forestry Commission is absolutely fundamental in that as the biggest landowner in the country.
To revert to the primary purpose of the Forestry Commission being timber production risks going back to the bad old days of regular ranks of subsidised Sitka spruce—I caricature—marching across the countryside on inappropriate sites with poor outcomes for biodiversity and much subsidised by taxpayers. We simply cannot go back there. We need a modern Forestry Commission that delivers those multiple outcomes that the land use framework requires.
I also express agreement with some of Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am not sure if the percentage ceilings that he gives for land to be used for energy infrastructure are the right ones in percentage terms, but there certainly needs to be an appropriate balance between the requirements of timber production, biodiversity, access, recreation and energy infrastructure. His proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d), which would protect against the adverse effects on sites protected for nature conservation and irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland, are absolutely spot on.
I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the very real and important inquiry from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, into what is intended in the Government’s mind for the Forestry Commission and its role in biomass. I am concerned already at some of the species that the Forestry Commission is permitting at the moment—novel species, very fast growing, with as yet untested uses. I would be concerned if we lost sight of the fact that the vast majority of Forestry Commission land, particularly in England, is in fact moving towards being a mixed woodland mix that can do all these other duties like biodiversity, access and public health, rather than simply being species that are aimed at commercial return.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all the noble Lords who have spoken in this group, and as has already been said, I attach my name to Amendment 87 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to Amendment 93.
I will seek to add to, rather than repeat, what has already been said, but I just follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in addressing Amendment 88 and agree that I am also not sure about the percentages. I would particularly highlight the ancient woodland, how terribly important and terribly rare that is, and so, as per paragraph (d) in that amendment, there is no way we should be doing anything to damage ancient woodland for energy—it is such a precious resource. Noble Lords have heard me go on before about looking at the trees, but let us also see how incredibly precious the biodiversity in soil in ancient woodland is.
On Amendment 87, I think biomass is now a very dirty word, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rhetorically asked, “What could possibly go wrong?”. Of course, that has already been answered with the single word, “Drax”. The energy think tank Ember said Drax is “the UK’s largest emitter” and that the power
“is more expensive than … gas, it’s more polluting than coal, and more dependent on imports than oil”.
There should be no future biomass at Drax; that is my position and the Green Party’s position. It really is a tragedy that we did not get to that point when we recently had the opportunity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, picked this point up. I signed this amendment, but I am almost tempted towards saying simply that there should be no biomass from forests, because as the noble Baroness asked, what does “waste material” really mean? We are thinking about biodiversity and about organic material that is a resource. If you leave it on the forest floor, it contributes to the generation of soil and provides habitat for a huge variety of organisms. Is that really waste at all? Is there any such thing in a forest? That really is the question. We need to be thinking about having a war on tidiness and the idea that for any sort of planting, we want these nice, neat rows with clean bare soil in between—we need to think about what kind of damage that does.
Particularly in addressing Amendment 93, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a study that was out last year funded by the Forestry Commission. It was entitled Rapid review of evidence on biodiversity in Great Britain’s commercial forests. It found that there is in fact a huge shortage of data and information about what is happening in the biodiversity, specifically in commercial high forests. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the issue of the land use strategy. How can we be making the plans within this Bill, or indeed for the land use strategy, if we do not have the data about the biodiversity, which this study, funded by the Forestry Commission, identified? I also point to another Forestry Commission study from late 2023, which warned of the risk of catastrophic ecosystem collapse in our forests. This was signed—the work of 42 experts—and pointed out all the risks that our forests face from wind, fire, pests and diseases, and it said there are already forests in continental Europe and North America where we have seen this kind of biological collapse. We need to be thinking about making sure that the Forestry Commission is given the statutory duty, which Amendment 93 would give it, to ensure that it looks after biodiversity as well as, of course, the crucial issue of the climate emergency.
It is worth repeating again that we are incredibly forest and woodland-deprived in the UK by international comparisons. We have to look after what is there for human health, for well-being, for the climate and for nature.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I speak particularly to the amendments that I have tabled in this group. It is fair to say that the Forestry Commission is quite an unusual organisation—it is a non-ministerial department for a start. I was the Minister and then the Secretary of State with the relationship with the Forestry Commission and my experience was that, frankly, I used to get somewhat frustrated, thinking that it should get on and plant some trees. It almost seemed very reluctant to just get on and plant trees. The reason it matters—the clue is in the name, but perhaps the organisation literally cannot see the wood for the trees—is that trying to give the extra targets is important for the Forestry Commission to make sure it is on track in doing what it is supposed to do.
One of those aims is to help achieve the 16% woodland cover target by 2050, which we are at risk of missing. The Forestry Commission should have at the forefront of its mind that its role is about trees, woodland and forests. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was concerned about single species, or perhaps only certain species being granted in commercial estates. It is vital that we have mixed forests. One of my concerns was that it seemed like, for any tree that was not a broadleaf, it was almost like it was automatically bad and we should not be touching it. Actually, we need that mix for a combination of factors. There is no question that a broadleaf tree will bring absolutely better biodiversity overall, but so do the pines and, critically, the pines will grow a lot more quickly and contribute far more quickly to issues involving climate and emissions. That is why having a combination tree estate under the UK forestry guidance really matters.
Earl Russell (LD)
In this group on the Forestry Commission’s actions and duties, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 88 and in support of Amendment 93, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I support pretty much all of the amendments in this group. This has been an interesting conversation on not only the role and development of the Forestry Commission but its relationship with hosting energy, including what safeguards and protections need to happen as we go down that road and what our forests will look like in the future under climate change.
My amendment is designed to put in place some safeguards on the new powers granted to the appropriate forestry authorities for energy generation, transmission and storage on public forestry land. At the heart of all this is a balance between what we do to hit our climate and nature change duties and what we must do not to further damage our ecology and biodiversity. It is fine to make use of our forests for these things, but it must not have detrimental impacts. That is what I have tried to balance in my amendment.
The commission gains unprecedented powers to host and sell energy from renewable installations on land under its management. Yet, when I looked at Clause 28, there were no clear legal protections for most precious habitats. My worry is that, without such safeguards, we will see renewable energy infrastructure sited in ways that harm our ancient woodlands, our carbon rich peatlands and other priority habitats that the Government have a duty to protect, particularly under our 30 by 30 biodiversity targets.
I am looking for a reasonable balance between timber production and nature conservation. That reasonable balance is in the Bill, but what does it mean? It is not purely defined in the Bill, which was also a worry for me. In response to that, my amendment tries to take a pragmatic way forward. I note the issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, about the percentages. My amendment says that no more than 2% of all Forestry Commission land and no more than 5% of any individual site could be given to energy storage and development. I will go away and look at that. At the moment, there is no cap on that at all. Noble Lords may not agree with my percentages but putting a percentage in the amendment is a whole lot better than having no percentages in there at all; however, I will go away and look at whether there is another way in which that might be done.
This issue is particularly acute in our national parks and where our national parks and Forestry Commission land co-exist; in the New Forest, that is 47%, while, in Northumberland, it is 15%. These are treasured landscapes. Energy development must be proportionate, consistent with statutory park purposes, subject to democratic oversight, not impacting on leisure facilities and making sure that our national parks authorities have some say in and control over these things. These are important matters.
My amendment does not seek to reject the role of using Forestry Commission land to help with our energy; it just seeks to put some safeguards on that. I will go away and consider my amendment. This debate has been useful for me, and I will reflect on this, but there need to be more safeguards in the Bill—of that I am still certain. I would be very happy to work with the Minister between now and Report to see whether there are ways in which we could do that together; that would be welcome.
This has already been discussed in detail but, turning briefly to Amendment 93, I have supported the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at every stage of its passage through the House. It is absolutely essential that we update our climate change legislation. In the last debate on his Bill, I said that it was the equivalent to the Government being the general and knowing what the military strategy was but failing to tell any of their own troops. The Government need to work with all these public bodies. These things are so pressing and so complicated. The Government are holding on to all this stuff and not passing the orders down and empowering others, including the public bodies. The Forestry Commission owns 5% of all public land. It needs a duty to enhance and meet our climate change and biodiversity targets; it is silly that it does not have that.
I am sorry. I am a little buoyed up having come through the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill, where we managed to work with Ministers and get such provisions added to the Bills. It is on my agenda to do that in this Bill; that makes sense. I would like to work with the Minister, but it is a minimum for me that a similar amendment to the ones in those Bills is added to this Bill. If the Government want to make use of forestry land for energy generation, that is fine, but with that comes some responsibilities; those responsibilities include that this duty should added.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much approve of what the Government are doing in this clause. I think they should go a bit further. I want to illustrate this in the context of the challenges faced by southern broadleaved woodlands, which existed for many centuries as places of industry. People made things there; a lot of products came out of it. The whole biodiversity of that ecosystem comes out of a continuous pattern of use. It is interesting to see, for instance with NEP, how little biodiversity is left in the woodland when the woodland ceases to be of value. All the biodiversity there, which is considerable, has moved outside. Our woodland biodiversity is important.
The Government should be organising themselves, and the Forestry Commission, so that we can see a restoration of a commercial purpose to the southern broadleaved woodlands, particularly in England. We cannot at the moment rely on forestry. All the species that we used to grow in profusion have no big current use. Our neighbouring forest in Eastbourne was planted to beech 100 years ago. When they are felling it now, 100 year-old trees are going to firewood. There is no market now for really high-quality beech.
In the small wood that I own, oak is the main crop. We have acute oak decline coming in now. You are asked to wait 100 years for oak. If it is all going to rot away before then, there is no outlet. We really need a system that can take general wood output—branches, brash, thinnings, uneconomic trees—and turn it into something useful. The outlet available at the moment is energy.
The Forestry Commission is hugely important in this as it has a breadth of organisation and understanding, whereas the ownership of woodland tends to be extremely fragmented in the south. It can bring a lot in motivating, organising, inspiring and controlling when it comes to looking after biodiversity principles.
I am very pleased to see the direction in which the Government are moving here. My understanding is that this clause is written in a way that allows the Forestry Commission to work with partners in achieving its objectives; it does not have to do everything itself. However, I urge the Government to make one change to this: not just to look at renewable power but to look at renewable feedstocks for industry.
If we are to replace oil as the feedstock for our chemical industry, we need to go after every available source of concentrated carbon, and woods produce quite a lot of that. In looking at the powers that Forestry Commission has under the Bill—there are already young British companies using wood products to produce jet fuel and similar things—we need to add that extra aspect: not just renewable energy, but renewable feedstocks for industry.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to the vital role of our nation’s forests in delivering both environmental and societal benefits. As I begin, I refer the Committee to my registered interests, in particular as a forest owner and as a developer of new forestry and woodlands.
Turning first to Amendment 87, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I recognise its thoughtful intent. It seeks to ensure that public forestry resources are not disproportionately used to supply large-scale biomass operations. We are sympathetic to the amendment’s aims and to many of the comments made in this short debate. The responsible management of public woodland must prioritise environmental protection and long-term sustainability, but the picture is complex. Biomass plays a role in our renewable energy mix, and there may be cases, such as thinning or disease control, where repurposing woodland material is practical and sustainable.
This is ultimately a question of balance. I ask the Minister to outline how existing safeguards ensure that public forestry will not be placed under undue pressure from commercial biomass demand. I also note, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, that the overwhelming use of felled broadleaves is currently for home heating. Without the wood-burning market, mature forestry economics are undermined in these situations. It would be a shame to lose that incentive for managing our native broadleaf plantations and natural woodland.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I do not have the hands-on experience of managing forestry that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, does. My mother’s family home was in the middle of Savernake Forest, so it is very close to my heart, and the three elderly uncles who lived there when I was growing up worked in the forest in exactly the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They did active work for the Forestry Commission: the kind of work that the noble Lord was describing.
Clause 28 sets out to amend the Forestry Act 1967 to grant the forestry authorities powers to pursue electricity generation from renewable sources within the public forest estate. Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, seeks to restrict forestry authorities to supplying or using only waste materials in the context of renewable electricity generation from biomass. I completely understand that the intention behind the amendment is to prevent large-scale biomass operations on forest estate and inappropriate harvesting practices in the name of renewable energy, but I suggest that the concern is already addressed in statute by the balancing duty laid out in the Forestry Act 1967.
Clause 28 of the Bill applies the balancing duty specifically to renewable electricity, which means that forestry authorities are required to balance their renewable electricity functions with their forestry responsibilities and the conservation of natural beauty and flora and fauna of special interest. If the noble Lord is concerned that, without his amendment, the Forestry Commission would be able to engage in large-scale deforestation for the purpose of biomass, the Government’s categorical view is that that would not be consistent with the commission’s statutory duties.
Furthermore, I believe that the amendment would have unintended consequences that could constrain routine woodland management practices, including existing operations that contribute to the health of existing woodlands and the sustainable supply of biomass. Forestry authorities are committed to delivering the sustainable management of our forests and meeting the requirements set out in the UK forestry standards. These standards are upheld through processes such as thinning, where selected young trees are removed to enhance the quality and health of the broader woodland area—I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, referred to this. Through that process, all the material produced could be used for biomass. The proposed amendment could have the unintended effect of producing a narrow interpretation of “waste” that could exclude material most suitable for energy generation, such as material produced through the thinning process. This would limit the uses of forest materials and ultimately would be wasteful in itself.
Finally, it is important to note that sustainably sourced biomass can play an important role in our renewable energy systems, in transitioning away from fossil fuels and in meeting our net zero targets. Existing frameworks and duties provide a high bar for the Forestry Commission’s role as manager of the nation’s forests. These existing statutory duties underpin the commission’s current practices, including the sustainable supply of biomass, already operating at a smaller scale, as part of routine and acceptable day-to-day woodland management practices. The Forestry Commission has no plans to engage in the development of large-scale biomass technologies in the forests that it manages. It is for these reasons that I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I will consider Amendments 97A, 87B and 88A together. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendments, which aim to protect the forest estate from adverse impacts as a result of renewable electricity activities. I reiterate that our public forests are a precious national asset providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits, and this legislation will not change that fact.
The noble Baroness mentioned using wood in construction. Just before Recess, I visited an office building just across the Thames from here that was constructed using timber. It is a fantastic building. It looks out onto a small woodland as well, which makes it even better. So that is an important factor.
The forestry authorities’ key statutory duties remain to promote the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, the management of forests and the production and supply of timber and other forest products. The additional revenue stream produced from the sale of electricity from renewable energy developments will enhance their ability to deliver their existing objectives.
Amendments 87A and 87B would require the forestry authorities to replace any woodland lost to renewable electricity development by double, with this being planted as near as possible to the original site. I reassure the noble Baroness that the size of the public forest estate will not reduce as a result of renewable energy developments. The estimated footprint of renewable electricity projects will be relatively small and there will be no net loss of woodland area. Renewable energy installations are successfully integrated into woodlands in many areas of Scotland. Scottish officials explained to mine that, generally speaking, where trees might be felled for, say, access purposes during the construction phase, they can be replanted once the access is no longer required.
It is the Government’s view that the amendment is unnecessary as there is already existing statutory provision to ensure that impact is mitigated in both the Forestry Act and the planning and development process. Therefore, permanent deforestation at concerning scale for the purpose of renewable electricity development would not be consistent with the Forestry Commission’s existing statutory duties.
Furthermore, I believe the amendments could have the unintended effect of limiting the ability to utilise new and potentially more suitable land to create new woodland habitats when undertaking compensatory tree planting. Some locations are less suitable for woodland creation, and replanting woodland as close as possible to the installation may not align with ecological and other environmental and timber-supply priorities.
The amendment may also limit the ability to pursue restoration measures beyond compensatory tree planting that could deliver greater environmental value. The Forestry Commission will ensure that compensatory planting takes place where woodland is permanently lost to renewable energy projects, but the planning process can often identify more effective ways of enhancing ecology and biodiversity. We would not want these alternative approaches to be constrained as a result of this legislation.
Amendment 88A specifically requests that Clause 28(6) is removed completely. The intended effect of this is to prevent regulations being made for purposes beyond those explicitly set out in the Bill. Many examples of the provisions set out in subsection (6) can be found in any large Bill. They are technical provisions that do not affect the fundamental purpose for which regulations can be made. In this case, that fundamental purpose is determined by subsection (5). I reassure the noble Baroness that, if regulations were to be made in reliance on the power in subsection (6) to make, for example, incidental or supplementary provisions, the scope of those regulations could not be broadened in the way that her amendment appears to be concerned about.
Further, the reference in subsection (6) to the ability to make different provisions for different purposes does not mean that any of those purposes can go beyond the general purpose set out in subsection (5). They cannot.
I note for completeness that the Government are currently reviewing subsection (5) in response to recommendations made in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary for the intended effect. Given the existing provisions and the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and I hope she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would place a limit on the amount of the public forest estate that forestry authorities may use for renewable electricity projects. I recognise that our public forests are a national asset and that this amendment has been made in the spirit of protecting them. However, the existing statutory duties and regulatory frameworks will prevent excessive development of the forest estate. The estimated footprint of these renewable electricity projects will be relatively small. There will be no net loss to woodland area or the size of the public forest estate as a result of the renewable electricity projects. Furthermore, any renewable electricity developments will be subject to the relevant planning process and considered against the forestry authorities’ existing statutory balancing duty set out in the Forestry Act 1967.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
The Minister gave a very impressive list of different pieces of statute, guidance and legislation from right across the spectrum that guides the Forestry Commission in its work. I just want to plant the idea in her head that perhaps the time has come for some legislation that consolidates all of those requirements. It is now nearly 60 years since we last had a forestry Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will pass my noble friend’s comments on to the Defra Minister.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, if this was not the House of Lords, I think I would ask for a round of applause for the Minister. That was very concentrated information over about 15 minutes without even a breath, so my congratulations to her.
Clearly, there is another debate that needs to happen. I am absolutely fascinated by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the Forestry Commission is not too strongly into planting trees. That could just explain the fact that we are rather behind on our tree planting targets in this country. I really welcomed the in-depth, practical view of how the Forestry Commission worked from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.
As far as my amendment is concerned, I can see from what the Minister said in answer to one of the other amendments that the role model here may be what is happening in Scotland. I will look at that further and try to understand further what the Government are trying to achieve in terms of the Forestry Commission and renewable energy. I may or may not come back to this on Report, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 1st September 2025
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (1 Sep 2025)
“Prohibition of solar power development on higher-quality agricultural landNo permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and(b) building or installation at ground level.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher-quality agricultural land.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 89 in my name. This amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 28 which would prohibit the development of solar power generation on high-quality agricultural land, in particular, as set out in paragraph (a),
“agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a”.
As many know, agricultural land is classified into five grades based on various physical and chemical characteristics that affect its long-term agricultural use, grade 1 being the highest and grade 5 the lowest. Grade 3 covers good to moderate-quality land and is divided into two sub-grades, with 3a defined as land capable of consistently producing moderate to high yields of a wide range of crops. I excluded sub-grade 3b, which is more limited in its agricultural use, often suited only to grassland and extensive grazing. Paragraph (b) in Amendment 89 then prevents solar power generation development, which would involve building or installation at ground level.
As I and others argued at Second Reading, the Government need to be joined up when considering infrastructure. Despite the high-level meetings over the summer in Alaska, the current situation in Ukraine remains significantly worrying, and the threat will remain even when the war in Ukraine has been resolved. Our defence policy has pivoted to deterrence against possible war: that we should be war ready. Although defence is the first priority of the Government, surely our second, as an island nation, should be food security.
Solar farms will take up large areas of land that should be used for food production. The Minister has suggested that these concerns are not proportionate, as it is estimated to impact only 1% of agricultural land. According to the Government’s own statistics released in March this year, covering the UK up to 1 June 2024, utilised agricultural land accounts for some 16.8 million hectares in 2024. One per cent of that is the equivalent of 105,000 football pitches, around four-and-a-half times as big as the Isle of Wight. That is not something to be just brushed aside.
We have already had clear examples of impact estimates being widely out, from those leaving the private school sector to the impact of job taxes on enterprise and business. The Government’s own national security strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war. Currently, we import more than 40% of our food. This Bill would see badly needed productive land lost to solar farms. Our agricultural land is needed for food production. It is vital that we become more self-sufficient and resilient. Producing more food in the UK is an essential part of that. Regarding resilience, solar farms are easily identifiable, hard to guard and therefore could be so easily disabled by drone strikes. This amendment seems fundamental to safeguard future need regarding food production.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 92 in my name. The amendment is simple and straightforward: it recognises that solar farms have a role to play in our energy security, but that that must be balanced with an effective use of our best farmland for food security. I observe that the lack of Labour Party Back-Benchers here says more than we need to about their views on farm and food security.
This amendment would not prevent or fetter the development of solar farms on the poorest quality land or restrain smaller proposals on the best land which command the support of the local planning authority. However, where large-scale solar proposals come forward that include the best and most versatile land, my amendment would mean that the nationally significant infrastructure project—NSIP—process would not and could be engaged. To be clear, this would not be an absolute ban on large-scale solar farms on the best land; it is just that, if those proposals were to come forward, they would need to be determined locally by the planning authority.
It is said that modern society is no more than three meals away from breakdown. In the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one priority. When the chips are down, you cannot eat a solar panel. Last year, the national wheat yield was down by 20% on account of wet weather. This year, the yield impairment is similar but because of dry weather. Just as there are no guarantees about the weather, we cannot be careless with our food supply.
I have recently heard encouraging noises from Defra Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been and that the best land should be reserved for food production, where inputs can be used most productively. The poorest and least productive land can be harnessed for other uses—environmental, amenity or economic. I welcome this sinner that hath repenteth and I venture that there is now common ground between people like me, who appreciate and value food security, and the Government. That should make acceptance of my amendment easy to achieve, so that the right balance is struck between heating and eating.
I will not go into quite so much detail as my noble friend, but let us talk about what I mean by the best and most versatile land. The Library tells me that, under the 1966 agricultural land classification process, grade 1, 2 and 3a land comprises 42% of the cultivated area of Great Britain; by difference, therefore, the substantial majority, 58% of the agricultural land, is in the poorer grades 3b, 4 and 5. Now, this would still be available for large-scale solar energy under my amendment, and there are millions of poor hectares to go at. That is land the size of 12 Norfolks or two and half times the size of Wales—noble Lords will note that I do not use the football pitch analogy.
Last year at the Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, explained that, in the case of a recently approved Sunnica proposal in Suffolk, the proposal did not include some of the best and most versatile land. I will not criticise her for an honest mistake, but I regret to tell the Committee that there was plenty of the best land, including grade 2 land, in that proposal—land that is now lost to food production for a generation. On so many levels, the Government’s rhetoric is at odds with the reality. They have lost control of the numbers, and in so doing are imperilling our food security, which is national security.
In Lincolnshire, the county that more than any other puts bread on our tables, already 2% of that county is under threat from solar. Worse, thanks to my noble friend Lord Frost we learn that the majority of the Heckingham proposal is predominantly the best grade 1 land under the 1966 rules.
In an Answer to a Written Question last November, the Government reported that 1,400 hectares of land in Norfolk were currently under NSIP applications. But the reality was that it was 7,500 hectares, and now the number is greater still. We know from Great British Energy—I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his place—that there just is not the grid capacity to accept all the solar that is being promoted.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, surely the point about the Bill is that it is enabling us to put the structures in place to actually get the grid capacity up and running.
Lord Fuller (Con)
True. The noble Lord makes a good point, and so I sense even further a degree of consensus on both sides of the Committee on this matter. If we take the fact that the grid capacity is not there to accept all the solar that has been promoted, because it is diurnal and seasonal and comes in very big flashes which can overwhelm the grid, and that capacity to absorb is limited, only a fool would disagree with limiting the proposals to the poorest land first.
I have heard it said that we need not worry about this and that only the amount of land currently used for golf courses is being used for solar—something like 0.5% of all land—but that is simply not true. It is the 19th hole tale that has grown with the telling. The Government’s land use framework contemplates that 9% of all land will be used for environmental and energy schemes. Let me say straight away that agri-solar is starry-eyed, greenwashed fantasy. The solar panels are taller, so they are even more visually intrusive, with even more chemicals used to bash the weeds so that they do not shade the panels or wrap their tendrils around the steel stanchions.
The principle of controlling solar development aside, this amendment is important because it seeks to remove the loopholes and abuses that we have seen flow from the misuse of the NSIP regime for solar applications, including artificially stringing together many disparate smaller schemes, some miles apart, to get over a hurdle threshold. Where I live, a local proposal comprises a dozen different blocks of land spread out over a canvas more than 15 miles wide and eight miles tall as a device to get over that NSIP threshold. That is an abuse.
I can see that it is in the farmer’s private interests to sign up for solar. On normal arable economics, a farmer would do well to earn £200 an acre from the fruits of his labours, having investing millions in plant and equipment and subjecting himself to the risks of weather and the market. By contrast, solar developers are offering him the chance to sit on the beach with an index-linked £900 or more. Landowners of really quite small holdings which have been aggregated together have given tenant farmers notice to quit so that they can enjoy those inflation-linked payments of over 40 years at many times the rent. But our tenant farmers are among the most entrepreneurial growers, not having had the benefit of inheriting land, and we cannot afford to lose their dynamism.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 94B regarding permission for energy substations on higher quality agricultural land, I will also speak to Amendment 94A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, which according to the Herald is pronounced “drum-lang”. The amendments reflect the concerns that I and my noble friends have about what is happening on higher quality agricultural land, which, as we have heard eloquently described, is critical to food security.
My noble friend’s amendment reflects quite a lot of the concerns expressed in the House of Commons. I am thinking of my right honourable friend Wendy Morton, my honourable friends Sarah Bool and Mike Wood, and a number of other people who have spoken in debates in the House of Commons who are concerned for a couple of reasons about why battery energy storage systems seem to be not exploding —well, some of them are—but certainly expanding.
There is an important point to understand. We have seen, progressively, the previous Administration and this Government trying to get a grip on managing energy production and to get a proper strategy going. Meanwhile, in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, the proposal is that we need about 27 gigawatts by 2030, 29 gigawatts by 2035, and a broader estimate—although the Government have not set a formal target—of 50 gigawatts by 2050. But where are we right now?
Figures from a paper from RenewableUK published in December 2024 suggested that there were 5 gigawatts of total operational capacity and 127 gigawatts in the pipeline. You do not need an A-level in maths to add up and find that that comes to 132 gigawatts. Of those, I think it is fair to say that 40 gigawatts have already been consented, 30 gigawatts are in the planning process and a further 48 gigawatts are being developed to go into the planning system.
My concern and that of my honourable friends and right honourable friends in the other place is that, in our process, we have already approved pretty much all that has been wanted by our energy operator. So why is it that, in effect, we seem to be encouraging even more to come through?
I am conscious that not every application will necessarily produce the outcome that is desired—we have seen that with other things—but, frankly, for those who have got the planning consent, we should make sure that they deliver what they say they are going to do. We should do that instead of, yet again, building up, and potentially blocking, land being used for food production to perhaps become an area for battery energy storage in the future, when we will have already achieved our outcome.
We discussed a lot about safety earlier; the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, spoke to that. He spoke comprehensively, but I point out to him there have been some instances where, for example, chemical interactions meant that hydrofluoric acid was produced. I did my PhD in chemistry a long time ago, but HF is one of the chemicals that I used. I can honestly say that, if you get it on your skin, although you will not realise it for a couple of days, your bones are basically crumbling right inside your skeleton. If you get it in your eyes, it is game over, frankly. On a very serious note, it is fair to say that there are significant risks. While the HSE has been cited as having a framework in place and similar, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, referred to the Defra consultation about bringing these regimes into the EPR. It was published only last week. This is no criticism of the Minister, but what is noteworthy is that it said—I am quoting word for word—that
“it is not the role of the planning system to regulate fire risk and there is limited provision through the planning scheme to ensure that measures are maintained”.
I am sorry, but one of the key features of the planning system is to consider fire and fire risk and the like, so it will be worth the Minister looking at that element again; I am sure his officials will be keen to do so as well. We need to make sure that these things are safe. I shall give way.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am reminded to reprise what the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said earlier about the need to have pre-scrutiny and the fact that a national organisation, the HSE, was the competent body. As my noble friend has been speaking, I have been reminded that it is for local organisations, the local fire authority and the local planning authority to make those determinations. National bodies such as the HSE do not have the capacity or the local knowledge to comment appropriately.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I think that is right. The HSE, on its own website, refers to the fact that it cannot comment on every application and, in effect, needs to be proactively contacted only if there is considered to be a major risk.
I am also conscious that the River Test is considered by my honourable friend Caroline Nokes to be under threat. For people who are interested in these things, I commend the speech of my right honourable friend Sir Alec Shelbrooke, who talked about dendrites. It was a very knowledgeable, well-researched speech about fire risk, including thermal runaway and the like.
Coming back to the fundamental proposal of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, he specifically asked me to talk about safety. There is a concern about overdevelopment and the loss of food for agricultural production. We will keep coming back to this on this side of the House, recognising the importance of food security alongside the other elements of national security.
On the amendment that I have tabled, perhaps I should declare an interest as this is about a subject that I have referred to a few times before: energy substations. Again, I am worried. There is an element here of thinking about where we do energy generation or other aspects of interconnection. Frankly, if the Government think the only way they can get these things done is by ripping apart environmental protection law and reducing food production land, they should not connect at those areas that already have these environmental designations or are key producers of food in this country.
My amendment refers specifically to 1, 2 or 3. I am conscious that the best and most versatile land is traditionally grades 1, 2 and 3a. However, Defra, through Natural England, does not publish where grades 3a and 3b are, because apparently that is too difficult to do, as it requires individual local site surveys on determining whether a particular field is grade 3a or 3b, so for comprehensiveness I have put in grades 1, 2 and 3.
However, as my noble friend Lord Fuller has pointed out, there is an element here about the fact that, frankly, a lot of this stuff was—in effect, with a light touch—reconsidered only in 2010. Fundamental parts of our land have not been assessed in terms of their contribution towards food production or food security for probably the best part of 40 to 50 years. As a consequence, recognising the targets set by the Government and the challenges that we face, I am conscious of the land use framework. Admittedly, I did a draft of that nearly three years ago, and I am sure everyone is frustrated that we still have not seen it yet. One of the challenges is this competing element of what we do with the land that we have.
Let us be straightforward about this: once agricultural land is gone, it is gone for good. I am not blaming farmers or landowners, who, candidly, the policies of the last 12 months have given even more reason to get a secured income on the basis of the value or use of their land. One of the foibles, in a way, of doing things such as leasing out land for solar is that it does not adjust in terms of the agricultural elements of inheritance tax. However, when farmers can get a guaranteed income for a proportion of their land, while other things are so uncertain, I do not blame them for wanting to make that choice.
My honourable friends—apologies, I am still earning about this place; I should have said my noble friends—have eloquently put some of the issues around solar. There definitely has to be a place for solar across our country, but one final point that I want to make on battery energy systems is that we really need to target where they are going to be. There is no point in having batteries in parts of the country that are nowhere near the grid or near where most of the energy is going to be used. That is why I have proposed the amendments I have today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I simply want to agree with Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I prefer it to the amendments from my noble friends Lord Fuller, Lord Forsyth and Lady Coffey, although they all have merit. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Coffey that we may already have enough solar farms under consent already, although I am not sure what the Minister thinks of that.
As the House of Lords, we can take a longer-term view and, unfashionable though it may be, I believe we should protect the highest-quality agricultural land for farming and food and prohibit solar farms on that land. It is of course less costly for the developers, who want flat sites, but that is not a good reason to sacrifice the best land needed for food security.
Government is about balance. Our population is growing. We live in a dangerous world that could one day jeopardise imports of food, and the most productive land should be devoted to growing crops.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, Amendment 92 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, Amendment 94A in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Amendment 94B in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These amendments focus on a matter of strategic and national importance: the protection of prime agricultural land in the face of increasing pressure from non-agricultural development, particularly the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. The arguments have been well made already in this short debate, so I can be brief.
In bringing these amendments, my noble friends rightly highlight the wider context in which we debate this issue. The agricultural sector has been under immense pressure from market volatility, environmental challenges and, regrettably, punitive tax measures such as the family farms tax raid. Against that backdrop, it is more important than ever that we protect our best and most versatile land, not just for farmers but for the long-term food security of our nation. The Government must support an approach that balances the need to scale up renewable energy with the critical need to maintain our ability to feed ourselves.
These amendments make a strong case for preventing the unnecessary loss of high-quality agricultural land. As I and other noble Lords have previously highlighted Committee, some of the largest solar developments are being approved without proper regard for the grade or quality of the land being sacrificed. Every one of the large-scale solar farms approved under NSIP that I have looked at has been materially located on best and most versatile land. That is not just a matter for the farming community; it is a matter of national food security. We cannot create a future in which we can switch on our lights and heat our homes but are unable to feed ourselves. We must not let the pursuit of energy security come at the expense of food security.
As others have highlighted, a disproportionate percentage of our best and most versatile land is going to solar. This is madness when 58% of our farmed land is not in the BMV category and there is also a significant amount of unclassified and unfarmed land that could be used for renewable development. With the Government’s ambition to triple solar capacity by 2030, the pressure on land is only going to intensify. Unless active steps are taken now to guide that development sensibly and strategically, we will continue to see the erosion of our agricultural capacity and, with it, increased dependence on imported food.
These amendments are both timely and necessary. They would ensure that solar and other non-agricultural developments are directed towards less productive land or even non-productive land, leaving our best farmland for the essential job of feeding our population. I urge the Minister to take these amendments seriously and offer clear assurances that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that compromise the UK’s food security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 89, 92, 94A and 94B relate to Clause 28 and the protection of agricultural land. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for tabling these amendments. Is that the right pronunciation of Drumlean? I am glad he is not here, because I know he would shout at me if I got it wrong.
Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, seeks to prohibit the construction of ground-mounted solar farms on land of grades 1, 2 and 3A. The Government view food security as national security and champion British farming and environmental protection. All solar projects undergo a rigorous planning process, considering environmental impacts, local community views and any impact on food production. The Government believe that solar generation does not threaten food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mounted solar PV panels covered an estimated 21,200 hectares, which is only around 0.1%—not 1%—of the total land area of the UK. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, only up to 0.4% of UK land will be devoted to solar in 2030.
The Government are in total agreement with the noble Baroness in that we want to get the balance right between protecting fertile agricultural land and facilitating renewable energy. The Government agree that protecting food security should always be a priority. That is why land use and food production are already material considerations in planning. Planning guidance makes it clear that, wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land. However, we do not believe the accelerated rollout of solar power under present planning arrangements poses a threat to food security.
The government consultation on the land use framework sought feedback on what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. The land use framework, to be published later this year, will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land. It will also lay out how government intends to align the different incentives on land; ensure that joined-up decisions are made at national and local levels; and make accessible and high-quality data available.
As such, we believe that this amendment is not necessary to protect agricultural land. Moreover, a total ban on the use of higher-quality land may have several deleterious consequences. Quite often, a site suitable for solar development will contain soil of varying quality. At the moment, the amount of high-quality land proposed to be developed is examined by planning officers. This is a consideration in planning decisions. Were this amendment to be incorporated into the Bill, large projects could be rejected for the sake of a small area of higher-quality soil that constitutes a small fraction of the overall site.
This amendment would reduce the number of economically viable sites for solar generation, which would increase costs for developers. They may seek to recoup these by placing higher bids in the contracts for difference scheme. That cost is ultimately borne by bill payers. In short, banning all solar development on higher-quality land may endanger the Government’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, increasing the exposure of British consumers to volatile imported fossil fuels.
I shall touch on the noble Baroness’s point about solar on domestic and non-domestic buildings. Deploying rooftop solar remains a key priority for the Government and we will publish the future homes standard this autumn. The new standard will ensure that solar panels are installed on the vast majority of new-build homes once it comes into force, saving households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills. That will support our ambition that the 1.5 million homes we will build over the course of this Parliament will be high-quality, well designed and sustainable.
Additionally, the recently published Solar Roadmap contained several actions for both government and industry to support the deployment of solar PV in the commercial sector. These included unpicking the complex landlord/tenant considerations in the sector by developing and distributing a toolkit for owners and occupiers. The Government set out that rooftop solar on new non-domestic buildings will, where appropriate, play an important role in the future buildings standard, due to be introduced later this year.
The Government have also announced £180 million of funding for Great British Energy to help around 200 schools and 200 NHS sites to install rooftop solar. We expect the first of these installations to be complete by the end of the summer—summer being a flexible concept, so whenever that comes. The Government are assessing the potential to drive the construction of solar canopies on outdoor car parks over a certain size through a call for evidence, which closed on 18 June. We will publish the government response to that consultation. I trust that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that response and I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.
Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to remove solar projects on high-quality land from the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject. I know that he has spent many years serving in local government and has considerable expertise. However, I hope that he recognises the contradiction in his argument. At the same time as he argues about the very difficult conditions that farmers face in growing food, these are brought about by climate change, but he is using them as arguments not to tackle it by moving to clean energy—so there is a bit of a contradiction in the argument there.
It is vitally important that every project is submitted to the planning process that best suits its impact, scale, and complexity.
Lord Fuller (Con)
The point is that the difficulty that farmers are under may be aggravated by poor weather, either too wet or too cold, but the real problem is that this Government are engaged in a war on the countryside by undermining the finances of every family farm and damaging food production, even with the stuff on bioethanol, taking 1 million tonnes of wheat out of the market. That is the reason why farms are doing so badly—it is not to do with climate change.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord was referring specifically to climate impacts on food growing, which I felt was a bit ironic as we are trying to tackle the climate change that is bringing them about with exactly these measures to use clean energy.
The Government recognise the benefit of returning control over decisions to local planning authorities. As of 31 December 2025, we will double the NSIP threshold for solar projects from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts. However, the Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP process.
The NSIP regime is rigorous. Although the decision is not taken locally, local engagement is still at the heart of the process. Under the current legislative framework, developers taking projects through the NSIP regime are required to undertake community consultation as part of the preparation for the application. This gives communities ample opportunity to feed in their views and shape the project. Currently, the level and quality of community consultation, among other factors, is taken into account by decision-makers. I am glad the noble Lord made a protest about the one that he was subject to; I hope communities will do that if they feel that those consultation processes are not being carried out in good faith.
Moreover, considerations under the NSIP regime include any impact on land use and food production. Planning guidance is clear that poorer-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land, avoiding the use of best and most versatile agricultural land where possible. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. Even if there were a marginal gain in public confidence from returning the decision to local authorities, we would not expect the outcomes to change.
This marginal gain must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. First, a proper examination of the potential impacts of a large-scale solar farm is a major and lengthy undertaking. Giving this responsibility to local planning departments may place an untenable burden on resources which are already under pressure.
Secondly, it is right that projects of such scale, size or complexity as to be nationally significant should be considered through the NSIP process. These proposals are of strategic importance to the country as a whole, and as such central government is the most appropriate decision-maker. Changing policy to allow decisions about these projects to be taken by local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the Government’s 2030 clean power mission. This may jeopardise our work to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, increase energy security and protect consumers from global price shocks, just at the very time when Members have raised the issue of security.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am prompted to intervene only because the head of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, nearly seems to be falling off with nodding. The point is that the NSIP regime is combining schemes which, frankly, should normally go through the local planning authority. These are disparate, small, stand-alone schemes which fall under NSIP only because the system is being abused to string them all together quite artificially. There are no capacity constraints in local government planning to do with these smaller schemes; we know where they are and we know the issues. To suggest that stringing together a dozen different small schemes is nationally significant demonstrates the falsehood and the paucity behind the argument that NSIP should be engaged in this manner.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
These are geographical schemes. As I said, we are increasing the size of schemes that will go to NSIP.
Lastly, I am concerned that accepting this amendment would imply that there are some issues on which the NSIP regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate. This is simply not the case. Setting this precedent may reduce public confidence in the NSIP planning system as it applies to other types of infrastructure. It may undermine trust in decisions which have already been taken. For all the reasons I have outlined—although it sounds as though I have not convinced the noble Lord—I hope he will not press his amendment and will continue to work with us on this issue.
Amendment 94A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit battery developments on best and most versatile agricultural land. The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan set out an expansion of renewable technologies required to achieve the 2030 ambition, including the acceleration of grid-scale battery development from around 5 gigawatts at present to at least 23 to 27 gigawatts by 2030. Grid-scale batteries, which are rapidly falling in cost and increasing in scale, allow the power system to store cheap excess renewable energy and use this, rather than expensive polluting gas, at times of need.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Can the Minister not deal with the problem of patches of best-quality land on a site with a classic de minimis rule of, say, 5%? That would still allow us to protect the best land without needless delay and Defra—or the new framework that the Minister mentioned—could easily provide the data for that purpose.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that if the noble Baroness wished to put that forward in the land use framework it would be considered. I always worry about de minimis rules because there will always be the exception to the rule that goes slightly over it, and then you end up with a big problem sorting that out. However, if she wishes to feed that into Defra’s part of the land use framework consultation, I am sure it will take account of it.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank the Minister for her extensive response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, especially those who have given support. Many interesting points have been raised, and some very worrying statistics. I simply repeat that, especially given the international situation, we really need to think about national food security and resilience. We import 40% of our food and, if we got into a war situation, we would need to grow more than we are at the moment. It seems counterintuitive to be allowing good agricultural land to be used to generate electricity when this can be done elsewhere.
I will not repeat all the points previously made, except to say that we also need the good will of the British people. We need to ensure that local people can have their views heard. I was heartened when the Minister said that there would be community consultation, but too often these consultations are binned and not acted on—people listen and then some other outcome happens. I hope that community consultation in which local people expressed that they really did not want solar farms would be respected and the schemes would be turned down.
I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not address the points about foreign investors leasing this land long term. I imagine that we do not know who they are and we are not checking on who is buying what. I am very disappointed to hear that the Minister is not prepared to recognise the depth of feeling on this issue. I withdraw the amendment now, but hope that we can have further consultations and some movement can be made to address what all of us have tried to say about making sure that prime agricultural land does not have solar farms on it. I reserve the right to bring this back at the next stage of the Bill.
Earl Russell
“Local Area Energy Plans(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan in order to inform their decisions about local electricity infrastructure requirements.(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Local Area Energy Plan” means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I open this group of amendments, which are all on local energy plans; my amendment proposes to insert a crucial new clause after Clause 28 of the Bill. It would mandate that all local authorities and combined authorities must create a local area energy plan.
Considering the late hour, I will give a slightly condensed version of my original speech. I also express my strong support for the other amendment in this group, Amendment 177, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish vital guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans within 12 months of the Act being passed. To my mind, that is almost like the flipside of the same coin to what I am asking. The amendment that I have tabled and this amendment would work well together, complement each other and make each stronger than they would be without the other. From my point of view, it would be good if it was possible to progress both of the amendments in this group.
I do not really want to go into too much detail. Everybody knows what local area energy plans are. They are vital to devolving these tasks down to local authorities, including local people. They work really well; they are powerful. It is really good that we speak to and include local people and that they have a say, and it is good that we take account of local peoples’ needs and what is happening in local areas. It is good that we do this level of granular work on the ground and talk to local people. These plans are happening in some places: obviously in Wales, and there are some other places where councils are voluntarily doing these things, whether that is in London or other metropolitan authorities.
What does not exist in legislation is a mandated requirement for these things to be done or a mandated support to help local authorities to do these things. Were that to happen, it would help this Government to meet their environment and climate change targets. Frankly, I do not know how we got to where we are without having it in this Bill. I wonder whether that is purely just an oversight.
From my point of view, I stand ready to work with the Minister alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We would like to include this in the Bill. We feel that this would fit within the Bill, help to deliver targets, help us to get to where we need to be and help to empower our local authorities. I will leave it at that considering the late hour that we are sitting, but I genuinely think that this would help all round. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 177 in my name and declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support for the amendment.
I start by saying that I completely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just said. I view these amendments as very complementary in terms of local area energy planning. This has to be a staged approach. We first need that guidance set out for local authorities, so that we have a consistent approach to planning but, ultimately, we need a funded programme with funding available to local authorities to enable them to undertake these plans and get to the place where we need to be with the noble Earl’s amendment. Therefore, they are very complementary in that sense.
To add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, I put this amendment forward to the then Energy Bill a couple of years ago. It is worth reflecting on what we have seen so far in terms of the energy transition, which is a very top-down driven approach. However, we have seen some really good progress since the Energy Act. We have had the formation of the National Energy System Operator, the NESO. We have started to see that thinking about flow-down to regions and local areas, with the formation of the regional energy strategic planner role, the RESP.
However, there is a missing piece of the puzzle in terms of the flow-down to local areas: the bottom tier, which is what the local area energy plan fulfils. In terms of spearheading the transition, it is really important that we get this joined-up view of the governance system and that we have some guidance for local area energy plans. As the Minister knows, this is not a conceptual approach—it is a well-tested road. In fact, since the end of last year, these have now been rolled out and completed for all 22 Welsh councils. There is a funded programme, a technical adviser to ensure coherence in the Energy Systems Catapult and there is that guidance to ensure a systems approach. Now that they have that basis, there is then flow-up to their own national plan as well, which offers great benefits.
This amendment would put a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local authorities on local area energy planning and to clarify some of the criteria that should be included with any guidance. This is based on the Energy Systems Catapult guidance and includes how local area energy plans can contribute to meeting our net-zero environmental and adaptation targets.
I will briefly illustrate one of the reasons we need this. The pilots undertaken in the UK, in Newcastle, Bridgend and Bury in Manchester, divided each area into zones suitable for different types of heating technologies. The balance of technologies across the three areas shows how different areas can be. In Newcastle, the plan found that roughly half the homes could be heated by a heat network, in Bury it was less than 30% and in Bridgend it was 15%. In Bridgend, a far higher proportion of homes would need to be heated with high-temperature heat pumps to save on the extra expense of retrofitting insulation in its poorer-quality housing stock.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer my strongest possible support for Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which I have attached my name, and some slightly qualified support for Amendment 177, which we have just heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.
Coincidentally, and entirely without prompting from me, I started the day—rather a long time ago now—speaking to a senior civil servant. They said to me that they thought the great malaise of the UK was people’s lack of a sense of agency—a lack of ability to step up, take control and change what is around them and the direction of the country. This amendment, starting with the local and saying, “Here in your community you can democratically work through your council, local authority and combined authority to decide how to deliver your energy” is the perfect way to start to address those issues.
We are the most centralised polity in western Europe: power and resources are overwhelmingly concentrated here in Westminster. We have almost universal agreement that we have to have an energy transition. This is a major infrastructure element in all our lives, as we have been discussing this evening. We also must have a just transition, so that no community is left behind. Every community needs the opportunity to make plans for its energy future, and that is exactly what Amendment 90 seeks to achieve.
I note that a great deal of work and resources have been put into this over a long period of time. The Centre for Climate Engagement at the University of Cambridge, funded by Innovate UK under the Net Zero Living programme, is building on the work of the Skidmore review—we are talking about cross-party approaches across all Benches—which emphasised the importance of local government, leadership and place-based actions in dealing with the climate emergency.
This goes back a very long way. Green councillor Andrew Cooper, who was working through the European Committee of the Regions, got the UN COP process to acknowledge locally determined contributions. Everyone has heard of nationally determined contributions, but that was about locally determined contributions. Of course, the energy system is only part of this, but it is a very crucial part that impacts people’s lives and communities and on what they look like.
Your Lordships’ House has, in a very long wrestle with two successive Governments, finally got an acknowledgement of the importance of community energy. What I think we would see going forward is local authorities and combined authorities being very keen to encourage and support community energy. That of course is where we can see public support and financial returns growing. This is not about some giant multinational company coming and landing on your community, but about your community saying, “Right, how do we want to generate our energy?” That has to be the foundation.
I am broadly in favour of Amendment 177, but my question is around the weight and shape of the word “guidance”. We are talking about local energy plans, and anything provided from the centre should be support and not—as we see, for example, in planning and with housing allocations—direction. If it is indeed guidance, Amendment 177 is pointing us in the right direction. Together, these two amendments are crucial and I can see no reason for the Government not to accept them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to which I have added my name. I am also very sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a very interesting question about the centralisation of this country. In one sense, this Bill is about further centralisation when it comes to major infrastructure projects, which are so crucial to our growth. In essence, in the housing agenda, as well as with a lot of energy infrastructure projects, local government has not been very helpful and has been obstructive. If we believe that growth is a strategic aim of government, as I believe it to be, stronger central direction is vital. The question, however, is whether it can be complemented by local initiatives, which do indeed give local people ownership. That is where I agree with noble Baroness, Lady Bennett: community energy schemes are a fantastic way to leverage support from local people for the kinds of changes that we want to make to our energy infrastructure.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, obviously speaks with great authority as an energy expert, but he has also played a hugely important leading role in the Midlands Engine. He chaired the Midlands Energy Security Taskforce, which of course strongly supports local area energy plans.
When I was a Minister at DESNZ, I became very much aware of the potential of local community-based energy projects. I remember one visit to my own city of Birmingham, under the auspices of Footsteps: Faiths for a Low Carbon Future, when I met a number of local groups that were dedicated to community green energy projects but were seeking support from agencies at the centre to deliver something tangible. Interestingly, the MECC Trust, based in Balsall Heath, is hosting the launch by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, in a couple of weeks’ time, of Birmingham’s first net-zero retrofit demonstrator community hub. The potential of hundreds of projects such as this, up and down the country, is very clear.
The amendment that the Government brought to the then Great British Energy Bill, which added projects involving or benefiting local communities to the crucial objective section, was very important. Great British Energy has made it clear that it will work with local energy groups, councils and mayors to fund and support community-led energy projects.
Noble Lords will be aware of recent decisions by some local authorities to roll back commitments in relation to net zero. Ironically, this is taking place as the scientific evidence of the impact of climate change becomes ever clearer. I do not think we can let this go by default. In essence, the noble Baroness asked: what does guidance mean? I think you really have to put the two together. I take the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to be a statutory requirement on local authorities to encourage and develop local energy plans. I think that is really important now, in the light of some decisions being made by local authorities. Then, it seems to me, the guidance that we are suggesting fits into that structure.
I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the need to make sure that local authorities do not pass up the opportunity to support local community energy groups.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the development and implementation of local area energy plans. The proposals raise important questions about the role of local authorities in our transition to a decarbonised, secure and efficient energy system. We have heard some thoughtful contributions about the tensions between local and central government, but also of the enormous potential when the right balance can be struck between the two.
Let me begin with Amendment 90, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would require all local authorities to prepare and publish local area energy plans. These plans would outline current and future energy needs and the decarbonisation pathways to meet them. The underlying intent here is one we can all recognise. The energy transition cannot be delivered only centrally; local authorities must have a clear understanding of their energy demands and the means to meet them sustainably. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a number of good points, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on which we might all agree in principle.
However, while we acknowledge the ambition behind this amendment, we would caution against placing an additional statutory duty on all local authorities, particularly at a time when many face stretched resources and competing priorities. A blanket requirement risks creating a burden of compliance that may prove challenging for councils already struggling with core service delivery. We must ensure that our expectations of local government are realistic, proportionate and backed with adequate support.
Amendment 177, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to define the consultation and approval process for local area energy plans and mandates the provision of guidance to assist local authorities in their preparation. We recognise the positive intention here to provide clarity, consistency and technical support to authorities seeking to engage with this important agenda. This amendment also aims to widen the uptake of such planning and to define better the role of local authorities in delivering the future energy system. Those are commendable aims. While we must avoid onerous procedural hurdles or risk diverting local effort away from practical delivery into process-heavy reporting, we hope the Minister will consider this amendment carefully.
In conclusion, these amendments rightly draw attention to the importance of empowering local authorities in the energy transition. I welcome the debate and the ideas put forward, but urge a cautious, pragmatic approach. I look forward to the Minister’s response and any reassurances he can give on the Government’s direction in this space.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I start with Amendments 90 and 177, which relate to local area energy plans. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Ravensdale and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for tabling these amendments.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require all local authorities and combined authorities to produce a local area energy plan. The Government are committed to working in partnership with local government, in recognition of the essential role that local places play in accelerating to net zero and supercharging our mission to deliver clean power by 2030. We recognise that, in support of this role, some local authorities have already produced local area energy plans and have used them to plan for the investment they need to support the energy transition and deliver net zero in their areas. We welcome the work that many local authorities have undertaken to develop and deliver their local energy plans. Local authorities may well be considering how planning their future energy needs may form part of their local growth plans or help contribute to Ofgem and NESO’s work on regional energy strategic plans.
However, this is not the right time to place further burdens on local authorities, while the approach to energy planning is still under development. We are considering how these plans might align with a range of regional and national plans, including the regional energy strategic plans, the warm homes plan, heat network zoning and Great British Energy’s local work. With that in mind, we continue to consider the potential benefit of local net-zero plans, working with partners across central and local government such as the local net-zero hubs, Great British Energy, NESO, Ofgem and Innovate UK.
We are also learning from the work of several local authorities in England which have already undertaken to develop their own plans, in recognition of the important lessons that can be learned from local authorities. In the meantime, local authorities that wish to assess whether energy planning fits with their wider strategic plans can access a range of support to help them develop local plans, including the tools and advice available on the Net Zero Go digital platform, supported by the department and the advice and support available to them from their local net-zero hubs.
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s response to my amendment and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. However, I am hearing from the Minister that this is not the right time to do this stuff. I understand that the Government are actively drawing up different strings and bits of policy and bringing them together. However, if now is not the right time, when might be the right time?
The Minister says that the Government are drawing together policy but also that there are loads of policy guidance available for local authorities that want to do this. The two statements are almost contradictory. Now is not the right time for the Government to give guidance, but guidance is available to any local authorities that want it. My worry is that this leads to guidance that is much more open to interpretation, which the Government do not have proper control of and which could be followed in multiple different ways without the Government having control over it. I strongly ask the Minister to think again on these matters. These are really important issues. I recognise that the Government are forming policy, but forming policy and working with local authorities are not contradictory things. These are everyday matters of government.
I thank the Minister for his response but call on the Government to think again.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Earl’s contribution, but I politely disagree in that there is a lot of advice and support from local net-zero hubs funded by DESNZ. I understand and sympathise with what he is saying. We have all said today that we want to get moving as fast as we can, in a speedy manner, and to grow. This is all part of the agenda. We want to make sure that we get things right, be concise and have the right level of engagement and consultation, to ensure that when we have the clear plan moving forward it is well understood and implemented and does not have unintended implications or consequences.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I want to complement what the noble Earl just said. A couple of years back, when I raised this as part of the Energy Act 2023, I remember being given a similar response: this was still being considered by the Government as part of how it would fit into the bigger picture. But I think the Government need to recognise the real importance of that governance-level flow-down from national to regional to local, the importance of local understanding in this picture and the real priority that needs to be placed on developing this guidance and strategy for local areas to take it forward. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I take note of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, complementing the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I recognise that there is a lot of work to do. I appreciate that the noble Lord has raised this before, but now we actually have a Planning and Infrastructure Bill which will very much fix the foundations of the whole growth to net zero and clean energy 2030.
My final and important point on this is that now is not the right time because we do not want to put further burdens on local authorities while we are still developing and finalising our energy planning. That is still under development, but I reassure the noble Lord that we are on it. We want to make sure that this happens as fast as possible, and this Bill will help us to change a lot of the infrastructure, thinking and systems in place in order for our country to grow.
Baroness Coffey
“Electricity infrastructure: consentConsent may only be granted for any electricity infrastructure, including generation, transmission through interconnectors, and any associated infrastructure including substations, within a 50 square mile area where the cumulative capacity is less than 10% of the country’s total electricity capacity.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we are in the final stretch, and I will not be at all insulted if people choose to vacate at this stage of proceedings, recognising that we are past the usual hour. But the future of energy infrastructure matters. It matters where it is in the country; it matters for national security. That is why I have tabled Amendment 94C.
It is no secret to those people who have been in this Chamber or the Moses Room when I have talked about energy that I have recognised that part of Suffolk has a huge number of NSIPs relating to energy. I will talk about various issues in the three different groups; I have done this somewhat deliberately to try to make sure that Ministers and officials from each of the different departments really consider what they are signing up to and what is happening with the progress of electricity infrastructure across this country.
I am not in any denial that we need to consider carefully the transition to a different sort of grid. This needs to be considered carefully in recognising what is happening on concentration. In about 10 years’ time, it may have gone down a little, but about 30% of the country’s electricity will be generated in quite a small part of the country or it will act as the host point for interconnection from the continent. That will be concentrated in an area not of 50 square miles, as I referred to in my amendment, but considerably smaller. That is happening through the continuing generation of Sizewell B, the future generation of Sizewell C and interconnectors coming in at various points along the Suffolk coast—interconnectors to the continent and to the offshore wind farms that are already operational and currently being expanded.
One of my concerns—I appreciate that this is another issue of which I never managed to persuade my former colleagues, but I am hoping that the Government will listen—is that it is a huge matter of national security that we are concentrating so much of the energy in this country in a very small part geographically. I will not call that overemphasis a sitting duck, because I am very conscious of all the security that goes into nuclear power stations and the like, but it is an overconcentration. We think about the impact that a breakdown of resilience can have, and it could end up depriving the rest of the country of desperately needed energy.
It is for that reason I genuinely believe that, strategically, the Government should be thinking about spreading our principal electricity generation around the country. I will come to other reasons why I think the cumulation does not help, but it is that sort of threat which we should be considering right now. I am aware of the concerns in continental Europe about the deployment of certain grades of weapons by foreign actors. I am aware of the risk that has to be monitored and assessed, and we should be doing that in this country as well. That is why I genuinely believe the Government should reconsider their accumulation of projects and be far more strategic in where all these different energy sources are being placed in the country.
To that end, I believe that we should be looking to reflect the fact that we have opportunities in different parts of the country where, by the way, the Government already have land—they do not need to acquire more land. Too often, it is the Ministry of Defence refusing to take on some of these projects, because it wants to do various practices and different things like that. At the same time, plenty of agriculture is being sacrificed, but I am conscious we have already had that debate, so I do not want to dwell on it.
It is for those reasons I hoped that, by tabling this simple amendment, DESNZ would consider, with other parts of government, whether it is really treading down the right path in concentrating energy production and whether it should be more strategic in its thinking. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee, in particular the issue of concentration of power supply and potential implications. This amendment would limit the consent for electricity infrastructure within a 50-square mile area where the cumulative capacity is more than 10% of the country’s total. This raises several important questions for the Government. What assessment has been made of the cumulative impacts on a local area already hosting significant infrastructure? Additionally, how will fairness between different regions be measured and maintained? What mechanisms are in place to prevent overconcentration in certain areas at the expense of others, given, as my noble friend mentioned, the potential strategic risks to the country? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 94C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would create a new local area test, designed to limit the consenting of electricity infrastructure by reference to a percentage of the national total. In other words, it is addressed at the overconcentration of infrastructure in particular places.
The Government agree with the noble Baroness that the siting of electricity infrastructure should be considered carefully. While the Government are taking a strategic view, they are doing so via the strategic spatial energy plan and the centralised strategic network plan, due for publication by the end of 2026 and 2027 respectively.
It is unclear how exactly the amendment is intended to work in practice, given the complications of concepts such as cumulative capacity. It is not in the national interest for individual applications to be assessed or prevented by reference to a subjective threshold. They must be judged on the need case for the infrastructure weighed against local impacts, and that is precisely what the current system achieves. For projects designated as nationally significant, known as NSIPs, there is already a national policy statement, approved by Parliament, which sets out in detail the need case for this infrastructure and all the considerations that must be applied when consenting it.
This amendment would add further complexity to the consenting system, which could lead to a slowing down of the decision-making process for low-carbon and electricity infrastructure projects, which are crucial for this country—although, in practice, the threshold of 10% of the entire country’s electricity capacity is so high that it is highly unlikely that any project would in fact reach such a threshold.
The Government agree that infrastructure planning should have a special element. The strategic special energy plan will support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, land and sea, between 2030 and 2050. It will do this by assessing and identifying the optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage to meet our future energy demand with the clean, affordable and secure supply that we need.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, with respect to the Minister—I appreciate the answer he has given me— there is one point that perhaps it would be worthwhile DESNZ genuinely looking at. There is no doubt that there is a small part of Suffolk that will be responsible for more than 10% of the capacity in the future. But I appreciate that is not the remit of the Minister speaking tonight.
Of course I am disappointed. I am concerned. But, recognising the late hour, which is why I have truncated my comments, I will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“GEMA: funding constraints based on planning consentIf an electricity project has not received planning consent, the GEMA must not grant or consider any grant—(a) of Early Construction Funding, or(b) relating to Accelerated Strategic Transmission Investment.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I specifically wanted to speak to the funding of issues such as energy projects. This issue, probably more than anything else—perhaps the fact that the national grid is part-owned by American private equity owners may wind people up a little bit more—is the one that, fundamentally, makes communities around the country, and I have seen it much more locally, consider the planning system, when it comes to energy projects, a complete and utter joke.
It is already decided, regardless of what happens in the planning system, that these projects will go ahead. It does not matter if they do not quite fit the planning law, because a few tweaks could potentially be made. It does not matter what the community thinks. It does not matter what Parliament thinks, because Ofgem has already made the decisions and determinations that these projects can go ahead and money can start being spent on them before planning has even started.
I give your Lordships the example of Norwich to Tilbury. Ofgem came up with its early construction funding in April 2025. Its planning submission was submitted only on Friday. Sea Link, a project that I will continue to fight for as long as I can, had its ECF announcement made. Normally, Ofgem’s policy is that only 20% of the funding can be granted, in effect, through early construction funding. Ofgem has given 48% to the national grid—NGET—to proceed with Sea Link. Planning had to be delayed because there was an error in the planning process, so that got going only last month as well. This is what the people in communities in various parts of the country see. What is the point?
That is my huge frustration: in effect, there is a predetermination that planning applications are going to be made. I am still slightly surprised that people have not been successful in certain aspects of getting this JR-ed at some point. So here we are. We have projects going when they have barely started, or in some cases have not even started, the planning process.
I have proposed this new clause to restore some credibility to planning, to restore some credibility to the idea that it is not just a commercial deal or a done deal. Ofgem should be restrained from granting this sort of funding process until at least the planning document has been submitted and ideally been given consent. For what it is worth, a lot of this kind of scepticism would go away if there was a genuine belief that the planning system meant anything at all.
I am conscious that, to try to get to 2030 on this accelerated timetable, we need to get on with these projects. I have already referred to previous ones where planning processes are still under way when we have already reached the consented capacity for a series of energy projects, and yet they keep coming.
No wonder people are desperate and tabling JRs, or pre-action protocols and the like. They are so frustrated with a machinery that says, “Yeah, we’ll sort of do the basics, but it is done”. This is the reason that I felt particularly strongly and wanted to table Amendment 94D: just to be a voice for people who want to believe that our country respects law and respects that there is not a predetermination. God alone knows how many consultations I went through as a Secretary of State when I was told, “Be very careful, you can’t come to a predetermination in all of this”. Yet Ofgem, of course, gives the game away.
I will not say any more. To be candid, I do not expect a huge response from the Minister. I am not trying to be rude in advance; perhaps I am predetermining what I am expecting to hear. Nevertheless, I am saying this for people right across the country: let us do the right thing; let us make sure that we are not allowing money to be printed for developers who have not even started the actual planning process. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to talk to Amendment 94D, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. This amendment concerns constraints on grants delivered by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. I simply ask the Minister whether he can clarify how the Government intend to ensure that such grants are awarded in a way that is both transparent and consistent across different technologies. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 94D tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—GEMA—from granting or considering early construction funding or accelerated strategic transmission investment unless planning consent has already been secured.
While I understand that network companies should not be given excessive funding for projects where procurement or construction costs are not yet incurred, I must urge noble Lords to consider the unintended consequences that this amendment would have for our energy infrastructure and our collective ambition to deliver a net zero-ready grid.
Let us be clear: the mechanisms in question, early construction funding and ASTI, are not blank cheques. They are carefully staged investments, including stages designed precisely to support the preparatory work that enables planning consent to be sought in the first place. This includes environmental assessments, route design, stakeholder engagement and technical feasibility studies. These are not luxuries; they are prerequisites for any responsible and successful planning application.
To deny access to funding before planning consent is granted creates a paradox. Planning consent cannot be obtained without preparatory work, and preparatory work cannot be funded without planning consent. This amendment risks trapping vital transmission projects in a bureaucratic cul-de-sac.
We are not debating theoretical infrastructure; we are talking about the backbone of our future clean energy system—projects that will connect offshore wind, solar and other renewables to homes and businesses across the country. These are the arteries of our economy. Delaying them risks not only our clean energy mission and net-zero commitment but the security and affordability of our energy and wider economic growth as grid capacity is needed to power new investments.
Moreover, GEMA already operates under a rigorous framework of accountability and oversight. Funding decisions are not made lightly; they are subject to scrutiny, cost-benefit analysis and alignment with strategic national priorities. To impose a statutory constraint at this stage would not enhance that process but hinder it. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Energy infrastructure projects: publication of environmental principles duty assessmentWhere an energy infrastructure project requires assessment by either—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority,the individual or body making that assessment must publish its assessment of the environmental principles duty in full, including advice provided and considered.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, again, I have split this amendment off from the other consideration of energy infrastructure projects. To cut to the chase, we need to make sure, bearing on some of the debate that we have had earlier about how we are going to achieve joint objectives, not only that we have a fit-for-purpose grid but about how we move the transition along. I have consistently tried to make the case that that cannot be done at the expense of the natural environment.
Arising from the Environment Act 2021 is a duty on Ministers specifically to consider policy in terms of environmental principles, but I think I am right in saying there is also a requirement to consider the genuine impact of projects when a Minister is giving consent to them. One element will be thinking about biodiversity as well as considering the natural capital accounts of the country—on which we do annual balance sheets which are put forward by the Treasury—and a key consideration should be what is happening as a consequence of the environment to any particular project. One of the things that I am afraid is somewhat shrouded in mystery here is that normally there is just the response, “Yes, we have considered this”, and nothing is shared with the country. My amendment is intended to ensure transparency.
I am conscious that the sub judice rule might apply, and there is already a legal case against the Deputy Prime Minister over her Section 20 statement regarding the Bill—I am assuming that, by extension, that applies to the Minister as well. However, it is important that not only Ministers but the wider country understand quite what is happening in this balance. The reason I say that is that primary legislation is already in place where the primary indicator is about the recovery of aspects of nature, particularly thinking of species. As a consequence, transparency is vital, and the OEP has been regularly pushing for a lot more transparency on exactly this sort of information so we have a sense of whether we are going to be anywhere close to hitting the targets that this Parliament has already agreed to in both primary and secondary legislation. On that basis, given the time of the evening, I simply beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 94F to the attention of your Lordships. It would ensure that the duty relating to environmental principles was published in full. I ask the Minister: how are the Government going to monitor compliance in relation to environmental principles? As importantly, how will Parliament be kept informed of progress in this area? I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling her amendment and allowing us to ask those questions, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I was beginning to feel a bit of déjà vu before the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke in place of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
Amendment 94F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that where an energy infrastructure project requires an assessment in relation to the environmental principles policy statement by the Secretary of State or the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, this assessment and any advice provided and considered as part of that assessment is published.
As highlighted throughout today’s debate and in earlier discussions on the Bill, it is essential that we press ahead and deliver the critical infrastructure that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and to achieve a clean power system by 2030. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment and for the opportunity to set out both how the environmental principles policy statement and the environmental principles more broadly are given due regard by this Government.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we will return to a lot of this in Part 3 of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Thursday 4th September 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (3 Sep 2025)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s intentions in seeking the power to require a local planning authority to set the level of fees for planning decisions.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by reiterating our view that the Bill does not go far enough. It tweaks processes, roles, fees and training but leaves the fundamental planning framework—the very framework needed to unlock genuine house building—without the proper reform that Ministers promised. We now hear in the media that a second planning Bill is expected. The Government have missed an opportunity with the Bill.
Amendments 94FB and 94FC in my name seek to probe the Government’s intentions behind the powers given in Clause 48 to local planning authorities and the Mayor of London to set specific fee levels for planning applications. Fee setting must strike a careful balance between national consistency and local flexibility. Planning authorities operate in vastly different contexts, from rural districts handling modest, small-scale applications to major cities building highly complex developments. That diversity and its differences must be respected; a one-size-fits-all approach risks overlooking the practical realities faced by local authorities on the ground.
As currently drafted, Clause 48 enables the Secretary of State not just to permit but to require that these bodies set fee levels. While enabling authorities to set fee levels is one thing, which would potentially support greater local flexibility, requiring them to do so raises important questions: first, in what context would the Government require a local authority to set a specific fee?
My Amendment 99ZA is also a probing amendment. In tabling this amendment, we are seeking to understand how subsection (6) will work in practice. Can the Minister please explain the process Ministers intend to use in calculating appropriate surcharges, and how the duty to have regard to relevant costs will work in practice? It will also be helpful to know whether Ministers intend to consult local planning authorities going forward to ensure that the fees imposed do not exceed the relevant costs incurred.
I will now briefly set out our view on the other amendments in this group. We agree with the principle behind Amendment 94G from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Of course, all fees should be proportionate. That said, delivering it through an amendment to the Bill may be more challenging. Therefore, will the Minister please address the principle of proportionality and how the Government intend to ensure that fees are proportional as well as responding to the amendment itself?
I move on to Amendment 95, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As drafted, Clause 48 explicitly excludes enforcement. She makes a strong case for her amendment, and I hope that the Minister will reply constructively. In particular, we would like greater clarity on the “polluter pays” principle. Will the Minister please explain why enforcement action has been left out of this fee-raising power? Is it because the Government feel that it would be inappropriate for applicants acting within the rules to pay a higher fee to cover the cost of enforcements against bad actors? I hope that the Minster will be able to give an unequivocal answer to that question.
Furthermore, Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, address two important aspects of the planning system: transparency and heritage protection. Amendment 96 would ensure that guidance to local authorities includes references to archaeological and other services, so that external services are correctly funded. I know that my noble friend has a wealth of experience on heritage issues, and he was a truly excellent Minister for the arts and heritage. We would appreciate a clear assurance from the Minister on this issue.
Amendment 97 would rightly preserve the very long-standing policy of not charging for listed building consent. This is a vital protection for owners, who often invest significant time and resources in maintaining some of England and Wales’s most treasured heritage assets. Although policymakers in the socialist tradition and the owners or prospective owners of heritage properties may not be natural bedfellows, our historic houses have an important role to play in our housing stock.
The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe; almost four in 10 houses were built before World War II, and two in 10 were built before World War I. Too often, historic houses are left empty to wither and decay because of the costs and complexities of taking them on, yet every historic property that is restored is an empty home returning to use. We must encourage more people to take on the challenge of restoring our heritage properties, both as a practical step in driving down the number of empty houses and as a gift to future generations. Our historic houses are part of our great island story, and my noble friend is right to seek assurance from Ministers that listed building consent will remain free of charge. Can the Minister give him a cast-iron guarantee on this issue?
I turn to Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. These proposals represent sensible and pragmatic reforms to our planning appeals system. We see the merits in the case that he makes for the introduction of differential fee levels based on the type or complexity of an application. His amendments reflect the practical realities of casework and seek to ensure that the system better aligns with the demands placed on it. Likewise, the proposal to allow the planning inspector to charge appeal fees and, importantly, to retain that income, is a constructive measure. It would enhance the inspector’s operational resilience and reduce their reliance on central funding.
Amendment 99 goes further by proposing a fast-track appeal process that is optional, fee-based and designed to deliver quicker decisions where appropriate. This is clearly a constructive proposal that Ministers should take away and consider carefully. I hope the Minister will engage positively with this amendment.
In conclusion, this group of amendments raises essential questions about the funding, fairness and functionality of our planning system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my succinct and simple Amendment 94G, and in doing so draw attention to an issue—planning fees—that might seem a bit techy on the surface and perhaps even boring, but in reality strikes at the very heart of fairness, opportunity and the future of our housing market. I recognise and acknowledge that this Government are trying to address the concerns of SME builders in different ways; thus I believe that this amendment is in line with their thinking. It seeks a simple fix to a gross unfairness within the planning fees regime.
The reality is that the way our planning fees are currently structured disproportionately penalises the very people we need most—the small and medium-sized enterprise builders, the SMEs who once formed the backbone of housebuilding in this country. Our high watermark was the 1960s and 1970s, when SMEs delivered almost 50% of our homes. But now, there are just 2,500 SME builders, down from just over 12,000 in the late 1980s.
When the large developers apply for planning permission, they can absorb the cost of these fees—dozens, or even hundreds of units. For them, the fee for a major scheme is just a fraction of their overall margin. It is, if you like, just one more line on a long spreadsheet. But for the SME builder, often working on only one site at a time, sometimes building just a handful of homes, usually locally in the community where they live, the same planning fee represents a very different calculation. Proportionally, it is far higher—sometimes eye-wateringly so—relative to the potential return. For some, it can make the difference between a scheme being viable or never getting off the ground.
Let us not forget that many SME firms operate on tight margins—it is just a fact of the market today—and have limited access to capital. They do not have the balance sheets of the volume builders, nor teams of in-house planners and consultants to smooth the path. They are nimble, creative and often willing to take on small and difficult sites—precisely the kind of brownfield or infill plots that larger developers might overlook. In that sense, they perform a vital public service, delivering homes in places where others cannot or will not. If the Government are serious about reviving the role of SME builders, whose share of new homes has plummeted to barely 10% today, we cannot afford to ignore the structural barriers that hold them back. Planning fees are one such barrier, and it is entirely within our power to address them in this Bill.
My amendment addresses this issue without costing the Treasury a single pound. I am not suggesting that planning departments should be starved of resources—quite the opposite: we all hope that they will be even busier in the future. We all know they need proper funding to recruit and retain skilled staff and to deliver timely decisions, but surely there is a case for a more proportionate, graduated system—one that recognises the scale of development, the number of units and the genuine impact on the planning service. Without such reform, we risk reinforcing the dominance of volume housebuilders, who are of course essential; this is not a downer on them but a recognition of the role that SMEs can play in increasing innovation and diversity. They bring local knowledge and understanding to their role. By ignoring this, we weaken our ability to deliver the variety of homes this country so desperately needs.
The reason for my amendment is that planning costs are probably the most significant disparity, with SMEs facing costs that are over 100% higher than their plc counterparts. In fact, planning fees at the moment are £626 per home for the first 50 units, and only £189 per home thereafter. Therefore, a 50-home scheme pays three times more per unit than a 1,000-home scheme. This is where it creates a real structural disadvantage for SMEs, deterring those much-needed smaller developments and slowing delivery on small and medium sites. Under the Bill, fee-setting powers are being devolved to local authorities and/or mayors, so there is a genuine opportunity to fix the imbalance.
This is not about special pleading; it is about fairness, proportionality and the kind of housing market we want to create. Do we want one dominated by a handful of big players, or one where smaller, local builders have the chance to thrive? I urge the Government to look again at the planning fees regime and at how it might better support our SME builders. Without them, our housing crisis will only deepen. My amendment would help ensure that SMEs are not burdened with excessive costs; and, over time, alongside other government measures, it might reverse their sad decline. I am pleased to note that it also chimes with Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I hope the Minister agrees.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for opening this small group of amendments and for lending her support to my Amendment 95, to which I will briefly speak.
As drafted, the Bill leaves out the question of enforcement measures being recovered from the fee. I put a very simple question to the Minister: was this a wilful omission or was it omitted by default? As my noble friend Lady Scott said, it would be helpful to know why the question of enforcement measures not forming part of the fee that can be recovered has been left out.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Her Amendment 95 may be modest but it is very sensible, and I congratulate her on the way she outlined it. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on the way she outlined her amendment in this group. As well as speeding up the delivery of the provision of more houses, making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises is a way of making sure we can deliver the sorts of smaller developments that are popular in local areas and that match the local vernacular rather than imposing a sort of identikit, sprawling housing estate on every part of the country with no reference to local design.
I have Amendments 96 and 97 in this group, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who signed the second of these, as well as to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for the support that she outlined and her kind comments in her opening speech. Clause 48 would allow the Secretary of State to subdelegate the power to set fees for planning applications to local planning authorities, allowing them to set their own fees to reflect the actual costs that are incurred in dealing with applications and other relevant planning functions, and with that income ring-fenced so that it could be spent only on those specific functions. In many ways that is a welcome and sensible provision; I can understand why local authorities would welcome it. But for it to be truly welcomed, a great many people would like to see some further details and to hear some reassurance about this proposed change.
As is so often the case with legislation nowadays, those details and that reassurance are not in the Bill but are to follow. The Government have said that they intend to consult on the precise arrangements for localised fee setting later this year, and in Committee in another place the Minister stated that detailed processes would be set out in regulations. But it would be very helpful if the Minister could make clear today that this new provision will not include the potential for local authorities to introduce fees for listed building consent. That reassurance would bring great relief to organisations from across the heritage sector, and indeed to the very many ordinary people who happen to own listed properties and who are worried about the detrimental effect on our shared heritage and the potential financial penalties for the people who are the custodians of it.
Under current legislation, obtaining listed building consent is a cost-free process. Consent is required for works that affect the special architectural or historic interest of a listed building under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in addition to any planning permissions that might be required.
Listed status is a badge of honour—a mark of our collective appreciation for buildings of particular significance—but it brings with it burdens in the form of conservation and maintenance that are in the public interest, not just for those of us who are alive today but for future generations too, and owners of listed buildings cannot opt out of these obligations. This issue affects a very large number of home owners, not just the grandest stately homes but ordinary family homes in every part of the country. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, with around two-fifths of homes built since the end of the Second World War and one-fifth since the end of the First World War. There are some half a million listed buildings across the United Kingdom, many of them owned by people of modest and increasingly stretched means. Ensuring that this service remains free of charge to the people we ask to look after these historic buildings for posterity is hugely important. I am not the owner of a listed building but should perhaps declare a non-financial interest in that I am a trustee of the Cambridge Union, which has its own grade 2* listed property. This issue affects many charitable and civil society organisations as well.
Adding a fee for listed building consent would strongly discourage desirable work to listed buildings, especially work such as decarbonisation and conservation repair, which are often financially unrewarding to the generations that carry them out. Imposing a new fee would also discourage compliance, increasing the already considerable amount of work that goes ahead without the proper consent, risking harm to our cherished buildings and headaches when they come to be sold.
It is also worth noting that a high proportion of listed building consent applications mirror corresponding full planning applications, which already incur a cost. The introduction of fees for listed building consent would in effect be a duplication of costs for applicants when the applications are handled as a pair by the local planning authority. Even in cases where planning application is not required, having to make an application for listed building consent already carries substantial costs in the forms of obtaining drawings, which would not otherwise have been required, professional fees for analysis of heritage significance and potential impacts, and the cost of often lengthy delays. That is why a huge array of organisations across the heritage sector—the Listed Property Owners’ Club, Historic Houses, the Heritage Alliance, the CLA and the Government’s own statutory advisers, Historic England—have said that the applications for listed building consent should remain free. If the Government agree with them and with all this, and do not want to see local planning authorities introducing new charges for listed building consent, they could put that beyond doubt by adopting my Amendment 97. I hope the Minister will say that they are minded to do so.
Separately, in addition to the above, it is important that the consultation and regulations to follow the Bill recognise that many local planning authorities obtain their archaeological and other heritage advice from another local authority under service level agreements. For instance, county councils often provide such services for the district councils and national parks in, and sometimes even beyond, their own administrative area.
My Amendment 96 would ensure that guidance which goes out to local planning authorities about assessing the correct level of charges includes a reminder or recommendation that inputs from other authorities should be included to ensure that external services are correctly funded in this way. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 98 and 99, tabled in my name, which would enhance the existing statutory power under Section 303ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to charge fees for planning appeals to the Planning Inspectorate. That existing statutory power has never been used. There is currently no charge to submit an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal or non-determination of a planning application. That contrasts with the position in relation to planning applications, where applicants for major developments pay application fees of tens of thousands of pounds, and sometimes more.
A huge amount has rightly been said in the context of this Bill and planning reform generally about the importance of ensuring local authorities are fully resourced to improve the speed and quality of planning decision-making at local level. That is of course right, but the same applies to the Planning Inspectorate, which performs a critical role in scrutinising local authority decision-making and plan-making. The inspectorate is already overworked and underresourced. This has consequences for its ability to deal as effectively as it would like with its existing case work, and for its ability to attract the widest possible range of candidates to become planning inspectors, including from the private sector. A couple of years ago, many inspectors went on strike due to what they said was unacceptable pay, which in most cases is significantly less than that of a First-tier Tribunal judge, which is, broadly speaking, the equivalent of a planning inspector in other aspects of the justice system.
With the expected uptick in planning appeals and local plan examinations resulting from the new National Planning Policy Framework, as well as the Government’s promised 150 development consent orders and a raft of new spatial development strategies which inspectors will need to examine, the demands on the inspectorate’s resources are bound to increase. Given the constraints on the public purse, an obvious solution is to introduce appeal fees for some or all types of appeal. I have advocated this publicly and privately for a long time—indeed, longer than I have been in this House. I have been reliably told that a key blocker to introducing this has been that, under the existing power to charge fees, any money charged by the inspectorate could not be retained by it but would go to the Treasury.
Amendment 98 is designed to address this by providing that, if the power to charge appeal fees is implemented in future, the fees received will be ring-fenced for the inspectorate. That mirrors the existing provision in Clause 48 for local authority planning application fees to be ring-fenced for planning. I must stress that this is only an enabling provision. The effect of Amendment 98 would not be to introduce appeal fees; it would simply ensure that, if the existing power to introduce such fees were to be implemented in future, the inspectorate could keep the fees. I find it very hard to see what policy objection there can be to that, particularly given the Bill’s existing provision for fee ring-fencing at local level.
Amendment 99 goes further and would make provision—again, this is only an enabling power—for an optional fee that appellants could pay for a fast-track, bespoke appeal process, a bit like one can pay extra for a fast-track passport or a fast-track visa. Ask any developer or land promoter what their biggest concerns about the planning appeal system are at the moment and they will tell you four things. The first is unpredictable delays in the process, particularly the time taken between when a planning appeal is submitted by the appellant and when the Planning Inspectorate validates it and issues a start letter.
The second is the lack of a right to a public inquiry, where the local authority’s refusal or non-determination of their planning application can be subjected to detailed scrutiny through cross-examination. The appeal statistics persistently show that inquiry appeals have the greatest success rate—they are the form of appeal that delivers more homes and more growth—yet there is no right to the inquiry. The Planning Inspectorate chooses the process and, given the constraints on its resources, there are only so many cases it can allocate to the inquiry procedure. More and more often, I personally have seen cases for substantial schemes involving issues of real complexity being allocated against the appellant’s will to the hearing process, or even written representations, which are much lighter-touch processes and, in my view, in the light of that have a markedly lower success rate.
Thirdly, there is the inability of the inspectorate to recruit from the widest possible range of backgrounds in the planning profession due to the pay constraints. There are, I must stress, many really brilliant planning inspectors, but there could be many more. Fourthly, once a planning appeal is started by the inspectorate, often after weeks of delay since the appeal was submitted by the appellant, inquiry or hearing dates are then imposed on the parties at relatively short notice, which can have the effect of depriving them of expert witnesses or legal representatives who have been on the project for years and are integral to its conception and formulation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lord Parkinson and Lord Banner have made powerful cases for their amendments. I will briefly take survivors of LURB back two years to Amendment 235, which I had proposed in Committee, and which was proposed on Report by my noble friend Lady Pinnock, and which effectively did what is now in Clause 48. Crucially, it enabled or authorised local authorities to recoup the costs of their planning department, but it did not require them so to do. I take the point that my noble friend Lady Scott made in her speech as to why the words “and require” were not in the original request by the local authorities. On Report, the Government resisted the amendment. They were defeated, and I confess that I played a modest role in that defeat. To the Government’s credit, they then accepted it in the other place and it came through.
The crucial question—one touched on by my noble friend Lord Banner—is whether this is going to be enough to solve the crisis in our planning departments. Reforms to the national planning policy introduced by the last Government are still working their way through the system. Earlier this year, only a third of local authorities had adopted a plan in the last five years, while 291 had plans of more than five years old, and they have to get those plans up to date. The moment they have done so, they are then confronted by local government reorganisation, with smaller units turning into larger, unitary ones. The Government have then said that, where reorganisation occurs, new unitary authorities are expected to promptly prepare a local plan covering the whole of their area. So they basically have to start again.
At the same time, the Government want to reduce all the current delays in processing planning applications so that we can get on with infrastructure, and a large majority of applications are not processed within the statutory timescale. Shortly, we will come to Chapter 2 of this part of the Bill, which introduces spatial development strategies. Again, under the Bill, the planners in these new strategic authorities must produce spatial development strategies providing strategic policies for the use of land in their area.
In a masterly understatement, the Government said:
“We are aware that areas undergoing local government reorganisation and devolution will experience a transition period where responsibility for spatial development strategy might transfer between authorities”.
The crucial question that the Government must answer is whether planning departments will, even with these reforms, be able to respond to the Government’s requests. If planning departments were fully staffed with the necessary skills, they might rise to the challenge. However, there is an additional problem in that many planning officers will have to reapply for their jobs. Some may well take redundancy as a consequence of the merger of local authorities. The LGA workforce survey found that 62% of councils have difficulties recruiting planning officers and 45% have difficulties retaining planning officers, many being tempted by higher salaries elsewhere—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Banner.
Finally, we are going to have new town development corporations. They will need planning departments. When the Minister replies, I hope that she can reassure the Committee that there will be the capacity within the planning system to respond to the Government’s ambitious agenda.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am not a planner, but I do have the joy of owning a small property in Cornwall, which is part-listed. I took a lot of advice when I wanted a new kitchen at the back of the building on whether I needed listed building consent. The answer was, “If it’s in Cornwall, yes, but if it’s in London, no”. There are many differences between areas of this country, which we have not talked about this morning but will come into the assessment of how the criteria are done.
In Cornwall, they are trying to keep the villages and towns looking good and beautiful, which is fine. However, you then hear comments from people like a friend of mine who wants to put a summer house at the far end of the garden, away from the listed house, and must get listed building consent. Everybody is moaning about that and the cost. On the other hand, if you do not have some criteria like that, you will have a mess. On Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, it is a great idea to say that these charges should be waived, but an awful lot more needs to go into it. Frankly, the amount of money needed to pay for listed building consent for the average small house is not that great. Therefore, I do not support Amendment 97. I hope that we can accept that there will be pros and cons but that the need to have listed building consent in a reasonable way overturns everything.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 95. Nobody likes to see fees going up, and I totally support the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her concern about calculation and control. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her very well-reasoned cry for support for the SME builders.
I want to put my weight behind Amendment 95, because quite often in this House I have said how much we like to make legislation and how little we then resource the enforcement of it. This Bill seems specifically to exclude money for enforcement. I cannot let it pass without asking the Minister to explain why and to lend my support to Amendment 95.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I agree that enforcement of legislation is almost as important as legislation itself.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her quest for lower fees for SMEs, even if that means that other fees must be a trifle higher. We worked on the problems facing SME builders and the dire decline in their market share when we sat together on the Built Environment Committee. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson on that subject. It is clear from the forensic contribution of my noble friend Lord Banner that the appeal system would also be a nightmare for SMEs.
In her summing up, I very much hope that the Minister will advise on what the Government are doing to help SMEs more broadly, and whether it is enough, and for those building houses on their own—which my sister did successfully in Vermont, USA, but which is extremely rare in the UK.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I feel obliged to declare an interest as the owner of a listed building with a lot of practical experience of listed building consent. I strongly endorse the words—and, I suspect, the amendment—of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I certainly endorse the spirit and the direction of the amendment. Without repeating anything that he said, I will elaborate on two points, one that he alluded to and one that he made.
The one that the noble Lord alluded to demonstrates in a lot of depth the main points that he made in relation to fees and listed buildings. He alluded to the style of politics that has come in over 10, 20 or perhaps more years of Governments choosing to use statutory instruments to add to legislation. He is far too young, though certainly not unstudious enough to have researched if he chose to, my first ever clash with the Government Whips in 2003. It was on a statutory instrument on listed buildings. The then Government, and a Minister who has long since disappeared into obscurity outside politics, had the great idea that they would introduce, I think for environmental reasons, a change in planning legislation, so that for listed buildings every single window would be required to have listed building consent for any change to it.
It was well motivated, it was technical nonsense and it was logical nonsense. I pointed it out and, bravely at the time, very publicly abstained, for which my Whip wanted to give me the sanction of banning me from ever sitting on a statutory instrument again. I thought then and think now that this was probably a reward for bad behaviour that should be gleefully accepted. However, there was no question. The civil servants and the Minister had not thought this through, but it was a statutory instrument, done on the green Benches, the Whips lining people up on both sides, not to speak but quickly to vote it through in as many seconds as they could so that people could get on with the rest of their Commons life. Somebody pointing out that the whole thing was total nonsense was a bit of a shock to the system. Of course, it was passed.
Therefore, the law in this country is that if you have 300 windows—which, because of the design of windows, our property does—then every physical alteration to any one window requires an individual listed consent. I am not sure that this is too logical, but if a fee is applied, the behavioural response is very straightforward. Nobody at any level within the country is going to start putting in listed building consent for any repairs to windows. If one wanted to change a wonderful traditional historic wooden window and put in some grotesque modern UPVC alternative, then it is right and proper that the planning authorities should be able to stop you. However, if you want to splice a bit of wood and replace a bit of a window, it is rather a nonsense.
That nonsense would be compounded if, for environmental reasons, some future Minister decided to add further legislation or keep this legislation. Then there is the cost to be paid. That is an unforeseen consequence. It is an absurdity, but the absurdity already exists.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendment 97, to which I have put my name. I am an owner of a listed building, and I have been involved with a large number of others, both as an owner and a trustee, over a long period. I am also president of Historic Buildings & Places, which is one of the national amenity societies, and I ought to add a confession: I am a geek about old buildings, having become a life member of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings as a 21st birthday present.
I echo the general comments that have been made on this grouping more widely. The proposition behind Amendment 97 is relatively simple; it was laid out in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, so there is no advantage in my going over much of it again. Listed building consent is an integral and important part of the overall town and country planning code of this country—albeit its character is a bit different from the general rules about development, as the noble Lord speaking previously pointed out. In reality, its scope is wider and deeper than the general planning rules in some ways and relates to matters of historic and architectural significance, which are very important to place-making—which is one of the things at the centre of current thinking about the future spatial development of this country. Sometimes, these things are hardly noticeable to the layman; they may not necessarily be understood. It is the reality of the world in which we live that many of them are overlooked and go by default—sometimes, I regret to say, wilfully and sometimes not.
Against a background of that kind, charging a fee is likely to encourage more of the same—more turning a blind eye and more hoping that nobody will notice. We are talking about physical things here, and our response should be pragmatic and to accept this reality.
As was commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, some may say that some listed building consents are integral to big, visible schemes. As he said, in those circumstances, regular planning consent—if I can call it that—is invariably required for the wider scheme of which they are an integral component. That is the way that the matter should be dealt with. I simply suggest that this amendment represents a realistic and pragmatic way to make the system work as well as it can, simply because charging a fee is unlikely to make the system as a whole work in the public interest.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I will ask two questions of the Minister. I apologise for asking them at the end of the debate, when the time available to get a reply is modest, but I was prompted by some of the points that have been made. I declare an interest as the owner of a listed property, but I do not propose to talk about that much, as I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who explained the case very well.
The first question is on setting fees. The Minister may recall from previous debates on other Bills that I am keen on the capacity for applicants to enter into planning performance agreements with local planning authorities, and for those agreements to have not only the opportunity to pay additional fees to secure performance by the local planning authority but a rebate if the performance of the local authority does not meet the agreement. I am not entirely sure that that is presently legal. Can the Minister let me know, now or later, whether we need to do more to ensure that the regulations that this Bill will enable will stretch so far as to include that kind of provision to support planning performance agreements?
The second question is in pursuance of my noble friend Lady Scott’s Amendment 99ZA. She is asking on what basis the Secretary of State, in Clause 49, will ensure that the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons—these are mainly statutory consultees and the like. New Section 303ZZB(8), inserted by the clause, says:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.
So we appear to have a clause that says, “They shouldn’t exceed the costs; oh, but, by the way, they may exceed the costs”. What precisely is the Government’s intention?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will make two brief points. This debate has shown us that we need to charge fees for planning permission, and one has to understand the purpose. It is common ground that there is a lack of planners in this country, which is one of the reasons why the fee arrangement has to change.
One reason why we have insufficient planners in this country is not that we cannot charge enough. My authority, South Norfolk, has an advanced programme of upskilling planning technicians to become fully qualified planning officers, on a work release scheme, by using the apprenticeship levy that all councils and large employers put into the system. However, this Government have stopped that, because those sorts of people, who have made their way for a few years and have shown expertise and enterprise, are no longer able to be upgraded by using the apprenticeship levy. That has been cast away and it is an omission. I ask the Minister whether she might consider revisiting that rather short-sighted decision to stop upgrading these planners, which would start to address this.
I have huge sympathy with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about proportionality in planning fees, but I need to explain that, although the planning fee is important, it is just a single sliver of the total cost that developers, particularly small developers, have to pay. For example, there is the complexity of Section 106. As a council leader, I had to review a Section 106 agreement of which 15 banks were cosignatories. Can your Lordships imagine the cost not just of the applicants’ but of everybody else’s fees? The bespoke nature of many Section 106 agreements is really onerous. Some planning authorities require the use of only their particular lawyers, at a full rack rate. I will not go into nutrient neutrality, although that has an additional level of fees, or building control and so forth.
I know that we are in Committee, and I sympathise with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, but, if she is minded to bring this matter back on Report, we might have a full idea of all the layering so that proportionality can be taken into account in the round.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
This group of amendments raises several interesting areas about which I, as a chartered surveyor and an occupier and co-owner of listed buildings, feel strongly. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these and the question of proportionality referred to by several noble Lords and by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It relates to how the costs are built up and into what particular categories, pigeonholes or whatever one wishes to put them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this question of the preponderance of very large developments in terms of their cost, and how the same metric applies to smaller SMEs and indeed, one could say, to individual householders with really quite small-scale things. She could perhaps have referred to the fact that the way in which large developments end up setting the tone and the content that goes into planning applications therefore raises the expectation. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, it creates that rather awkward but historically well-known feature of a barrier to entry by the very nature of where you have to get to, what boxes you have to tick and what expense you have to underwrite to get there. This principle is as old as economics, but it is one of the things that is particularly germane to this discussion.
Of course, if we are getting into the situation referred to by other noble Lords of some sort of cross-subsidy from the application fee to issues of enforcement or covering other things, for instance the general costs of the legal department dealing with gruesomely complicated Section 106 agreements—I have seen some gruesomely complicated ones and am very glad to say that I have never had to draft one myself—that rather raises the question: is that right, or should we be subdividing, for instance, the costs of enforcement as a separate charging entity and the costs of dealing with a particular Section 106 agreement dealt with as part of that process? We have to worry about the degree to which there is this cross-subsidy approach, because without a set of rules for that, almost any sort of charging process can be set in place. That might be manifestly unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons.
I very much welcome Amendment 97, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I can relate to it as an owner, and in the past a professional adviser on heritage properties, although I would not really claim to be a heritage expert. We have heard that listed building applications are an addition to the need for development consent generally. Because they may revolve around matters that involve the historic character of the asset in question, it then becomes a matter of what is the character and what is the effect. These are often largely subjective considerations. That inevitably results in a sort of precautionary reaction in the eyes of local authorities. Inevitably, if that precautionary reaction takes root, all sorts of assessments and justifications may then be demanded of the applicant. Whether in fact they are reasonable is often in question. Given that, for owners who happen to live in or own listed buildings—putting aside badges of honour, in my case, several have been listed during my lifetime and ownership gratuitously imposed without consultation—I think it fair that the listed building element should not attract an additional fee.
It is important that we get this in context, and I observe that many local planning authorities do not have their own trained heritage officer. Many used to but no longer have one. In my experience, it is often outsourced to a private firm for so many days a month. Again in my experience, even where the external contractor so appointed makes a sensible recommendation, further conditions quite often get added by the local planning authority itself, in some instances displaying quite woeful failure to understand the practicalities of carrying out the work proposed. I will not go into further details on that, but I have several examples. It is therefore a matter of concern that defensively preventive or precautionary permitting practices and a lack of in-house officer competence—and, indeed, confidence—lie behind the added costs. Added to this, of course, is the citation relating to listing of buildings. In many cases, it is so cursory as to prevent a clear understanding of what features are actually important in terms of its character.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that something needs sorting out on a much wider scale here. I certainly would commend the Minister to take this away and see if we cannot, in the context of the Bill, produce something more cohesive going forward.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I do not envy the Minister having to respond to this very cogent debate, which at first sight seemed important but not as in-depth as it has turned out to be. We on these Benches strongly support the amendment in my noble friend’s name, and she made a very strong argument for its adoption. Other key points have been made and we have broad agreement with them, dependent on the detail that will come, I guess, from the Minister.
First, on listed building consent, which is currently free—not the project itself but the actual listed building consent—we would support that remaining free of charge for the owners of those listed buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clearly made the very strong case for its continuation. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a categorical reason for its retention.
Secondly, on enforcement and appeals, it seems to me that the legislation that enables costs of appeals to be made ought to be enforced and enacted, and the money should go to where it belongs—not to the Treasury but to the Planning Inspectorate. Again, that was a strongly made argument with which we have broad agreement.
Finally, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—which he and I raised during the long debates on the levelling-up Bill—has come back again. He rightly raises the issue, as I did at the time, that councils ought to have a local plan and, without it, the planning system falters or, indeed, often fails. It would be good to hear from the Minister what actions the Government intend to take to encourage and enforce the idea of all councils having a local plan, albeit within the context of further reorganisation of local government, which will put such concentration of energy on to a strategic planning system for local councils in jeopardy.
This has been a really good debate, and we have broad agreement with all the points that have been made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, that was a very interesting, wide-ranging, detailed and thoughtful debate around many planning matters, including some of the amendments that had been tabled. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. As a planning geek myself, it is never a trouble to listen to these types of discussions. I will answer some specific points, but I would like to make a couple of general comments first.
In introducing her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked for a more radical approach to planning. The noble Lord, Lord Young, set out the radical approach even better than I could myself. I have, of course, heard completely opposing views on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill before us, with one set of people saying that it is too radical and another saying it is not radical enough. I always think that if you get to there, you are probably in about the right place, but your Lordships will be the judge of that.
The Bill is a step in driving forward the infrastructure planning and changes to planning that we want to see in order to get economic growth going, but it is not the only step. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, outlined, as we continue with our planning for new authorities, there will be further change in introducing the strategic plans—that is coming forward in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I look forward to debating those changes with noble Lords in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, also mentioned the investment that is needed in planning. We are very aware of the fact that the cuts to local government funding that we all experienced over a couple of decades have meant that the investment in planning was not always there. We have already put £46 million in to try to improve the investment in planning and the quantity and capacity of planning departments. We will continue to work on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of local plans. We are already making progress on that. The Secretary of State has made it very clear to local authorities that she expects to see local plans in place. You jeopardise the whole process of development in this country when you get an out-of-date local plan, and developers can ride roughshod over local wishes because there is no local plan in place. It is a very important part of the process. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the issue of how these local plans will be reconstructed when we get new authorities in place. Of course, much of the work will have been done. We will not need to redo all the studies; they can be aggregated into those wider plans. But it is important that those plans will be in place.
To pick up a point that is not in these amendments, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that I am aware of the issue with level 7 apprenticeships in planning. I was very keen on planning apprenticeships and having that route to good quality and more capacity in planning teams. I am discussing that with colleagues in the Department for Education and will comment on that further when I have had more discussions with them.
Turning now to Amendments 94FB and 94 FC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I understand the importance of ensuring that local planning authorities or the Mayor of London are not burdened with unnecessary obligations, particularly in relation to fee setting. That is why I want to be very clear. The Government’s intention is to pursue a local variation model. The approach will not require local planning authorities or the Mayor of London to set their own fees but instead provides those authorities with the option to vary from a national default planning fee where they consider it necessary to do so to better meet their costs.
However, we believe it is important to retain a flexibility within that power. The inclusion of “or require” preserves the ability to mandate local fee setting should there be a compelling case for it in the future—for example, to improve service delivery or address disparities in performance. Removing that flexibility would risk constraining our future ability to evolve the system. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about how we will monitor planning performance. He will know very well that an extensive planning monitoring regime in already in place, which local authorities have to meet. Keeping an eye on this, as well, will help with that. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that retaining this power in its current form represents a balanced and prudent approach and that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling Amendment 94G. I am entirely in accord with her on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the nature and size of the planning application. In her very clear explanation of her amendment, she rightly highlighted the importance of our SME building sector, which we also saw highlighted, as she will remember, in the report of the Competition and Markets Authority. I share her intent to do all we can to support SMEs. Indeed, it was a local SME builder who helped me kick off my housing development programme when I was a council leader. It was a mutual arrangement—we helped support them and they helped support what we were doing. There can be very good arrangements locally.
However, the Bill already provides a clear and robust framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the proportionality issue. As I just mentioned, the Government intend to introduce a local variation model under which a nationally set default fee, developed through benchmarking and public consultation, will serve as a baseline, as is currently the case with planning fees. To answer the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Neville-Rolfe, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.
The model ensures both consistency and transparency in fee setting while allowing local planning authorities the flexibility to depart from the nationally set default fee where circumstances warrant. The Bill requires that any locally set fee must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service—I hope that picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—and that local communities must be consulted on proposed changes. Importantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate, thereby providing an important safeguard to uphold consistency and equity across the system. I am therefore confident that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve.
On Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I agree that well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need, but also for safeguarding those communities from unauthorised or harmful development. We appreciate the intention of the amendment in supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity but, as planning enforcement serves the wider public interest, it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services. Allowing planning authorities to raise planning fees to cover enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees. We are concerned that that may deter development at a time when we are committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building.
To answer the noble Baroness’s question directly, this was not an oversight in drafting the Bill; we did consider it. More broadly, the Government have, as I have already mentioned, committed to the £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful for the Minister’s response to the amendment. My concern is that it looks as though the Government are going to build on functional flood plains. That is why the role of property resilience measures is so important, and why the enforcement should be included in the fees. So, I hope she will think again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that and for her long-standing lobbying on flooding issues. We have a group of amendments later today on flooding. I hope that I can pick up some of the questions she has raised under those amendments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his Amendment 96, which seeks to ensure that guidance to local planning authorities on setting planning fees explicitly advises them to include the costs of essential services, such as archaeology, provided by local authorities. We recognise that, especially in two-tier areas, planning authorities may need to obtain expertise from other authorities to determine applications. Where local authorities choose to set their own fees, they will be expected to take account of the costs incurred in obtaining such contributions and reflect them appropriately in their fee-setting process.
As I have just highlighted, we are currently undertaking a national benchmarking exercise and engaging with local planning authorities to develop a consistent and evidence-based approach to local fee setting. A consultation on the national default fee schedule and the framework for local fee setting will then be published later this year. These matters are best addressed through secondary legislation and detailed guidance, as that provides the flexibility we may need—I can see the noble Lord nodding; he has probably given that answer himself from the Dispatch Box—to respond to evolving practice and local circumstances. That is particularly true in planning, which is such a dynamic area. As such, I do not consider it necessary to place the requirement in primary legislation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in an important debate. In closing the debate for the Official Opposition, I would simply like to say that a number of crucial issues have been raised this morning by noble Lords across the Committee. We hope that Ministers will continue to engage constructively between Committee and Report, as there are still some questions to answer about the proposals, so that we can come to an agreement on a number of areas where we believe the Bill can be improved. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thurlow
“(1A) Training for all members of local planning authorities must include specific training on the role of design for the external appearance of developments as it relates to their exercise of relevant planning functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that mandatory training for all members of local planning authorities in England includes training on design as it relates to their role in determining planning applications, particularly in the context of the built environment, character of the area, local materials, and variety of styles to break up monotony within larger housing developments.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I rise to introduce the second group of amendments today and to speak specifically to my Amendment 99A. These amendments focus on the need for wider training in design for those involved in the planning process, particularly within local authorities. In doing so, I declare my interests as a surveyor and a consultant in the property sector and the occupier of a listed building, although that is not relevant in this group. These interests are set out in the register.
To understand fully the background to this group, it is important to have some awareness of the way in which planning applications are processed within local authorities. Anyone present in the Chamber today who has had experience of making planning applications in the past few years will be woefully aware of the difficulties that process usually involves. It has become something of a nightmare for applicants. There are difficulties in arranging meetings with senior planners, and receiving advice and guidance in any sort of a timely fashion is hopelessly slow. Non-controversial consents can be delayed for many months. My son George is currently waiting and waiting and waiting for progress to build a house. It is non-controversial, and there have been no objections, and he has had support from the local planning authority, but can he get his piece of paper? No, he cannot, and it is difficult for him to establish why.
As we heard eloquently in discussions on the first group, the teams are underresourced—in almost all cases, from what I can glean, critically underresourced. Morale is often low, and we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, about this. The revolving door of staff leaving for better paid, more interesting work, usually in the private sector, is a constant drain on resources.
Planning officers receive a steady flow of new applications, each of which needs attention. They are often up against well-resourced applicants, frequently professional developers who are adept at using loopholes to optimise their objectives by working the system. This has the unfortunate effect of putting staff in planning departments on the back foot; they feel defensive, when they should be positive and playing a constructive role, working with applicants in all cases to produce the optimum fair and appropriate result. It becomes very difficult for them to perform this service. With the revolving door of staff, the file on any given project, particularly a larger one, may go through the hands of three different planners who have none of the history and embedded knowledge to work with. They are bound to be defensive. Proper training is vital for these professionals, but that training should not exclusively refer to the disciplines of health, safety, building control and knowledge of the wider body of legislation, let alone enforcement. Training for planners should involve a wider and more subjective brief.
Particularly with regard to the Government’s objective of 1.5 million new homes over the next few years, we must expect to see a large number of massive housing projects, which will be given some sort of fast-track treatment. Planning officers and members of committees need therefore to have an understanding of more than just the compliance with regulations and the fast-tracking, which other sections of the Bill address. Careful thought needs to be given to the impact of these new large housing projects on communities and the public at large. We must avoid the easy mistake of allowing hundreds and hundreds of lookalike matchbox developments to be built at the lowest cost, at the expense of appearance. These massive schemes—indeed, small schemes of several houses as well—should have regard to a wider design brief to overcome the relentless roadside appearance of almost identical buildings.
There have been some impressive exceptions, such as Poundbury, in Dorset, Chapelton, south of Aberdeen, and many others, but they are few and far between. This must change. It is not difficult to build row upon row of houses from a master plan with all the economies of scale for the principal elements of the construction process with a little more attention to interesting external elevations and the use of different building materials and finishes. In fact, this is cosmetics; while it will cost a little more, the benefit to local communities and society as a whole of an interesting streetscape, rather than relentless monotony, is an uplifting social service. I think it goes without saying that landscaping should be part of this.
This explains why planning officers should be carefully trained, to ensure that these simple but lasting improvements are introduced to larger-scale projects early on, for the wider benefits, not just for the residents—though they will be the principal beneficiaries. This training would require planning professionals, and in turn housing developers and their architects, to consider the impact of projects as a whole. It would require developers to display a carefully thought-out approach to the appearance of their completed developments and the wider impact of the finished product, insisting upon imaginative treatment when applied to external appearance. The process of continuous professional development, or CPD as it is known, would be a simple and rapid chance to deliver training to these professionals and to do so within months, rather than years. Bearing in mind the obligation within most professions for a minimum number of CPD hours annually, this really is an opportunity.
I firmly believe that this subject of imaginative design and external appearance applying to projects as a whole should become a required element of the training for professional planners. As the Government attempt to squeeze hundreds of thousands of housing units into a limited space, with lasting effects on the landscape and the quality of life of residents, it is an opportunity to kickstart a new era, with an intelligent planning discipline for the benefit of society as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and hope she will accept this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 99AA in my name is the first of a number of amendments we will be considering over the coming weeks on the importance of sport and recreational provision being an essential priority for planning policy in this country. At a time when playing fields are under threat, swimming pools are being closed and obesity is a growing reality among the population, especially young people, the need for a national plan for physical activity, recreation and well-being is vital if we are going to turn the tide and deliver a legacy for a country that rightly still celebrates the outstanding Olympic and Paralympic Games of London 2012. I declare an interest as a member of the Olympic committee which had oversight of the Games from 2005 until 2012, a board member of the London organising committee of the Games, and then chair of the British Olympic Association responsible for Team GB and the 29 gold medals that our Olympic athletes delivered.
Although we had a wonderful Olympic and Paralympic Games, which left a legacy of regenerating the East End of London well ahead of the projected schedule—in fact, 10 years earlier than would otherwise have been the case—we failed to deliver a lasting sports and physical activity legacy for our country. Today, this amendment provides the opportunity for the Government to deliver that long-overdue legacy and demonstrate to the country a true commitment to sport and recreation.
The reason is unequivocally clear. The planning system provides the building blocks for the provision of open spaces, play areas, sport and recreational facilities and the well-being of the nation. As with the East End of London in the run-up to London 2012, every single facility under the leadership of Sir John Armitt, the inspirational leader of the Olympic Delivery Authority, was built with legacy use for the community in mind. Nothing failed to be considered in that context.
I want to take that experience of the Olympic Games in London nationwide. That is why my amendment would place in law a requirement that:
“Training for all members of local planning authorities must include an emphasis on healthy placemaking, which includes planning adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities to meet communities’ needs”.
It is for not just some members of planning authorities but all.
In the planning for London 2012, we learned a great deal from Australia and the success of the superb Sydney Olympic Games in 2000. Today, seven years in advance of the Games, the Minister from Queensland responsible for the Games in Brisbane is here to listen to and learn from our debate in person. He is the hard-working Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations in the Government of Queensland, Jarrod Bleijie. He is an outstanding politician, responsible for the delivery of his vision of a lasting legacy for the 2032 Games in Brisbane—for the people of Queensland, well beyond the closing ceremony. We wish him well. I briefly place on record that the relationship between Britain and Australia in sport is defined by a deep and historically significant, though always contentious, rivalry, which is second to none. Yet, although that rivalry is often intense, it also involves a strong sense of mutual respect and a shared sporting heritage that continues to evolve.
So, to reflect that close relationship, what can the Government do today? They can accept this amendment. Why? Because, as the Schools’ Enterprise Association stated, 500 swimming pools have been lost since 2010, totalling a massive 34,859 square metres of water space lost to the public. Of all the pools lost in that time, almost half—42%—have been lost since 2020, and this continued into the last year. With increasing financial pressures, ageing facilities and rising operational costs, many more pools and leisure centres are at risk of closure. Of the 10 local authorities that have seen the biggest decline in pool space, 70% have higher-than-average indices of multiple deprivation, risking exacerbating already-stark health inequalities.
By the end of Committee on this and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I aim, with my colleagues from across the Committee, to set out the building blocks for a national recovery plan for physical activity. This amendment, and others that ukactive and colleagues across the political divide, both in the House and in this Committee, are promoting, necessitate the integration of sport and physical activity facilities into planning law. We want to ensure that this is given weighting in priority that is equal to other facilities and services. It is essential that sport and physical activity are understood as the bedrock of health and well-being within a community and that there is adequate provision of facilities on this basis.
By accepting this amendment, the Government would take a small but necessary step to meet residents’ needs and provide the necessary training for all members of local planning authorities to understand the importance of adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities to meet community needs and the health and well-being of the nation.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on his amendment. I entirely agree with everything he says. Not that long ago, a lido not far from where my daughter lives in east London was ripped down and turned into, of all things, a car park, which seems an ultimately depressing sanction on today. I can tell him right now that, if he chooses to divide the House on that subject in the future, I will walk behind him through the Lobby. I thank him.
On my Amendments 100, 101 and 102, I am very grateful to be supported by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on all three and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on Amendment 100. They are in addition to Clause 50, and they are about training to do with climate change, biodiversity and ecological surveying. This does not just hold up planning distinctions—it is a question not just of newts, bats and different kinds of badgers but of people not knowing what they are talking about. Therefore, a lot of decisions are not only delayed but end up going to appeal.
My Amendment 100 would mean that the training would be mandatory in the overall planning that is to be provided in general under Clause 50. Amendment 102 provides that the training must be provided not only to elected members of the planning committees but also to local authority planning officers responsible for making any planning decisions. Amendment 101 includes the highways, with the list of authorities to which the training provisions apply. That is obviously crucial and often gets left out, because roads, after all, cut through animal corridors, divide woods, divide fields and separate areas where nature is trying to talk to itself and be together.
These skills and resourcing gaps with planning authorities have been identified very generally across the board as a key blocker. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill states:
“There is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development”,
yet there is clear and mounting evidence, including from the OEP, that ecological capacity and skills within the planning system is a key reason for the environmental assessment not functioning effectively.
The OEP goes on to say that
“without Government commitment to providing those public bodies responsible for assessments with the skills”
and
“expertise … needed … now or in future”,
they
“will not deliver as they should to support positive environmental outcomes”.
It advised that the Government should now develop a strategy for this resourcing and for securing the expertise by the public bodies.
A survey undertaken by the Association of Local Government Ecologists of its planning authorities found that only 53% of survey respondents said that their LPA has limited access to an ecologist for planning work, and only 5% of respondents said that their system is adequate. Any noble Lord who was in the House on Monday listening to the Science Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance of Balham, answer a question about AI and training would have found it interesting to hear him say that a report from MIT last week on the use of AI across companies
“noted that 95% of companies got very little benefit and 5% got massively disproportionate benefit”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 511.]
The reason was that they had been properly trained. Whether we are talking about training to build sports grounds or training to protect wildlife, the training is needed.
The excellent charity Plantlife has highlighted that these gaps are even more acute for, say, botany and mycology. Botany was once compulsory, I guess, when most of us took GCSE biology. I certainly did it, and I did at A-level too. Research shows, however, that it is now practically non-existent. That is why, again, it is crucial that the amendment includes botanical and mycological survey.
Much has been made here of the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, mentioned this as well, but I always feel that I am trying to plead amendments that put more and more emphasis on local authorities doing more and more. I expect that many Members remember the extraordinary Dasgupta report that came out from the Treasury under the Tory Government and looked at the costs of nature. I had the privilege of spending much of last night interviewing Professor Dasgupta. We were talking about many specific things, one of which was that the real way to rebuild our shattered biodiversity and our ecological strength is, generally, through a community, but there is a very strong financial aspect here. Our GDP, at the moment, is an incentive to depreciate all natural assets. The system for measuring the state of public finances discourages all investment in maintaining the UK’s stock of natural capital. Shockingly, the Bank of England mandates do not recognise that value.
It would make a lot of sense for the Government to revisit some of these local-looking economics and say, “Yes, we can afford to train people properly; in fact, we can’t afford not to train them properly”. Well-trained councillors and well-trained planning leaders will also add to people’s enjoyment and, as with building sports facilities, the joy they take in nature, being out in the countryside and thinking it is something in which they have a vested interest to protect. Unless we all start doing that, we will all be poorer, regardless of what we do.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 103, which was tabled in July but has risen to the top only today. The aim of this amendment is really simple, although I must congratulate the Public Bill Office for also making it comprehensive. “Comprehensive” is the appropriate word here, in the week when so many people have gone back to school after the summer holidays. If this amendment is accepted, quite a few people in government might find themselves returning to their alma maters. This amendment would go beyond the provisions that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just outlined, because it would include Ministers and officials.
The Minister and I both go back some way in local government. While we might have trodden different paths in the sense that we approached things through two different political lenses, we have progressed by making evidence-based decisions grounded in policy with an intellectual honesty that would increase the well-being of those we served. I want to make the distinction between the different sorts of decisions that we take in local government. Some are political, some are part of an executive function and sometimes we make decisions within the scrutiny function. When it comes to planning or licensing, however, we make quasi-judicial decisions. These are the decisions that carry the weight of law and, when you make them, you need to be clear that you are acting within the law.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 162 in my name is in this group and I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shipley, who have also put their names to it. I am glad that we have included it in this group and brought it forward, because it adds to the debate we had on the previous group—and this one—about how we arrive at a resourced and professionally effective overall planning function in local planning authorities. The last debate was principally about the resources that are available; this group and this debate tells us the importance of understanding the scope, complexity, breadth and degree of professional expertise that is required to deliver a successful planning function, and the planners themselves. The amendments that lead this group, on issues relating to health, the environment and so on, have amply demonstrated the degree of influence and importance that should be attached to the planning function in a local authority’s activity. I was delighted to hear what my noble friend Lord Moynihan had to say. I hope, when we reach Clause 52, he will note its value in showing that spatial development strategies should focus on health effects and inequalities. I hope that we can develop that important point.
Planners are often in this space already. Chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework includes precisely the issues that relate to delivering on healthy and safe communities, including promoting healthy living. I am sometimes in awe of what is needed, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, when putting together a local plan: the range and complexity of what needs to be included in it and the extent to which one has to anticipate the many issues that many communities will face in order to deliver it.
The new clause proposed in Amendment 162 says that local planning authorities should have a chief planner and, in doing so, they can—if they choose to do so—join together and appoint a chief planner for more than one authority. I say this advisedly, knowing that in my own area Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council jointly run a shared service, with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service at its head. The clause would allow for what is current best practice. It would also flexibly but necessarily require of local planning authorities that the person they appoint to be a chief planner must have the relevant expertise and experience to justify their doing so. I hope that we could say that was always the case; it is pretty nearly always the case, but it is necessary when giving them a power and requirement to do so that we should be clear that it should be exercised in this way.
Why do we need this? Many local authorities have a chief planner—but not all. I was very struck in the briefing that we received the Royal Town Planning Institute—and I am very grateful to it for inspiring this amendment—by how important this could be in terms of supporting the professionalism and development of the profession. We want more planners; I agree with the Minister about managing to maintain level 7 apprenticeships if we possibly can—these have been very important. We need more planners, and I welcome the Government’s financial support for additional planners. However, we need not only more planners but to make sure it is very respected profession.
What will bring people into planning as a profession is an understanding that there are professional leaders. I suppose my pitch for Amendment 162 is that not only should we be resourcing planning and increasing the number of planners but we should recognise that leadership matters in every walk of life, and that we should encourage local planning authorities to have chief planners who are themselves leaders of their profession. In future there will be fewer local planning authorities than there are now. I hope that through the chief planner role, we can encourage them to look to have that kind of professional leadership.
The example we might look to is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government itself. My noble friend Lord Fuller talks about relevant planning functions and decisions made by Ministers; they are informed by professional expertise within the department. That is a profession led by the chief planner, who herself demonstrates the value of a chief planner role in relation to the planning functions of any organisation.
Interestingly, when the Government published their technical consultation on reform of planning committees—we will come on to more about that in the next group—they referred specifically to the question of a decision being made about the allocation of decisions to planning committees to tier A and tier B, and said that it should be done by the chief planner, together with the chair of the planning committee. That seems to me to be a present, important illustration of the independence of the professional expertise that should be brought to decision-making in local authorities.
If we are to rely on that, not least in relation to the national scheme of delegation, as a basis for making solid decisions about the allocation of decision-making, we absolutely need assurance that there will be a chief planner in each of these local planning authorities. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond to this debate, this might be one of the things that she has written against it not “resist” but “agree to consider”.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 162 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Best, as well as mine. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out, this is an issue of professional leadership. It also underpins the delivery of the Government’s objectives with this Bill.
I add my support on the importance of comprehensive training for those involved in making decisions on planning matters. There are some very wise additional proposals in Amendments 99A to 102, and the case made by all those amendments is overwhelming. Someone in a local planning authority has to manage the training process, which has to be done at a senior level. That is one reason why I support the statutory requirement for local planning authorities to have a chief planner—but there are other compelling reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has identified.
Yesterday in Grand Committee, there was a statutory instrument to devolve housing and regeneration powers to Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils. It was most welcome, it was approved, and it is a decision by the Government in their drive to devolve more decision-making to a local level, but it will succeed only if the capacity is there to deliver the desired outcomes. That capacity relates to the number of planning officers, their status and the training they have received. As we have heard, in recent years there have been rising levels of complaints about the planning system, its complexities and its delays. As we have heard also, one major cause is the lack of qualified planning staff and the downgrading of the status of planning, given the low number of chief planning officers reporting directly to the chief executive of a local authority.
We should recognise that Scotland has, for a year, had a requirement for statutory chief planning officers to be appointed by local authorities. I submit that we should do likewise if the planning system is to be speeded up in England and if the Government are to deliver their devolution agenda.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 162 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It calls for every local authority to appoint a chief planner, and I thank the Royal Town Planning Institute for championing it. I must declare various interests as I have not already contributed in Committee: I am an honorary fellow of the RTPI and a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and the Local Government Association.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 100, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to which I and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have attached our names. In the interests of time, I will chiefly restrain myself to commenting on that, although I note the fortunate congruence of Amendment 99AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, appearing right beside it, because they fit together very well in thinking about a one health perspective.
Amendment 100 is about environmental health, but human health is entirely dependent on environmental health. In fitting all those things together, the lack of healthy places is undoubtedly one of our society’s great problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has already made a powerful argument for Amendment 100. I commend her on including mycological surveys, because that is all too often left out. That relates to the issue of soil health, which we are starting to recognise is such a crucial issue that we have ignored far too long. It is crucial to our health—human health and environmental health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said that we have a real shortage of education in our highly concentrated education system about ecology and biology. That is undoubtedly true, but our understanding of biology and ecology is moving and changing enormously fast. If you were taught biology and ecology 20 or 30 years ago, what we know now will disavow a great deal of what you were taught as statements of fact 20 or 30 years ago.
To illustrate that, and because I know your Lordships’ House loves a good chalk stream, I refer to a very alarming study out this week of the River Itchen, which is a chalk stream that has been found to have alarming levels of microparticle pollution. Microfibres and fibreglass fibres were sampled throughout the chalk stream. This has been found in samples from spring 2025. The researcher who found this says we have got to work out the sources of this pollution and what to do about them. We need to start thinking about how we stop polluting these wonderful environments and make sure that the built environment is not wrecking that. This is ultimately related to a planning question that we have got to understand.
Tying in with that—I am sorry, this is also alarming—is a study just out this week about tyre wear particles in the Rhine River. Where does the road go? The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, talked about the importance of where roads go in terms of splitting up habitats, but roads also pollute the watercourses. This is a fascinating study that shows that the nature of bacterial biofilms in the river is substantially changed by the presence, absence and nature of these tyre wear particles. Bacterial biofilms are at the base of food chains. They are key parts of aquatic ecosystems. They control nutrient cycles and form the basis of food chains.
All this is news from just the last week. If we are going to ask people to make decisions that are crucial to the biology and health of our environment, I am not saying that everyone has to be spending their time—as I probably spend too much time—focusing on studies such as this, but people need a basic level of understanding of biology or ecology to understand the way in which this knowledge is moving so fast to be able to read these reports and understand them.
My first point was about understanding ecological and biological education. In my second point, I will venture with some tentativeness into the legal side of this, because it is worth noting that the law around biodiversity and the climate emergency is a very fast-changing area. It is crucial that people have at least a basic understanding of these areas if they are going to make planning decisions that, as the noble Baroness said, are both right and will stand up in court.
I point Members to the Law and Climate Atlas, a really useful resource which was developed by the Centre for Climate Engagement in partnership with the Net Zero Lawyers Alliance. It notes that:
“Climate change may be a material consideration in individual planning decisions, and may be a necessarily material consideration, but there is no statutory requirement”,
but it may come up in court. I note that chapter 14 of the National Policy Planning Framework states that the planning system could lead to
“radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.
But how are we going to make sure that happens? This is where the training is crucial.
With some trepidation, I will venture briefly into a specific case: the R v Surrey County Council judgment given on 20 June. This was around the scope 3 emissions from fossil fuel extraction. The final judgment given in this case in the Supreme Court stated:
“The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems to me plain that they are”.
These are all issues in a fast-moving area and it is crucial that we provide planners with the training to understand what is happening. That training will have to be updated regularly. If we throw people into decision-making positions without this understanding, which we cannot expect their previous experience to have given them, we are setting them up to fail—to fail themselves, their councils and our communities.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly support my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s important Amendment 99AA. The role of training can never be underestimated, and the importance and consistency of knowledge and skills introduced by training is very important. There is no statutory protection for playing fields, parks or playgrounds, and people are extremely concerned about the potential loss of the playing fields and parks in their communities. These open spaces are critical to preserve if we can because, once they are gone, we cannot get them back.
Diminishing any existing levels of scrutiny, especially with Sport England’s role as a consultee potentially being relinquished, could further impact the loss of our sports fields and physical activity spaces and facilities. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Moynihan about the desperate state of our swimming pools and sports centres.
A study by the Fields in Trust charity quantified the well-being value of parks and green spaces at £34 billion per annum. Frequently using these spaces results in better general health and reduced need to go to the GP, quantified as saving the NHS £111 million every year. It certainly goes a long way to help the NHS and it gets people, especially young people, active, playing sport and outdoors.
Work done by other organisations, including Fields in Trust and ukactive, is vital to sport and physical activity in this country. Training all members of local planning authorities and including an emphasis on healthy place-making, which includes planning adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities, will help greatly to ensure that we have open spaces for sport and physical activity for future generations.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan said that this is his first of many amendments to several Bills. I will support him and would like to hear from others about these critical issues that will affect us in future. This amendment is important to ensure that planning officers have the skills and knowledge to deliver the planning outcomes that our local communities really need.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in his Amendment 99A on the training of planning officers to improve the environment and the appearance of the built environment. This is extremely important for lots of reasons, one of which is, obviously, that anything that makes our streetscapes more beautiful is to be encouraged. But it is more fundamentally important than that.
If we are to manage to build, as this Government tell us they will—previous Governments made the same claim—300,000 new homes every year, we will need to get local support for the homes to be built in local areas. In other words, it is no good trying to impose housing developments, new towns or whatever from the outside, without support from the local community. Local community support will be heavily dependent on the appearance of the development. If it fits in with the classic way of building in that local area, it is more likely to be accepted. If the buildings are diverse and beautiful, they are much more likely to be welcomed. If they end up being ticky-tacky little boxes all looking the same, I have to say that local opposition will be stirred up and might well be brought to a frenzy.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 162, which would put chief planning officers on a statutory basis. I agree with the case made for it by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Best. I can add little to what they said, but I want to emphasise one point in particular. It is not uncommon in some—not all—local planning authorities for officers to come under considerable pressure from members in relation to matters that are within officers’ remit, whether it is preparing an officer report or an application to committee, or a delegated decision or work in relation to an emerging plan. It is entirely right and proper for members to reach their own views on matters within their remit, but matters within officers’ delegated remit should be exercised in accordance with their independent professional judgment. Putting the role of the chief planner on a statutory basis would buttress their independence and that of those working underneath them, all the more so were it to be combined with a statutory purpose of planning, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, proposes in another amendment. This is an issue already; it will be all the more of an issue in the event that the proposed national scheme of delegation becomes effective pursuant to the Bill. Amendment 162 would help give greater effect to that national scheme of delegation and ensure that it would not be undermined by officers who have additional delegated powers going forward being unduly lent on by their members in the context of exercising those delegated powers.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, the issue of training was behind my comments in the previous group about planning and proceeding on the basis of competence and confidence, so I support all the amendments in this group as well, and particularly Amendments 102, 103, and 162, which are absolutely pivotal.
In my profession, it is incumbent on practitioners not to undertake tasks for which they have inadequate technical knowledge or practical experience. Unfortunately, there is nothing which currently mandates the use and input of such professionals. So, when resources are tight and finance is limited, the inevitable result seems to be that it is passed down to the lowest-cost element of the process. This is, as other noble Lords have commented, to the increasing dismay of local communities, many of whose members have high levels of relevant knowledge and are therefore particularly concerned about what they see as self-evident flaws in what is presented. It erodes confidence, and we should really be concerned about that.
I remember that some years ago a senior political figure rubbished the idea of quality in development. It was a numbers game, and not quality. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, referred to the critical nature of satisfaction. That is satisfaction not just in the physical environment but in the working environments that we present to the people who have to administer this. Once trained, the knowledge is, of course, portable with the individual. I remember not so long ago an instance of a planning officer who left his authority, tempted no doubt by better terms from a developer, who then returned as a private sector consultant only for the purpose of undermining the very policies that he had formulated and was defending in his previous authority.
As other noble Lords have said, this goes to the heart of the satisfaction of the job, the longevity of it and whether it is properly paid, respected and nurtured, both from outside in terms of the standing of the individual and inside among committee members—I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, referred to that. It is a false economy not to make these positions worth while, durable and of standing. I remember in my early profession how important certain local government officials were. The planner, the estates director or whatever his title was, and people in other walks of life, such as the district valuer for whom I worked for several years down in Brighton, had standing and status, but not so today. They are regarded as just another, if I may put it like this, petty official. That is to the great detriment of good delivery.
I wholeheartedly support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in support of Amendment 102. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, in particular, that we need to address an awful lot of these things if we are to achieve a fraction of what this Bill is capable of delivering.
I turn to Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. In the central government sector, I recently spoke to a professional body which had laboured long and hard to get a particular departmental official to understand a very complex series of issues, all of which had critical outcomes for the way in which policy would be delivered. I am not going to embarrass anybody by saying which department it was. However, with their having reached this elevated stage and got this person to really understand what was involved, that official was promptly moved to another, completely unrelated function—I am not even sure that it was within the same department. That was a loss of human resource and a waste of knowledge and experience, and it was to the considerable dismay of this body which had been trying to deal with it. If the idea is that as soon as somebody understands something, they have gone too native, or something like that, that is the wrong sentiment. We are losing people, and we are losing the force and direction of policy. While I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I fear that a much wider organisational change in terms of holding on to those core skills in appropriate locations is necessary.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred to the scope of training. I would add groundwater and geology to her list of basic skills and understanding. Like her, I do not suggest that people have an in-depth knowledge of this as a trained geologist or ecologist, but they must have a minimum understanding to do the job, to know when they need further, more detailed technical advice and to understand what the advice is when it is being given. On all those counts, we are falling down. Therefore, I very much support what she says about getting this right.
This is a very large issue. I fear that much of it may, in terms of policy and implementation, stray outside the strict terms of this Bill. However, unless we address these issues and unless that forms part of the consciousness of how we move this forward, we will have another large body of Explanatory Notes, impact assessments and all the rest of it, which will ultimately be on somebody’s cutting-room floor. That is a terrible waste of the resources of this House, of the other place and of all the people who have engaged with us to give us their views on how aspects of this should be brought forward. There is a common golden thread here that I hope will be picked up by the Government. It is at the core of getting delivery on this Bill.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, with many different points made. Clearly, training is important to us, as is the status of planners, but I want to touch on issues that, much to my surprise, have not been mentioned. They have been hinted at very slightly by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who came close.
I have attended and delivered planning training to councillors. You can take a councillor to training, but you cannot make him think or learn or go back into a committee room and act any differently from how he or she did before. To be perfectly honest, I have been shocked by the arrogance, attitude and behaviour of some councillors at meetings, which I was obliged to observe as part of my role within that council. What bothers me is that there seems very little ability to sanction or take to task. Often it is individuals. Within councils, they know who they are—but they still put them on the committee the following year. That cannot be ignored. It was not just lack of understanding or wilfully not wanting to understand or genuinely not understanding, but sometimes it was the tricky and thorny issues of probity and ethics within the whole area of this and public standards.
Talking to planners, which I still do, with their work on the ground, I know that they say that the following issues are the rotten aspects of the job. There is hostility from the public—aggression, the way that they are spoken to. You have set up a positive consultation meeting with everything that you think they want to know and sometimes it deteriorates into some really quite shocking situations. They feel like they are piggy in the middle.
The other side of that coin is the politicisation of planning. There is no doubt that this has happened. I said years ago that we have turned nimbys into BANANAs—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody. Even in my local area, I find that my local environment group, which I was very proud to get well and truly established, is objecting to developments miles away which could not possibly have any impact on them. It seems to be the new form of activism and we cannot ignore that.
Planners hate their decisions being overturned by councillors, because they are professionals. They understand their role, but there are times when they just feel ignored, overruled and put in this position. They too need training in that regard.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I apologise to the Committee, as I should have done that earlier.
Under the previous Government, as part of the capacity and capability programme, the planning skills delivery fund was established to support local planning authorities to manage backlogs and strengthen professional expertise. Around £24 million was committed over a two-year period, in recognition that, for far too long, a shortage of skilled planners has represented a barrier to effective development and regeneration and the delivery of sustainable communities. I am pleased that this Government have continued that funding.
It has been clear from the debate that, across all sides of your Lordships’ Committee, there is a shared recognition of the central importance of training, whether, as we have heard, on good design, the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity, the practical application of planning law or, importantly, building healthy communities—as ably argued by my noble friend Lord Moynihan on his Amendment 99AA.
There is broad agreement that both elected members and professional officers must be equipped with the knowledge and confidence to take decisions in the public interest. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken on and reinforced the value of a well-trained planning system not only for councillors but for planning officers and, indeed, all those who play a formal role in shaping or determining planning applications. Ultimately, if we want a system that is trusted, effective and capable of delivering the homes and infrastructure that our country needs, investment in skills and training must remain at its heart.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his Amendment 103. His contribution underlined that training should not be regarded as simply a local requirement but as something that ought to apply consistently across all levels of government, including civil servants and Ministers. That emphasis on alignment between national and local implementation is an important reminder that central government must also hold itself to the same standards that it expects of local authorities. He is also right about the importance of driving up standards in decision-making. I therefore ask the Minister to set out how the Government intend to align central and local government training standards. How will they help bridge the gaps between national policy direction and local implementation?
I also thank and support my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 162, which requires local authorities to appoint a chief planning officer to ensure professional leadership. I am sure that the Government can do nothing but support this amendment. If they do, I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks a chief planning officer’s role might be in co-ordinating central government, local authorities and industry stakeholders.
Amendment 99A from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, also raises the important issue of design. In government, we did important work on design, and it was very disappointing when the Government announced the closure of the Office for Place. Well-designed homes that are in keeping with local vernacular are what local residents want and what this country needs, which is why design has such an important role to play in planning. Therefore, can the Minister give the House a clear assurance that the Government still recognise the important role that good design plays in housing delivery? In addition, how will the Government ensure that the future training requirements are properly supported so they are realistic for local planning authorities already under considerable pressures? How can we be confident that training will genuinely enhance decision making, rather than becoming a formality, and how best can consistency across the system be achieved while still respecting the role of autonomy in planning? These are important questions that have been asked in the last hour or so, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Thurlow, Lord Moynihan and Lord Lansley, for their amendments, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this very important debate around training. I agree with what noble Lords have said generally about the importance of training in this area. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Best, Lord Carrington and Lord Banner, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Sater, for their contributions, which are much appreciated.
Before I started working on the Bill, I did not realise that it was not compulsory for members to have training in planning. It has always been compulsory on my local authority, both at county level and Stevenage level, and I was quite shocked to find out that it was not compulsory.
Before I refer to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I did not really recognise his description of rows of box-type construction. Since I became a Minister, I have visited literally dozens of construction sites across the country, from Durham to the Isles of Scilly, and from Greenwich to Northern Ireland. What I have seen is that they do not have this issue. There is certainly not a lack of regard for design, biodiversity or zero carbon. We have a dynamic building industry, overseen in planning terms by local councillors and officers who genuinely want the best for their communities. I have seen some excellent examples. I am sure there are some that are not as excellent as some of the ones I have seen, but this is a very dynamic industry, and it is doing its best to provide homes and communities for people across our country.
I turn to Amendments 99A, 99AA and 100, which seek to ensure that the training of committee members includes climate change, biodiversity, ecological surveying, design and healthy placemaking. I assure noble Lords that the Government believe that all these matters are crucial to good planning, and all feature strongly in the national planning policy framework. To respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on her point about design, the Government are absolutely committed not just to good design in the properties themselves but in placemaking as well. That is set out in the NPPF and in design guides, and we will be publishing our future homes and building standard later this year, which will go further in setting out what we expect. I always had a rule when I was a council leader that I would not build any homes that I would not want to live in myself. I hope to apply the same guidelines as a Minister.
I would expect these matters to feature in any training for planning committee members. For instance, it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain. The Government believe, however, that it is unnecessary to stipulate all that in the Bill. It is customary to use regulations or guidance to set out details with regard to the implementation of planning law, and the training of planning committee members should not be an exception.
The details for the training are currently under development. We will continue to engage with local government and industry to ensure that the training covers all the basic principles of planning. It would be impractical in primary legislation to provide a complete list of matters that must form part of the training content. This is an area that develops all the time, and we want to make sure we have a mechanism for changing it as things change.
There will be an element of local consideration in this. For example, I think chalk streams were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have chalk streams in my area; they are not right across the country. Everyone should know about them, in my view, and I always talk about them. If you lived in an area where they were present, you might want more training on that aspect.
Furthermore, such a list would have to be kept up to date. That process would take up valuable time in Parliament to amend the Bill.
Amendment 101 seeks to include National Highways, local highway authorities and integrated transport authorities as local planning authorities to which mandatory training will apply. Although National Highways, local highway authorities and integrated transport authorities are intricately involved with spatial development, they are not local planning authorities and do not have a decision-making role in planning committees, which is the focus of this Government’s training reforms. We therefore do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the provisions to them.
Amendment 102 raises important questions about who the training should apply to. The Government introduced mandatory training for members of local planning authorities to improve the decision-making process for the many planning applications that are considered by local planning authorities every year through the planning committees and delegated authority. Many councillors sitting on planning committees are proficient in planning matters, but that is not necessarily the case, nor is it expected to be. Councillors are lay people with busy lives, juggling their councillor duties with other responsibilities. It is important that we get the balance right between training that is necessary for them to be able to take their decision-making properly but also to enable them to make the kind of decisions that make sense to local people. The training is therefore aimed at them so that they better understand the key principles of planning. In doing so, we want to ensure there is a higher level of debate and consistency in decision-making across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issues of standards. I pay tribute to our planning officers. They face unacceptable behaviour from the public but also, occasionally, regrettably, from councillors. I can reassure the noble Baroness that I am about to embark on a significant piece of work with the code of conduct task force. We will be talking about that more in the early part of next year.
The training is not intended for officers of local planning authorities with responsibility for making or advising on planning decisions, nor any other person to whom decision-making functions are delegated. That is because it can reasonably be expected that all officers who have a formal responsibility for advising on or determining planning decisions are recruited with an emphasis on professional planning qualifications or have extensive planning experience. As we know, they are also able to call in support from experts on key issues where it would not be proportionate for a local authority to have that expertise in house.
On Amendment 103, for similar reasons, the training is not intended for civil servants who make decisions on behalf of Ministers. As noble Lords will be aware, if an applicant appeals or applies directly to the Secretary of State, a planning inspector considers the case. They are planning professionals recruited for their expertise and the Planning Inspectorate provides them with considerable ongoing training.
On the training of Ministers, it is important to highlight that Ministers need, and get, bespoke training and support to fulfil their decisions. They also operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. It is probably a good soundbite to say that Ministers should also be subject to the same training requirements as a councillor. From a personal point of view, I welcome training. I have had some training, and I am happy to take it on. But I understand that in practice the role is different. We therefore do not intend to extend these mandatory training requirements to Ministers who make planning decisions—for instance, when they call in applications.
Lastly, Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, ably assisted by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities either separately or jointly. The noble Lord is quite right to point to the practical approach of local government in some areas in developing joint planning functions to improve their capacity and resilience, and the scope of their work, which can often help with recruitment and retention as well—and the noble Lord also spoke about appointing a suitably qualified chief planning officer.
I share the noble Lord’s ambition of ensuring that all planning decisions are made with professional leadership. I am not convinced that we need to put the chief planning officer role on a statutory footing. We need to consider what a very clear rationale for such a step might be, and I am very cautious about overlegislating as the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to determine the structure of their planning departments. In practice, local planning authorities already have a senior officer who performs a function similar to that of a chief planning officer, but I will continue to reflect on that because as we go through the process of the further changes we are anticipating to the planning system, I think we need to consider it further. I hope to carry on discussions with the noble Lord and others on that. For now, for these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I have a question. She mentioned that when Ministers—who are lay people, not specialists in this field or professionally qualified in planning—take decisions, they are so advised. I cannot quite get in my mind the distinction between a Minister making a quasi-judicial decision on planning and a councillor or a mayor. None of us has mentioned mayors, but mayors are contained within the provisions of the Bill. Of course, I understand why the Secretary of State might want to resist having to get a qualification, but that is not really answering the point because this is not just about the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government. This is about Secretaries of State and Ministers throughout all the departments of state, including the Treasury, which is setting planning policy and so forth. Can the Minister help me by explaining clearly what the distinction is and why the Government appear to be resisting this so strongly?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I come back to the point I made that if an applicant applies to the Secretary of State, a planning inspector would consider the case and then advise the Minister or the Secretary of State who was taking the decision. Planning inspectors are highly qualified and highly trained. Regarding the training of Ministers, we have access to bespoke training. I have undertaken some training. Because we have to operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance, when we are making decisions we have a different call on us from that in local planning committees.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fuller does not need to keep the Minister on her feet. This being Committee stage, he has the right to speak as many times as he likes.
I encourage the Minister to take further the last sentiments she expressed in the context of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the words spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It is important that we do something to increase the status of planning officials in local government. I have observed the effect that having chief scientific advisers in government departments has had on science and the way it is regarded within ministries. Over time it has had a really salutary effect. Having a chief planner, someone with that name and status, would be a good way of working back, providing status to the planning profession and making sure, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, that we get a collection of people who understand the limits of their knowledge and the advice that they are given and that the public trust them in that regard.
As a small contribution to that, I have tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to try to rescue level 7 apprenticeships. If the Minister was able to have a word in the ear of her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to encourage her to give a positive response to that, that might solve a range of problems, not only for planning but for other professions where level 7 is an important qualification. The point that my noble friend Lord Fuller made about the importance of taking people who have entered the profession at the technician level and upskilling them to professionals is an important part of a healthy society.
Lastly, I associate the qualities of determination and optimism with the Minister, but does she really believe that we will get to Amendment 135? If she is wavering in that belief, it would be a great help to noble Lords, when the Government realise they might fall short, if they could tell us so that those of us who have amendments late in the day might find an opportunity for more time with our families.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
To take the noble Lord’s last point first, my optimism and determination is to get to Amendment 135, but we shall see. I hope I have reassured him on the point about continuing to reflect on the issues around chief planning officers. I think I already responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that, so I hope that reassures him.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I am impressed with the advocacy standing behind the amendments in this short group. It has taken a lot longer than I thought it would. It is clear that there is a real concern regarding the crisis in provision in the planning process and the emphasis on training needs. All these amendments should be non-controversial from a political point of view. They are about supporting apprenticeships and training at all levels and improving the positive aesthetic, pride in planning and career opportunities.
I thank the Minister for agreeing, in her very first few words in winding, with all the amendments proposed—if I heard her correctly. Perhaps that was agreement in principle. I am particularly pleased that she does not recognise my reference to street upon street of matchbox lookalike developments. I think we have been travelling in different directions. As a surveyor, I do a great deal of travelling in the car and on trains. I think the objective is the same and, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think we have to make absolutely sure that the massive developments that will arise from the housebuilding targets the Government have announced do not descend to the lowest common denominator of design and appearance.
I am afraid I am nervous about the reference to addressing our concerns across the group by way of regulation and delegated authority. We all know where that sometimes leads. We will doubtless return to the Minister’s comments on Report.
Baroness Pinnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness Pinnock change the provision of regulations in Clause 51 to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we now turn to the mechanics of making planning decisions. I accept the Government’s purpose in Clause 51 to drive greater consistency and expectations of the process by developers. There is a great diversity of the ways in which planning decisions are made across the country. The Government have obviously had their ear bent and are trying hard to understand that and to come to some arrangements by which planning applications are dealt with in a similar way across the country.
However, a drive to do so through regulation removes what I assert is absolutely vital local flexibility. Setting regulation by, for example, the size of application, number of houses, by hectare or, worse still, by local plan site allocation only, as may be the case, absolutely ignores local geography and the existing local built environment. Unduly restricting publicly taken decisions on planning issues may well feed the lack of trust in public institutions, which we surely all want to avoid.
That is why my amendments—there is a whole string of them—are designed to ensure that local decisions remain with local people and their elected representatives, where that is determined by local policies and by a combination, as we heard on the previous group, of local chief planning officers and the planning committee chair. People care passionately about the places where they live, and they care about the changes that are made to them. They want to be included in helping influence decisions about those changes—for example, new housing sites.
Enabling residents to take part in planning decisions is vital. At the moment, there are two ways in which residents can do so. The first is by formally objecting to an application through the planning portal and hoping that that will be taken into account in a decision. But, if that is a decision made by an officer, there is no report that will include those objections and the reasons why they may have been overturned. So one of the benefits of having decisions, particularly and mainly about controversial developments, is that the objections made by local residents can be heard in public and seen in the report that the planning officer has to make for the planning committee, which will include a summary of the objections and the reasons for them. Restricting the number of applications that are heard in public, as the regulations will do, is totally detrimental.
I will give one example of why that may be the case. A planning application near where I live is bounded by a busy main A road, the M62, a cricket field and a residential road. There are a lot of constraints on this small housing development of 20-odd houses that have to be taken into account and will conflict with one another—dealing with the motorway noise, the cricket field, the busy main road, access and safety and all the rest. A lot of issues have to be considered. Under these regulations, it is very likely that that planning application would be determined by officers. There would be no ability, as there is currently, for local councillors, in conjunction with the committee chair and the chief planning officer, to make a decision. There are so many controversial and conflicting issues that that decision is best taken through an open decision-making process in the committee. We ought to be proud of that as a country—that is how we make decisions. It is democracy, and we need to strengthen it, not pull the rug from under it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have to notify the Committee that if Amendments 103ZZA and 103ZZB are agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 103ZA by reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 104, but, first, I must declare my interests, as this is the first time I have spoken formally in Committee on this Bill. I am still a farmer and land manager, or at least my family is; I now farm and manage land from the perspective of a retired farmer.
Amendment 104 is very much a probing amendment. I approve of the proposed delegation of planning decisions to a sub-committee or to officers of a local authority. This will give a degree of reliability and constancy in the decision-making process, possibly even a degree of speed, which in the planning system as we currently know it would be in most welcome. The proposed training of planning committees in this context is also welcome. It will, I hope, avoid decision-makers succumbing to parochial interests or, worse still, the views of their immediate social circle, whom they might not want to upset, which I have come across.
Therefore, I was surprised to find national park authorities excluded from these sensible improvements. In my experience, national park authorities are no exception to some of the parochialism and resistance to change that occur elsewhere. If anything, the resistance is greater. Some national park authorities do not have a planning committee, and all planning decisions come before the whole authority, with the inevitable resultant delays and, worse still, greater opportunity for parochial subjectivism.
I would trust trained national park officers to be able to take certain planning decisions in line with both national and locally set policies. Above all, those chief officers have the necessary vision that perceives the national park as being there to benefit both the lives of those who live and work in the park and those of people who visit it. I have always seen national parks as being like a branding that needs an overall vision, which includes everything from transport facilities to better landscape management et al, in order to enhance the lives of the many both inside and outside the park. Without that overall vision, which I believe not everyone who sits on a national park authority committee necessarily has, those national parks will fail to maximise their potential. I just wondered why our national landscapes were excluded from this section of the Bill.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I intend to speak to Amendment 103ZA in my name and to Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who has just spoken. While I intend to reserve my comments more broadly on Clause 51 until group 4, where we will debate whether it stands part, I am astonished that we are in the situation where national park authorities are in effect the only kind of local government that this would not apply to. I say that because no one is directly elected on to a national park authority.
Some of the board members may indeed be elected councillors but, by and large, they are appointed as a proportion and the majority are appointed by the Secretary of State and central government. A great irony of this wider debate is that we are most likely removing ways for locally elected councillors to make determinations, but where the Government have already appointed people, they can carry on. It seems an odd thing in this whole set-up.
I have tabled Amendment 103ZA—as I say, I will get on to the merits of the clause in the next group—because I am concerned that with the pressure of the increasing housing targets that have been imposed on local councils, the pressure about aspects of five-year supply, it will be too easy for officers to simply say they have to go beyond the plan that has already been agreed. As has been set out regularly by Ministers in this debate, the local plan is agreed by local people. It is not really, but at least there is an opportunity for the public to contribute towards that determination and it is then decided and voted on by locally elected councillors, who are therefore accountable to their constituents.
The issue of going beyond the boundary of the local plan is important. I see this happen quite a lot in parts of rural areas where developers take a bit of a chance on trying to keep extending the boundary, including by making housing go beyond the local plan boundary and then trying to say that for economic reasons this should all be approved, even though it has already been through a process. I am concerned about that, and I think officers would be less hesitant to simply brush it aside.
The other issue I am very concerned about is housing density, and I have put my name to an amendment attached to Clause 52 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which will be debated later on in the Bill. One example is part of a town called Felixstowe, in Suffolk, where the previous councils had agreed a pretty ambitious local plan building on greenfield to expand the town in what they perceived to be a controlled way but still making sure that the town was going to be vibrant and sustainable. Within that, they specified a particular housing density for the building of some 2,000 houses. That was to constrain it within the envelope of what was deemed to be land suitable for development. It was about 150 houses per whatever the geographic dimension was to reach 2,000. An application was made for outline planning permission. Developers had indicated that of course they would stick within this housing density, but the officers in their analysis presented to councillors considering the outline planning application anticipated the housing density would really be only about 50 if they took into account the extra bits such as access to nature, sustainable drainage and all the different things. So, there we go—and, by the way, I am pretty sure the officers recommended that they accept that outline planning application, knowing full well that they would not get anywhere near the 2,000 houses that had been allocated to the fields on the outside of Felixstowe.
The consequence of that would be that considerably more land would be needed to build the other houses that were due to be built in that part of the district. My concern is that by not being very specific about housing density—and we will come on to this later—we will end up with a lot more sprawl and issues connected with not having gaps between villages and towns.
The reason I have tabled this amendment is to make sure that, if these regulation-making powers do go through to the Secretary of State, for determinations of planning applications such as that, it really must be down to the elected councillors to be able to determine it—in effect, to go against their own plan that they, or their predecessors, had already voted on to approve. We are already aware of how many decisions are delegated to officers in a routine way that is right, but on these things, where the application is contrary to what had already been agreed in the overall strategic purpose, that must be done by elected councillors, who will be accountable to the wider electorate.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 105 in this group. We are not debating that Clause 51 stand part in this group, but I intend to speak to it regardless, because it should be grouped with this, and it will save me having to make another speech on the same subject in the next group.
I do not object to Clause 51; indeed, I support it. There should be a national scheme of delegation. It is an important mechanism by which some of the planning reform policies being pursued can be reinforced in practice in the decision-making processes in local government and assist in the process of speeding up planning decisions.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly support my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington’s amendment. In the 1980s, I was chairman of the development and control committee of the then Lake District Special Planning Board, and I can see no reason why those kinds of organisations should not be treated exactly the same as the others on the inherent merits of what is being proposed and what the authority members wish to occur. I was the Secretary of State-appointed member of the Lake District Special Planning Board. It occurred to me then that that was rather analogous to being a Member of your Lordships’ House as a life Peer—but, of course, I would not understand that.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this set of amendments, particularly Amendment 135HZE, which I think my noble friend is just about to wrap up on.
Noble Lords will recall that I have been a councillor and sat on a local planning committee for 23 years; I was the leader for 17 years. It was one of my privileges to appoint the committee and choose the chairman. I always explained to my members that the purpose of planning was not an administrative function that existed as an end in itself—although this Bill sometimes treats it as if it were so—but to arbitrate between the private interests of the applicant and the public interest. I use the word “arbitrate” purposefully, because people who sit on a planning committee have a difficult job. They must weigh up so much conflicting information within an adversarial system and, ultimately, either the proposer or objector wins.
Much of this Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are blockers of development and that the ranks of officials will not rest until every square inch of our nation is concreted over. But this is nonsense. The premise is that officials bring none of their prejudices to bear, but that is simply not true. We have Natural England, which leaves no stone unturned in blocking development. We have the railways, which ballast every proposal with ridiculous costs, such as £5 million for a footbridge to cross between two platforms. We have the highways authorities, which tie themselves in knots under the misdirection that personal transport outside development boundaries is unsustainable. That is before all the other bad actors in many other quangos that increasingly advance their own narrow self-interests rather than the public interest.
I do not deny the importance of some of their representations, but the problem with these quangos is that they all claim a veto—it is their way or no way. It is from these vetoes that we have got the £100 million bat bridge, to which I expect my noble friend Lord Howard may refer. It is from these vetoes that we get this mitigating trade in natterjack newts or whatever they are, organisms that are rare in Europe but commonplace in every English village pond. And then of course there is the insanity of nutrient neutrality, as if building a bungalow in Bristol is going to somehow clean up the River Wensum.
Given the way planning works, in many cases it takes only one of these vetoes from just one of the statutory consultees to block the entire proposal. That is especially the case when officers advise members to refuse an otherwise acceptable proposal on the overly precautionary grounds that an adverse decision could be grounds for appeal or expensive judicial review. We need the planning committee to cut through the undergrowth, and to stop looking over their shoulder and being fearful of challenge.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Banner, who is not in his place, on his report in which he made several recommendations. But those will count for nothing if there is nobody without the mandate, duty and courage to get those applications to committee. In my experience, it is the committees populated by the accountable councillors that do more to get Britain building than the faceless dead hand of the state quangos.
We need elected people who know a self-serving veto or spurious objection when they see one. We need people on the ground who know the importance of building homes, economies and places that enhance communities to arbitrate those competing interests. That is why this amendment is so welcome and necessary. It is absolutely right that the chair of the planning committee, working with the senior planner, should be able to revisit otherwise fatal objections to get that balance, to enable the local champions who populate those committees to take all the evidence into account, to listen carefully to objections, to balance the private and public interest and to get Britain building, and not pander to the self-serving quangos sometimes interested only in pursuing their own ideologies to the exclusion of all else.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 135HZF and to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook’s Amendments 103A and 103B before addressing the other amendments in this group.
Local democratic accountability must be protected. Local people should have a say in the decisions that affect their daily lives. These amendments seek to ensure planning decisions remain the remit of elected councils which are accountable to their communities. It is important that large or controversial applications should be considered through local debate so that all views are sufficiently represented.
Delegation of decision-making to unelected planning officers not only deprives local people of their democratic voice but compromises the entire planning framework. Public planning committees allow for transparent and easily accessible forums for residents, ensuring that their voice is heard in the planning process. Enforced delegation of important planning decisions or controversial ones would make the whole process more opaque, weaken community engagement and disfranchise those most affected by the decisions. With a loss of local trust in the whole planning system, how do the Government plan to maintain community engagement and trust in the planning system if they are not involved?
By ensuring the Secretary of State does not have sweeping powers of delegation, local autonomy would be preserved, empowering those best equipped to make decisions about their local community. Amendments 103A and 103B question the Government’s decision to make guidance on the scope, size and composition of the national scheme, subject to delegation rather than primary legislation.
Amendment 135HZE enshrines the right for an application to be determined by a planning committee where there are objections to the application and both the head of planning—or, potentially, the chief planner—and the chair of the planning committee have agreed that these are on valid planning grounds, which is best practice, currently. While some have raised the risk of spurious arguments causing delays, the above protections and subsequent amendments in my name on finality should address these concerns, enabling us to get on with housing delivery while retaining the democratic voice. This is the right balance.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Fuller, for their contributions to this discussion. This group of amendments relates to Clause 51 on the national scheme of delegation, which was debated extensively in the other place and during Second Reading in this House.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her recognition of the need to develop greater consistency and equity in the planning process. Of course, the other motivation is to ensure that councillors can focus their attention both on local plans, where they can really make a difference to place-shaping, and on those local applications that genuinely benefit from their input. Having been a councillor for 27 years, sitting on the planning committee listening to a two-hour debate on whether a fence should be four feet high or five feet high, I think there is a good case for focusing attention on what matters.
I turn first to Amendments 103A and 103B. I understand that these are probing amendments to understand the rationale for the Secretary of State’s powers to issue guidance on the national scheme of delegation and composition of planning committees and why they are not subject to the regulatory procedures which can be scrutinised by Parliament rather than setting it out in primary legislation itself. These powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance are auxiliary to the main powers to make regulations about the national scheme of delegation and the composition of planning committees. The regulations will set out the key requirements and the guidance will supplement them.
As many of us know, the planning system is very complex and nuanced, and there are often calls for clear guidance to complement planning regulations. In line with other powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance within the planning system, we do not propose to make this guidance subject to regulatory procedures. However, there is a clear requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on the guidance along with regulations before reissuing it. This enables all stakeholders, including local planning authorities, to comment and feed into the draft guidance.
On Amendment 104 from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, he asked about national parks authorities—which includes the Broads Authority. They are a special class of local planning authority which make planning decisions for their area. Due to the different governance arrangements and the nature of development in these areas, they were deliberately excluded from the national scheme of delegation provisions, which applies only to conventional local planning authorities. Development corporations and Homes England, when acting as the local planning authority, were also excluded for similar reasons. The justification for intervention in the reform of committees includes creating a more consistent approach to applications for housing development and delivering more predictable outcomes in the planning system in order to achieve growth and support the delivery of 1.5 million homes. There is less imperative to intervene in national park authorities, where we do not envisage large-scale housing developments.
Amendment 105 seeks to make regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure, as just commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I am not convinced that this amendment is needed. It is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure. Of course, this does not mean there will be no further scrutiny of the proposed regulations. We have included a safeguard in the Bill to require the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals to ensure that they will work effectively in practice.
Just to pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made on NDMPs, it is the intention to publish the NDMPs—I am going to say “in due course”; he knows I do not like that expression, but that is where we are—and I will follow up in writing to him about whether these will automatically be delegated. I think that is under consideration, but I will respond to him in writing on that. However, we do hope to publish them as soon as possible.
I will address Amendment 103ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and Amendments 135HZE and 135HZF, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, together as they both deal with the types of application which should go to committee. Taking Amendment 103ZA first, it would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. The Government also want to ensure that the right development happens in the right areas, and our brownfield-first policy is designed to achieve that. However, there are many applications involved in development which do not conform with a local plan. That does not mean they are all controversial—many are not—and therefore I do not believe that they all need to be considered by committee.
Amendments 135HZE and 135HZF from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, deal with whether certain types of applications should go to committee or not. Taking Amendment 135HZE first, as the noble Lord will know, it is very common for there to be valid planning objections to an application. This amendment would give free rein to committee chairs and chief planning officers to take a great many more applications to committee. As such, it would undermine the whole purpose of the national scheme of delegation, and therefore the Government cannot support it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for allowing me to interrupt. I am slightly curious: the Government trust a planning officer to make a decision on something, but they do not trust them to determine whether there is a genuinely valid objection to an application? I find that slightly curious.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We trust planning officers, but we do not want to undermine that scheme of delegation.
Amendment 135HZF seeks to ensure that any applications by the council itself or any of its employees or councillors where there are no objections do not need to go to committee. While I understand the noble Lord’s reasons for tabling such an amendment, I again think that this is a matter best dealt with in the regulations rather than in the Bill. Indeed, the recent technical consultation on planning committees sought views on the treatment of such applications. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that we will consider his suggestion alongside the formal responses to that consultation.
To conclude, I assure noble Lords once again that Clause 51 is not about taking away local democratic oversight. It is about improving the system to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities and to give them the time to focus their attention where it really matters.
I now turn to a series of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seek to remove the requirement to create regulations needed for the framework for a mandatory national scheme of delegation and would replace this requirement with a power to make statutory guidance. They would also remove the ability for the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees.
The Government have been very clear: we want to see a national scheme of delegation introduced to ensure greater certainty across the country and to speed up decision-making to support the delivery of 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. I emphasise that these reforms are a real priority for this Government. We need to ensure that the legal framework for the national scheme of delegation is robust and clear, and that is why we need to legislate for it through regulations. Statutory guidance is not sufficient to provide the certainty and consistency that we want to see.
I also disagree that we should not legislate to control the size and composition of planning committees. I fully accept that many planning committees have slimmed down in recent years and are nearer the optimal size for effective engagement and debate. However, there are still too many which are unwieldy, undermining the quality of decision-making. We firmly believe that there remains a strong case to have powers to regulate the committees’ size and composition. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate about the practicalities of planning application decision-making. I thought the most telling point that the Minister made was in her introductory remarks, when she said that the Government want councillors to focus on local plan making. Local plan making is an absolutely vital building block to planning decision-making, because it sets the local policies within the framework of the National Planning Policy Framework, and it sets out and, in theory, agrees sites for development by business, commerce or for housing—or institutions of various sorts.
In my long time as a local councillor, I have taken through, I think, three or four local plan-making processes, and all my experience tells me that it is very difficult to get local people to engage in the theory of site allocation and what it will mean for them. And that is why I have made the case I have today. Yes, local plans are vital and set the foundations for a plan and for place making for an area, but, equally, we need the flexibility within that for local people to have their say. If local people do not have their say, that essential safeguard, that essential safety valve of an open public discussion about an issue which is controversial, will be taken away, to the detriment of local democracy and national democracy.
However, with those points, and thanking everybody who has contributed to the debate, because it has been a good one, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have degrouped the Clause 51 stand part notice to facilitate an urgent debate on issues that have come to a head over the Summer Recess—namely, local community engagement on asylum hotels and media briefings from the Government in respect of environmental regulations. As such, I will not elaborate much further on Clause 51, given that most of the relevant issues have been debated on a previous group.
I begin by addressing the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on bat protections. Without pre-empting his argument, I believe his amendment was born out of the report in the Times on 17 August 2025 that the Chancellor is considering reforms to change the rules on nature protections in respect of bats and newts. My noble friend will surely set out the case for his amendment, but this Bill is an opportunity to deliver the reforms we need to unlock housing. If the Government hope to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, as they have promised, they cannot afford to wait for a second planning Bill for these reforms.
I now turn to the issue of asylum hotels and to Amendments 135HZB to 135HZD, 360A and 360B in my name. At their core, these amendments are about fairness, accountability and democratic consent. They seek to give local communities and planning authorities the voice and the agency they currently lack. Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. We saw this most recently in Epping, where anger spilled on to the streets only after the decision had already been taken.
The principle is simple. Changing the use of a hotel or an HMO, a house in multiple occupation, to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, just as it would be for a significant change of use or major building works. This change matters for two reasons. First, it would ensure that local people are consulted through the normal planning process before hotels or shared housing are converted for this purpose. Communities deserve a say in decisions that affect their neighbourhoods. Secondly, it would resolve the current legal uncertainty highlighted by the Bell Hotel case, where the courts have been asked to consider whether an injunction should apply. The Court of Appeal ruling on the Bell Hotel was not a decision on whether planning permission was required. Rather, it was a decision on the merits of an interim injunction, which is a particular type of urgent planning enforcement.
Case law and planning decisions on both sides have accepted that individual hotels did or did not require planning permission when they changed into asylum hostels. In the absence of any MHCLG planning policy, the practical result is uncertainty for councils, uncertainty for residents and uncertainty for local businesses. It would be far better if there were a clear set of rules, with individual councils determining planning applications on their merits with due process, rather than councils and courts retrospectively enforcing vague laws.
Above all, these amendments are about trust—trust between government and local communities, trust that local voices will not be bypassed and trust that decisions with such profound social consequences will be taken openly and not forced on people with no notice and no consultation. I hope that noble Lords on the Benches opposite agree.
The choice before us could not be clearer: either we stand with local communities that want a fair and reasonable voice on how and where asylum accommodation is provided, or we allow the current system of central diktat and imposed asylum hotels to continue. These amendments are targeted, proportionate and urgently needed. They offer a sensible way forward that balances compassion with consent and national responsibility with local accountability. The country is watching us. I hope that the Minister takes these amendments forward and that the Government reconsider their position of placing the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of our local people. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 346DB in my name is a probing amendment to debate what can be done to get rid of the absurd rules relating to bats—I am resisting calling them “batty”. The legislation is complex, but that does not alter the need for something to be done to get rid of the present insanity.
There are no bats in the United Kingdom of the type that is threatened with extinction, so there is no harm or danger to them; you cannot damage something that does not exist. There are some types that are close to being endangered, but there are abundant quantities of these types in other countries throughout the world. If the existing legislation were got rid of, there would be no danger to the world’s bat population. In short, legislation to preserve bats is unnecessary.
I will give two examples of the absurdities caused by the present legislation. Your Lordships will have read of the first, which my noble friend Lord Fuller referred to—the £100 million bat tunnel built during the construction of HS2. At a time of appalling government finances, it is scarcely credible to spend £100 million in this way.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend realise that we could have had 10 front doors for that price?
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I am very grateful for the intervention. It makes the world of Alice in Wonderland look normal and sensible, and that also applies to the front door.
My second example is on a smaller scale. With the support and blessing of English Heritage, I recently purchased and pulled down a particularly ugly and inappropriate 1960s chalet-style house adjacent to Castle Rising Castle, which is a listed monument, in order to replace the horror with cottages built in the traditional local stone. This was a project for the greater good that, fingers crossed, might have just broken even. That was before the bat people got involved.
An inspection took place to check whether there was any trace of bats in the house. There was no evidence of bats, but that was not good enough for the bat people. I was made to take off the roof, tile by tile, so that a bat person could inspect each tile as it was taken off. This was despite the inspection having shown there was no trace of bats. To get to the roof in safety, the building had to be scaffolded, an absurdity for something about to be pulled down. It then took six men four weeks to remove each tile and show it to the bat person before the tile could be thrown away. Using machinery already on site would have taken one man half a day. I ask your Lordships: what sanity can there be in carrying on in this manner?
I have not even started on what the archaeologist wanted. I was made to dig down three metres, a metre below the two-metre foundations that were planned. At all stages, this had to be inspected by an archaeologist, with men and machinery having to wait for the archaeologist to find time. Your Lordships can guess what that cost.
As a country, we have managed to get to a situation where the greater good is being destroyed by the antics of minority interests, which can look at things only from their own—in many cases laudable, maybe, but very narrow—perspectives. How can any Government expect houses to be built with the enormous difficulties that builders have to contend with? I have mentioned only two. Let us start on the road to sanity by repealing all legislation relating to the preservation of the bat population. They will not disappear; they will still be around centuries after the legislation has been repealed.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I offer some views on the legal effects that Amendments 135HZB and 135HZC, on asylum hotels and asylum HMOs, would achieve, in particular to develop the point made by my noble friend Lady Scott on the current legal uncertainty relating to those kinds of accommodation. Broadly speaking, under the planning Acts, planning permission is required for development. Development is defined in Section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as including
“the making of any material change in the use of”
the land or building in question.
As my noble friend Lady Scott has outlined, the current case law in relation to this kind of accommodation is that whether the change of use of a hotel to accommodation for asylum seekers is a material change of use is a matter of fact and degree in the particular circumstances of each case. There is no hard and fast rule. That, in turn, breaks down to two questions. Has there been a change of use, from hotel to what normally is sought to be characterised as a hostel for asylum seekers? If there has, is that use material in planning terms, having regard to the particular circumstances and effects?
The difficulty with that situation is that, as my noble friend said, it generates considerable uncertainty for all stakeholders. It creates uncertainty for the commercial party behind the hotel. Is the investment that they intend to make—in converting the hotel and making it fit for this kind of accommodation—at risk without obtaining planning permission or a certificate of lawfulness guaranteeing that permission is not needed? There is uncertainty for the local planning authority. Does it enforce, with the potential risk of enormous costs—potentially millions of pounds in a particular case—not necessarily knowing what the outcome of that would be? If it does not, has it turned a blind eye to something which is illegal? There are really difficult issues there. It is quite hard to advise local authorities in those situations which side of the line they are on, because it is so evaluative and fact sensitive.
There is obviously uncertainty for the public in question about what is going on in their area. There is, dare I say, quite possibly also uncertainty for the Home Office in understanding the planning status of asylum accommodation within this country. These amendments would provide clarity by drawing a clear line in the sand that this kind of accommodation requires planning permission, with the local consultation that goes with, so that everybody knows where they stand, thereby eliminating the current ambiguity.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I strongly support my noble friend Lady Scott’s amendments, particularly the one in which she requires the asylum provisions to be implemented immediately on the passing of the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend who, by gripping this, demonstrates the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in, in direct contrast to the ponderous approach from a Government, who appear to give greater weight to the process of international law than the well-being of our settled populations.
This is an infrastructure Bill. I alight on a simple truth that hotels are an essential part of an area’s economic infrastructure. Their importance exceeds the turnover of the business and the payroll for the cooks and cleaners behind the scenes and the front of house staff. Hotels accommodate more than weekend tourists. They enable commercial travellers to visit distant customers, provide shelter for tradesmen working on local building sites away from the main base, and drive a huge multiplier effect in holiday hotpots and conference cities. Local restaurants, tourist attractions, coach operators, florists and artisan food chains all benefit. Hotels are a huge economic driver.
If you take away the liquidity in accommodation that hotels provide, local economies are damaged, especially in rural market towns that might only be able to sustain a single coaching inn. This is a matter of public interest. In the pursuit of growth, it is a matter of national interest. So, we cannot and must not carelessly allow the conversion of hotels into hostels after behind-closed-doors under-the-counter deals between the Home Office and local landlords. I do not blame the owners for entertaining these blandishments, but we cannot allow ourselves to sleepwalk into a situation where these decisions are taken—a connivance between the Home Office and the investors behind the hotels—over the heads of local people, whose justifiable concerns are swept aside and airbrushed away. That just will not do.
A friend of mine who operates a small seasonal seaside hotel with 29 rooms has been offered £40,000 per month for 12 months of the year for three years—£1.5 million in aggregate—for a property that might otherwise have achieved at best £500,000 at auction. She was then offered a fully expensed refurbishment at the end, while having to fire all her staff, who were already costing more because of the national insurance increases. She has not taken the bait, but others have. The contracts and values here are madness. They are economically illiterate. It is distorting whole economies with perverse incentives. These deals are being done right under our noses.
As my noble friend Lord Banner said, the conversion from a hotel to a hostel is not just planning semantics. People staying in hostels have no freedom to choose their accommodation. They stay for months, not days. They are required to check-in with a commissar each night. They share rooms with people they do not know. They do not pay the bill. They have nothing to do but wait. There are many other differences between them—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he feel a sense of humility given that, by 2023, a peak of 400 asylum hotels had been reached under the previous Government?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
By June 2024, that had gone down to 213. At the moment, there are 2,500 more asylum seekers in those hotels than there were when the Government changed.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I will answer the noble Lord’s question directly, because this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The points I have just made—
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
Will the noble Lord clarify the point? In particular, the argument before us is that some hotels in some places are not suitable for asylum seekers. The previous Conservative Government recognised this point and closed the Bell Hotel in Epping in April 2024. I know because I asked them to do so, and they did so taking into account the opinions and sensitivities of local people, which have been ignored by the current Government.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Since the noble Baroness provokes me to return to the question, I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that 400 hotels were in use for asylum seekers in 2023 and that the reduction that took place was met with no change in asylum law that enabled the new Government to address the situation in a constructive way?
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friends for answering some of the technical questions for me. I was not aware of the numbers, but I am better apprised now. The point I was trying to make is twofold. First, I am trying to draw out the distinction between a hotel, a hostel and an HMO. In so doing, I am only repeating arguments that were made in the judgment referred to by my noble friend—the interim injunction in the case of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The noble Lord may wish to throw mud in my eyes, but I am only repeating the authorised judgment of the Court of Appeal and the points that were raised there, and I take no criticism for doing so. It is a matter of public record. There are many of my learned friends in this Committee, including my noble friend sitting to the side of me, and if I have erred in what I have just said, I am sure it will come up.
The point is, and the noble Lord gives me the opportunity to say so, that the movement of a hotel into a hostel is a material change of use for the reasons I just gave. The people who are staying there are not the sort of guests who pay their way and are there for a few days. They are mandated to be there by the state. That is the point we need to make. That is a material change of use. It is plain and simple. There is no denying it. As we have just heard from my noble friend, the planning system exists not just to regulate those changes in use but to arbitrate between the private interests of the hotel owner and the public interest. Let us be clear: there is no denying the public interest in this matter.
I want to make the distinction between the interim provision of accommodation for helping whole family units get back on their feet and the circumstance where that situation morphs in the building into the provision of bedrooms for single, mostly male, economic migrants. The conversion of a hotel to an HMO for the use of family groups is a bit of a lottery that shapeshifts with time. There are areas where a hotel might be converted into an HMO under permitted development rules—that is common—and thence separately from an HMO into a hostel. I want to paint a picture where a hotel has been converted into an HMO for family groups under permitted development but then without notice has flipped into a hostel when the Home Office decides to disperse families out and move in single, unrelated migrants. That is not just a theoretical possibility. It nearly happened in Diss in South Norfolk where I used to be the leader. In that town, a whole generation ago, arms were outstretched to welcome the Vietnamese boat people. Demonstrating that humility, under my leadership, the local council worked to welcome the largest group of Ukrainians in our county. More recently, migrant families—again, under my leadership—settled into a hotel which has, in effect, become an HMO. Please do not suggest that I have any ulterior motive; I have done my bit. Not only that but I have done my bit to smooth over some of the difficulties that certain people on social media and elsewhere have tried to make. You invite me to make these points.
In July—I am no longer the leader now I have taken my place in your Lordships’ House—the Home Office announced without notice that the families that had become settled would be dispersed, meaning that 42 children were going to be removed from the school roll just a few weeks before the start of the new school year. Their families would be taken away from the local GP practice and from the networks that they had created among themselves and with the local community, together with the infrastructure that had been wrapped around them. Again, something put in under the budget that I set was to be removed. No wonder local people were cross. They could see the injustice in that approach. If there was a crime, it was from the Home Office, which thought that sort of behaviour was acceptable. But we were lucky, because it had not been four years since the families were initially welcomed, so the council was able to issue a stop notice to prevent the forced removal of those family groups.
Elsewhere, with the slippery slope from moving from hotel to hostel, a stop notice cannot be issued. That is why I completely support the amendment which would stop the limit on stop notices so that there is no sleepwalking into a system where a hotel goes to an HMO then to a hostel without due process. We should put local people at the heart of decision-making and prevent those with an axe to grind claiming that they do not have a say, which is the source of the community tensions we seek to stop. If they do not have their say, they should just not be smeared as far right activists for expressing proper concerns. This problem has been created by national politicians, but local people need to be heard.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
Given how much business we still have to get through today, I wonder whether the noble Lord would very kindly observe the advisory time that is given to speeches?
Lord Fuller (Con)
The noble Baroness will know that I was interrupted on more than one occasion. I am on my last 50 words, so we are going to get there. Normally, interventions from other parties do not count against the time. I will take advice from the clerks if necessary.
This problem is created by national politicians, but local people need to be heard and to be part of the solution. We need to recognise that, in this infrastructure Bill above all, we should be building economic infrastructure and community spirit. We do not do that by removing hotels from circulation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the strongest possible Green group opposition to all these amendments. I do that to make sure that the breadth of opposition across your Lordships’ Committee is demonstrated. I hope that we are going to hear very strong opposition from the Government Front Bench too, but I cannot be sure of that, so I want to put this on the record.
I will start with the rather oddly grouped amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, about bats. The noble Lord characterised bats as a minority interest, but I hope that I am going demonstrate why they are not. I begin with a study published in Science journal on 6 September last year about what has happened in the United States of America in certain areas where all the bats have been wiped out by white nose disease. In those areas—it is a natural experiment—the rate of infant mortality has increased significantly. This looks very strange. How can it be? How is the health of newborn babies and bats related? Well, with the bats gone, insect populations have risen enormously. Then, farmers have sprayed 30% more pesticide, and that pesticide is linked to infant deaths. When I talk about this study, I am usually focusing on pesticide use, but in this case, there is an important illustration of a point we were discussing in an earlier group of amendments about one health—human, environmental and animal health are intimately interrelated.
I say with the greatest of respect that, from the noble Lord’s own Benches, there was a suggestion that there should be education about ecosystems for members of the Government and civil servants—maybe we need that right across the House, because ecosystems, including bats, are crucial to the health of all of us. We are one of the most nature-depleted countries on this planet and that is bad for human health.
I come now to the other set of amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I was talking, on that last amendment, about the health of our society. My reaction to these amendments is about the nature of our society. What kind of country are we? Changing our planning law by creating a special use category for asylum seekers is entirely inappropriate and dangerous. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that these amendments are “targeted”—absolutely too right they are. That is very evident and disturbing.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is interesting to hear what the noble Baroness has just said. Of course, I am sure we must all agree with her about the inappropriateness of hotels for asylum seekers to use as long-term accommodation. I am sure there is widespread agreement on that, but she seems to be ignoring the fact that this amendment clarifies, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, most carefully and accurately explained, a degree of uncertainty in the current law that is causing considerable difficulties.
I must not pretend that I am not talking about Epping and I suppose I have to declare an interest because I live very close to the Bell Hotel and I represented the constituency in the other place for 27 years. I can tell the noble Baroness who has just spoken that the opinions and feelings of local people are important in planning decisions. The noble Baroness who has proposed Amendment 135HZB is trying to clarify the situation so that we do not have future situations like the one that has developed in the small town of Epping, where people are coming from all over the country every Thursday and Sunday to make their voices heard in a way that is inappropriate and unsuitable. When a situation such as that develops, it is incumbent on the Government of the day and the legislature to take action to try to make sure that it does not happen in future and to learn from the facts unfolding before us right now in real time.
The noble Baroness has brought forward this amendment and my noble friends have brought forward other amendments in this group to try to help the Government to clarify the situation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will look at this group in that light and that, rather than just sticking to the brief, which is “Do not accept any amendments”, she will be able to consider that the world changes all the time and that, in recent times, the world has changed as far as the way in which we look after asylum seekers is concerned, because there are far more. It does not matter when the problem started or who was in government at that time; what matters is what we do now as a legislature. That is our duty and responsibility. We have the chance today to enact this amendment, which would alleviate the situation and mean that the opinions and sensitivities of local people are taken into consideration in important planning decisions. That is not too much to ask of a democratically elected Government.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry, but the past does matter. It is incredible to me that the party in opposition filled up 400 hotels with asylum seekers, did not think ahead about these issues and then complains about it once the horse has bolted. That is pretty shameful and I think the culpability is on my right rather than opposite.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I contribute briefly to this debate to strongly support my noble friend on the Front Bench in her excellent amendments, both in respect of houses in multiple occupation and of hotels being converted to hostels.
I mention the specific case, in my own former constituency of Peterborough, of the Dragonfly Hotel in the west of Peterborough, which is a very pleasant residential area. Last November, without any consultation, the Home Office moved in 146—disproportionately male—asylum seekers. I raised the issue with the Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, earlier this year and he gave an undertaking that, henceforth, there would be better communication. Even the Labour Members of Parliament for the Peterborough area had cause to criticise the process of moving—decanting—those asylum seekers into the Dragonfly Hotel. The two Labour MPs, Sam Carling of North West Cambridgeshire and Andrew Pakes of Peterborough, said that
“the Dragonfly is the wrong hotel, in the wrong location and bad for Peterborough and nearby residents”.
There has been no indication of when it will cease to be used. They went on:
“We are a welcoming city but are playing more than our part already”.
The context of that is that there had been no attempt to speak to the Labour-led city council, adult social services, children’s services, the police or NHS primary care.
The context that we need to think about is that, hitherto, the planning process has been well recognised as a form of governance that works in this country. We have local development plans, we have county structure plans and—for those who really have nothing better to do with their time—we have mineral plans. I know that this is all meat and drink to my noble friend Lord Banner. The point is that it is a well-established idea that, where there is significant change in planning and development, particularly in urban development, there is a process of proper consultation between stakeholders and those affected. It might be informal discussions between planning officers and local residents or it might be a formal committee, but there is a process where people are invited to comment.
With any decision to significantly change and impact the residential amenity of a local area and people’s quality of life in that area, particularly where—as in the case of the Bell Hotel—there are a significant number of schools and young people in the area, there will be some legitimate concerns. No one is saying that all asylum seekers are criminals or are likely to be criminals but, when you bring forward very significant local change, you will cause concern.
I think a form of governance, a piece of primary legislation that obliges that information to be put in the public domain, is sensible and would prevent people listening to extreme points of view in pursuit of their particular political agenda. That is why I think that this amendment is sensible.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, can criticise as much as he likes. Let us hear the Liberal Democrats’ view on this and what they would do. It is very easy to criticise and put it on a focus leaflet in the opportunistic way that the Liberal Democrats do; it is much tougher, as this Government are finding and the previous Government found, to be in government, because politics is to choose and to make tough decisions—something that the Liberal Democrats are unfortunately not very used to.
My noble friend Lady Scott makes a very sensible point about accountability, transparency and clarity in the local community. If in future we are to avoid the social dislocation, violence and anger that we have seen in Epping Forest in the last few months, transparency will do that. It will allow people to have their say. It will allow their elected representatives to have an opportunity to properly represent them and ventilate their concerns, and I think that will be all to the good. The Government would be wise to do it, because they are now looking at some policies that we would have pursued. I think they are trying to tackle this issue in a sincere way. We on this side are offering these amendments as a way to ameliorate the issues because we know it is necessary so to do.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, if I may return briefly to the main subject of bats, I do not at all agree with my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising that bats are unimportant. They are absolutely part of nature. Nature in this country is hugely depleted and we need a lot more bats, but the lesson I draw from his story is that for all his huge expenditure, no bats benefited whatever. Nothing that he was made to do benefited bats in any way whatever. It is an entirely wrong-headed way of going about things. What we want is a lot more bats. If we had made my noble friend pay a few thousand pounds to make spaces for bats elsewhere in his estate, I am sure he would have done so with pleasure.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
There is no need. The castle provides a home to endless bats.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I think the Government recognise this both in the later parts of this Bill and indeed in what they have done with offshore wind. They recognise that offshore wind will kill a number of sea-birds and that compensation must be made for that.
What we need in this country is a lot more nature. That will take a good chunk of money. It is ridiculous to have a system that just spaffs that money away. We ought to be taking the opportunity of bats, which are pretty mobile creatures. In nature, bats live in cracks in trees. Trees fall down all the time and the bats just move home. We are worrying about bats in a completely ridiculous way. We are wasting huge sums of money and we must stop.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Clause 51 may look innocuous, but I am concerned that it is removing the effect of democracy. National democracy is imposing its will against the will of the local people. I was reflecting on when in 2013 I was on the Bill Committee for the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, now Act. The House of Commons Committee sat for seven days on a Bill of 28 clauses. This Bill went through the Commons in seven days, with 97 clauses being considered. That is why it is important that this House takes the appropriate time. Interestingly, back then the Lords sat for only five days on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, with the Commons having done a much more thorough job, and that is something for us to think about.
On Clause 51, I was struck by what the Minister said to me on the previous group when I had specifically singled out issues that went against the local plan. The Government’s guide to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on GOV.UK specifically says that controversial decisions should be done by planning committee and that the best way for councillors and local communities to be involved is in the creation of the local plan—I am paraphrasing slightly. Local plans are not created every four years—sometimes it feels as if they take more than four years to create, although they should not—so I was somewhat surprised when the Minister said that planning applications not in line with the local plan are not necessarily always controversial, so we should not worry about them and allow officers to make that decision. I would love to hear some examples of planning applications that are not consistent with the local plan and have not then been controversial.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
Would the noble Baroness accept that even a small number of illegal immigrants in a tiny village can have as much effect as a larger number in an urban area?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
It is reflective of what is proportionate to the local community. My noble friend Lord Framlingham will be aware of the legal judgments of the past few years where some large-scale accommodation sites were deemed unlawful. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough said, the current Government are trying to work this out and balance it as well. It is not a straightforward action, so I will not criticise them for it. However, it is certainly valid to have this debate about whether these hotels need a separate planning class, recognising the decision that was made last week in the Court of Appeal.
Houses in multiple occupation require both planning permission and a licence. I do not want us to get into the situation of having to license hotels. However, HMOs have both because the accommodation is being used in a perhaps non-traditional way compared to its original intention. Therefore, extra conditions are put on by the local council or there is deliberate consideration, recognising the change in impact that the transfer of traditional uses of accommodation to others can have on the local community. Therefore, while I expect that the Government will probably brush this aside, it is important to understand the temperature, but also what we have done in the past to recognise when things have changed significantly, in order to make sure that decisions are made carefully, considerately and competently when addressing this type of situation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the sheer hypocrisy of those on the Conservative Benches seems to know no bounds. As we have heard, it was in 2020 that this scale and number of hotels being used for asylum seekers began in earnest. It seems that it has taken five years for Members on the Conservative Benches to come to the conclusion that it may have been necessary for the use of these hotels to require planning consent. What on earth has triggered their sudden interest in planning issues for hotels harbouring asylum seekers? I am struggling to think what the issue could be. What I do know—
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I will give the noble Baroness one brief answer to her question. An asylum seeker who was living at the Bell Hotel in Epping has been found guilty of the sexual assault of a young girl. That is just one small reason.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, there were 400 hotels—we have heard from my noble friend Lady Coffey the reasons for that. But in 2024, just before we left government, we were down to 213 hotels. By now, if we were still in government, we would not have any hotels; we were working the number down. It would have helped if the Government opposite, when they first came into power, supported the deterrent that we were going to have—we would then not have the problem.
Lord Teverson (LD)
That was a somewhat desperate contribution—seriously so.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
The intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, seemed to distance where somebody lives from their behaviours. The intervention she made was irrelevant. The fact is that the previous Conservative Government started using hotels for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers and made no effort to increase the speed of assessment for those asylum seekers, so that they could have certainty in their lives and local accommodation would not be put under undue stress. It was not only a failure of public policy by the previous Government; it was inhumane. It surprised me that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for whom I have high regard, has seen fit to bring these amendments. It is out of character for her to do so. Perhaps on later reflection, she will regret bringing them.
Lord Fuller (Con)
This is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—the opportunity to have this sort of wider debate on asylum, borders and infrastructure was yesterday with the borders and asylum Bill. What we are trying to do here is focus on the very narrow point about when there is a change in the planning status. As my noble friend said, when there is development, should the rules that cover planning and development be engaged and, if so, to what extent? I think my noble friend’s amendments—I am sure she will say something aligned with this when she winds up—would establish the principle that, when development happens, we cannot just pick and choose which bits are subject to planning law and which are not. When development happens, local people should be able to have their say.
It pains me to do so, but I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, directly: is it her position that local people should not have a say when development happens and there is a material change of use, either from a hotel to an HMO or from an HMO to a hostel? If it is, we need to know.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord to get to the point of his question.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I will continue. Why has it taken five years for the Conservatives to wake up to the fact, as they seem to think now, there is a principled planning issue associated with using hotels for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers? That is the question.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
No, I am not taking any further interventions.
The failure of this approach is that, if hotels are not used, what other temporary accommodation is going to be used for asylum seekers? That is where we are with the attempt made by these amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, as this debate has progressed, there has been increased heat and perhaps a commensurate decrease in focus on some of the issues that were raised. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I chose my own words extremely carefully when I outlined my legal views on the consequence of these amendments.
I reiterate that one of the key issues of the status quo is the uncertainty due to the fact that currently, there are no bright lines as to whether a change from hotel use to asylum accommodation or an asylum HMO is or is not always a material change of use. There is an advantage in having certainty one way or the other, and I am very deliberately not expressing a view on which way or the other it should be. It is simply that the ambiguity is deeply unsatisfactory. I stress that the extent of that ambiguity has increased in recent years, months and days. The case law—not just in the Epping case, but in earlier judgments by Mr Justice Holgate, which were earlier in the High Court concerning Great Yarmouth and other locations—has developed in such a way that the uncertainty has got greater, which has exacerbated the problem. Very respectfully, I invite any remaining speakers to deal with that point objectively and in a focused and unheated manner.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, who brings to this House a greater knowledge of planning law than the rest of us added together. It is absolutely right that there is uncertainty, and the uncertainty should be resolved by the Government having a look at whether the changes that he has suggested need to be made, not by the amendments that have been moved. What we have heard this afternoon sounded much more like the other place in action, where constituency issues have been brought to bear to try and deal with what really ought to be rational arguments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Well, well, my Lords. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments and for notifying us of her intent, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to oppose that Clause 51 stand part. I will turn to the notice of opposition first. I was tempted to dive straight in to the other amendments, but I will come to those in a moment.
Clause 51 will give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions. This will set out which planning functions should be decided by officers and which should be decided by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set out requirements around the size and composition of planning committees. I am aware that some view these powers as an erosion of local democracy. I cannot stress enough that this is absolutely not the Government’s intention.
We recognise and value the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions on what and where to build are shaped by their communities, and we know that most committees make fair and well-informed decisions most of the time—there are, of course, exceptions to that rule—but we believe there are issues around the operation of planning committees that we need to address. These include: a lack of clarity and consistency across the country on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local plan or considering niche technical details, such as the one-foot fence height difference that I referred to earlier, including post-permission matters that are best dealt with by professional officers; and a lack of transparency of committee decisions and their consequences.
Clause 51 is aimed at tackling these issues and ensuring that planning committees can operate more effectively. It is intended to allow committees to focus on the applications that really need their input and that matter most to their communities. Together with the mandatory training for members under Clause 50, through this clause we want to see the day-to-day operation of a planning committee transformed, with planning committees making informed decisions in the interest of their community. No one who has been in local government for a while—I think most noble Lords in the Chamber today have been—can honestly say that there is no improvement to be made in the performance of planning committees. With councillors focused on the local plan and key planning applications, we think this improvement can be achieved.
I turn to Amendments 135HZB, 135HZC, 135HZD, 360A and 360B. First, I trust that the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings, and I do not intend to do so. The Home Office has a legal obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation while their application for asylum is being considered. The Government absolutely recognise the obvious and very legitimate concerns that people have about the use of asylum hotels; we have been clear that we will stop the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, and we have already made progress. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, commented, at peak, under the previous Government in 2023, more than 400 hotels were in use. Now just over 200 remain in use, and that number is coming down all the time. That is a reduction of 6,000 people staying in hotels.
You do not need a very long memory to go back to when there were no asylum hotels—I could go back to 2016, when that was the case, but I prefer to go back to my three years of arguing with the previous Government about the use of hotels in my area. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, commented that we should give local communities the agency that they deserve—I think those were her words. Her Government did not listen; they did not listen to communities, local government or representations from those working with asylum seekers, and they did not listen to businesses across this country, such as the international businesses I have in my area that need the hotels for the effective operation of their businesses. Her Government forced asylum hotels on us and left us with the mess to clear up.
In a very powerful contribution to yesterday’s debate, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that it was “astonishing” that an Opposition who passed legislation very effectively but were not effective in solving the problem are now criticising the Government for failing to do in one year what they failed to do in 14.
We will do the job of cleaning up the mess. We will sort it out, but instead of chucking bricks at each other, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said yesterday. First, a degree of humility from the party opposite would be very welcome—he said that, not me—and we should absolutely work together to solve this complex issue. Complex issues need careful solutions, not knee-jerk reactions to those who seek to use this issue to divide our country. As well as hypocrisy, I sense a bit of opportunism, and I do not think that is the right way to go; we have to work together on this issue. Knee-jerking will impact worst on those who deserve it least.
Another shocking legacy of the last Government is the 165,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. If we do not get a proper solution to hotel closure, the danger is that those children will go further to the back of the queue.
As for the points about the Rwanda scheme, that scheme cost billions and only four volunteers were ever returned. It was a waste of public money. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, again in yesterday’s debate, very powerfully set out some further concerns about Rwanda. It is time we stopped chucking bricks at each other on this key issue and started working together to resolve it.
In my view, this amendment would result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation and prevent us from proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his comments on this—as has been said in the Chamber, he has more planning knowledge than the rest of us put together—but I know he will know that this is a much more complex issue than can be dealt with by one approach. All these different hotels were granted planning permission by different local authorities, they all had different conditions placed on them and local authorities are looking very carefully at their own hotels to see how they might proceed with this.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we take very seriously the concerns about the use of hotels to house asylum seekers and we are already taking action, but I am afraid that I just cannot support these amendments, which I suspect were laid for a different purpose altogether. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Finally, on Amendment 346DB tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, I want to start by thanking him for the insight shared; it is good to be reminded that our debates can be incredibly serious but also very spirited, and that is a good thing. This amendment would remove the legal protection afforded to bats under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The noble Lord will of course be aware that, as part of our plan for change, the Government are committed to turning the tide on nature’s decline. This means that we are of course committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment. However, we recognise that people can experience issues with the existing system and there will understandably be questions as to the level of protections afforded to bats and other species and how these protections can affect the delivery of homes and infrastructure.
Amendment 346DB would completely remove all bats from the habitats regulations, regardless of their vulnerability. This would risk undermining our ability to deliver on our commitments under international law, which includes protection for bats. The sweeping removal of protection is too blunt, and this issue requires careful consideration and nuance. We will of course continue to explore further options to improve the handling of interactions between bats and development, including through the nature restoration fund—I am sure we will have a very full debate on that when we get to it—and we will establish a new way to manage the interaction between development and protected sites and species.
Although the nature restoration fund will provide another route to address the impact of development on protected species, we are already delivering a suite of measures to practically improve the interactions between bats and development. As well as progressing actions recommended by the landmark Corry review on environmental regulation, which will remove duplication, ambiguity and inconsistency for developers, Natural England is also expanding its earned recognition scheme for bat licences, which provides a streamlined route to licences that saves developers time and money. Under earned recognition, permissions are determined three or four times more quickly than for standard licences. In addition, Natural England is expanding its popular pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys or repeat applications. Finally, it is developing a pilot to test quicker and cheaper bat roost survey options so that less is spent on surveys and development can begin sooner.
Having said all that, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this group.
As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising made clear, his amendment is throwing down a gauntlet to the Government. If media reports are correct, Ministers have plans to deliver reforms that will unlock housing while maintaining genuine protections for endangered wildlife. But my noble friend made it very clear that he thinks that the Government should get on with it. We believe in protecting our green and pleasant land, and we made progress on environmental issues when we were in government, but we also believe in common sense. The much-lampooned HS2 bat tunnel and the ridiculous situation my noble friend had to deal with personally are clearly perverse outcomes, and the Government should seek to resolve them urgently.
“Applications for development consent: modelling and simulation In section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (duty to consult), after subsection (2) insert— “(3) In conducting a consultation under subsection (1), the applicant must provide and publish a digital twin model and simulation of the proposed development.(4) In this section, a “digital twin model and simulation” must— (a) be constructed to a standard at least equivalent to Building Information Modelling Level 3 (BIM 3) as defined or recognised by the Secretary of State,(b) include a virtual replica of all principal physical and environmental features of the development and its site,(c) simulate anticipated impacts on land, water, air, biodiversity, transport infrastructure and the built environment, and(d) describe the data sources, assumptions, validation methodology, and range of scenarios tested.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) define technical standards for digital twin and simulation methodologies;(b) determine what constitutes compliance with BIM 3.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires that applicants for Development Consent Orders provide and publish a digital twin model, meeting at least Building Information Modelling Level 3 standards, as part of the consultation process.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 107, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I am not personally someone who naturally embraces the cutting edge of technology, and I am very glad that those two noble Lords have put their names to this, because I think they will know far more about it than me, but I was truly excited by the potential of the subject of these amendments, and that is digital twins. I will now attempt to explain what digital twins are.
I am excited because I know from my experience of years chairing a planning committee that explaining proposals and different options, examining different possibilities and translating them into plans is very hard. Doing a planning-for-real exercise with maps cannot really take on board all the changes that embracing various options can bring. The digital twin is a very positive evolution from static models to dynamic digital replicas of what is proposed.
These amendments are deliberately framed around the consultation elements of the various parts of planning law that we are seeking here to alter. That is because digital twins are not just about better project planning and delivery; they are also about winning public confidence and consent—an issue that my noble friend Lady Pinnock spoke about earlier—given the importance of taking a community with you when you are trying to deliver change. In the case of new towns, to which Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 relate, this is going to be incredibly important.
I am certain that the Government want to deliver on their housing target in a way that communities can buy into and will support, whether with new towns or extensions of existing developments. There will always be disagreements, but proper modelling of the kind advocated by these amendments would be a critical tool for engaging with those who will be affected by the developments and demonstrate the pros and cons of the various options.
For example, such modelling can take on board demographics when it comes to planning, from schools right through to care homes. It will model what is likely to happen with the population and whether that will be relevant to what is proposed. It would also be a critical tool when various transport options were being designed, as it can model traffic flow, taking into account the changing model of the working week, for example. That is a very dynamic issue—the changing way in which we work. We do not want to design transport systems that are rooted in something that happened 10 years ago. That is the part that I find the most exciting: the community engagement for a digital age and a digitally literate generation.
The other advantage is the one that should excite the Government and the Treasury more. As we know, this country’s record on delivering major infrastructure projects on time and on budget is sadly woeful. We need only look at the recent past. HS2 began life with an estimated cost of £37.5 billion. The latest figure is £80 billion, and that is with the northern leg cancelled altogether. Half the infrastructure has been gained for double the cost. There are lots of other examples, which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, with their experience, will cite. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will talk about Hinkley Point C, which was meant to be operational by 2023 at a cost of £18 billion but is now not expected to be online until the 2030s, with the price tag having more than doubled to £40 billion.
The Government are well aware that the public will oppose necessary infrastructure when they see inefficiencies, costs and overruns, no benefit to them and a big price tag. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid by tabling the amendments with this digital model. As a country, we must find a way to deliver more infrastructure, more quickly, on time and, crucially, on budget.
A digital twin is a virtual replica of assets that can be tested, stress-modelled and monitored in real time, and it offers precisely that capability. If advanced digital twins of the kind now available had been mandated from the start of projects such as HS2, Ministers and engineers alike would have had the data to foresee overruns and mitigate the risks. That is what I am hoping that we can achieve if we can bring this technology into common use.
In 2016, there was a digital technology known as building information modelling level 2. That was mandated for use in government projects in 2016. Level 2 is, in essence, about collaboration on static models. These amendments propose that projects requiring development consent—that is, nationally significant infrastructure projects and new towns and extensions—should be required to deploy building information modelling level 3. Meeting that standard would see construction use genuinely advance in a dynamic, integrated model of the asset that is continually updated. That is the important point: it is continually updated with real-time data and capable of simulating scenarios, predicting performance and informing decisions throughout the life of the project. The Government’s plans are in some cases decades long, so these projects have a long time.
Building information modelling level 2 allowed us to design better, but level 3 will allow us to build better. The good news is that we in Britain are leading the way on this digital twin technology. I have had conversations with the only British company—as far as I know—that is involved in building such simulations. It is called Skyral. Its models can be built in a matter of weeks, and they can simulate how populations of whole countries function and might be made better by new infrastructure.
In winding, I invite the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to indicate whether she is willing to meet Skyral alongside me, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for a demonstration of these issues. It is exciting that this cutting-edge technology has been developed here, in Britain, by an independent British company.
Although we keenly feel the failures of cost and time overruns, they are far from a uniquely British problem. Research from the University of Oxford shows that more than 90% of big infrastructure projects worldwide go over budget and are delivered late. There is a huge opportunity here for us both in the Government’s plans for infrastructure and development and to export this technology. I hope the Government seize that. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 107 might appear to be of a technical and specialised nature, but I insist that it is fundamental to the modern methodology of infrastructure planning. I will talk briefly about the problems in planning before dealing specifically with the topic of digital twins.
The cost of making detailed plans is cheap relative to the costs of delivery. Good planning increases the likelihood of rapid delivery. With a speedy delivery, the chances are reduced of a project being thrown off course by unexpected events. Overruns of cost and time can be limited by careful planning. One is liable to imagine that recent infrastructure projects in the UK have been uncommonly affected by rising costs and delays, but, as has been mentioned, international comparisons have shown that such experiences are common to many countries.
Nevertheless, many of the dysfunctions of project management in the UK can be attributed to the economic nostrums that arose in the years of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Governments. During the period in question, the doctrine of outsourcing was widely propagated. It proposed that organisations should concentrate on their core activities, which are the things that they do best, and that functions that had hitherto been performed in-house should be assigned to external providers possessed of specialised expertise. It was proposed that this recommendation should be followed equally by the public and the private sectors.
The doctrine of outsourcing has been responsible for many of the problems that have beset the HS2 rail project. It was supposed that specialised contractors could be relied on to undertake both the planning and the delivery of the project. Frequent revisions of the master plan created confusion and delay. The overall direction and co-ordination of the project was the responsibility of a weak and ill-equipped company that was HS2 Ltd.
What is required in a major infrastructure project is a firm and detailed plan and the active co-operation of the contractors involved in its delivery. An example of how this can be achieved has been provided by the projects to build the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations. One can extol the arrangements at Hinkley C despite the delays and cost overruns that have affected the project. Some of those are attributable to political indecisiveness and some to the misfortune of the Covid pandemic.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is nice to see amity break out across the Committee after the previous group. I imagine a digital twin of the House of Lords would get to Amendment 135 by 7 pm.
Digital twins offer such an ability for local councils and their officers and members, and members of the public, to really get to grips with a plan. Otherwise, you are presented with something static that is really hard to change. It is just, “Shall we push it through or shall we retreat?” With a digital twin you can adjust, look at different ways of doing it and absorb comments as they come through, at a really low cost, and arrive at a much more evolved, much better, solution at the end of it.
I urge the Government, given that digital twins are part of the industrial strategy, to use this as an example to develop the Government’s role as a partner/customer, as a way of helping new small businesses and technologies cut their teeth and get a worthwhile first contract or two out of the way, and not to stand back but be part of the development of a strong new British industry. There is an opportunity here to do that, particularly with the Government’s new town programme. I really hope they take it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I endorse completely the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and her supporters. She introduced it engagingly and comprehensively. I have therefore scribbled out most of what I was going to say. She has done the Committee a double service in that respect.
A common difficulty for those citizens who wish to examine or question a development proposal is the scarcity of information, expertise and resources they have, often when up against a large professional development company. Planning authorities have the same problem, and the risk of very expensive and protracted discussions and inquiries to get to grips with the proposed project. Some applications that I have seen seem almost designed to overcome planning authorities and public resistance through the sheer volume and number of boxes of paper that arrive, within which people have to try to find where the bodies are buried.
If such projects were obliged to produce a digital twin model, as the amendment proposes, not only would we have a more equitable process but it would also save a great deal of time, resources and money. I could say a great deal more, but I will not because we all dread the phrase, “My Lords, a lot of good points have been made” and I shall not repeat it. I genuinely shall not. I support these amendments, and I will now sit down.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches I support this amendment and thank other Lords for their support. One thing the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said is that if we had had a digital twin model earlier, the bat tunnel we talked about would probably never have been necessary in HS2.
Clearly, there are issues around this on data privacy, keeping information up to date, legacy systems and so forth. But one of the positives is that once you have a model, you do not just discard it once the project has finished; you continue using it into the future and update it. It allows you all the benefits into the future.
We on these Benches are very interested to hear where the Government are in the development of this area, which I certainly hope is an area where the UK, with its IT prowess, will move ahead of our competitors and use it for the kinds of not very successful infrastructure projects that we have had in recent years.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I am also greatly pleased to say that we seem to have broken out into a spirit of co-operation. As noble Lords will know, modelling and simulation are used to drive efficiency in infrastructure and planning projects. I recall, as a project engineer more than 30 years ago, using simulations and realising just how valuable they are in avoiding mistakes and bringing people on board with exactly what you are proposing.
Therefore, they have the potential to reduce costly mistakes in the planning process, deliver infrastructure that is better, more adaptive and more resilient and, as Members have commented, bring residents and others on board because they can see what is there. They would also, I hope, allow developers to modify their plans to reflect what the public want because it can be done so much more easily through a model.
This technology is moving at pace, as are other technologies such as AI, and it is therefore likely that legislation will be required in future to keep pace with changes. Ensuring that the law remains sufficiently flexible and future-proof and does not inhibit development is going to be important, as is how this is integrated into the planning system as opposed to being a stand-alone, nice little model that you look at. If we are going to look at amendments and how changes can be made, we have to think about whether that means we need to produce a volume of paper documents or whether there is some output that we can integrate. It is a complex issue that we need more thought on, but it is a great opportunity. How do the Government intend to ensure that this planning law evolves, and how can it be integrated so that planners are able to realise the full potential of technology? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her amendments relating to modelling and simulation technologies and commend her forbearance for waiting this long to get to this important group of amendments. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his tour de force on the use of twin modelling. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Cromwell, Lord Teverson and Lord Jameson, for their welcome comments.
Amendment 107 seeks to require applications for development consent orders to provide and publish a digital twin model as part of the consultation process. This digital model would need to meet building information modelling level 3. We agree that there is great potential in the development of new technologies, such as digital twin modelling, to support the planning system. The Prime Minister recently recognised the great achievements of planning AI exemplars in speeding up the planning system in local authorities. We also recognise that the use of digital twin modelling could make the potential benefits and impacts of a large-scale infrastructure project more accessible and transparent to the communities affected.
While there is great potential here, we do not think it is proportionate to require it of every applicant at this stage. The purpose of this Bill is to speed up the process by which nationally significant infrastructure projects are consented to deliver the infrastructure this country needs. Requiring digital twin modelling at an early stage in a project’s design is likely to add cost and delay for applicants, particularly given that schemes are likely to change during the pre-application stage.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill also removes the statutory requirement to consult before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government wish to mandate this innovation on applications in future, they already have the power to do so. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act gives the Secretary of State, and by extension the Planning Inspectorate, powers to request additional digital products when applicants submit applications.
Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 would provide development corporations with the power to undertake modelling and simulation to building information modelling level 3 standards in order to evaluate the impact of the activities. As noble Lords will be aware, development corporations deliver large-scale development and infrastructure projects that take years to deliver. We expect robust and up-to-date modelling and simulation to be undertaken by development corporations to plan and deliver each stage.
However, we believe these amendments to be unnecessary. Development corporations already have broad-ranging powers to do anything that is necessary to achieve their objectives. There is therefore no legislative bar to development corporations undertaking this level of modelling and simulation. None the less, where appropriate we encourage development corporations to make good use of digital tools to promote greater information sharing and collaboration across the projects they deliver. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, managed in less than a minute and a half to explain, in a much more down to earth way, what it took me probably eight minutes to explain. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, very much for his kind remarks, and for lending support to this. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his explanation of some of the other issues surrounding this. I was encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I am glad that we had a better sense of unity breaking out in the Chamber. If my amendments serve no other purpose, at least they have brought us back together in a certain way.
I thank the Minister for his positive reply. I am interested that the powers are there for the Secretary of State to require this technology. I think it is going to be necessary for the Secretary of State to really push this and use those powers. Very often it takes a long time for people to grasp the use of technology—whether because of the cost of investing in it or simply because of lack of vision. I hope those powers will be pushed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
May I interject? The Minister seemed to imply that adopting digital twins would impose extra time and cost on planning. I contend that in fact it expedites planning and reduces the costs. I hope the Minister will consider that assertion.
“Residential buildings on floodplains(1) Local planning authorities must not grant permission for residential properties to be built on functional floodplains or areas at high risk of flooding. (2) An area is a functional floodplain or at high risk of flooding for the purposes of subsection (1) if the Environment Agency assesses it as a Zone 3a or 3b flood zone.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on floodplains or on areas at high risk of flooding.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to address Amendments 108, 109, 155 and 156 in this group. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Willis of Summertown, for their support for these amendments. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who will outline her amendments, which are very closely aligned to the content of mine; I think we are more or less on the same page.
The background and starting point to this group is that houses built since Flood Re came into effect in 2009 will no longer qualify for flood insurance if they are built on a flood plain. Flood Re excluded them for a very simple reason: it did not want developers and local authorities to give planning permission to houses on functional flood plains. That is an obvious starting point. I welcome that the Government have commissioned the flood ready review, currently being undertaken by Peter Bonfield. I hope it will report fairly soon, possibly even while the Bill is still going through the House. I will be interested to see what the future holds following that review.
The review will look at property flood resilience measures, which are simple, low-cost, proven interventions installed in a home to resist surface water flooding, significantly reducing the time and cost of recovering from a flood. In my previous life as a shadow Flooding Minister, one of the most poignant and saddest things I had to do was visit homes where there had been major floods, both in my own constituency and elsewhere. I am only too aware that people can be evicted from their homes for three to six months for public health reasons while the house is being put back into shape.
The type of property flood resilience measures that I am looking at and that the review will look at are self-closing air-bricks, non-return valves on toilets, sump pumps and such. The Government’s own studies have found that these measures provide significant cost-effective opportunities to improve flood resilience. Property flood resilience significantly reduces the time and cost of recovering from floods, so I hope the Minister will respond positively to the amendments I am about to go into in some detail.
Flooding costs the UK economy £2.4 billion a year. The average cost of repairing a home after a flood is £30,000 and the average time spent out of a home is nine months. Currently, 4.1 million homes are at risk of surface water flooding. This is a comparatively recent type of flooding, only identified since 2007. This follows on specifically from the measures outlined in the Sir Michael Pitt review of that year. There are now three times as many properties at high risk of flooding from surface water compared to that from rivers and the sea.
Currently, 3.1 million UK homes are exposed to flood depths where property flood resilience measures would be most effective and where they could realistically benefit from such interventions. Some 83% of properties exposed to surface water risks are unprotected—far higher than proportions for river or coastal flooding. The Government will be well aware that, by 2050, 6.1 million homes will be at risk of surface water flooding and the number at high risk is expected to have increased by 66%. So these amendments are very timely and could stem the flow of increased properties at risk. In the 12 local authorities with the highest flood risk, over 7,000 homes have been recently granted planning permission on flood plains. In 2021-22, 7% of new homes were built in flood zone 3. Therefore, identifying those most at risk of flooding is especially appropriate.
Recognising that surface water flooding now has a greater effect than either river or coastal flooding and the fact that, in a group much later in the Bill, we look at my own pet subject of sustainable drainage—I look forward to my meeting with the Minister and her colleague from Defra, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to discuss that—I would argue that introducing flood resilience measures to new properties as well as retrofitting old ones would be an extremely valuable opportunity.
I will discuss each of the amendments in turn. I completely omitted to declare my interests, for which I apologise profusely. I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water and vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I have co-authored a number of reports with Policy Connect and the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum, which is a local think tank in London. We have co-authored a number of reports on bricks and water—four to date, and we hope to do a fifth. I am drawing heavily on the recommendations in those reports, and I would be delighted to share them with the Minister for some reading, perhaps during Conference Recess when she has a quiet moment.
Amendment 108 looks at residential building on flood plains. The idea of this amendment is to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on what I would describe as functional flood plains or on areas at high risk of flooding. As Flood Re established, if they are not going to be covered for insurance, it seems very unfair on a householder who may not in fact need a mortgage to find out that, subsequent to buying that house, they are not eligible because of flooding. The amendment would narrow it down so that flood zones 3a and 3b are excluded.
Amendment 109 looks at property flood resilience measures, which I described briefly before, particularly raised electrical sockets, non-return valves on utility pipes, air-brick covers, resilient wall plaster and others such as the Secretary of State herself may wish to identify. These resilience measures are being installed at only a fraction of the pace required to make vulnerable homes insurable once the Flood Re insurance scheme is withdrawn in 2039. That might seem a long time away, but it is only 14 years before the Flood Re scheme expires. Amending building regulations to require the use of basic property flood resilience would offer an affordable way to accelerate uptake and would mean that houses built in higher-risk flood areas are adapted for that purpose. It would constitute a far cheaper option than retrofitting, which, while it brings benefits, is obviously infinitely more expensive for new houses.
I turn to Amendment 155, which looks at local plans and planning applications regarding flooding. The sequential exception tests are planning tools that would help to ensure that new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, and would make necessary development in areas of flood risk safe throughout their lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, as the displaced water is often simply moved to flood existing or other developments. However, these tests are currently only guidance. I propose in Amendment 155 to put them on a statutory basis, as that could only help to ensure that local planning authorities place due regard on them when preparing local plans and considering individual planning applications.
Amendment 156 looks at the strategic flood risk assessment maps and would make sure that these included the most up-to-date flood risk assessment provided by the Environment Agency. In this regard, a statutory duty should be placed on local planning authorities to do so. Strategic flood risk assessments are vital to ensuring that planning decisions take into account risks from all sources of flooding, including an allowance for climate change. They would also help to identify whether any proposed development fell into flood zone 3b, the functional flood plain. Placing a duty on local planning authorities to keep strategic flood risk assessments up to date would ensure that they can reliably inform the development of local plans and incorporate the latest information from the Environment Agency’s new national flood risk assessment.
The Minister was temporarily unable to listen because she was being consulted by the party managers, but I am sure that she shares my concern that 7,000 new homes have been built on flood plains in 12 local authorities alone, and that 7% of new homes were built in flood zone 3b in 2021-22 alone. With those remarks, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these key amendments and put them on a statutory footing. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who provided a detailed, comprehensive introduction to the amendments in this group in her name, a number of which I have attached my name to. I also look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, on this topic.
I will try to be fairly brief as I am very aware of the hour. I am going to start with Amendment 227A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. In researching this, I found the most perfect case study to follow the recommendations—which I am sure we will hear from the noble Baroness shortly—of the need to build to allow for the practical reality of the world we live in today. This study comes from flooding in York in 2015. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, who is not currently in his place, was then the Archbishop of York. He was resident in Bishopthorpe Palace and tweeted:
“We are fortunate … that back in the 13th Century they built with flooding in mind, such that when the water subsides it soon washes through the original flood drains made for the purpose”.
We have tended over the past century to think that we can just ignore nature and natural forces. We will build a wall—we will just put things down and assume that nature is going to adapt to us. Amendment 227A in particular, but all these amendments, are an acknowledgment of the fact that we now live in a climate emergency world. Many of these issues are much larger than they were previously, but we cannot ignore them anymore—we should not have ignored them previously, but we certainly cannot ignore them now.
Amendment 108 is about not building on flood plains. Many years ago I was chairing a session at the Green Party conference on flooding and heard a phrase that I have repeated many times since, and I make no apologies for that. It was that the flood plain is not beside the river; the flood plain is part of the river. If we think about that lovely little green patch that might be called Meadow Flat, or Wetland, or something—it is just beside the river, with a beautiful view over the river, and we have put housing on it. That is exactly the same as putting the house in the middle of the river. We cannot afford to keep doing that, and that is why I make no apologies for this amendment. If that is the only place where we can put housing, we should not be building new housing in the river.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, went through a great many of the things that I had in my pile, so I am going to avoid repeating them. Just to note that, as the noble Baroness said, there is a government review on measures that we should be taking on flooding. I also note that the Environmental Audit Committee is conducting an inquiry right now in the other place on flood resilience. The concern is obvious, but we really cannot wait for all of these to report many of the measures here in terms of taking action to protect people, their lives and their property from flooding. We already know what to do; we do not need further inquiries.
I will just point out to noble Lords who are interested that there was an excellent report out on 26 June called the UK Climate Resilience Roadmap from the Green Building Council and a number of other largely commercial organisations. To highlight a couple of things from it, it found that flooding would make Peterborough—and I note the noble Lord who would be particularly interested in that is not currently in his place—and the Welsh village of Fairbourne likely uninhabitable by the end of this century, which is not very far away at all. I do not know about Fairbourne, but I know that we are still building new housing, probably in very vulnerable places, in Peterborough.
I suspect we are going to hear lots more, so I will just point very briefly to the Committee on Climate Change pointing out how far we are from tackling the climate adaptation measures that we need to take. To pick out just one of its most recent recommendations, we need to integrate adaptation into all relevant policies. For policies, also, of course, read law. I hope we are going to hear positive words from the Minister on these amendments.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as noted in the register, as chair for Peers for the Planet. I am delighted to add my name in support of Amendments 108 and 109, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I also support the other amendments in this group, all of which come together on a core purpose to strengthen our resilience to flooding through the planning system. I particularly support Amendment 135B, which seems really sensible.
It is hard to believe we are having this discussion as we have just come through a summer of heatwaves. However, as we all know, and as we have already heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, flooding is becoming increasingly common and all the predictions on it are very scary when you look at them. We see this year in and year out, and it is increasingly costly to the UK. We have heard about the cost involved, but it is not only housing that is impacted. The increased flood risk has an impact on all aspects of urban infrastructure. Some 38% of all roads in England are currently at risk of flooding, as are 37% of all railways, 34% of all water pumping stations and sewage treatment plants, and 59% of grade 1 agricultural land. This is not just a housebuilding issue; it is an issue for the whole urban infrastructure.
To flag up another issue that has not been mentioned, it has not only economic risks and risks to lives and livelihoods, but risks to health. There is now a lot of research that shows that flooding can cause long-lasting mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression and PTSD, and all these add a burden to the health budget, as well as everything else.
We have heard from many—and we have even heard from the Climate Change Committee—that it is critical that we build mitigation strategies into our land management policies. This is where the issue comes in. We have natural capital assets in this country that are perfectly adapted for fulfilling this role, and it is in the name: flood plains—they have been here for hundreds, if not thousands, of years to do this role. It was highlighted in the Government’s own 2024 State Of Natural Capital Report, in which they made the point that they recognize them as crucial natural capital assets for flood management by storing and slowing water flows. The Office for National Statistics natural capital accounts in 2024 also recognised their value. For example, the total asset value of natural capital in England was estimated at £1.4 trillion. It did not disaggregate the flood plains, but it explicitly noted that wetlands and flood plains are a significant part of these natural capital assets, contributing to this cost through regulating services and risk reduction. Not only does housebuilding impact hugely on the people whose houses are flooded, but by building on the flood plains we are taking away our one natural way of maintaining and enhancing our resilience to flooding.
What is wrong with the planning system? I keep hearing about the National Planning Policy Framework, and I keep being told, “It’s all right, it’s covered in the NPPF”. This time, I went back through it in detail to see what it is in the NPPF that is going to allow us to stop building on flood plains. Of course, the problem is that it is guidance; it is not mandatory. It does not stop people from going ahead and building. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the report by Localis showed in 2024 that over 7,000 dwellings are currently in the planning pipeline for areas with an existing very high risk of flooding—that is over 7,000 houses. When they flood, should we be surprised? Over 1,600 dwellings have already been given planning permission in the first half of 2024.
Despite the precautions and people saying, “It’s fine, they’re covered in the NPPF”, there is no existing law against granting planning permission for and the construction of homes on the flood plain. Even the Environment Agency advice has been ignored in the building of these houses.
There is a big problem here. I do not think the legislation or guidance we currently have is being adhered to, and the problem is going to get only worse. If we are going to build on the flood plain, we absolutely have to put in some of these mitigation measures so eloquently described in this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I support these amendments wholeheartedly.
As one last point, I welcome—as I am sure we all do—the increased government investment of £2.65 billion to protect communities from flooding, which was announced earlier this year. That is fantastic, but it does not make sense to have that being pulled in the opposite direction of the legislation we have for housebuilding on flood plains.
To conclude, we need much firmer legislation to prevent the building of houses on flood plains. If there really are no alternatives, we also must have legislation which means that the houses built are able to withstand the flooding that will happen. Let us be honest about it—it is not if, it is when.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the three amendments in my name in this group are particularly focused on the pressing issue of flood risk. I thank other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group raising this all-important issue. This is not an abstract problem but one that devastates families, undermines communities and is set to worsen dramatically as our climate continues to change.
These amendments were originally raised in the House of Commons by Helen Morgan MP, Member for North Shropshire, one of England’s most rural and flood-hit constituencies. She has taken the initiative, along with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, of setting up a new All-Party Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities. She has rightly recognised that flood risk demands urgent solutions. Her determination to give voice to people living in constant fear of floods and repeat flooding is bringing national attention to a critical issue affecting homes and livelihoods and blighting communities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her support on Amendment 135B. It seeks to solve a problem raised by the noble Baroness by bringing paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, advice that currently stands only as guidance, on to the statute book. Under this amendment, when considering an application for development consent, a local planning authority would be obliged to assess whether that development might increase flood risk or reduce flood mitigation for neighbouring properties or land.
This amendment would help prevent the frankly indefensible practices we have already heard about of building on flood plains, and it would ensure that drainage systems be properly accounted for in new developments. Too often, these systems—whether attenuation ponds or so-called sustainable drainage systems, or SUDS—are left unadopted and therefore unmaintained, or are simply inadequate to begin with. Of course, we all understand and recognise that local authorities, under extraordinary financial pressure, are rarely in a position to enforce standards strongly, especially when the NPPF is merely guidance, as we have already heard, rather than enforceable law. This would help protect communities from situations where drainage systems are not up to standard and are left unadopted, including by water companies. In north Shropshire, for example, there have been multiple new developments which, despite having SUDS in place and, usually, as I have mentioned before, an attenuation pond, have in turn caused flooding to the existing neighbouring properties.
This amendment also links directly to an excellent proposal in the House of Commons by Gideon Amos MP, Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would bring into force Schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. This would make water companies statutory consultees in the planning system, ensuring their expertise and infrastructure responsibilities are considered when future developments are approved.
If we want to protect new home owners, this is common sense. We know that water companies have often struggled with capacity, so excluding them from the table during the planning process is a recipe for yet more flooded homes. This approach protects these new home buyers from the risk of facing flooded homes and inadequate sewage systems, including raw sewage backing up in gardens and downstairs toilets.
Amendment 227A turns to the resilience of new homes. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her excellent historical example. Changes to the climate will result in more intense and regular flooding throughout the country. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about surface flooding, a new and dangerous phenomenon that already affects at least 3.4 million properties, making it one of the most significant growing threats to our communities. We have also heard the Environment Agency’s warnings about that.
Amendment 227A proposes that, within six months of the Bill becoming law, the Secretary of State would make regulations under the Building Act 1984 requiring property flood resilience measures in all new builds. These measures are not futuristic; they are simple, practical and already well known to the development sector. They include raised electrical sockets, non-return valves, resilient wall plaster and flood-adapted air bricks. These can make the difference between needing a full year of rebuilding and the home being liveable again in literally a matter of weeks—it is that much of a difference.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will discuss the serious issue of flooding risks. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their hard work and amendments to the Bill, which I shall discuss in further detail in a moment.
Flooding threatens our communities and livelihoods with increasing frequency and severity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, some 6.3 million properties in England are located in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea or surface water. I am experiencing—and I am sure others have experienced this as local councillors—ever-increasing incidences of flooding on our patches.
Flooding negatively impacts many aspects of people’s lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned some examples, and I can attest to examples in my own area and to seeing people flooded out of their homes two or three times in the space of three or four years. It upsets their health, finances and mental health. Can the Government confirm that protecting communities most at risk of flooding is a priority for them?
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has rightly tabled Amendments 108, 109, 155 and 156 to help ensure that the consideration of flood risk is not overlooked in the planning permission decisions. We support her in her objectives and hope the Government will take this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her Amendments 135B and 135C, on having regard to a development’s impact on the flooding and flood resilience in the broader area. There are, however, concerns regarding the potential scope and practicality of the broader point of assessing the impact on climate resilience.
On Amendment 227A and the incorporation of flood resilience in new buildings, this should be done on a risk-based approach. As we enter the autumn and winter months, it is imperative that the Government are well prepared for the flood risks soon to be faced by millions up and down this country. What procedures do the Government have in place to fulfil their duty of ensuring that strategic flood-risk assessments are up to date? Can the Minister take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that the Government’s flood preparedness is adequate and that Ministers stand ready to implement flood recovery measures rapidly where flooding occurs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Grender, for their amendments on flood risk and resilience in the planning system. I also thank many Members of this Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I had lots of discussion about flooding during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I know that lots of Members in this House worked very hard to draw these risks to the attention of the House and the wider public.
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about the devastation that it causes. I visited Calderdale—I was doing a peer review there—very shortly after the terrible flooding that the area experienced in 2020. The impact of that was still very live; in fact, some of the shops were still shut because they were still damp. One thing that particularly struck me was that the only way of communicating during that flood, which, from memory, happened over the Christmas period, was to go back to pinning notices on the village noticeboard, because all the infrastructure—IT and everything—had gone down. They could not use phones and could not travel, so they were pinning notices on the old village noticeboard. These are terrible events.
The amendments raise very important issues about how we plan for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in the context of climate change. I can assure all noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, specifically asked me the question—that the Government take these issues very seriously. We are acutely aware of the misery, disruption and costs that arise from flooding, of the increased risk associated with climate change, and of the need to maintain a robust approach to managing these risks. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson: we cannot overestimate the impact not just of flooding itself, which is awful, but of the fear of flooding when people live in properties subject to it. My area is not flood-prone, but we occasionally get flash floods when there is a big storm, which causes water ingress to people’s properties. I remember talking to a constituent about their terrible fear. As soon as it started to rain quite heavily, they would worry that it would happen again. How much worse that must be if you live in a flood-prone area, I can only imagine. It is not just the flooding itself; it is the fear of floods that impacts people.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, mentioned the work being done by the Environment Agency. It has commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience. It is not just an untargeted review of this, but a specific review around property flood resilience. The review will seek to identify current gaps and opportunities to grow the property flood resilience market, resulting in a new action plan. That review will report to the Environment Agency and Defra in autumn 2025.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who referred to the investment the Government are putting into flood resilience and maintaining flood defences. She is correct: we are investing £2.65 billion over two years—that is, 2024-25 and 2025-26—to build and maintain defences. That includes an additional £108 million that we are reprioritising into asset maintenance, ensuring that an additional 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. I repeat that because it shows, I hope, that the Government take these issues seriously.
Amendment 108 proposes a statutory ban on residential development in areas that fall within flood zone 3. Although we fully recognise the importance of directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, this amendment would prevent development in large urban areas already protected by robust flood defences. For example, significant parts of Hull and central London lie within flood zone 3 but benefit from engineered flood protection. Under this amendment, development in these areas would be prohibited, even where it can be made safe for its lifetime and does not increase flood risk elsewhere.
The National Planning Policy Framework already includes strong protections which make it clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. I understand the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, about the NPPF, but I do not think that any planning inspector would accept a local plan submitted by a local authority that did not conform with the NPPF in terms of placing houses in flood risk areas, unless significant mitigation measures were put in place to prevent flooding.
Our policy means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain where water has to flow or, importantly—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned this—be stored in times of flood. Where development is permitted, it must be demonstrated that it will be safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users.
I turn to Amendment 109, which proposes mandating property flood-resilience measures in all new homes at high risk of flooding, and Amendment 227A, which proposes introducing a requirement for specific flood-resilience features in all new homes. Improving resilience in properties subject to flood risk is an important objective. Reflecting this, the building regulations already support flood-resilient construction in areas at risk of flooding, while ensuring that properties that do not require further flood-resilience measures are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Requiring flood-resilient construction for all new dwellings would be disproportionate, given that many are located outside areas of current or projected flood risk. Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice, which includes installing flood-resilient features.
I turn now to Amendments 135B and 135C, which would require local planning authorities to assess both the flood and climate resilience impacts of developments and whether a development could increase flood risk to neighbouring land, alongside introducing an annual reporting duty for the Secretary of State. Assessing the flood risk implications of development, as well as climate mitigation and adaptation more broadly, is already a requirement under the National Planning Policy Framework. The framework is clear that for development to be acceptable it should not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be safe for its lifetime if located in an area where flood risk exists.
Similarly, Amendment 155 seeks to place other aspects of national flood risk policy on a statutory basis—namely, the sequential and exception tests. We can agree about the importance of these policies, but it is important that policy on complex issues such as flood risk is capable of being adjusted as new evidence and issues arise. As I mentioned—I will mention it again—the National Planning Policy Framework plays a powerful role in the planning system. Both plan makers and planning decisions must have regard to it. It is not guidance in the usual sense of the word; it is a very clear part of the statutory planning process. These amendments would not only replicate this but introduce unhelpful inflexibility in our ability to keep policy under review.
The proposed reporting requirement set out in Amendment 135C would also impose a significant reporting obligation on the Government. Local planning authorities are already responsible for ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action if necessary.
Finally, Amendment 156 on strategic flood risk assessment maps would require local authorities to ensure that their maps are based on the most up-to-date data from the Environment Agency. This is already expected practice. Local authorities are required to use the latest available data when preparing strategic flood risk assessments, and the Environment Agency regularly updates its flood-mapping tools. Mandating updates in statute could impose administrative and financial burdens, particularly for smaller authorities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken and for the support from the two leading Baronesses who are very much experts in this field, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis. I am very grateful indeed. My amendments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, are very closely aligned, as I said earlier.
Although I am grateful for the full response I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, she is missing the point. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, described eloquently what the role of a flood plain is. It is just not fair if Flood Re is specifically excluding them from any form of house insurance for flooding; they should be there.
The point that the NPPF is non-statutory was made very firmly by those who supported this group of amendments. I quoted the figures for the increasing number of houses which do not meet its requirements. I share what can only be a concern of the Minister that the NPPF is not being adhered to.
But, given the lateness of the hour and the other groups to be debated, I ask for an urgent meeting with the Minister, the co-signatories of the amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and perhaps our own Front Bench. I really believe that we have to crack this. We mean this in a helpful way to the Government because, in effect, it does not matter who is in power; we have to ensure that we are giving the best support we can to developers who are developing houses to meet the government targets, while ensuring that they are flood resilient to the best degree. So I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to such a meeting, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw.
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section— “agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities); “provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 91 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle.(3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity; I fear that my preparation will not be as polished as customary.
The genesis for this group of amendments was the ad hoc committee on the scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003, which I had the great honour to chair. I would just like to record my deep sadness that, since that time, two of the leading members of that committee, Baroness Henig and Lord Blair, who contributed greatly and lent a great deal of knowledge and expertise to its work, have very sadly passed away. I know that Baroness Henig supported me vigorously when I tabled similar amendments during the passage of the levelling-up Act.
I am delighted to say that, for Amendment 110, I have the support, for which I am most grateful, of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Parkinson, for family reasons cannot be here this evening, but I know that I have their staunch support. Sadly, on Amendment 111, I am very much on my own, but there we go. I recognise the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who was also a leading light and a great authority on that committee, and I am delighted he is in his place this evening.
The purpose of tabling these amendments is similar in one respect to that of the previous group. We have, if you like, the principle of agent of change, which is recognised by the Government, but I would like to see it enshrined in law. I welcome that there has been a recent press release from the Government, as analysed closely by the Institute of Licensing and many of those in the industry who follow this. The press release from the Government is very good news indeed. Obviously, it might be from a different department to that of the Minister who will be summing up the debate this evening. The Government have announced reforms to planning and licensing laws aiming to reduce bureaucratic barriers and fast-track the revival of town centres with a wave of new cafés, bars and music venues. What is important in adopting the two amendments—there should be nothing in them that is objectionable to the Government—is simply to establish the principle that, where people wish to put a new development in place against an existing music or other cultural venue, the onus is on those developers to ensure that the change of use will be recognised and that the ongoing existence of the current venue will be secured.
Why is this important? In 2024, the number of venues making a loss increased from 38.5% to 43.8%, so this is an industry which is very much under threat. If you look at developments since 2020, the impact of Covid probably hit this sector—music venues and the hospitality sector more generally—more harshly than any other sector.
I welcome the fact that the agent of change principle is guidance in the NPPF, and Section 106 agreements between local councils and developers have been vital tools. However, I make the strongest possible submission to the Minister that there are real concerns that they are not being respected as they should be, and I would just like her to agree—or, if she feels that the Government could come forward with amendments that are better crafted than those that I have drafted, I would welcome that indeed. I would like to see Amendment 110, which would insert the new clause “Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities”, and Amendment 111, inserting the new clause “General duty of local authorities”, given the force of statute. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the agent of change principle. As the noble Baroness says, just one example of the effect of this amendment is that it would be of significant help to grass-roots music venues, which are such an important part of the music industry’s ecology. Bands and individual artists cut their teeth in such live music settings. The loss of those venues is then a loss not just to the local community—which is important in itself—but to the music industry as a whole.
Precisely because of their importance within the overall ecology, the Government should do everything possible to protect those venues, which is a major reason why the existing guidance should be turned into law. As the Music Venue Trust says, with almost every constituency housing a grass-roots music venue, this amendment would, unusually, have an impact on over 720 venues across England, in communities from small villages to big cities.
As UK Music points out, this has been inspired by similar protections in Australia. In cities such as Melbourne, it has helped to revitalise the night-time and cultural economies. When a similar Bill was introduced in Parliament in the UK in 2018, it had the backing of music stars such as Paul McCartney, Chrissie Hynde, Brian Eno, Feargal Sharkey and many others. In 2019, the agent of change principle was made statutory in Scotland. It remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK—better than nothing but not nearly as effective as it might be.
The Government are keen to build new housing, so there is immense practicality about this amendment as well as a moral right in the principle. It would pre-empt and avoid complaints and ill feeling, potential court proceedings and the loss of important cultural assets. As Caroline Dinenage pointed out in the other place earlier this year, such legislation is
“supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/25; col. 710.]
Potentially, one can add sports venues—anywhere where sound is a significant aspect of the activity concerned. Any loss of these assets will have an effect on the local and wider economy, not to mention local pride in cultural facilities.
There is a strong argument that locally appropriate soundproofing should be a default concern for new builds in particular. Also, as the Music Venue Trust points out, full legislation would decrease red tape and speed up the planning process, meaning that housebuilding would be speeded up as well. The Music Venue Trust makes the important distinction about how the process operates in Scotland and England. In Scotland, because the agent of change principle is statutory, an objection submitted by the Music Venue Trust can refer directly to the national legislation alongside the impact of omitting the principle, so that as soon as the planning committee receives the objection, it can go straight back to the developer to ask them to change their plans. It is a relatively simple and speedy process. In England, because it is not statutory, there is a constant back and forth between the Music Venue Trust’s emergency response service and the local authority, with the same venue often appearing in their service multiple times for different applications. Sometimes the venue does not even appear in a noise impact assessment. All this contributes to a slower and fundamentally unsatisfactory process in England, leaving many applications awaiting decisions for far too long. These are significant concerns that making the agent of change principle statutory would address.
This is a very important amendment. Such legislation was a recommendation of the DCMS Select Committee’s 2024 special report on grass-roots music venues. The Government need to take this very seriously. I fully support it.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I apologise, as other parliamentary responsibilities mean that I have not been able to take part so far in this very important Bill. However, in view of my previous involvement in issues around live entertainment and particularly music venues, I was anxious to speak very briefly in support of the noble Baroness’s two amendments.
When I was in the other place in 2012, I had the honour of leading the arguments in favour of what became the Live Music Act, which had been sponsored in your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The purpose of that Act was to reduce regulation on performers and on venues to ensure more opportunity for live music and the growth of live music venues within this country.
More recently, in 2017, I had the opportunity to serve on your Lordships’ committee—ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—which looked at the 2003 licensing legislation. During our deliberations, we discovered that, notwithstanding the aims of the Live Music Act, the number of live entertainment venues, and particularly music venues, was reducing. One potential cause was the protests made by residents and occupants of premises that had been built after the existing venues. That caused a great deal of problems; hence we came forward with the proposals to introduce the agent of change principle that has already been referred to.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for these amendments. They are aligned with the shared principle of fairness where development will impact existing communities and infrastructure. In this case, they speak of the need to ensure that businesses already existing in an area do not suffer as a result of the development. I absolutely agree that it is often music businesses or noisy businesses that cause these discussions, and they should be protected: they were there first and everybody should put up with them, in my opinion. They should not suffer as a result of any further development or have unreasonable restrictions placed on them, as I have seen in the past, which does not seem fair. Does the Minister believe that the agent of change principle should have a statutory weight on it, rather than being solely in the NPPF? I think that is the important issue here.
Moreover, Amendment 111 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering touches on the role of local government as the arbitrator between the business and the developer. This highlights an important issue as we seek to balance the need for social stability with the growth that the Chancellor is promising, and I think these issues will come forward more and more in the future, so we need to get this sorted.
There is no denying that we need more housing—that is clear—but development must always go hand in hand with local economic needs. Without that balance, we risk creating a dormitory town, stripped of social fabric and disconnected from opportunity. How will the Government ensure that local authorities across England are supported to strike this essential balance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments. I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to ensure that new developments do not place unreasonable restrictions on existing businesses and are integrated effectively into their surroundings, and the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just made that live music venues are the things that make our communities vibrant and alive. We have just had our fantastic Old Town Live festival in Stevenage, in a series of music venues right along our high street; they are the things that bring people together and make it a good place to live.
The agent of change principle is already embedded in the National Planning Policy Framework. I reiterate my comments earlier that, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself, it forms part of the statutory planning process. The Government are clear that where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on a new development in its vicinity, the applicant or agent of change is responsible for providing suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.
Local planning authorities can also use planning conditions to make developments acceptable by addressing specific concerns, such as environmental impacts from noise pollution—for instance, by the use of engineering to reduce noise at source, or the use of noise insulation to mitigate the impact of noise on residents. Where they receive complaints, local authorities are obliged to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate. This allows them to consider a variety of factors in determining whether a complaint constitutes a nuisance in the eyes of the law. Additionally, local licensing authorities can incorporate the agent of change principle into their statement of licensing policy if they consider it useful to do so. This is at their discretion, as they are best placed to understand their own local context.
I understand the desire to embed these principles into law, but we believe this to be unnecessary given the provisions that already exist. It also risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments. We will continue considering how the agent of change principle can be better implemented within the planning system through national planning policy reform. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the support I have received from those who have spoken, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lady Scott.
The Minister is missing the point. Each of those who spoke explained how the NPPF is not working because it is not on a statutory basis, and that the integration and harmony we would like to see between residential properties and businesses is being harmed by this. The very fact that one of the venues that Ed Sheeran sang at early in his career has since closed, along with the other examples we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, shows the importance of this.
I again ask the Minister whether she would be minded to have a meeting before Report with those who have expressed an interest in this area today, because I really believe that we need to progress this and put it on a statutory footing. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that buildings which have been designated as assets of community value cannot be demolished through permitted development rights.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 112 regards assets of community value and demolition through permitted development rights. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Carrington of Fulham for signing this amendment. They both informed me that they could not be here at this point but I know that they support the spirit of it. I will also talk to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about assets of cultural value, which is supported by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
This amendment is designed for communities that go to the trouble of putting together an asset of community value. That is a reasonably high bar, by the way. It is not just proving that something has been enjoyed by the community. There is also an element of showing that, if it came up for sale, the community would have the wherewithal to buy that asset. Right now, it is very easy for the original owner, perhaps somewhat frustrated by wanting a change in use for that asset, to demolish it. Suddenly, it evaporates. They do not need any planning permission to get rid of it. There is no protection for the asset of community value.
You may ask, “Would this ever happen?”, but it has happened. I recall a place called Rendlesham in Suffolk, widely known for the story about it having UFOs. It used to be a US airbase and it still has a NATO runway. The US Air Force handed it over to the UK Government, who continued to use it, but over time it was not needed so it was sold to a developer. It is a lovely community and reasonably good for developing more homes and creating a community. The developer put out a wonderful brochure and was selling this vision.
People may be aware that US Air Force facilities, and military facilities generally, tend to have big, ambitious buildings. Even their schools have huge corridors. There was a wonderful sports hall and a wonderful theatre. The selling of this community, right next to the magnificent Rendlesham Forest, although admittedly with a military base still nearby, was part of the mission, and led to it becoming a place where the council thought it was good to grow and, over time, extend its boundary.
I do not know who did the original deal, but the deal was that the developers had to make sure that both the theatre and the sports centre stayed open for at least 10 years. By my recollection, pretty much a day or two after the 10 years were over, the developers closed both facilities. They wanted to get rid of them and convert them into commercial shops and more housing. Understandably, the community was up in arms.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 185H in this group, which is a probing amendment. I ask the Government to give some serious thought to it as it addresses a gap in our thinking about the arts and arts practice. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I am also grateful to UK Music for its input into this amendment.
This amendment would establish a system for locally identifying and protecting physical assets of cultural value—that is to say, the spaces or buildings in which the arts take place, be it a music venue, a rehearsal space, a recording studio, an arts centre, a theatre or a visual artist studio, to list just a few potential examples, and one can think of others. This amendment is intended to work alongside and complement the community value scheme. I should also say that I support Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
At the national level, my amendment would be helpful to and complementary to funding bodies such as the Arts Council, whose concern is primarily for artists and arts organisations, although I acknowledge that its new creative foundation fund will be concerned specifically with the repair of selected buildings.
Of course, most arts are being produced in local, non-residential physical business spaces, public and private. Sometimes they are purpose-built. They are most often furnished for a particular cultural use. If individual artists and organisations do not have access, or lose access, to the spaces in which to work or rehearse then they cannot work—or at least, they cannot do so in the optimum environment, irrespective of the value of their work commercially or the value placed on it through support by a funding body. That is the crucial importance of buildings to the arts, which we always seem to be in danger of overlooking. Buildings are always somewhere, and always in local communities.
I want to address one potential criticism of such a scheme, which is that the arts should not be preserved in aspic; fashions change and new ideas come in. However, the great danger in the present day is the unnecessary loss of assets which are still relevant and still have currency, but without there being any form of replacement.
The Music Venue Trust cites examples of music clubs which have had to close days after they have sold out events, such are the often overwhelming contemporary pressures on our cultural assets. Of our grass-roots music venues, 125—16% of all GMVs—closed in the UK in 2023. Last year, 25 closed, but we are still talking about an overall downward trend. GMVs are, of course, important at the local level but a circuit of clubs for performers is of national importance. The loss of so many grass-roots music venues threatens that circuit.
I will cite one other example: theatres. The theatres at risk register 2025, compiled by the Theatres Trust, finds that 40% of theatre buildings face closure without urgent investment. Sometimes, of course, such buildings also have strong architectural merit.
There is a real concern for our cultural assets in the current climate of economic uncertainty, alongside other pressures such as those discussed in the last group. Such pressures include energy and other running costs, rent, business rates and the depletion of council resources, alongside the selling off of council buildings and the contemporary pressures of housebuilding and redevelopment. All these things are piling enormous pressures on our cultural buildings, which ought to be understood as having a significant value, both in themselves and as part of the local infrastructure. The loss of such buildings is a loss—often an irreplaceable loss—not just to the arts, but to local communities, which often take huge pride in their own cultural facilities. The crucial thing, which this amendment specifically addresses, is that we do not think enough about the particular relationship between culture and locality. Local cultural value is not the same, necessarily, as local community value. I hope the Minister will agree with that.
At present, it is all too easy for our cultural facilities to quietly disappear without any local protective system in place to question that disappearance. As I have intimated, this is currently happening across the whole country. Such a system would give power to local people for the protection of their own cultural buildings and spaces. As well as the social effect, there is the effect on the local economy and the ripple effect that can be created in additional jobs and trade. Of course, this is something local people understand more than anyone.
In summary, the value of the scheme—it is not just for the arts in the abstract, but for the local people themselves, whom these cultural facilities serve—is the crucial point. The scheme has a significant geographical local dimension. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey in her Amendment 112. When I first read this, my mind immediately went to pubs—historic pubs. Of course, we are losing pubs as an accelerated rate. But then I realised, having done some research, that since 2017 it has not been possible to demolish a pub without seeking planning permission. So, my noble friend’s concept comes straight into the ambit of other non-pub things. But then my mind went to the Crooked House, that wonky pub in the West Midlands. I will not say that the owners were crooked, although there have been arrests and there is a police investigation. That building was on the local environmental record.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness might consider strengthening her proposal, because this is not something that is done locally on an ad hoc basis by the local council. Historic England publishes some criteria—pubs aside—for other assets that are not quite yet assets of community value. Of course, “assets of community value” is not as restrictive as you might think: there is no restriction on gifting the pub or on it being sold. The designation does not even last forever; it is for only five years, provided that the use is maintained. I just wonder whether there is any merit in saying that, where a property meets that Historic England designation on the proper national criteria, her anti-demolition provisions ought to be extended to those pro tem, so that at least we do not accidentally and carelessly lose these buildings—non-pubs, or other community buildings —accidentally. We could give additional breathing space to local communities to put a bid forward for protection.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly lend my support to both amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 185H from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, which I have signed. It dovetails neatly with the discussions we had in the debate on the last group. The noble Earl has said that this is a probing amendment, but I hope the Government will look sympathetically on it. We lose buildings of cultural value—cultural assets—at our peril, and the noble Earl made a strong case about all the challenges they have with the oncosts, lighting and heating, that they have to meet, given the sheer size of some of these buildings. I hope we can look favourably on establishing a scheme that would look at assets of cultural value in the ways he set out, and I believe it would greatly enhance the possibility of these buildings remaining for generations to come to enjoy.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for tabling Amendment 185H, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 112—I support both of them. In speaking today, I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society.
These amendments represent a vital evolution in our planning framework. Although we have long recognised the importance of assets of community value under the Localism Act 2011, we have yet to adequately address the unique vulnerability and significance of our cultural infrastructure. Amendments 185H and 112 address this vital gap by establishing a complementary scheme specifically aimed at safeguarding spaces where creativity thrives and community and cultural expression flourish.
As the noble Earl has said, Britain’s cultural landscape faces unprecedented challenges. We have witnessed the heartbreaking closure of countless music venues, recording studios, rehearsal spaces and artist studios—spaces that are not merely commercial properties but the very bedrock of our creative economy. These venues serve as incubators for emerging talent, repositories of cultural knowledge and gathering places where communities forge their identity through shared artistic expression.
I speak from personal experience. In the late 1990s, I was a member of Cubitt studios, an artist co-operative with a public gallery and 32 studio spaces, based at the time in King’s Cross before its redevelopment by the urban regeneration specialist Argent. At that time, artist-led spaces such as Cubitt prevented historic buildings from falling into decay, giving the area a focus beyond drugs and prostitution, for which it had become known. They sparked the creative energy that would later underpin the success of the King’s Cross regeneration. That pattern has been repeated across the country: artists acting as cultural guardians, only to be displaced when values rise and protections prove absent. As Neil Smith, the late geographer, once observed, artists are often “shock troops” of gentrification. They pioneer in forgotten places, but their very success makes those places vulnerable to speculative displacement.
The cleverness of this amendment lies in its recognition that cultural assets serve dual purposes: advancing the cultural well-being of communities while safeguarding the spaces essential for the development of specialist cultural skills. To a planner, a small rehearsal studio may seem inconsequential, yet it may be where the next generation of musicians learn their craft or where community groups gather to create, celebrate and connect. By building on the tested framework of the assets of community value scheme, Amendment 185H offers a proportionate and workable model.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was not going to say anything on this but, as noble Lords can see, I have been deserted so it has fallen to me. However, after listening to everyone, I will say a few words. As I will wax lyrical on another day about permitted development rights, I feel that I probably should stand and support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, really because I believe in the planning system. I believe that many developments would still be built but, if they had planning permission, they would be built far better. I have a faith in the planning system to do what is right.
Interestingly, it took me back to my own experience of the 2011 community assets Bill. We had loads of rows about the interpretation of it. I remember being in the monitoring office, really at loggerheads. There was a vociferous campaign to keep a Taekwondo space that was in the basement of a derelict factory and designate it as of community value. Believe it or not, all the parents joined in and the grandparents, but we designated for 60 social homes. You can imagine where the Mayor of Watford’s priorities lay on that.
I wrote to the Minister and got what I would call a very typical ministerial reply saying it was a local decision, but I was given a little line that gave some leeway to say that political choice and discretion could come into it. In that instance, I took a leaf out of what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, and just offered a replacement. It was as simple as that. We managed to juggle things around. We got the social housing and they got a replacement, but it showed how difficult that interpretation was. Has any work been done on what has happened to those assets of community value and how successful they have been?
I think the venues issue a really tricky one, and I have every sympathy with what both noble Lords have said. I believe that, in the end, communities come up with ideas and innovations to make things happen differently when things are threatened. In my experience, music venues do not disappear quietly; they disappear very noisily. We had a particular pub, Taylors, and my son was one of the musicians who played there. There was a great hoo-ha when it closed. Guess what? Something like it popped up somewhere else and a little bit of support was given to help it to do that. I absolutely understand what the noble Lords are saying but I do not believe that outmoded, deteriorating buildings that are underused should necessarily be protected for sentimental reasons.
I am also pleased to tell the noble Earl that another of our grass-roots music venues, which we thought had really gone, has just been given a new lease of life. It was in our local newspaper last week, and the message from the people taking it over and taking a risk with it was: if you do not use it, you lose it.
I would also like to tell the noble Earl the saga of a very old building in Watford that had been the scenery store for the Palace Theatre. When I visited our “asset”, I christened it a pigeon graveyard. That is how derelict it was and, as somebody who is feather phobic, I did not stay in there very long, but I was determined to get it into community use, which we did. It was used for many years as a space for dance, Pilates—you name it—and as rooms for charities to do their admin. But that fell off, it was not used and we were in a dilemma. The current mayor has just redone it and done a redeal with the Palace Theatre for a rehearsal space, so it has gone the full circle.
I do not see any reason why a good council would not and should not list its assets and know what matters to it. We have a wonderful pump house that is many years old. It is difficult to maintain, but I am sure there would be massive protests if that were to close. These amendments are worth considering, even though I think it probably is something that should be in local plans and be built locally from the ground up. What they provide is a moratorium on a sale or a demolition, which is important, and give a window for the community to have their say and perhaps appreciate what they might lose. We know from experience that when libraries were under threat the community stepped up and many libraries and other facilities are used within communities and have new life. There are lots of examples of that.
I am interested in what the Minister has to say and thank the noble Lords for prompting me to say something and realising that it was something quite close to my heart. It was not my amendment to speak on, but I hope that that was okay.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 112 and 185H in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. At the heart of this debate lies the recognition that housing is not merely the business of bricks and mortar, nor simply the provision of shelter; it is about the creation of places where people may live, thrive and belong; it is about communities, places to call home.
Cultural values matter profoundly. They matter both in housing and community building. When we lose the local pub, the music venue—as we have heard—the sports club or the community hall, we do not simply lose a building; we strip away the places in which people meet, share experiences and forge common bonds. These are the lifeblood of our neighbourhoods.
Assets of community value are often deeply rooted in local history and identity, as we have heard many times this afternoon. Protecting them is a necessity for living in communities and a gift to future generations. In government, we invested in the community and cultural assets through the levelling up fund, which the Government have since scrapped. But we, as a party, will continue to champion our cultural assets in opposition.
Amendment 112, in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, has the benefit of simplicity. This is a straightforward change in law that could save many important community assets. Amendment 185H is a little bit more complicated. If the Government were to accept the principle of this amendment, we hope that Ministers would be able to flesh out a little more detail on their intentions in the Bill. We do not want a need for delegated powers and then it goes into the ether.
If we are to build not only houses but homes, not only developments but communities, then these questions to the Minister are of no small importance.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for tabling these amendments which relate to the assets of community value scheme, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Freyberg, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for contributing to the debate. This is an important scheme to enable communities to identify local assets that are important to them and to protect them for future community use. I am grateful for the commitment of noble Lords to ensuring that the scheme provides robust protections for a broad range of community assets, including cultural assets.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for mentioning the Cavern Club. Some of us are heading up to Liverpool in a couple of weeks’ time, and I am sure I will renew my acquaintance with the Cavern Club. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about a relationship between culture and locality—if there was ever an iconic one, it is that relationship between Liverpool and the Cavern Club.
Amendment 112 would add assets of community value to those buildings that are excepted from the demolition permitted development right. This would mean the owner of a listed asset would need to submit a planning application if they wished to demolish it. Concert halls, live music venues and theatres are already excluded from the demolition permitted development right. In addition, the Secretary of State and local planning authorities have the power to remove certain permitted development rights more widely in their area, through the making of an Article 4 direction, provided there is justification for the direction’s purpose and intent. I trust that the explanation provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 185H would create a separate assets of cultural value category that would operate in a similar way to the existing assets of community value scheme. However, it would specifically protect arts and cultural spaces that are of importance to the community or foster specialist cultural skills. This would enable community bodies and other bodies to nominate cultural assets, and if a listed asset is put up for sale, provide a set period for this body to put in a bid to purchase the asset to maintain it for cultural purposes. The cultural value of the asset would also be a material consideration in planning decisions.
Noble Lords will be aware the Government have recently introduced the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which contains new provisions to give communities a right to buy valued community assets. Through this change, we have amended the current assets of community value scheme to ensure that it is as strong as possible at protecting locally important assets. This includes updating the assets of community value definition to help bring more assets into scope of the policy, including those that support the economy of a community and those that were historically of importance to the community.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I really enjoyed that debate, not only because it was a trip down memory lane for some, but also because of the support for it—dare I say, apart from the Minister. I am hoping that she might agree to potentially meet me and others who have expressed a view of support.
I genuinely appreciate what the Minister says about making it easier to buy. I guess what I am trying to address, and what other Lords have recognised, is that “If it ain’t there, you can’t buy it”. I hope that perhaps the Government will think again, even if it means modifying another Bill rather than this Bill.
I will simply also say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that I recognise his ambition on extending it further, but just trying to achieve something simple and straightforward would go a long way to reflect the intentions of what the Government and your Lordships have shown by their contributions tonight, that they want communities to be able to have assets they really value. I hope the Government will change their mind in due course. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Planning decisions: termite-resistant wood(1) A local planning authority may not consent to the development of new-build homes if any wood used in the construction is not termite resistant.(2) Wood is “termite resistant” if it is—(a) a species of wood that is recognised as being naturally resistant to termites such that the risk of consumption by termites is acceptably low, or(b) sufficiently treated so as to resist satisfactorily consumption by termites.(3) “New build homes” has the same meaning as in subsection 138(5) of the Building Safety Act 2022.”
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I do not know if the Minister has spent much time looking at the maps of the advance of termites across France. It is a gentle horror film, if she likes such things. They have reached Paris. There are now extensive provisions in French law for dealing with termites, for checking your house for termites before you sell it. It has become a very serious economic problem for them. As with eight-toothed bark beetle and other pests, it will doubtless make its way across the channel at some moment. It is very much headed in our direction.
Termites are not susceptible to the same pesticides as we use to control woodworm, because they function in a different way and occupy a different part of the wood. It therefore seems sensible, given that we are likely to get this thing, for us to make preparation for its arrival and not leave our entire housing stock vulnerable.
Indeed, if we were to make preparations before the termites arrive, we would have a set of people who are used to combating them and dealing with the pesticides involved, and an industry that is not building houses that are vulnerable to them. I therefore very much recommend this provision to the Government, although I appreciate that it may not actually require an amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 113, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, which raises an important and thought-provoking issue that merits the attention of your Lordships’ Committee and the Government’s consideration.
Amendment 113 concerns the use of termite-resistant wood in new-build homes. My noble friend Lord Lucas draws attention to the risks that they pose. Although historically more common in warmer climates, they may become prevalent here as our own climate changes and, as he mentioned, as they inevitably move further northwards from France. The damage that termites can inflict on timber structures is both severe and costly. In regions where infestations have taken hold, the consequences for home owners, insurers and local authorities have been profound. As temperatures rise, it is only prudent to consider the resilience of our housing stock to such emerging risks.
While I will not take a definitive position on the amendment, I commend my noble friend for raising these matters. They speak to the broader challenge of building homes that are not only fit for purpose today but resilient to the demands of tomorrow. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how the Government intend to engage on this important issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 113. He is right that I was not intimately acquainted with the procedure of termites in France. However, I do now know far more about the house longhorn beetle than I have ever known, and I will continue to look at this issue.
The noble Lord may have been in the Chamber on Monday when we were discussing wood being used in construction. I mentioned an office development I visited, which is just across the river from Parliament, and which makes extensive use of wood in its construction. We will see more of that; wood is a good building material and developments such as that are good uses of wood. It is therefore very important that we take these matters extremely seriously.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to prevent planning authorities from granting planning permission for new-build homes if timber construction products specified at planning stages are not termite resistant. Fortunately for us, termites are not endemic to the UK. Even though an infestation was recorded in the 1990s, that was subject to a successful eradication programme.
While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention, the Building Regulations, rather than the planning system, are the appropriate way of establishing minimum legal requirements in the design of new building work. The sanitary arrangements we have in place to regulate timber imports allow us to remain vigilant. The Government take the view that mandating termite resistance in any wood used for construction materials in new-build homes would be a disproportionate measure, leading to an increased cost for developers and consumers, and adding to local planning authority burdens. However, if a threat were to emerge, guidance on timber products for new development and suitable wood treatments could be included in Approved Document A, which accompanies the Building Regulations for structure.
I hope I have given some reassurance to the noble Lord; nevertheless, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for that reply, even though I had hoped for something more positive. I did take out of that, given the caution that the Minister expressed about raising costs for housebuilders, that the rumours of a change to the landfill tax are probably erroneous. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Best
“Gardens Trust to be statutory consultees for planning applicationsIn Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
“(zg) | Development likely to affect historic parks or gardens | The Gardens Trust”” |
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, had to leave, so I am moving Amendment 114 in his place, with the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman of Steventon and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The amendment would make the Gardens Trust a statutory consultee for planning applications that are likely to affect historic gardens and parks.
In sponsoring the amendment, the noble Lord would have declared his interests, which are also his credentials. He is the owner of a listed garden of some consequence and the park around it, and he has been involved with other owners and trustees of historic and particularly important gardens and parks. He is president of Historic Buildings & Places, previously the Ancient Monuments Society, and he is a member of the Gardens Trust, which I will come back to in a moment.
The working of the town and country planning system is buttressed by the various national amenity societies, which can bring to bear their very often specialist expertise in respect of some of the most sensitive sites in the country. These national amenity societies are essentially focused on buildings, but it is increasingly recognised, not least in the many debates on place-making, and I have been part of a lot of them, that the setting of buildings may be at least as important as a building itself. This relates both to the views in and to the views out.
Equally important are open spaces, which may have no buildings at all—for example, public parks and historic gardens. Expertise in these matters is not necessarily found among the established national amenity societies or planning authorities. The Gardens Trust, which was previously called the Garden History Society, has the expertise in this area, the same as national amenity societies in relation to buildings. It has evolved its work over time as the scholarship on this matter develops. It has been suggested that these matters do not require a statutory consultee because they can be dealt with through local plans, but local plans cover only about a third of local authorities and this is often about the detail. It is the devil in the detail that matters here.
I hope it is possible for government to add another statutory consultee in respect of gardens, parks and the planning applications that are likely to affect historic gardens and parks. I believe that consultation is under way and may lead to this happy outcome, but it would be great to hear the views of the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am in a similar position to the noble Lord, Lord Best, with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who expected a 7 pm finish, having gone for a train. I will try not to make a dog’s breakfast of her notes.
I will speak to Amendments 118 and 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The Liberal Democrats accept the aim of the Government in their desire to ensure that decisions on planning applications are made in a considered and timely way. The proposals in the Bill appear to neglect the notion of a considered and inclusive approach to planning decisions. Planning decisions matter hugely to communities because decisions can have a lasting impact on that community. The aim must surely be to get the balance in favour of enabling decisions to be made with the communities affected. Failure to do so can lead to long and acrimonious disputes between communities and developers. I can vouch for that.
Pre-application consideration of an application supports the needs of both a developer and the community affected. Pre-application consultation is most relevant for larger domestic and commercial applications, but may be of use in small but controversial ones, and here is why: a comprehensive pre-application stage allows for issues to be identified and resolved at the earliest opportunity, preventing costly delays and complex disputes later in the process. For example, at a pre-application consultation with residents on an application for a large housing estate, residents were able to provide vital information to the developer on the siting of historic mine workings. The precise information as to the location was not available from historical records, but residents whose families had lived in the area for many years knew. The pre-application meeting saved the developer from extensive works to find the shaft.
Another major commercial application, which cost the developer more than £100 million in preparation fees, was refused on grounds that would have become very clear if residents had been consulted before the application was submitted.
The pre-application process is currently good practice, and Amendment 119 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock is designed to make this a mandatory process. The pre-app should include, as the word suggests, an opportunity for councillors in the ward and residents to have details of the planned application, to ask questions and make suggestions about it—crucially, before a more formal application is submitted, when it becomes much more difficult to make changes. It empowers communities to be able to influence an application that will change their neighbourhood. This collaborative approach builds trust, ensures that proposals are fit for purpose and fosters greater public acceptance of vital infrastructure.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 114, 118 and 119, tabled, respectively, by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and introduced so ably by their deputies—sorry, substitutes. These amendments seek to improve the quality and accountability of consultation within the planning system. Amendment 114 seeks to make the Gardens Trust a statutory consultee for developments affecting historic parks and gardens. These are not just green spaces; they are vital heritage assets, and their protection should be part of the planning process.
Amendment 118 seeks to require pre-application consultation with the emergency services where developments may affect their operations. Too often, the fire and ambulance services are brought in too late, after issues arise, not before.
Finally, Amendment 119 addresses a more systemic issue: the need for meaningful consultation with communities. It would require the Secretary of State to consider how developers have engaged with local people before accepting applications for development consent. The message is clear: consultation should be early, serious and able to influence outcomes. It should not be just a tick-box exercise.
The role of a statutory consultee is important in the planning process, and it is right that appropriate bodies are consulted. However, it is also important that their responses are timely and pragmatic and do not unduly delay the planning process. Expanding the list of consultees may be justified but we must at all times have an eye on the risks of delay and overburdensome rules in the planning system, too.
Ultimately, these amendments are about restoring public confidence. When people feel genuinely listened to, development is not only more likely to succeed but more likely to be supported. Relationship building is intrinsic to successful planning. This helps everyone: communities, planners and developers alike. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who tabled these important amendments and their two substitutes for speaking to them. I thank all noble Lords for their patience in a very long Thursday Bill session; I am grateful to them all.
Amendments 114 and 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to designate the Gardens Trust and the emergency services as statutory consultees within the planning system. I begin by acknowledging the contributions these organisations already make across a range of functions. When you have been involved in planning, you know how important that expert advice is on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to make sure that we end up with good decision-making.
However, on 26 January the Chancellor announced a pause in the introduction of new statutory consultees, pending a broader review of the current framework. The Housing Minister subsequently issued a Written Ministerial Statement on 10 March, setting out the Government’s intention to reform the system to ensure that statutory consultees can provide timely and expert advice that supports high-quality development. The Government will be consulting on those proposed reforms shortly.
The Statement also set out our intention to consult on the impact of removing certain statutory consultees, including the Gardens Trust. This reflects a desire to streamline processes and address duplication, as Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens. This is a consultation only, and no decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts.
The Government also intend to consult on their approach to the introduction of new statutory consultees, recognising that risks and responsibilities of course evolve over time. This consultation will reflect the fact that there must be a high bar to creating new statutory consultees if we are to avoid exacerbating current issues of uncertainty, bureaucracy and delay. We should be requiring consultation on a case-by-case basis only if it is not possible to address matters strategically. Input is often effectively secured through local plans, including engagement with the emergency services, such as designing out crime; and where case-by-case engagement is warranted, local authorities already have the discretion to consult these bodies on a non-statutory basis.
Furthermore, in considering potential additions to the list of statutory consultees, it is essential that the roles of existing statutory consultees should not be duplicated, and that functions already addressed through other regimes, such as building regulations, should not be duplicated either. The fire and rescue service, for instance, already must be consulted on relevant plans as part of the building safety regulations, while the Building Safety Regulator oversees and approves work for high-risk buildings. Meanwhile, the Health and Safety Executive operates a hazardous substance licensing regime and is a statutory consultee on development applications which may be impacted by this.
Finally, although we deeply value the insights provided by a wide range of organisations during public consultations, statutory consultee status carries with it a legal obligation to respond within prescribed timeframes. That is a very significant responsibility, and sometimes even existing consultees—sometimes even upper-tier councils if you are in a district council—face challenges in meeting the requirements. For this reason, we believe the threshold for granting such status must remain appropriately high.
As I have set out, we intend to consult on these matters soon. If decisions are taken to introduce new statutory consultees, this can be done through secondary legislation under existing powers.
Amendment 119 proposes that the Secretary of State consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether an NSIP application should be accepted for examination. It suggests specifically that the Secretary of State must consider whether the application has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during the early phases, obtained relevant information about the locality, and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation.
We agree that engaging communities can support applicants to improve their applications by enabling them to identify issues important to the local community, to understand the likely impacts of the scheme, and to consider potential mitigations. However, as we have seen over our time debating these clauses, we know that the existing statutory tests related to consultation do not achieve that in a proportionate way.
We know this because evidence shows that existing statutory pre-application consultation requirements, the scale and specificity of which have been unique to the NSIP regime, have led to unintended consequences. Developers, keen to avoid risk, produce overly complex documentation aimed more at legal compliance than genuine engagement. They are reluctant to adapt their plans in response to feedback, fearing that they will need to reconsult if they do so, which slows down delivery and drives up costs—which in turn frustrates the UK’s ability to plan and deliver essential infrastructure.
I remind the Committee that, since 2013, the pre-application stage has doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects. That is why we have proposed removing statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage, including the adequacy of consultation test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. Instead, we are introducing a clearer, more practical acceptance test: is the application suitable to proceed to examination?
This new test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application and recognises that the NSIP planning process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the changes that the Government are proposing do not undermine the importance of consultation and engagement on applications, as my honourable friend Matthew Pennycook made clear in his ministerial Statement on 23 April. Applications are unlikely to be of sufficient quality to be granted consent if meaningful engagement has not been undertaken on them.
Instead of statutory requirements, the Government have now issued a consultation on guidance which will seek to help applicants understand what good engagement looks like. That consultation is open until 27 October, and we are looking forward to receiving responses. The Planning Inspectorate’s advice will also continue to emphasise the value of early issue resolution. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is satisfied with the comments of the Minister. In relation to the Gardens Trust becoming a statutory consultee, I note that there is a review of the whole process and, indeed, of the individual components within that, and that if it is going to be possible to have a new statutory consultee, secondary legislation could take care of that. At the same time, I also noticed a certain reluctance to be enthusiastic about this amendment. We will hope for the best, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Tuesday 9th September 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-V(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (9 Sep 2025)
“Rainwater harvesting and recycling(1) A local planning authority may not grant planning permission for a development of houses that does not incorporate rainwater harvesting in its design.(2) For the purposes of this section, rainwater harvesting includes—(a) rain collected from roofs and other surfaces above ground level, and(b) rain collected via a system of above ground pipes and tanks,and cannot include any rainwater harvesting which interferes with normal groundwater flow.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that rainwater harvesting systems are a compulsory part of a new developments, so as to ‘future proof’ housing in the light of climate change.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 115, 116 and 117 in my name address additions that, if included when a house was built, would help a home to be future-proofed and cheaper to run, and would address the challenges of climate change.
Amendment 115 would insert a new clause after Clause 51 to ensure that rainwater harvesting systems were a compulsory part of new developments, and would prevent a local authority from granting planning permission unless those were included in the design. Unlike many other countries around the world, the UK has very little regulation around the collection and use of rainwater. This year we saw a wetter spring, increasing storms and flooding, followed once again by a hotter, drier summer, drought and hosepipe bans. Taking water from the main supply has a financial cost and an environmental one too.
Rainwater harvesting cuts reliance on mains water, relieving pressure on available supplies from water companies and increasing resilience. The World Bank reports that rainwater harvesting can also reduce the carbon footprint associated with water treatment and distribution. Harvested rainwater can be used to water the garden or flush the loo, or it can be used in a washing machine. It is often soft water, reducing the need for softeners in hard water areas. Subject to how it is managed and how large the systems are, there is also a potential reduction in localised flood risk.
Obviously the financial and environmental savings would be higher for commercial and industrial buildings, farms and schools, but that does not mean we should overlook the long-term environmental and financial benefit to individual households or community and co-operative models. In fact, statistics from the US suggest that households can reduce water usage by 40% to 50% by using harvesting. The UN has said that, with urban populations expected to reach 68% by 2050, it is clear that, with climate change, pressure as well as rainwater harvesting will play a critical role in sustainable urban water management here as well as abroad.
The Government’s revised draft regional and water resource management plans, updated last December, highlighted that by 2055 England is looking at a shortfall of nearly 5 billion litres of water per day between sustainable water supplies available and the expected demand. Legislation under the previous Government set a target to reduce the use of the public water supply in England per head of population by 20% by 2037-38 from the 2019-20 baseline. Surely this is one small change that could also help to meet those targets alongside the overall financial and environmental benefits. In addition, technological developments in recent years have made the systems more efficient and user friendly.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I support all three amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, has brought forward. But for brevity, I am going to address my remarks to only one of them. The Private Member’s Bill she referred to when talking about her Amendment 117 was brought to the House by a Liberal Democrat Member, Max Wilkinson.
I particularly want to address the issue of rainwater harvesting. As the noble Baroness rightly said, there is an ecological issue already with us; there is insufficient water because of the changes in our weather patterns from climate change. But if the Government are not prepared to listen to those reasons, then surely from an economic point of view this amendment makes perfect sense.
First, we are already facing housing developments not being built because of water shortages, and secondly, if the Government want to get the large number of new data centres introduced, they are going to need a heck of a lot more water. It has been estimated that the large data centres use the equivalent of 50,000 homes- worth of water a day. Unless we use every single means at our disposal to utilise water properly, we are not going to be able to build the homes or the data centres that we want, so we need to look at measures such as this right now.
Some noble Lords might say that the public would not like the idea of using rainwater harvesting in their own homes. However, a recent survey by Public First asked 4,000 UK residents that question, and there was overwhelming support for the use of rainwater harvesting, both outside in people’s gardens and inside their homes for flushing the loo or using the washing machine—as the noble Baroness has said.
It is not just the noble Baroness, me and others who are making the case for rainwater harvesting. In Jon Cunliffe’s recent independent review of the future of the water industry, he made a specific recommendation about the need for rainwater harvesting to be addressed urgently. During the repeat of the Statement on the Independent Water Commission in this House on 23 July, I asked the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—whether the Government would not wait for the proposed water Bill to pick up Jon Cunliffe’s recommendation but rather look at opportunities like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to bring forward changes to building regulations so that rainwater harvesting could be mandated on new homes.
The Minister, somewhat surprisingly, immediately thought that this was a good idea—I do not often get such positive responses from the Front Bench opposite—and promised to take the matter forward and discuss it with the Minister for Water. I hope that, when the Minister responds to these amendments, she can show the House that those discussions have taken place, that the Government are taking the issue of rainwater harvesting seriously and that there will be a mandate to change building regulations.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Parminter, and to offer support for Amendment 115, to which I attach my name, and for the general intention of Amendments 116 and 117. In the interests of time, I will restrict myself to Amendment 115.
I do not often take your Lordships’ House back to my Australian origins, but as this amendment has come up, I really have to. I am going back about 35 years to a place called Quirindi in north-west New South Wales. Somewhere out on the internet there is a photo of me sitting on a horse in a field, or paddock as we would say, that is dead flat and dead dry, without a blade of grass on it—that is Quirindi.
As an agricultural science student, I remember the farmer explaining how to live there. He took me out the back to the water tank, which was a very large tank that caught the water off the farmhouse roof. There was no town water in Australian farming, so that entire operation and household depended on the water that they caught off the roof. I still remember the farmer rapping on the side of the tin tank and saying, “That’s where the water is; we’re in trouble”.
Noble Lords might think, “Oh, that’s Australia—that’s far away; that’s a very distant place”. Quirindi has an annual average rainfall of 684 millimetres a year. There are parts of south-east England that have an annual rainfall of 700 millimetres a year, which is essentially the same amount. There is also the impact of the climate emergency and the fact that we are seeing more weather extremes and more drying out.
There is something Britain can learn from the Australian practices that have been enforced over history and that can be imported here for a win-win benefit. No one loses from the proposal in Amendment 115. As I think has already been mentioned, we in the UK use about 150 litres of water a day per capita. That compares with France, which uses 128; Germany, which uses 122; and Spain, which uses 120. This is expensively treated drinking water that we are using for all kinds of practices that we do not need to use drinking water for.
I am going to quote Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust:
“We also need to finally implement the use of rainwater rather than drinking water where we can, such as car washing, gardening, washing pets, filling paddling pools, and flushing the loo. Other water-stressed countries have used this approach for decades and we need to join that party.”
I really stress the “party” element. I do not think we have mentioned the issue of flooding yet. Many of us have been speaking about the need for land management to slow the flow. What could be a better way to slow the flow than to catch that water so that it is not flooding out into our drains, water treatment plants, rivers and seas and so that we can have it available for use?
Often, when we talk about water use, there is a lot of finger-waving: “People should switch the tap off when they’re brushing their teeth and people should have shorter showers”. But what we really need is a system change that makes doing the right thing the easiest, cheapest, simplest and most natural thing to do. That is exactly what this proposal is putting forward. So this is a win-win all round: for householders, cutting their bills; for preventing flooding; for protecting the environment; and for saving energy—we do not think about this much, but moving water around and treating water uses a great deal of energy. I looked up the stats, and we do not seem to have any good stats in the UK, but globally, the United Nations says that 8% of energy use goes towards treating and moving water. That is such a waste when you have water falling on your roof that you can use right there in place. Pumping it out to a reservoir, treating it and pumping it back in—all that uses energy. This is a common-sense measure; why on earth not?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that many good things come from Australia, and she is one of them. The tapping on the tank she describes is exactly what I have been doing in Leicestershire in recent weeks. I have some experience of water harvesting, both from domestic roofs and from commercial buildings, and actually it is not very difficult, because roofs are all designed to channel water into pipes, and it is simply a matter of intercepting that water and using it.
I do have a couple of practical concerns. The first is that, as anybody who has done this will know, even a modest rain shower will give you an awful lot of water. As a result, any housing development or business premises is going to find itself with a very large need for water storage somewhere on that site, either underground or above ground. My second concern is how that water is recycled. I am not squeamish about drinking or using non-mains water. I raised a family on water drawn from an underground stream, not on the mains at all. But water left standing in a tank will grow bad and grow algae very quickly. If that is the solution, we need to find out how to treat it.
Furthermore, there is a real issue that I run into: the water companies and Ofwat will not even contemplate the danger of mingling water collected by a third party with mains water—in a header tank, in your pipes or anywhere else—because they are liable for the quality of that water. So, if you mingle it with rainwater, they will not allow you to draw mains water. The golden thread here is to find a system where rainwater is the norm and the mains is the back-up, but we are a long way from that at the moment and will be until the regulatory and practical storage issues are solved. To be clear, I thoroughly support this amendment—the spirit of it—but the practicalities of it need to be worked out effectively into the design of water systems supplying domestic and commercial premises.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Briefly, I support the amendments in this group and congratulate my noble friend on tabling them. I am particularly pleased by the reference to Slow the Flow projects, which were successful in places such as Pickering. Is it possible to achieve this through building regulations? Is it something that we should already be encouraging, without waiting for primary legislation? That would really expedite proceedings. Also, I understand that Germany is piloting solar panels on fencing. In many new developments, that might be a better than or equally good option as putting them on roofs.
I welcome these amendments and hope that the Minister might look upon them in a supportive way, but I would hope to achieve them through building regulations, which would be speedier than through primary legislation.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as I have nine water butts all collecting rainwater when it rains. However, further to what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, there are some issues. For instance, what falls on roofs does not necessarily arrive in a clean form; particularly in some urban areas and in others, it may be contaminated by things such as bird droppings, which would be quite a serious issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, refers rightly to the problem of having dual plumbing systems in houses. There is a serious issue to do with potential cross-contamination and, therefore, who is responsible. But on the generality of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, has put forward, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Parminter, it is right that we need to conserve water, so we do not use expensively treated water from the mains supply. It is absolutely daft to be using that for washing the car or watering the roses. The roses do not care how much bacteriological contamination there is in it—they love it. From that point of view, the more the merrier. The vehicle does not mind what you wash it with either, most of the time.
I learned a great deal from my late sister, the elder of my two sisters, who died earlier this year, that I did not learn from being a chartered surveyor. She was a very senior hydrogeologist, and her point about rainwater harvesting is that you have to be careful about the infiltration that is necessary and naturally occurring. When rainwater falls on a hard surface, it runs off to a drain. What then? Does it disappear off down through some massive Thames pipeline to somewhere beyond Barking, or does it go into the soil and replenish an aquifer? If it has all been put into the loo and is going off as foul water, you lose that to the infiltration process. The more that we build, the more hard surfaces that we have and the more we pipe it away, the more we have to be concerned about infiltration.
Previously in Committee, noble Baronesses raised the point about flooding. Of course, infiltration is part and parcel of that. If you have all the run-off arriving at the same point down a modern piping system that conveys water away very quickly, you will end up with trouble. If you can detain water in some way by storage and infiltration, you stand a better chance, little by little, of dealing with some of those problems. But it is a fine balance as to what is happening, and it certainly requires a lot of further investigation.
The other amendment that attracted my attention was the one on ground source heat pump installation. I absolutely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. All I would say is that, if a heat pump requires three-fifths of what you might call the energy demand to provide heating, that means that three-fifths of whatever the alternative will be—oil or gas—is put on to the grid.
The chief problem with the grid is that it does not have the distribution capacity—I am not sure that it has the generation capacity in total, but other noble Lords are much more knowledgeable about that than I am. This raises a particular problem with housing development. I recall not so long ago going to visit a small housing development in north Dorset. The developer there had to provide energy for cooking and heating via an LPG bulk storage tank, which noble Lords will know is a very expensive way of funding your energy. That was done because the tank was provided free of charge, provided that the LPG was purchased from the particular supplier, and the reason for that was because there was not sufficient capacity in the local grid to power these things from an electrical standpoint.
That ties in, to some extent, with the other point that the noble Baroness raised, about solar power. Yes, I agree that that ought to be part and parcel of it, but maybe there is a link to be made between solar power and the efficiency thereof and the ground source heat pump. Now, I know nothing about the wattage that is needed for a ground heat source pump, but again I say that there is a trade-off, a balance between that 60% of what would otherwise be the carbon load being transferred on to either the grid or a solar panel system.
I know that in places such as Austria, there are now things that they refer to as balcony panels or balcony sheets. These are flexible sheets of material composed entirely of solar PV material. People put them up and they can power small appliances. Other people tell me that solar panels in certain configurations have become so cheap that they can now be used as a fencing panel, because it is a cheaper way of doing it. Now, I do not know what the rate of deterioration and attrition is of these panels, and that is obviously a fairly important consideration, because they contain things which are not readily recyclable and therefore there is that problem of end-of-life disposal, but I think that perhaps the noble Baroness could encourage the Minister to think about and work on getting this balance right, so that at least we cut some of the consumption—maybe not all of it, but some of it—of these expensively produced and increasingly scarce resources. To that extent, I very much support these amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I ask the noble Earl, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, perhaps rhetorically, whether they are aware of the One Million Cisterns project in Brazil, which aimed to deliver what it said on the tin and indeed has done so and was expanded subsequently. This is in the semi-arid area of Brazil, home to 18 million people. Brazil, of course, has a lot less infrastructure and is much economically poorer than the UK, yet it has been able to deliver a programme that has won United Nations awards and had all sorts of impacts. I hope the noble Lords will acknowledge that since other countries have achieved this, maybe it is not an unreasonable expectation for us to achieve it too.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I should just quickly say that we can learn a lot from Brazil as well as Australia. I am in favour of the amendment; I would just add that I did not realise that water butts were a declarable interest, and if they are, I had better declare that I too have some.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the greatest example of the gathering of rainwater that we can learn from is in Bermuda. They have stepped roofs made of limestone, so when the water lands on them the possibility of purifying the water is high—the sunlight also works as a purifier. The water then goes through the tunnels into cisterns under each house, and that is how they get their water. It is clean and pure, so if you want to capture more water to be used for drinking, it is not by mixing it with what comes out of the taps, but by recreating the miracle of Bermuda and its water. It is an island, there are no rivers—there is nothing. The only thing they have is rain. When it comes, everybody is very glad, and all their tanks are filled with beautiful water. If you want to capture more rainwater, why not learn from Bermuda?
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, invited me to acknowledge that other jurisdictions do this better. I entirely agree, but they do not always have the same regulatory baggage that we in this country seem to have; perhaps there is something that can be unpicked and dissolved there.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Khan. Although he sat on the Opposition Benches, he always approached his shadow ministerial duties in your Lordships’ House with courtesy, commitment and friendship. He was diligent, engaged and unfailingly respectful in his dealings with me and my team. While we did not always agree, I greatly valued the constructive spirit he brought to our debates, and I wish him well in whatever lies ahead; I will miss working with him.
I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling these probing amendments, which raise important issues about the way we prepare our housing stock for the future. Amendment 115, on rainwater harvesting, Amendment 116, on communal ground source heat pumps, and Amendment 117, on solar panels, speak to the wider challenge of how new homes can be made more resilient in the face of climate change. The principle of future-proofing is one most of us would support, but the question for government is how far and at what cost such measures should be mandated, and the practicality of doing so. Can the Minister clarify whether, in the Government’s view, current building regulations, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, already provide the right framework to encourage technologies such as rainwater capture, ground source heat pumps and solar panels, or is further regulation envisaged? Has the department carried out an assessment of the costs and benefits of making such systems compulsory, including the potential impact on house prices and affordability, and how these costs might be lowered in the future? Has it also considered the capacity of local electrical grids to support these systems and other potential loads such as EV charging?
There is also a question of consistency. To what extent are local authorities currently able to set higher environmental standards for new developments, and do the Government believe this local flexibility is the right approach, or should it be centralised?
Finally, how are the Government weighing the balance between affordability for first-time buyers on the one hand and, on the other, the need to reduce the long-term costs to households and infrastructure of failing to invest in resilience? These are the issues I hope the Minister will address, because it is that balance between ambition, practicality and cost which must guide policy in this area.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for moving her amendment. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about my noble friend Lord Khan, who is actually a friend and was a very good Minister. We really appreciate the effort he put into his role in this House, and I wish him well for the future.
We have had a very good debate this afternoon on these issues. I too declare my interest in water butts, since I have two in the garden which we use for watering it. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that they fill rather quickly, so it is a good, efficient use of water, rather than using the hosepipe.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and welcome him to his new role on the Front Bench. In doing so, I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and echo what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said about him.
I too should declare an interest in owning a water butt—I did not realise that was essential at the beginning of these amendments—but, more seriously, I thank others who have spoken to this amendment, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett, who added their names to Amendment 115. I was delighted to see the cross-party support for the concept of these amendments. I absolutely note the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but I am sure where there is a will there is a way. A couple of years ago, I was in Tunis for a conference and I went around the old souk. I went to this little house that was set up as a museum and I got talking to the owner. Among other things, I said, “What do you do for water here?” It was midsummer; it was really hot. He said, “Come with me”. He took me to the floor and pulled up a stone that could be lifted and, rather like we heard about in Bermuda, there underneath was a whole water supply that had been gathered during the rainy season.
I note what the Minister says about not prescribing one size fits all and that we must be open to innovation. I suppose I would urge that, in all the interests we have talked about, we use what we know now and leave the door open to innovation in the future. We need to build homes that are equipped for the future. Developers will always have an eye to their financial pockets and will resist including future-proofing, as they say it will cause them expense, but some of them make huge profits and there is a little room to address these issues within that.
This is a perfect opportunity to include measures in legislation, rather than to wait for some opportunity in the future. These measures are good for the environment and will help the people who buy these homes with their bills. So, I will ponder what the Minister has said and may revert to this topic, but I will withdraw the amendment at this time.
Baroness Pinnock
“Register of planning applications from political donors(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I too will miss the noble Lord, Lord Khan, on the Government Front Bench. He always managed to respond to any questions I had with a smile. I even forgave him for living in Lancashire. We wish him well from these Benches and I hope the Minister will pass those messages on for us. We look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, also responding with a smile.
Amendment 120 in my name seeks to ensure transparency in decision-making in the planning process. The integrity of the process is vital. From my own experience, I know that objectors to a planning application can readily feel that, if they do not get their way, it is because shady deals have been done. Transparency helps to cure any such allegations.
Unfortunately, there is a recent example of a senior national politician who became far too closely involved with a developer and made hasty decisions based on pressure from the developer regarding funding and costs. The example that I have in mind is that, in 2020, the Housing Secretary, at that time Robert Jenrick MP, accepted that he approved a £1 billion housing development in the east of London unlawfully. The 1,500-home development on the Isle of Dogs was approved on 14 January, the day before the community infrastructure levy charges placed on the developments were increased. The timing of the decision
“meant Conservative Party donor Richard Desmond avoided paying around £40m”.
Mr Jenrick eventually accepted that his decision was indeed unlawful after the Government’s own planning inspector
“advised against the scheme saying it needed to deliver more affordable housing in what is London’s poorest borough”.
The inspector described the 44-storey high buildings as harming the character of the area, but, despite the clear direction from the planning inspector,
“Mr Jenrick rejected that advice and approved planning permission for the project”.
Obviously, planning permission was later rescinded following the legal challenge made by the local council. I have quoted largely from the BBC report of that event.
It is clear from this example alone that safeguards are needed. Amendment 120 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would require local planning authorities to maintain and publish a register of planning applications where the applicant has donated to the relevant Secretary of State within the preceding 10 years. This proposal aims to increase transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest in the planning process.
The amendment will mandate local planning authorities to create and publish a public register. The register will list planning applications that have been determined by the Secretary of State for Housing and Planning—or whatever the name is at any point—and the applications included would be those from applicants who have made donations to that Secretary of State within the past 10 years. That is not much of an ask, but it is yet another safeguard in the planning process. Whenever applications reach the Secretary of State, it means that they are very controversial and have been called in following referral to the planning inspector.
The planning system absolutely depends on public trust if people are to believe that the process is a fair one. Given that, I look forward to the Minister welcoming greater transparency and a very simple process to throw light on some of these more controversial decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and to commend the noble Baroness for introducing a practical, sensible and necessary amendment to the Bill. Before I get to that, I want to join the chorus and give my very sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who, like others, we in the Green group have found was very approachable and extremely hard-working, and he will certainly be very much missed—I want to put that on the record.
This amendment aims to ensure that a planning authority maintains a register of applications in its area where the Secretary of State has made a determination over it and where a political donation has been associated with it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, this might be called the Jenrick amendment. I will just leave that there—I will not go back over that ground.
I will make a very serious point. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about this as safeguarding the planning process. I think this is about something more important and central than that. This is about safe- guarding, or at least making a step towards restoring, trust in the political process. That is far more important and crucial. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who would disagree that we have a huge problem with trust in politics.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have not been in your Lordships’ House for that long, but this is the most outrageous amendment possible. It is a baseless smear against somebody. The noble Baroness says that it is a safeguard, but this is a stunt that will do nothing to improve transparency in politics. The last two speakers talk about trust in politics while suggesting back-hands and under the counter deals are the lingua franca of planning and that there is some sort of corruption at play.
I have been a council leader for 20 years. I can tell you that, when I ran my council, while it was easy to have cheap remarks in the local newspaper about brown paper bags and so forth, on not one occasion was I ever aware, either colloquially or in practice, of even the suggestion of bribery or corruption. That is what is at the heart of this.
The noble Baroness mentioned a former Secretary of State in the other place and suggested that money passed hands. The suggestion was that he happened to meet a person at a dinner who subsequently donated through his company, quite properly and with a full declaration to the Electoral Commission. That is not improper. In politics we need to meet people outside the Westminster bubble to find out where we are.
That aside, the substance of the amendment is nonsense. We already have an organisation—a trusted public body that is outside the organisations that the noble Baroness seeks to smear—called the Electoral Commission. Every few weeks, and certainly every quarter, a summary is provided of any donation by any individual or company that exceeds £500, not just to an individual but to political parties in general. That is where people should look if they want to find malpractice or malfeasance. The hard-pressed local planning officer and his support team are not the people to act in judgment on this.
This is just a stunt. I hope that, even before the Minister stands up, the noble Baroness will think about withdrawing the amendment without further debate. This is an assault on the political integrity of our country. It is a smear that should be beneath the noble Baroness and those who speak in favour of it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am not sure that this amendment hits the target of potential corruption in relation to planning. In my view, the central problem is not with central government but with local government. We are all becoming accustomed to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who is very eloquent, describing the council that he has been involved in as a paragon of perfection over the last 20 or 30 years, and I accept what he says about his council down there in Norfolk. However, those of us who have been in legal practice over the years, and/or have been Members of the other place, and/or have had to deal in other ways with allegations of corruption, are well aware that there is a centuries-long history of local government corruption in relation to planning issues above everything else. I accept that there are protections and that most councillors, such as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would never consider being involved in corruption. But my experience of doing criminal corruption cases in relation to local government is that the people who commit the corruption, whether they are councillors or officers, are not the ones who subscribe to the regulations and the registers that have been set out.
We must continue to be extremely vigilant about corruption in relation to planning. There is an enormous amount of money involved. I hope that the Minister is of the view that to call this kind of amendment an appalling stunt is to lose oneself in the backwoods of local government and to be not a frequent reader of newspapers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this has gone a different way, has it not?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 120. Not knowing which way it would go, and not totally agreeing with my noble friend at the back, I think this raises an important point of principle that deserves to be considered.
At first glance, this is a very specific proposal, but the noble Baroness is right to highlight the broader issue that lies behind it, without the political point-scoring. It is the need for transparency, integrity and public trust in the planning system. We all recognise that planning decisions, as we have heard, are among the most contentious and sensitive areas of government, nationally and locally. Undue influence or even the perception of it can do damage to public trust in local communities and in Ministers and government. The noble Baroness is therefore right to remind us that we must be vigilant about conflicts of interest and that transparency is the best safeguard against suspicion.
The principle that the noble Baroness presses is a sound one, but there is a question of whether it is practically deliverable. Do our local planning authorities —which are, as we hear every day, underresourced—have the skills and capacity to deliver on this requirement? I am not sure that they do. Perhaps we should consider whether MHCLG should take on this responsibility, as it has greater access to the information that would be required. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on this one.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for another interesting debate on an issue around which we need to continue to be vigilant. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 120, which seeks to introduce a requirement on local planning authorities to keep a registry of planning applications made by political donors which are decided by Ministers.
The honourable Member for Taunton and Wellington brought this clause forward in the other place, and in doing so, he referred to a particular planning case that had raised cause for concern. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss that case, but I would like to echo the sentiments of the Housing Minister when I say that I also share those concerns.
However, we believe that this clause is unnecessary. Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission and planning application decisions that relate to their area. This includes details and application decisions where the Secretary of State, or other Planning Ministers who act on his behalf, has made the decision via a called-in application or a recovered appeal. This is set out in Article 40 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
In addition, the Secretary of State’s decisions on planning cases are also published on GOV.UK in order to provide additional transparency. The details on GOV.UK include the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision. When determining applications for planning permission, the Secretary of State and other Planning Ministers who act on his behalf operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. Planning propriety guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts at the time. Any conflicts of interest between the decision-making role of Ministers and their other interests should be avoided.
Planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code. The Ministerial Code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity. Gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall within the rules relating to the registers of Members’ and Lords’ financial interests.
Also, before any Planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance sets out that they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict of interest or where there could be a perceived conflict of interest. The planning casework unit within the department uses this information to ensure that Planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to the perception of impropriety—for example, if the Minister in question has declared that the applicant of the proposal is a political donor, they would be recused from making the decision.
We therefore feel that there is sufficient transparency on planning casework decisions made by the Secretary of State and Planning Ministers who act on his behalf, and it is not necessary to impose an additional administrative burden on local planning authorities, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, we need to continue to be vigilant. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Going back to a previous group we had late last week, does the noble Lord think it could be useful that all Ministers taking planning decisions had a little bit more training, as we suggested?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
On this particular issue, they do take training, and it is deemed at the moment to be necessary, but obviously all this stuff is kept under review.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank all—well, nearly all—who have taken part in this short debate that has raised the issue of how important transparency and trust are in the planning process. It is important for the reason the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, gave, which is that often considerable sums of money are involved in planning applications; and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the point that if you do not have a transparent process, social media certainly takes over, and then it is really difficult to ensure that the truth is out because you have no evidence to support it.
All I am going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is that methinks he doth protest too much. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her support and her suggestion that maybe this could be incorporated into the overview of the government department, whatever we call it these days.
Finally, the Minister in his reply said that it is okay because we take care of all this stuff already and it is already recorded. All I can say is that, in the case that I gave recounted, it took a legal challenge by Tower Hamlets Council to overturn that decision when it was declared unlawful, which drew me to think about ways of getting greater transparency into the process. I would like us to think again about that and maybe take up the idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, of somehow including it in a government process if it were not possible to do it at local government level. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Provision of green space in new housing developmentsAny application for permission for the development of housing must include provision for—(a) green spaces including private and community gardens, play areas and such other green space as the community consultation has identified as essential to them;(b) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, with the amendments in this group being supported all around the Committee, it suggests to me that there is a strong opinion that the Bill should not be so silent on green spaces. My Amendment 121 seeks to make it mandatory that provision for green space must be included in any application for new housing developments. It does not seek to be prescriptive as to the type of green space but leaves that open to community consultation.
Noble Lords will be aware that the revised National Planning Policy Framework recognises that green space is important, and it includes in its golden rules, where it refers to
“the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public”.
Where residential development is involved, the objective is that:
“New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces”.
The problem with that is that the wording is rather vague, and the green space is only an objective, not a requirement. At worst, that requirement could be fulfilled through off-site provision. We must learn from past developments and ensure green space provision is integral to the developments. It must be there at master-plan stage.
Let us look at some of the advantages, which I am sure noble Lords are very aware of. The BBC suggests that approximately 28% of people live more than a 15-minute walk from their nearest public park, and the Green Space Index reports that 6.1 million people have no park or green space within a 10 or 15-minute walk. The thing is that a 10 or 15-minute walk with a couple of toddlers or for an elderly person is a round trip of 30 or 40 minutes. Later in the Bill, we will get to the issue of mitigation, so I will not discuss that here except to point out that, if local delivery of mitigation is prioritised, then high-quality, nature-rich green spaces will be baked into the plans.
These are all positive things that we need to look at. There is the boosting of mental health and overall well-being. A long-term study by the University of Exeter found that living in greener areas significantly reduces mental distress and increases life satisfaction. I am sure we can all remember the disparity in access to green space during the Covid-19 lockdowns, particularly for those without gardens. It really became starkly clear, and it really intensified the public’s demand that parks are valued, because people suddenly really realised the value of their local park, be it big or small.
Then, of course, there is tackling physical inactivity. Proximity to parks and open spaces encourages physical activity. People living within 500 metres of green areas are more likely to take at least 30 minutes of daily exercise, and it has been estimated that access to quality green and blue spaces in England could save £2.1 billion a year in health costs—and that is before we get on to the environmental benefits.
Green space—trees, grass—is involved in carbon sequestration and air quality issues. Trees, shrubs and grasslands absorb CO2, acting as carbon sinks. The vegetation filters out air pollutants—for example, particulate matter—which is important with respect to ozone in urban areas. It improves urban air quality, again reducing health burdens. Green spaces tend to reduce the local temperature when it is hot in summer through shading, and cooler microclimates lessen reliance on energy-intensive air conditioning, cutting emissions from electricity use. Green spaces are win-win in every way.
Noble Lords have just been talking about flood risk reduction and water management; green spaces, with their permeable soils, vegetation and sustainable urban drainage, absorb rainwater and reduce runoff. During the debate we have just had on water management, we did not mention, for example, the city of Philadelphia, which had a very similar issue to the one that we in London have solved through the Thames tunnel. In Philadelphia, they solved it by creating masses of green space; they spent less money, yet they have the win-win situation already.
That is a lot of advantages, without mentioning the biodiversity and ecosystem services that we can get through those plantings. Strategically planted trees provide shading in summer, which I have mentioned, and wind protection in winter, improving thermal comfort for people in those areas.
Masses of research and dozens of statistics make the case for accessible, quality green space. I have read a lot of this research in the papers, but I make this case because of the sheer joy and relaxation that I personally experience from a walk in the park, whether here in London or at home in Devon. I want to ensure that that is our contribution to this Bill.
I certainly support the other amendments in this group from, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Gascoigne, who are right to put green into spatial strategies. I have also added my name to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on allotments and community gardens, which are particularly special green spaces and great promoters of community cohesion, but I will resist going on about that as I am looking forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The final two amendments in this group seek to give development corporations a duty to provide green space—again, an extremely correct ambition.
The Government must see that there is a lacuna in the Bill, as nowhere does it place any mandatory duty for the provision of green space as an essential. It is not—and should not be regarded as—an optional extra. Given the large number of Peers who have tabled amendments on this issue, I hope that the Minister will bring forward some constructive wording before Report to fulfil the aspiration all around the House. I beg to move.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 138 but first, if I may, I will join in the love-in from the previous group for the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who was momentarily with us. I wish him all the best. As the Minister can testify, he was my shadow, alongside my noble friend, on the Front Bench when I had the honour to sit on that Front Bench. As an east Lancastrian comrade, I wish him all the best with whatever he goes on to do.
My Amendment 138 seeks to insert green spaces, allotments and community gardens into the considerations of the spatial development strategy, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson for adding his name to it. Fundamentally, I see this as quite a pragmatic proposal. It sets out that these amenities should be considered in developments. It is not onerous; it is not stipulating a percentage or proportion; it just says that they should be considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it sits alongside a number of other amendments all of which push in a general movement for more green space and all of which I support. I support Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I am keen to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on her Amendment 206, because she broadens it out to include not just green infrastructure but blue infrastructure, which is good. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, all these together are saying that, where possible, we should try to put more in.
I am conscious that there is a whole raft of groups to go, so the Government Whips need not worry, because I will not repeat things I have said previously nor pre-empt the words of what will be said by far more articulate people than me in this group. But I want to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was saying. I say respectfully to the Minister that we are seeing a group of people from across this House who are keen to put more into this Bill. I am sure that when the Minister responds there will be many words arguing why this is supported but not necessary, because it will be in the NPPF and this is great, but I hope what she will understand when we all speak and from what is down in the amendments already is that it does not need to be onerous or stipulating anything specific. Even just a hat tip will be enough. I think the Government can support it, because it is in the revised NPPF. It is something that I think developers will want us to do, and it is not onerous. This is not just about nature, as important as that is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is about building communities and developments that people will enjoy living in. Before we go to the next stage of this Bill, I hope that we can find some way of coming together and some language to put in the Bill that the Government can support.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 206 in my name, I declare my interest, as in the register, as chair of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Sheehan, for their support in adding their names. I will also speak to Amendment 138B. I also wholly support the other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 138 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to which I have added my name. All seek to put in place ways to legislate for greater access to green and blue spaces in urban landscapes and the multiple co-benefits this can bring to people, climate and nature.
My Amendments 206 and 138B are similar in intention and are a two-pronged approach to future-proofing existing commitments into legislation, adding provisions that ensure that access to green and blue spaces is incorporated for both spatial development strategies and development corporations, and to ensuring that our planning system contributes more to the delivery of these vital spaces. Without statutory requirements, the reality is that opportunities to include green and blue spaces—things like urban water features, ponds and wetlands—from the design stage are often missed. The evidence is quite strong on that. These two amendments would ensure that when developers build new towns they design access to such spaces from the outset.
At Second Reading, I made this precise case for access to green and blue spaces. I made the point that the Government made a commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established at COP15 in 2022 and in their Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, which is currently under review, that every citizen should be within 15 minutes’ walking distance of a green or blue space. I take the point that that might not be enough, especially with small children, but we need to think about the 15 minutes. In her response, the Minister indicated that further legislation was not required because this was already part of our planning system through the NPPF.
I propose two counterpoints on this issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out further clarity about what further strengthening measures the Government envision so that this commitment is realised. The first, as a number have already said, is that the NPPF is only guidance and is subject to interpretation by decision-makers and change by current and future Governments. Time and again we are seeing the loss of urban green space because there is a view, even in some of our current laws, that it is fine to build over green space and move it outside the city, because it is better for nature outside the city.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I support most warmly all of the amendments in this group; I believe that they are very important indeed. Approaching it as they do from slightly different points of view, they all make the same fundamental point about the importance of building in arrangements so that, from the start, we look at the importance of green space for people’s health and well-being, and for nature.
As others have most eloquently explained all the virtues, I will not rehearse them at this point, but I will make one little point through a personal anecdote, which may add to this. Some years ago, I was very seriously ill. When I was moved from intensive care finally into a ward, I was lucky enough to be beside a window where I could see the tops of green trees and birds coming to and fro. Underneath the window, there was a small pool where ducks were quacking. I love ducks and every time I heard them quack, I smiled. I am absolutely convinced that it was a real help in getting better. I believe there is strong medical evidence that those in hospital who have access to green spaces recover far better. That said, I have been in politics a long time. I am somewhat cynical and do not believe in good intentions unless they are backed by law to make things happen, so that is why I am so strongly in support of this.
I have some worries occasioned by Amendment 121, which was so ably brought forward. It says that new housing developments should have a built-in requirement for green spaces. In practice, what might happen? The Government are devoted to building more and more houses because they are needed but are the green spaces, which are so important with those housing developments, going to get equal weight? I believe that there could be conflicts in practice as this policy is developed. What I do not want to see is that, by excluding the new housing developments from having proper green spaces, we are starting to build the slums of the future. I do not suppose I shall live long enough for that; indeed, if all the over-80s are thrown out, I shall not even be here much longer. But while I am here, I shall fight.
The other points that arise come from the need to make sure that we have proper regulations—there is no substitute for that. Even then, of course, implementation is equally important. The law on the statute book or regulation that is in place but not implemented is in danger of being as though it did not exist. I believe that that is another point which it is very important to consider.
In the past, both the noble Baroness and I served on the Horticultural Sector Select Committee. I would advise Ministers, if they have time, to take a look at its report because many of the points we are discussing today were brought forward very strongly and were backed by some excellent and expert people. I have a copy here. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am not going to quote extensively from it, but it merits consideration because, as I say, it is a backing for everything we are talking about this afternoon.
In view of the time, I will not detain the Committee further, save to say let us go for it and make the Government change their mind.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I am really privileged to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who I admire greatly from afar—and she is absolutely spot on on this occasion as well. Several noble Lords have laid out the benefits and value of nature-rich green spaces close to where people live, so I will not go through those.
I want to focus particularly on Amendments 138B and 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I commend her erudite book on green spaces and health, which is an excellent evidence-based exposition of the whole case for green spaces and health—including mental health—improvement. In the interests of transparency, I particularly commend it since she sent me a free copy.
Apart from all the evidence the noble Baroness’s work provides on health and mental health benefits, I will also give an example from the work of the Woodland Trust, which I was privileged to chair until very recently, on what it is calling “tree equity”. The trust has mapped the prevalence of woods and trees and discovered, in line with other relationships between green open space and deprivation, that the poorest communities have the least wood and tree cover. That means that deprived populations are deprived in not only a socioeconomic but an environmental sense. The Woodland Trust is now engaging with local authorities, developers and others in those most tree-deprived areas to focus on the creation of green wooded spaces to enhance health, mental health and well-being and improve the environment for these deprived communities.
The model comes from an American example that covers the whole of the United States and was developed by the Woodland Trust’s equivalent in the States—good things do come out of the United States. Chicago, an early example of where this was promoted with some vengeance, showed unexpected benefits beyond mental health and well-being. There were reduced crime rates and enhanced community engagement, and the whole project of creating more green open spaces also created community leaders of the future, who learned their skills as community leaders in tree-planting schemes and community green space and then, strangely enough, went on to champion other community action on a whole range of issues. This is about community cohesion and the development of leadership, as well creating these very important green open spaces. I commend to noble Lords the Woodland Trust’s website on “tree equity”—although I hate the term as it is very clinical for something that is very important.
Although it is a bit better than it was, at the moment the creation of green spaces associated with developments depends wholly on the commitment of local authorities and developers. Some developers and local authorities are good at doing this and some are not. Guidance and the NPPF only encourage this, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, pointed out, the NPPF is very vague in defining what standards are to be achieved, both on proximity to where people live and the quality of the green open spaces. I have seen development proposals where planting a few trees along avenues is the best they can muster.
As has already been pointed out, we need a much more fundamental approach. Master planning needs to be the space in which it happens, but encouragement and requirement needs to be built into spatial strategies, local plans and the responsibility of development corporations through statute, not simply by exhortation, as happens in the NPPF. The Minister will probably tell me—she told me this morning she was going to say this—that the NPPF is a requirement laid on local authorities and developers, but if you look at the terms of the NPPF, the reality is that it is an exhortation rather than anything that can be measured in performance.
I hope the Minister can tell us whether the Government are satisfied with developer and local authority performance on green space delivery, and, if they are not, whether she will seriously consider accepting these amendments so that a statutory requirement is included in the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join this rich debate, in which the House is blooming with eloquence as we focus on the value of green and blue to all our futures, to our health and well-being and of course to the planet. I particularly commend the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for adding blue spaces, which are what we need to focus on. I want to cross-reference Amendment 115, which we started with. We are used to the 20th-century approach: “There’s some water: we’ve got to flush it away, get rid of it, manage it”, as though water is a problem. Of course, water is crucial to our life and well-being, and we need to treasure it, value it and hold it around us, rather than treat it as a waste product, as far too often happens.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I shall be very brief, as nearly everything has been said very much more eloquently than I would have done in support of Amendment 149. I have scrapped most of what I was going to say.
I just add that we talk about the benefits of being grounded. There are few better ways of achieving that than working with the soil, the weather and the seasons on an allotment. However, that privilege can be enjoyed only if there is an area accessible to cultivate. The allotment movement in the UK is a long-standing tradition and it should not be squeezed out simply to create more spaces to put houses on in a limited area.
I would go a little further than this amendment. The allocation of area should reflect the number of houses and the expected population. Currently, allotments are included in the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement, which is completely different from allotments. There is some overlap, but it is a different requirement. I ask whichever Minister is going to cover this whether they agree that we need some sort of metric within the planning system that says: “x population; y land allocated for allotments”—otherwise we are just in the land of good intentions, and we know where they lead.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will add three completely new points from a health perspective, and one that may I think have been covered.
The first point is that we are going through a major transition in thinking about health and in the way to create health and prevent diseases. People may well be aware that the links between nature and health and activity have been known for years, going back to the Greeks—and one could quote them. The key difference today, which I think has not yet come out yet, is the quality of the evidence that we have about that impact. It is due to researchers, including my noble friend Lady Willis, that we now understand the physiological evidence about the impact—how being in nature actually affects the body, and the biological mechanism behind this. Importantly, as the noble Baroness has shown herself and as she quoted earlier, there is evidence that green space in urban areas is even more important than in rural areas. That is the first really significant point—that the quality of evidence is now there.
The second point is that the health system is starting to act on that quality of evidence. If I say that the evidence for this is now as good as for many medicines, based on the same sort of considerations and published in the same sort of journals, there is no reason why we should not be thinking, as many people are, about how we go beyond pills. I need just to state a very simple point —that last year alone 8 million people were prescribed anti-depressants. That is an astonishing number, and this is one area where one might well think that being in nature and the activities involved would have an impact.
The third area I want to point to is government policy. It is very clear, is it not, that the new NHS plan, with its transitions from hospital to community and treatment to prevention, describes that it needs to create the sort of healthy environments that this amendment and others in this group envisage. I should have said at the beginning that I have put my name to Amendment 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which I am particularly speaking to. There are some very strong health considerations here that are different from those that have been around before. There is policy, there is evidence and there is action actually starting to happen within our health systems. It seems to me that, if this Government have the ambition to leave the country in a better place than they found it—beyond simply numbers of housing units—then they need to catch this tide and make sure that there is implementation and that we are creating healthy homes and neighbourhoods.
I shall add one final point, which has already been mentioned, about the importance of allotments and of growing—the importance not just of being engaged with nature and physical activity but of being engaged in social networks and in the activity that surrounds that. These things come together to create healthy neighbourhoods and at the heart of it are the sorts of measures that have been set forward in all these amendments.
Lord O’Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, my former colleague, as someone who has championed the idea that well-being should be the goal of government, and also as a former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury—I think I will take a slightly different slant on a number of these things. First, the evidence that green spaces make a big impact on well-being and mental health is huge, far beyond what has been said here. If one looks at the book by our own noble Lord, Lord Layard, one will find, on pages 237 to 239, a good analysis of this. There is a lot of economic evidence that looks at the difference between house prices where you have green spaces and where you do not, and looks at what we call hedonic price indices. The interesting part of that is that the price differences underestimate the impact of the green space on the well-being of the occupants—it is even bigger than those economic numbers would suggest, so I am a massive fan of taking account of the well- being effects in planning of what we do.
The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury says to me, “Yes, but let’s be very careful about unintended consequences here”. If we end up with lovely inner city green spaces with allotments and all the rest of it that no one can afford, all the poor will end up in the only places they can afford and they will end up with more commuting time, which is extremely bad for their well-being and their mental health—and then we will have problems. There is a solution to this, which I hope the Minister will take on board. The Treasury has a wonderful thing called the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being, which can actually analyse all those things. I am prepared to bet that doing more on green spaces would give us a big net benefit. However, I do not know, and without that analysis of the unintended consequences on housing supply—where it is and the distributional impact—who knows? All I would stress is: please get the Treasury guys to do some work on this, using the latest estimates, because I think it will strongly back up your case.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I start by apologising for not being able to take part at Second Reading; I just plead other parliamentary responsibilities. I find myself in a position where everything that needs to be said has already been said but not yet by everyone, so I will take that little proviso and carry on anyway. I strongly support Amendment 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have added my name. I very strongly support all the other amendments in this group for the reasons that have already so eloquently been outlined by others in the Committee.
Amendment 206 is a little different, in that it would require every development corporation to prioritise green and blue spaces for all communities. We have heard about the benefits of green spaces but not so much about the benefits of blue spaces, although there are many. The difference blue spaces make to all communities has been highlighted by several noble Lords, with strong evidence to back up their claims. These spaces are parks, woodlands, riversides, lakes and ponds—they are not luxuries but essential infrastructure for biodiversity and climate resilience, with proven benefits for public health, air quality and, importantly, community cohesion, all leading to healthier, happier lives, especially for those on the poorest rungs of society.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I want to make two brief points. I was delighted to add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, because it includes community gardens and allotments.
My first point is that I agree about allotments. Down in Cornwall, I have been involved in growing schemes, in which communities come together on common ground to produce mainly vegetables and sell the surplus to the local community. These are fantastic schemes which are very sociable and bring people together. One of our objectives in the far south-west was to allow every community to have access to a growing scheme, so that is moving on, if you like, one stage further from allotments.
My second brief point is again a reflection from the far south-west. There is somehow often an assumption that people in rural towns have easy access to green and blue spaces. If that is true anywhere, it would be in Cornwall. Believe me, I am never more surprised than when I find out that families in what we might describe as low-income, deprived areas do not get outside major town boundaries, and so areas of green space within all urban areas are incredibly important.
I hope the Minister will take note of both those observations.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I very much support the amendments in this group. I am lucky enough to live in Eastbourne, where Mary Ann Gilbert started a branch of the allotment movement in 1830. I think we have more allotments per head than any other town, and there is still a three-year waiting list. These things need planning in, and that is why I support these amendments. You cannot rely on random happenstance or a generous builder to do it; it has to be part of the way we see and develop our towns and cities, particularly if we are going in for new towns.
This is enormously important for nature. People’s experience of nature is what happens around their homes. If there is not much nature there, they do not grow up with a love for or an interest in it. If they do not grow up with a love for or an interest in it, they end up not wanting to pay for it and are happy to trample on it if there is some supposed benefit of that for humans. Building in a real understanding of nature begins with the design of our towns. That is why these amendments are so important.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has just spoken, is absolutely right that starting with perhaps good intentions but firm foundations is absolutely critical to make sure that we have nature at the heart of every community as we develop the 1.5 million new homes that the Government intend to deliver before the end of this Parliament.
I particularly commend the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. There has rightly been a reference to blue space. I actually came up with the concept in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. There are a few factors behind that, relevant to what other noble Lords have mentioned today. Perhaps it is about rivers; it is certainly about sustainable drainage and thinking about how the ponds in new estates can be truly made into environmental oases.
One of the big inspirations was when I visited the Canal & River Trust, where we discussed its activities in Birmingham. As we know, there are more canals in Birmingham than there are in the entirety of Venice, yet the interaction between residents there and their canals was minimal. People would often be living in pretty high blocks, without any exposure to nature. There was an opportunity to think about how we develop what you have, and about the fact that, in certain cities—Birmingham not being the best example—there is a complete desert of parks, while there are plenty of other cities that have designed parks in over the years. Instead of relying on an NPPF that can literally be changed at the stroke of a pen by a Minister from one reshuffle to the next, it is vital to make sure this is set firmly in legislative considerations.
Proposed new subsection (b) in Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would make sure that green spaces are maintained. There is nothing worse than such places not being properly looked after. We see it already with areas not being watered, and so things end up dying, which is not inspiring for anybody.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, referred to social prescribing. I intended to speak to that in later groups, but what he said was right. As has already been pointed out eloquently, the science is there. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has set this out comprehensively. I first met the noble Baroness when she was director of science at Kew gardens, and we had some wonderful back and forth exchanges.
There are a couple of things worth considering. My noble friend Lady Fookes is right to talk about regulation, but I am worried we end up overregulating and almost missing the point—literally not seeing the wood for the trees. I intend to speak more on that in group 6.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, branched out into considering trees. It would be very helpful to have that paper from the Woodland Trust shared. Communities are about setting roots, but we do not want tree roots literally uprooting homes. That is an important factor for councils to consider. I commend the long-standing policy of Liverpool City Council, which plants lots of trees in planters underground. Then, when the trees mature, the council lifts them out of the ground, takes them off to a park and replants them there, so they are not damaging the infrastructure that has been designed to facilitate the rest of the neighbourhood. It is also vital that trees do not block light or interfere with telecommunications and the like.
Having heard this in both Houses, it is really important that the Government proactively consider how this matter comes back on Report. I know that if it does not go through this time, we will come back again when we get to the next local government Bill about community empowerment. We know from all the protests, rightly, that communities value this sort of infrastructure and want it to be developed. It is about the one thing that most communities agree on around development, which is why it is important that we get amendments appropriately tabled by the Government at the next stage.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I speak to my own Amendment 194 in this group, at the end—or heading towards the end—of what has been an incredibly impassioned debate with very little disagreement about the broad principles in every one of these amendments. It is an extremely good group of amendments. I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for their support for my Amendment 194.
This new clause would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in all new developments. As we have heard so much in this discussion, green spaces are not just an optional extra, they are an essential part of infrastructure. They are an essential part of delivering healthy, sustainable, happy, fulfilled communities. This amendment was originally tabled by my colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, the MP for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that green infrastructure is planned alongside traditional facilities that we think about, such as GPs, transport, and water connections. Development corporations must ensure that green spaces are included and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has just referenced, properly maintained. From private gardens and balconies to community gardens, this is not just about planting trees. This is about creating lasting accessible space for everyone and making sure that our communities do not have to fight for every single square inch of that greenery.
We have already heard much about the findings from Natural England, that we can reduce the need for GP appointments by 28%. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, gave an impassioned and convincing speech, and I can confirm to her that it was the National Institutes of Health which identified that acute hospital patients feel better and leave sooner if they have greenery just outside their window, let alone a hospital garden. So there is direct evidence and we heard much of it from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and I thank her for that.
Given how much we have heard, I will cut out quite a lot of the speech I prepared on this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested. There is a huge amount of consensus in this group of amendments. It seems that there is potential for us to work together and possibly—and I am looking at whichever Minister is summating for us—getting together with the relevant Ministers and seeing whether we can find some way of ensuring that this is not merely a nice to have but an essential, integral part of infrastructure.
Finally, I refer back to the lovely ducks that were so supportive outside the window of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, when she was very ill. Let us get our ducks in a row. Let us get together and see whether we can drive this forward as a united Chamber.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments, in different ways, all concern the provision of green and blue spaces. Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raises the vital issue of whether minimum requirements for green space should be set in new housing developments. I ask the Minister whether the Government are considering such a standard and, if so, whether it would vary between urban and rural contexts.
Amendment 138 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne invites us to consider whether the current breadth of strategic provision under the spatial development strategies is sufficient in respect of green spaces and allotments. Do the Government accept that the definition may be too narrow, and if so, are they minded to expand it to give strategic planning authorities more flexibility to deliver for their residents?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I just take a moment to thank my noble friend Lord Khan for all the work he did while he was a Minister in our department. I am afraid that I will not step on the toes of the great Lancashire-Yorkshire debate, but it was true to say that my noble friend’s unfailing good humour and his ability to convene and effect collaboration, even across barriers of faith and religion that are deeply historic in nature, gave him what I think bordered on a superpower, which was great. He did so much work on the faith and communities aspect of our department’s work, as well as on elections. I especially commend his work during the passage of the Holocaust Memorial Act, which was very difficult to navigate. He dealt exceptionally well with the work on that Act. I hope that he will continue to use the networks he has built and developed, because, in a time when there are forces trying to divide us—we see that every day—we need more Lord Khans to bring us all together. I pay tribute to the work he did in that respect. I will of course continue to work with him, but he is a loss to our department.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Wilson—very briefly, because I know he will hate me doing it—for stepping in at very short notice to support me with some of the work on the Bill.
I want to thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to the provision of green and blue spaces. Of course, as we drive forward—your Lordships will have heard my new Secretary of State urging us to “build, baby, build”—it is important that we maintain the aspects that have been raised in a very interesting and important discussion this afternoon.
There is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these alongside new homes. I want to pay tribute to the Members of this House who have contributed to the evidence base in this regard, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who was also kind enough to give me a copy of her book, and very thorough and insightful it is too. I am very grateful to all Members of this House who contribute to this evidence base. That is why existing policy and provisions already in the Bill are intended to achieve just that.
I turn first to Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who I know has a passion for protecting green spaces and ensuring that local people can use their voices to shape development in their own areas. National planning policy plays a powerful role in the planning process, as it must be taken into account both in the plan-making process and in determining individual applications.
The National Planning Policy Framework—I am sure we will talk about this lots during the Bill—requires local plans to make sufficient provision for green infrastructure and to be based on up-to-date assessments of the need for open space; it is not an optional extra or just an encouragement to do it. The designation of land as local green space also allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.
We will of course have national development management policies coming forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me whether they would vary between urban and rural sites in terms of provision and what they specify about provision; I will take that back because it is a key point. We expect in due course—that phrase that we all love so well—to have further revisions to the NPPF. Additionally, new major housing developments on land released from the green belt must be accompanied by accessible green spaces. The green infrastructure framework, published by Natural England, supports local planners, developers and communities to plan for high-quality and multifunctional green spaces.
These policy provisions provide a strong basis for securing green spaces alongside new developments. However, they also allow local planning authorities to take pragmatic approaches where necessary, which rigid legal requirements would prevent. Local planning authorities can use planning obligations and conditions to secure the long-term stewardship of green spaces, and we have heard a bit about that this afternoon. As local government funding was cut, that was a disincentive to local authorities to provide green spaces, but we continue to work with them to urge securing that through planning obligations and conditions so that it covers the long-term maintenance of these spaces as well as their initial provision. We recognise that there are too many examples of poor maintenance or of residents left facing excessive charges. We will consult this year on arrangements for maintaining communal facilities as part of ending the injustice of the fleecehold estates that we unfortunately have so many examples of around the country.
On Amendments 138, 138B and 149, I acknowledge the intent to ensure that green spaces, green and blue infrastructure, community gardens and allotments, and even ducks—I greatly appreciated that point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—are all given consideration at strategic level. The National Planning Policy Framework, which new spatial development strategies are required to have regard to, sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy places which promote social interaction and healthy lives: for example, through the provision of green infrastructure. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned social interaction around allotments. Having been a councillor for many years, I can say that sometimes that social interaction on allotments is not quite as positive as we might want it to be, but I absolutely take his point.
Furthermore, where strategic planning authorities consider such spaces to be of strategic importance to the area, they are already able to set policies which reflect this. New Section 12D(4)(c) states that a spatial development strategy can specify or describe infrastructure relating to
“promoting or improving the … social or environmental well-being of that area”,
which we expect could include community gardens, allotments and green spaces. Equally, policies in relation to allotments and community garden land could be included within the terms of new Section 12D(1), which covers policies in relation to the development and use of land.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, we need to keep the contents of spatial development strategies high-level to allow for local planning authorities to set more detailed policies and site allocations through their local plans. The way that we are shaping the planning system, as I mentioned in previous sessions on the Bill, will, I hope, allow local councillors to spend more time thinking about local plans. We believe that policies to secure open space in specific developments are better set at local level, where the needs and opportunities in each area can be considered.
I turn to Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. These amendments would place duties on development corporations in respect of the provision and maintenance of green and blue infrastructure. I thank the noble Baronesses for acknowledging the important role that development corporations have in the delivery of housing and other infrastructure, including those green and blue provisions. As a lifetime resident of Britain’s first new town, built under a development corporation, I know that what always surprises people about my town is how green it is. They think it will be an urban jungle; it certainly is not that. In terms of blue infrastructure, the wonderful facility we have of 120 acres of parkland, including four lakes, in the middle of the town is, without a doubt, the most popular asset our town has. I really take on board that people truly value these spaces.
Development corporations are crucial to growing the economy and delivering much-needed housing. Large-scale development and regeneration projects must go hand in hand with green and blue infrastructure. We do not want to see just houses, we want to see thriving communities, and we know just how many benefits those provisions can bring to individuals’ mental and physical well-being, social interactions and, importantly, the climate and wildlife. That is why it is crucial that development corporations take forward the provision and stewardship of green and blue space.
It is worth highlighting that development corporations are already subject to the same provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework that underpin requirements to plan for and provide open space elsewhere. Where development corporations take on local authority planning powers, their planning policies and decisions need to be informed by the National Planning Policy Framework. Although some development corporations do not take on those powers, delivery of the property projects co-ordinated by those development corporations will also ultimately be subject to the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework.
I have already set out the role and benefits of the framework in relation to green infrastructure, but it is also worth underlining its role in relation to plan making. The framework specifies that plans should set an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about evidence, and he makes a key and important point there, because fundamental to local plan production and to the future strategic plan production will be that evidence base—it really is critical. Any local councillor who has sat through a public inquiry on their local plan will know that that is inspected in great detail by the Planning Inspectorate, and the evidence base is absolutely key.
The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into consideration when preparing the development plan. We have seen this work very well in practice. For example, in Ebbsfleet, the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has a strong track record of providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces. I think this kind of model is what we are looking for with development corporations. I therefore believe that up-to-date local plan coverage will ensure that green space, such as community gardens, play areas and allotments, is planned for the right level and reflects local need.
I am not entirely convinced that it would help if the freedoms that local authorities currently have to shape the green, blue and brown space in the way that best suits their communities were removed. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about empowering communities, while the direction of travel of the amendments could be that we impose conditions on them from national government. I am not sure that that is entirely helpful. I am sure that this dialogue will continue as we go through the Bill, and I am happy to have conversations—some Members have asked for meetings and I am happy to have those conversations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, for his very practical suggestion of talking to Treasury colleagues about the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being. I hope that the Treasury has a focus on well-being, because if it does not, we are all in trouble. I will take that back to the Treasury.
For all those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I accept completely the relevance of local input and that we must not tie people’s hands. But given that the supply of allotments is far less than the demand for it, does the Minister agree with me that there needs to be a slightly firmer approach —I suggested a metric, perhaps that is too aggressive, but at least some sort of norms in planning policy as to the quantity of allotment area to be given for a given amount of population? Without that, I am worried that this is going to be just like affordable housing, which is in the next group, which, as soon as planning permission is given, is haggled down to the minimum that the developer can get away with. I hope that we can be a bit firmer on this; otherwise, we are back to good intentions again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take back the points that the noble Lord makes. The important thing not to lose in all this is that different solutions apply to different places. If I might give a brief example—this is about green space, not allotments—one development which I was responsible for literally backs on to the park with all the lakes that I was talking about earlier. As it happens, there is green space in it as well, so as you walk out of your house you are in a 120-acre lake park, and you might not need so much space in the development itself. All these local issues have to be very strongly considered. Where there are waiting lists for allotments, you may want to make more provision than elsewhere, but I will take back the point about whether some strengthening of the wording may be necessary.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it really was an honour to take part in a debate of this nature. The theme of inequity came through so strongly, and the fact that we have in this House the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who have done research into these issues, points to a very strong road map to where we should be going collectively towards Report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, we could coalesce around something.
I say to the Minister that we do not want to clash with the Government’s wish to empower local authorities to do the best by their communities and what their communities want, but it was the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who said that good intentions are not enough, and she is absolutely right. Incidentally, she has done so much in this House through her All-Party Gardening and Horticulture Group to introduce us to all sorts of things, and I put on record my thanks to her for that. We need to coalesce around something to put this firmly in the Bill. For all the reasons that other noble Lords have given, good intentions are not enough, and the NPPF, however it is beefed up, is still pretty vague.
The Minister can assume from everything that everybody has said that this will be coming back on Report, and I hope we can have some conversations between now and then to find something better than just good intentions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Delivery of affordable housing(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for ensuring that when planning permission is granted subject to requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes on the relevant site, such requirements are fully implemented.(2) The requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes referred to in subsection (1) shall be satisfied only if the percentage of the total housing constructed let as social rent housing exceeds the percentage set out in the authority’s affordable housing threshold or twenty per cent, whichever is higher.(3) In subsection (2) ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 together with paragraph 4 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023, as modified by paragraph 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is intended to ensure affordable housing is actually delivered where this is the subject of planning consent, and the proportion of social rent housing is at least 20 per cent.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation after that terrific debate on green spaces to speak to Amendment 122, together with Amendments 141 and 151, all of which address the issue of affordable housing delivery.
Amendment 122 introduces a free-standing new clause which provides for regulations to ensure that affordable housing gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called Section 106 agreement. We are all only too familiar with the problem that affordable homes for local people are expected from new development but fail to materialise. With the excuse of viability, housebuilders back out of delivering all or most of the affordable homes that they promised. They say they have discovered site conditions they had not expected or have encountered problems with subcontractors or higher interest rates or building costs or something else, and now they may not be able to make a 20% profit from the development.
They insist that it is the affordable housing element that must take the hit. Despite affordable housing being a condition of planning consent, precious few such homes may appear. The price that the housebuilder pays for the land should reflect their obligations to provide affordable housing and related infrastructure. It should never be acceptable to claim: “We had to pay so much for the land that now we cannot honour our agreement to build the affordable homes”. The Government’s planning practice guidance explicitly states:
“Under no circumstances will the price paid for land be relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies”,
yet this continues to be exactly what happens.
The amendment recognises that the level of affordable housing in every development, the Section 106 agreement, is subject to complex negotiation between two unequal parties—the local planning department and the housebuilder. As a report from the National Audit Office set out in June of this year, there is a serious imbalance between these two, with local planning authorities being hopelessly under-resourced while large developers can employ expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down.
The Government, commendably, are finding ways of better resourcing local planning authorities. This amendment would add support for planners by cutting down on the imbalanced and interminable arguing over affordable housing numbers. The affordable housing element would become non-negotiable. Amendment 121 would empower the Secretary of State to ensure that developers deliver the affordable homes that were a condition of planning consent. The amendment would add a further detail by obliging the housebuilder to provide a minimum of 20% of the homes for social rent or the percentage that is set out in the local planning authority’s policy framework if that is higher. The definition of social rent housing is that used by the Regulator of Social Housing in its rent standard.
How important is this contribution by the house- builders to affordable housing? Over recent years, the obligations on the housebuilders have produced nearly half, 44% last year, of the total programme of affordable homes. However, according to the National Audit Office, the value of the contributions from developers for both infrastructure and affordable housing fell from £6.4 billion to £5.5 billion last year. We cannot afford for this vital programme of affordable homes, funded by developer contributions, to be depleted by housebuilders reneging on their planning obligations.
Amendment 122 keeps it simple. It dismisses the specious arguments about what is viable and what is profitable. It would require straightforward fulfilment of the planning obligations accepted by housebuilders, which have too often escaped their responsibilities and have reduced or scrapped the quota of social homes that they were obligated to deliver. It would introduce a baseline of 20% of new homes for social rent in all relevant developments. I know that the Minister recognises the problem which this amendment seeks to address. I hope that she will find it acceptable.
Amendments 141 and 151 are also in my name and again supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Carlile, whom I thank. These two amendments go together and back up my earlier amendment. While the earlier amendment is just about developer contributions to providing affordable homes, these two amendments relate to all developments that will be covered by the spatial development strategies outlined by the Bill. Amendment 141 expands on the Bill’s current wording, which stipulates that spatial development strategies can specify or describe the amount of affordable housing, as well as other kinds of housing. This amendment spells out that the affordable housing should be mostly for social rent rather than, for example, shared ownership or middle-market renting.
Amendment 151 defines social rent as in Amendment 122, stating that social rent is the accommodation rented according to the rent standard specified by the Regulator of Social Housing. This is the rent level that applies to most existing council and housing association properties. It is based on a measurement that combines earnings data with property values. It represents the form of affordable housing, which helps those on average incomes or less. Using the common definition that rents are only affordable if they absorb one-third or less of the incomes of the occupiers, the current arrangements are producing pathetically small numbers of new homes for those in the bottom half of the income distribution. If the 1.5 million new homes planned for the course of this Parliament were to contain a quantum of social rented homes similar to the current arrangements, then as little as 8% of all the new homes would be affordable to those on, or below, average incomes. This does not sound like a very fair distribution of all the new homes that we are planning to build.
Fortunately, the Government are determined to see more social rented housing created. This amendment chimes with that intention. The Government have stated that, of the 300,000 affordable homes a year to be funded by the spending review’s £39 billion for Homes England to provide its social and affordable homes programme, 180,000 homes—60% of the affordable homes—should be for social rent. If achieved, this would represent a significant rise in the proportion of homes that are genuinely affordable.
Amendments 141 and 142 would greatly improve the Government’s chances of delivering this outcome. Amendment 141 would establish that a majority of the affordable housing within each spatial development strategy must be for social rent, defined by Amendment 151. This requirement would cover affordable homes in the publicly subsidised housing programme, as well as those affordable homes that are built by the house- builders in fulfilment of their planning obligations.
The amendments accord with the Government’s ambitions and give greater relevance to the new spatial development strategies. They would ensure that a meaningful proportion of the 1.5 million new homes will be for those in that half of the population who cannot otherwise afford a decent home. I know that the Minister will be sympathetic to these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 137 and 171 and give wholehearted support to the amendments so eloquently and coherently proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which I and other noble Lords have signed.
It is interesting that this group of amendments demonstrates all too clearly the overwhelming need for many more homes for social rent. It is deeply troubling that the number of homes in that category being built has fallen significantly—despite the Government’s stated ambition to tackle the housing crisis and for a significant amount of those homes to be for social rent. We all know that social housing provides stability, dignity and opportunity for those who are in most need. Yet year after year we see promises outstripped by reality, leaving rising numbers of families trapped in temporary or unsuitable accommodation. Currently, there are 130,000 families, which have 169,000 children within them, in that accommodation. I regard it as a national scandal.
Following welcome funding announcements from the Government, the main issues genuinely now appear to be delivery and affordability, which are both deep and entrenched problems. In a small way, the amendments in this group seek to be part of the solution. Without urgent action on both fronts, all our aspirations remain little more than warm words while communities across the country continue to feel the harsh consequences of inaction.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 122 in this group, along with others that relate to the provision of social housing. This group and the next are of major interest to those of us who are concerned about housing provision.
There is not actually very much in the Bill itself about housing. If you look through the first few pages of the Bill, headed “contents”, the word housing appears nowhere. In the whole 21 pages of Chapter 2 on spatial development strategies, I found the word housing twice on page 73. That was it, apart from a reference to the definition of affordable housing on page 74. The amendments in this group are not actually amending anything in the Bill, they are all inserting additions after Clause 52. Apart from future debates about housing for the elderly and modern methods of construction, this group of amendments and the next will have to do much of the heavy lifting on housing provision.
Amendment 122, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, will hold the feet of developers to the fire when it comes to the provision of social housing under Section 106. We have heard debates in the past about ensuring that social housing does not miss out by being built out last, and the developer then pleading extenuating circumstances for so-called financial viability assessments. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, since nearly half of all affordable houses are now provided under Section 106, we simply must maximise this resource.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained what happens in practice. The developer will tend to build the affordable houses last in order to maximise the cash flow by selling the market houses first. Then, towards the end of the development, when the developer finds the sums do not quite add up, the last thing he wants to do is anything which impacts on the value of the market houses. He will not want to touch the green spaces, the playgrounds or the car parking, so he will try to squeeze out the affordable housing.
Research by the CPRE shows that developers and land promoters have used viability assessments to get out of building almost half the affordable houses required; in its sample, 18% was achieved instead of 34%. The system at the moment favours the big developers, which can overbid the smaller developer and then use sophisticated financial viability assessments to outwit the under-resourced local authorities.
More recently, we have had the opposite problem: developers providing social housing but there being no registered social landlord to take it over. I raised this before the recess, on 3 July, and the Minister kindly wrote to me on 9 July. She told me that the Government set up the Homes England clearing service last December, and we can judge the scale of the problem, in that 113 housebuilders and 114 local planning authorities registered. The Minister told me in that letter that “more action is needed from all parties to ensure Section 106 homes are built to a good quality, are marketed at a reasonable price, and are purchased quickly and efficiently by social housing providers”. Can the Minister tell me what that further action might be and what progress has been made? Last December, the HBF estimated that there were 17,000 affordable homes stalled due to a lack of registered providers in the market to buy the homes. How many are there now?
Amendment 141, to which I have added my name, refers to social rent housing. It is worth asking why we need social housing. The market can provide most of the essentials in life—food and clothing—but no country in the world has a market that has met housing need. Worldwide, social housing provides affordable homes for families and individuals. Looking at the more prosperous European countries, they have a higher proportion of social housing than we do. All Governments have supported the housing market in this country: by supporting home ownership, initially through mortgage interest tax relief and then Homebuy in 1999, the starter home initiative and Help to Buy, or by supporting social housing—which is what this amendment is about—through Section 106, housing association grants or the affordable homes programme.
We did try an alternative approach—a market approach—under Nicholas Ridley. He wanted to move local authority rents up to market rents and let housing benefit take the strain. Under that scenario, there would have been no social rents; it was an explicit shift from bricks and mortar subsidy to personal subsidies. I am happy to say that Margaret Thatcher removed me from the Government before the Housing Act 1988 was introduced, because the experiment simply did not work. It did not work because it meant an annual increase in rents, which was unpopular, and the price was paid in local elections; it had an impact on the retail prices index and so on public expenditure, so the Treasury was concerned; and it assumed that the DHSS, as it then was, would be happy to finance an ever- growing housing benefit bill, which it was not— I remember Tony Newton complaining that he was funding the housing programme. We have reverted, rightly in my mind, to the traditional method of providing rents below market rents, with capital subsidies, Section 106, or surpluses retained by social landlords.
I was struck by one sentence in the Shelter briefing for this debate:
“Today, social housing has lost its universal status as a home for everyone, becoming an overstretched ambulance service and relying on ageing infrastructure”.
Shelter is right. Nearly 60 years ago, when I first became a local councillor, if home ownership was beyond your reach, you put your name down for the council waiting list and, in due course, you would get an offer. Now, that is no longer the case: social housing is strictly targeted at those in the most pressing need under the provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, and local authorities are struggling even to meet those commitments, which will be accentuated as the asylum seekers are moved out of hotels.
It is the ambulance analogy—which is Shelter’s and not mine—that I focus on for a moment, at the risk of being controversial. The real ambulance takes you to a hospital and, when you are better, you are discharged. When the Shelter ambulance, to follow the analogy, takes you to social housing, and when, with the benefit of that housing, you put your life together again, you are not discharged, but there are still people in the Shelter ambulance. It raises the contentious issue of security of tenure for social housing and whether, given the pressure on social housing, there should be some incentives—I emphasise carrots, not sticks—to encourage those who have benefited to move on and to make way for someone who is now in the desperate circumstances that generated the original tenancy.
This is not to detract from the powerful case for more social housing made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Best, but it is to raise the question, given the changed circumstances over the last 60 years, of whether we need to have another look at lifelong security if we are to make the best use of the scarce resource that social housing is.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I share the aspiration that we should build sufficient affordable housing in order to house those who need it. I do not propose to repeat what has been said in the three excellent speeches we have heard so far in this debate. I want to turn to a particular issue, with which I hope that the Minister who replies will agree.
One of the ways in which we ensure that affordable housing is built in sufficient numbers is to ensure that the contractual relationship between builders and the councils that give them planning permission is a fair one and does not give undue advantage to the contractors. It has not always been the case that that is so; indeed, there are very recent examples, and I will refer to one very major one.
Some years ago, one of the things I did in my legal life was act as a part-time chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the UK’s anti-trust court. One of the cases on which I sat and gave judgment was a case in which a number of household-name builders had entered into cartel arrangements in order that it was ensured that one of them would win each contract. It was so endemic in the building system that an academic, who I will not name, from a respectable university, which I will not name, wrote a book on how to enter into these cartel arrangements. He did not do the builders much good, because the tribunal which I was chairing fined them a very large amount of money, each related to their world turnover.
They have not learned their lesson from that Competition Appeal Tribunal case. This year, a group of the largest housebuilders in the UK have agreed to a series of legally binding commitments to ensure that they are acting lawfully and to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. They have done that following an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority—the CMA. I should say to your Lordships that the CMA took a very pragmatic view and did not make a finding that they had been cartelists. I will leave it to your Lordships’ judgment as to whether that was the case or not, under the parliamentary privilege that I have, by telling you what the housebuilders have agreed to.
They made the following commitments to the CMA. The first was not to share competitively sensitive information with competitors, specifically including the prices for which houses are to be sold. If you are a builder, you do not need to make an agreement with the CMA to know that you should not share competitively sensitive information in a competitive contract situation. They then agreed to support the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to produce guidance on information exchange for the housebuilding industry. Ditto what I said about the first commitment. They further agreed—I am very pleased that they did—to pay £100 million in aggregate to programmes supporting the construction of affordable housing in the UK. Somebody will have done a calculation of how much they had gained from their anti-competitive agreements, and I have no doubt that the £100 million was a conservative—with a small “c”—estimate of the gain that they had made. Then they decided, generously, to introduce enhanced in-house compliance measures and training programmes, no doubt to deal with corruption among individuals within the industry.
Given that case and the one I mentioned earlier, surely one of the most important things—I am sure that the Government will agree with this—is that we should be alive to the risks of corruption in the building industry, so that housing is built without giving the housebuilders money which they do not deserve and have not earned legitimately.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I have a meeting with them next week; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would like to join me.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for the invitation but, looking at the parliamentary programme for next week, I suspect that I am going to be here for about 11 hours a day.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to spending 11-hour days with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on important legislation that this House is considering.
I rise to speak to this because it is absolutely vital that we get going with the building of social housing. There are good examples of where we can be creative in considering this, but the underlying element of what has been put forward in speeches by noble Lords already is absolutely right. When a housing developer makes a commitment, this House, and this Parliament, have to strain every sinew to make sure that councils do not let them off the hook. It matters in terms of local communities and local plans. The whole essence of a large part of this Bill is that a lot of decisions are being removed from elected councillors by this Government. That is when confidence and trust in our local government starts to fade away: when promises made by developers—on housing and other issues, including health and other Section 106 issues—evaporate.
My noble friend Lord Markham has, in effect, set up a housing association in Ealing, being creative with how the financing of that can be done, to make sure of ongoing sustainable homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the fact that there has been a net change of just 700 homes when it comes to social rent. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham started to refer to the fact that registered social landlords were not taking up some of the homes that are being done. In the east of England, we have the social landlords Flagship pro-actively selling off social rent housing and not replacing it—certainly not locally—but potentially doing some aspects of that elsewhere, many miles away from where that social rented housing is being displaced.
On what my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said about lifetime tenancies, the law was of course changed so that councils should consider shorter-term tenancies, proactively considering the composition and demographics in that local community. Very few councils took that up, and I understand why to some extent, but, as has been pointed out, these are homes that people want to have but they are also precious uses of space. Thinking of the next group, there is a good intention to have design for lifetime. Some other, perhaps cruder, economic policies have come through in the past that have not always been welcomed. But I suggest that the Minister looks back at policy from just a few years ago with the two-pronged “benefits to bricks” approach.
The Government today are spending at least at least £35 billion a year on paying rent through the benefits system. We constantly need to think about where resources are being deployed. While recognising that we desperately need more homes—and we are coming on to land banking later—let us make the most of every single home that we already have today, including social housing, and consider what we can do to hold on to them. Apart from that, I will always continue to defend the right to buy.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, thus far in this debate, we have been thinking in terms of solving the problems that we are discussing by building more houses, but I would like to raise a point that I will describe in a little more detail in a moment: building more houses is, I think, quite the wrong way of approaching the problem.
I am talking, of course, about the national parks and areas of nationally important landscape. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to his time in local government 60 years ago. I cannot go quite so far back down memory lane, but I was involved in the Lake District Special Planning Board 40 years ago. The problem we had then is a problem that still exists—indeed, in a more exacerbated form—despite our efforts to try to address it. The problem was that people who lived and worked in this community were unable to find any accommodation as their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents had before them.
It is not simply a matter of social implications. The kind of people who were, and still are, finding it very hard to find accommodation in—or even, in many instances, quite close to—these kinds of important landscape areas are the very people who are essential for looking after it properly. There is a real problem. If we do not resolve the difficulty in some sensible way, there will be even more problems.
Let me illustrate this. In the hamlet of Chapel Stile, up Langdale—which, as many of your Lordships will know, is one of the most admired, visited and esteemed parts of Britain’s premier national park—approximately 80% of the housing stock is second homes. The one thing you must not do to resolve the problem of housing up Langdale is to build more and more houses, because that would completely destroy the very rationale for the place being so special.
Against this background, I think it important that this relatively niche problem—I use those words advisedly but not disparagingly—is looked at carefully, because it does not lend itself to many of the kinds of solutions that have been canvassed in the context of the problems elsewhere in the country. We do not need more housing stock in the Lake District. What we want is more of the housing stock that exists to be occupied and used as the basis for looking after the national park itself. That in turn is in the interests of everybody else who comes to it and enjoys it, and the rest of the country.
It is not a question of social housing or affordable homes. We have to be much more imaginative about the way we do it. We have to find a way of taking quite a bit of the existing housing stock out of the open market. In my view, you would probably have to use planning covenants to put it into a restricted local marketplace where local people could afford to buy homes, or lease them, and, in turn, commit their activities to looking after the area in question.
I have raised this point on a number of occasions over the years and have never got anywhere with it at all. I know perfectly well why: it will cost quite a bit of money. But these places matter. Widespread degradation through building is something that I do not think any of us condone. Some of your Lordships may have seen in the Sunday papers a description of what the Egyptian Government are proposing to do at Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, which, in my view, is totally outrageous and a monstrous way to treat a world heritage site.
Many bits of the rural economy feel very let down by housing policy, because it is not addressing the particular problems that they are facing. Many of the solutions that have been canvassed I have no trouble with at all, but they are essentially—not entirely, but essentially—for urban areas. There are different issues and problems in rural areas. As I said, many people there feel let down, and you can see from recent opinion polling that many of them are pretty disillusioned with the existing political classes.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I want to add a few points to what I think has been a good and interesting debate. I remind the Committee of my registered interests as chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. Much as I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I will not follow his track. I will revert to places where there is a very high demand for housing and a serious problem of affordability for housing. I want to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular, and to ask him a question, if he has a moment to respond. It seems to me that he is looking to target the social rent sector by reference to the definition that he includes—not the definition for social housing in the Bill. He effectively said: social rent under Section 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act but not Section 70 of that Act, which relates to low-cost home ownership. The targets he refers to would have the effect of squeezing the availability of support for low-cost home ownership. I wonder if that is his intention, because it is not one that I would be wholly supportive of.
However, I do support the delivery of affordable housing. He mentioned the National Audit Office report from June this year and I want to follow up on two or three points. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and I have both asked questions about the take-up of contracts for affordable housing under Section 106 obligations entered into by developers. In addition to what he asked, the National Audit Office said that it felt that the Homes England clearing scheme should become permanent. Since it published its report in June, the Government have provided a substantial and welcome increase in the affordable homes programme. The question is: to what extent is Homes England, through the affordable homes programme, going to be empowered to use those resources to take up those contracts, even if it does not go on to own the homes itself but rather acts as a clearing house by taking up those contracts and then making them available to registered providers who can access the affordable homes programme?
In addition, I will mention two things. The National Audit Office said that it wished the Government would proceed with issuing financial viability guidance. We are going to talk later in the Bill about further issues relating to viability guidance. I know my Front Bench colleagues share my view on this. In order to deliver more housing, there are powers available to the Government that need to be used quickly. Part of that is the issuance of guidance that will allow procedures like Section 106 to make progress. The Government have powers to reform Section 106 and the community infrastructure levy and they have not done so. They also have the power to issue new guidance relating to financial viability and they have not done so. So can the Minister, who remembers our debates on these things in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, tell us when progress will be made?
The final point is about Section 106 funding. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that developers provided less last year by way of Section 106. I think that is principally because they provided less housing, so it is a simple consequence. If we can deliver more market housing, we should be able to deliver more by way of resources for the delivery of affordable housing. I think the noble Lord and the Committee will not criticise developers who feel somewhat unhappy. The National Audit Office reported that last year there was £8 billion in unspent Section 106 contributions. This is overwhelmingly for infrastructure that has not been delivered, but quite rightly the National Audit Office thinks it not helpful for local authorities to be placing obligations on developers—taking substantial resources, which sometimes can imperil the viability of a project—and then not delivering the infrastructure that is committed. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, quite accurately said, it is a contract, in effect, between developers and local authorities. Sometimes developers let down local authorities, but sometimes local authorities let down developers.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
After such an expert series of speeches on this, I hesitate to rise, but I feel compelled to support the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others who have introduced a critical series of amendments and raised a challenge to current practice. As somebody who has had a long-standing association with Exmoor National Park, I fully understand and recognise what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, but I suspect that we are dealing with the process and proceeds of bulk housing rather than the situation that he refers to, important though that is.
I have in the past had to wrestle with development appraisals and I recognise the points that noble Lords have made about that. The system is rather opaque. You can variously tweak the process to decide on the profitability, on your relationship with your subcontractors, on what you are prepared to concede by way of Section 106 obligations, and on what you are prepared to pay for the land—and all of these in one model. So the model is complex and, unless one is familiar with the algorithms that stand behind it, it is very difficult for local authorities to find their way through that.
We have heard that affordable housing is funded out of the development of market housing. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made the point. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the question arises as to what we mean by “affordable”, since 80% of the market price in the south and south-east of the country, for instance, is still totally unaffordable to anybody with limited means, particularly if it is pegged to the selling price of market housing, which of itself often carries a premium as a result of marketing processes. That premium is instantly lost as soon as the house is second hand and on the resale market. Often, market prices do not catch up with that premium on the second-hand market for some years. Sometimes it is quite a long time. For somebody of limited means in need of a home, this is a matter not of voluntary choice but of what is economically possible and of their own priority as a candidate for an affordable home, based on the housing need and the length of the waiting list. For many people, this is something of a lottery.
The affordable housing component of a residential development scheme is subject to this viability, the core financial ingredients of which are largely owned by and the intellectual property of the developer. Bearing in mind what I have said about the general complexity of the whole process, that adds to the problems that we are dealing with. Developers are a breed on which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has previously expressed some quite trenchant views, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has rather spectacularly reinforced those this evening. I have no remit to necessarily speak up for housebuilders. Some of them are clearly thoroughly exploitative, but I do not think that all of them are. I feel certain that there are some who are decent, honest and disposed to be transparent as far as they are able, but my professional work certainly has revealed that there is a great deal of opacity to the whole process.
The nature of the affordability offering ranges from what in developer terms might be regarded as the optimal—namely, a shared ownership, because of course it releases a sum of money for the development through affordable rent—and what might be regarded as the least profitable bit, social rent, which is often driven by accountancy processes and profit motives. Social rent components thus inevitably get seriously squeezed. The whole process of affordable housing may get further eroded by being fitted out to a lower standard than market housing. I will leave that to one side, but it gives a bit of an insight into how much cheeseparing goes on in the whole process and how many adjustments might be made before the final product comes out.
I acknowledge that part of the problem may go back to the rolled-up costs of land acquisition and the expectations of the parties under the original sale of land, although I venture to suggest that some of the developer’s profit, taken in the round, in many cases substantially exceeds the sum paid to the original landowner, and part of that is rolled-up cost, risk, finance and all sorts of other things that are going on at the same time. It is also a fact that satisfying this housing need depends on the perceived profit from the development at any given time. The ability of developers to defer starts or go slow on a site, depending on market conditions, adds to the problem of congestion in terms of providing affordability, and those in critical need of something genuinely affordable in rent are effectively seriously compromised.
Mention has been made by other noble Lords of shared ownership; I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who a week or so ago mentioned shared-ownership problems. My mailbag is often punctuated with people who are unable to get round the resale of their properties because there may be a pre-emption problem or they have to get consent from their registered provider, for example—and then circumstances change, the whole thing goes back into the melting pot and they have to start all over again. For owners who are trapped in such difficult-to-shift situations—even without fire safety remediation problems, which is another thing—if that is what ownership looks like, we should be prepared for people to start switching off, because it is not good enough if you are offering that as a home-ownership approach.
As another aside, I have recently heard it said that house prices are driven by the availability of credit, not the inherent value of the product. If so, there just has to be a better way of dealing with that without choking off land supply, and I think it starts with shortening timescales, derisking the current protracted processes, making planning more cost efficient, less contentious and less uncertain—and probably with a not-for-profit construction model. Protracted timescales allow for far too much wriggle room and reconfiguring of the offering that is made, and they give too much space for poor practices to take root.
I have tried to work out how such a model would be achieved—possibly through community interest structures in which local need and desire would come a long way in front of imposed bulk market housing—but I am not there yet. It raises questions too about clustering of social housing versus pepperpotting, and about building the sort of inspirational developments that deliver best quality rather than having some sort of stigma attached to them because of the nature of what is produced. We in this country have in the past succeeded spectacularly with schemes; some of the great industrialists produced wonderful developments for their workforce that were really well thought out. We ought to be able to do the same sort of thing for those in critical need of social housing.
My view on this is that, if one is concerned about the attitude of landowners, maybe it is time to start asking whether getting maximum price at some uncertain point in the future would not be offset by having a greater certainty of outcomes and transparency, and being able to plan for that over a timescale might be appropriate. With that, I will sit down, but that may warrant looking at further.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group raise important questions about the definition of affordable housing and how far the Government’s current proposals will deliver against the need that is obviously widely recognised. The term itself is much used yet too often detached from the realities faced by families across the country. These amendments draw attention to the gap that can arise between policy definition and practical affordability, and they raise the question of how local circumstances are to be given proper weight.
In addition, there is the matter of delivery, as we have heard. What is the expected scale of provision for social rent in the year ahead, and how does that compare with the assessed levels of need? Every independent analyst points to social rent as the tenure under the greatest pressure. The amendments, in their different ways, put that issue squarely before the House and before Ministers.
We welcome the affordable housing 10-year plan and the money that has been invested in it, but the money is back-loaded into future government spending reviews, so it is by no means certain when we will get it. That money is required now.
As we have heard, we have also had the precedent of earlier legislation, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, in which Parliament accepted the principle that local plans must take account of housing need. That is not just one tenure of housing but all tenures, whether private, social, affordable, housing for young people or for older people. Under that Act, local authorities are required to look at the needs in their area and to have plans to deliver those housing tenures. Those figures should be subject to scrutiny by local communities through the consultation for the local plan. How does the Bill intend to carry that principle forward? Is it going to enact that part of the levelling-up Act, or does it have other plans of its own?
The amendments collectively press for clarity, accountability and ambition on affordable housing delivery. We need to deliver the homes people need, and I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to explain what steps the Government are taking to deliver that number of affordable and social rented homes over this Parliament. I hardly need remind your Lordships’ House that the Government are also well behind in the delivery of their manifesto commitment to provide the 1.5 million homes that we all urgently need.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on social and affordable housing. As Members of this House will know, I personally and the Government are very supportive of the intent of the amendments in this group, which is to increase the delivery of affordable and social housing. Noble Lords will already be aware that this Government have committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent. As other Peers have indicated, we allocated £39 billion over the course of this Parliament to social and affordable housing, the biggest amount for generations, and we have indicated that 60% of that should be for social housing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke powerfully about the crisis we faced when we came into office and frankly—and I have said it before—169,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation is a shameful record. We will tackle that. We are working on it immediately and doing everything we can to address it. The investment made at the Spring Statement, which was the £39 billion, follows the £800 million new in-year funding which has been made available for the affordable homes programme 2021 to 2026 that will support the delivery of up to 7,800 new homes, more than half of them social rent homes. That is significantly up on the £700 million that was mentioned.
Furthermore, we have announced changes to allow councils to retain 100% of receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. This is not a one-off. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke about the net gain in housing and there are other issues we need to address, including right to buy. We recently consulted on wider reforms to right to buy; that consultation has closed. We also consulted on a long-term rent settlement that would allow rents to increase above inflation each year for five years from 2026. That consultation has closed, and we are looking at responses from the sector to deal with that. It is our intention to give long-term rent settlements so that registered providers can have the certainty they need to invest in housing.
Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to set out a minimum proportion of social rent provision on new developments and require any affordable housing requirements to be fully implemented on them. I thank the noble Lord, as ever, for being such a passionate advocate for affordable housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned the definition of affordable homes. It is now specific in the NPPF that authorities should separately set out social housing need in their local plan and not just use that broad term of “affordable housing”, which was never very satisfactory.
The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that we need to significantly increase the number of affordable homes built each year, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We will continue to take steps to deliver a planning system that supports this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned that the target has not yet been achieved. We need to lay the foundations for this. We need the funding that we have put in to deliver social housing. We also need this planning Bill to go through to free up the planning system so that we move it forward quickly. I know our new Secretary of State will be very focused on that: I have already spoken to him today about it.
We will continue to take the steps we need to deliver the planning system that supports this, but I do not believe this amendment goes quite in the direction that we need to go. Our revised National Planning Policy Framework provides greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit particular housing needs. The framework makes it clear that local authorities should, when producing their local plan, assess the need for affordable housing and homes for social rent and then plan to meet those needs. This includes setting out the amount and type of affordable housing that should be secured on new developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned viability guidance. We are reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure the system works to optimise developer contributions, allowing negotiation only where that is genuinely necessary. We will produce this guidance later this year, so I look forward to discussing that with noble Lords. We must also acknowledge that there are times where flexibility is necessary to ensure sites can commence when there is a change in circumstances, such as a change in the economic situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the CMA report which resulted in a fine of £100 million to the major developers. We need to carefully consider—and we have talked about it before in your Lordships’ House—how to make sure that that does not just get recirculated to develop further profits for the same developers that caused the problem in the first place; that is, those that were fined. We have already allocated a package of support for SME builders and I hope the very significant sum allocated in the affordable homes programme and other funds that may come forward will help to support local jobs, training, apprenticeships, supply chains and those SME builders. It is very important that we all focus on that as well.
Consequently, we must aim to balance strengthening the developer contribution system with retaining the necessary degree of flexibility, allowing negotiation and renegotiation to take place but only where it is genuinely justified. Planning obligations entered into under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are legally binding and enforceable. A local planning authority may take enforcement action against any breach of a planning obligation contained within a Section 106 agreement, including any breach of the affordable housing commitment. We will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making later this year.
Amendments 141, 150A and 151, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, seek to ensure that a majority of any affordable housing specified or described by a strategic planning authority in its spatial development strategy is housing for social rent as defined in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023. The wording of the Bill gives strategic planning authorities the flexibility to plan for a broad range of affordable housing types, allowing them to respond to the specific needs of their areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rightly mentioned nationally important landscapes. In this new planning Bill, they retain their very strong protections. We are very interested in—and have talked a lot about—the rural exception sites and, where housing is necessary, working with local areas to determine where that housing should go and potentially have local lettings plans to go with them. The Government have already put forward some strong measures, particularly on empty homes but also on second homes in terms of council tax measures and so on, that can be taken.
Insisting that spatial development strategies must specify or describe a certain amount of one type of affordable housing could prevent authorities including other important forms of affordable housing when setting out the amount or distribution of such housing that they consider to be strategically important to their area. This could significantly reduce the variety and volume of affordable housing delivered.
I turn now to Amendment 137, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This would require a spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to meet a specific target for new social homes each year. New Section 12D(5)(b) already enables a spatial development strategy to outline an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other type of housing—social housing, certainly—that the authority deems strategically important for its area.
Amendment 171 asks the Government to commit to update guidance in relation to affordable housing. I am in full agreement that we have to ensure affordable housing is genuinely affordable to local people and addresses local needs. That is why we have made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit housing need in their areas. In addition, we have committed that new investment to succeed the current affordable homes programme will have a particular focus on delivering social rent—that is the 60% I referred to earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to net new homes. Delivery of new homes is only one element of that; so are changes to right-to-buy provisions which the Government have already outlined. Planning policy already supports many of the aims of this amendment, requiring local planning authorities to assess the range of affordable housing needs in their area and set out the types of affordable housing to be prioritised.
On a couple of other points, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, reminded us that there are economic benefits to providing social housing. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Benefits to Bricks campaign. It is very important as we look to reduce the benefits bill that that £30 billion—or £35 billion, as I think she cited—often used to house someone in expensive accommodation that does not meet their needs, is much better focused on delivering social housing where we can ensure that it meets the needs of those who live there.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the amendments on shared ownership from the noble Lord, Lord Young. They are part of the Renters’ Rights Bill, and we have had very useful meetings with the noble Lord. No doubt that will come back to us when the Bill comes back from ping-pong. We have already made a clear commitment to consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies for decision-making in 2025. It is as part of these changes that the content and timing of further updates to guidance are best considered. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this has been another really good debate; I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, supported the amendment and made the point that, after the deduction of the social rented homes we lose each year, the net increase of social rented homes—the most important and in-demand of all forms of social and affordable housing—is down to around 700 each year, given that right to buy and other mechanisms see a loss of social renting, making the case even more desperate.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, whose support I have relished over so many years, pointed out that the CPRE had sampled a range of schemes and discovered that, instead of the 34% affordable housing that was expected from those developments, only 18% actually emerged. This is the developers outwitting the planners. Funnily enough, 34% is, I think, the percentage of affordable homes in Poundbury, where they have not reduced the number in subsequent negotiations but maintained the figure they started with, thank goodness. None the less, that is a demonstration of the homes we are currently losing, and which we so desperately need.
I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, talking about housing benefit taking the strain and the policy that went behind that, and how he now does not hold to the view that that is the way to do it—for the rent to be a market rent and for benefit to take the strain. Better to produce social housing with a grant up front and have a lower housing benefit bill for the years to come, with all the other advantages that go with that.
The noble Lord’s points on security of tenure were taken up by one or two others. Amendment 152, which is coming up later, is all about people moving from underoccupied council and housing association homes into something more suitable, accessible and manageable for them, while freeing up a social rented property. That may to some extent satisfy the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned the anti-competitive actions and legal cases he has been involved with—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
May I respectfully ask the noble Lord to move on to deciding whether he will withdraw his amendment?
Lord Best (CB)
There is eager anticipation as to whether I will withdraw the amendment. Suffice it to say, the support around the Committee has been almost complete, and I am deeply grateful for it. The Minister mentioned the many good things the Government are doing, but I fear that leaving it to local authorities to decide, when there is such an unequal tussle between them and those who wish to reduce the amount of affordable and social rented housing, is not going to work. It has not worked so far, and we may need to return to this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Before we move on to the next group, I just want to make a quick statement. We have a large number of groups to get through this evening. While this is Committee, I remind noble Lords of the guidance in the Companion, in paragraph 8.79A, on speeches at amending stages:
“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.
While there have been many important contributions from all sides of the House, parts of our debates this afternoon have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So that we can make progress on the remaining groups, I ask noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are brief and relevant to the topic under discussion.
Amendment 123
Lord Crisp
“Development plans to aim to improve health and well-being(1) Any national or local plan or strategy relating to the planning or development of an area must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people who are to reside in that area.(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans and strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined in subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require national or local development plans to be designed in a way that aims to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of residents.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of related amendments, which are all concerned with how planning in general and housing in particular can play a positive role in promoting mental, physical and social health and well-being, building what I would describe as a healthy and health-creating society.
The Minister will recognise some of the amendments in this group, which are very similar to ones that the now Government supported so effectively in opposition when I tabled them during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I believe we even won a vote. While I hope she will support them, I suspect that she will not, and I understand that the Government have to choose. However, I hope that this debate will provide the Minister with more ammunition to argue for change within government. There are very good and powerful arguments behind the amendments in this group that I know will be set out by noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew for adding their names to my amendments. I also thank Hugh Ellis and Rosalie Callway of the TCPA for their invaluable advice and support.
Before turning to my own amendments, I add my support to the amendments on sport and physical activity from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. They powerfully make the point about the importance of both. It is not just the activity involved that is important for health and well-being, but the social aspects it embodies.
Two of the amendments in this group, Amendment 132 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 185D from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, set out definitions of the purpose of planning. It is very important that we remember what this is all about: why planning is necessary. Both these definitions of planning surely include ensuring the health and well-being of the population and not damaging it. I am also delighted to support Amendment 185SA from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on a code of practice for design. This, as will be apparent in what I go on to say, is very important.
There are two overlapping arguments for my amendments. I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading, but I will touch on some of the points: the evidence from health research—the straightforward health arguments, if you like—and what I will call the evidence of experience, the salutary tales from recent history. Poorly planned neighbourhoods with poor amenities and badly designed homes with little or no access to nature, inadequate insulation of heat or against noise, and that are not secure or well-heated in winter or cool enough in summer, are a recipe for personal and societal stress and can be directly linked to risks of mental and physical illness and disease. Stress itself is implicated in increased inflammation and linked to many long-term conditions, from heart disease and diabetes to depression and anxiety. It is also very clear that the Minister’s colleagues in the Department of Health understand this very well. In the new NHS plan, there is reference to the importance of healthy neighbourhoods, and that is what all these amendments are designed to achieve.
Turning to the evidence from experience, the current housing system is too often failing to promote people’s physical, mental and social health, especially in the most deprived areas. Poor housing costs wider society at least £18.5 billion a year through poor educational achievement, loss of productivity and on-costs to health and care services, including £1.4 billion a year to the NHS.
Across the country, too many homes are being built that are poor quality, poorly located and unaffordable. A recent survey showed that a third of people across all sectors described their new homes as poor quality. Permitted development rights have only made that worse.
I have said all the problems, but it is also very clear, on the positive side, that well-designed safe homes with access to facilities provide part of the foundation for successful and prosperous lives. Prosperity and the ambition for sustainable growth go hand in hand with healthy, safe environments. Existing guidance and advice have not ensured the development of good housing and health-promoting neighbourhoods. There is no evidence that other non-mandatory guidance will help. That is, of course, why I am promoting these amendments.
Anyone who has played any role in government will know that, when setting out these sorts of regulations or guidance to authorities, some of them follow it very well and some do not. If this is all to be contained in what is in essence guidance, as the Minister has already mentioned, how will the Government deal with the people who do not follow the guidance in place? I entirely recognise that we need more homes, and I would also have referred to the 159,000 children that the Minister referred to as living in temporary accommodation at the moment, which is an appalling situation.
Amendment 123 says that any national or local plan or strategy for development must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of people. This reunites planning and health— the two were once inseparable in government and policy—and it takes account of the vital role that planning has in improving health and well-being.
Amendment 185SF, according to the Member’s explanatory statement,
“is based on Clause 43 of the Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill which places a duty on strategic authorities on health promotion and health inequalities. It uses the same language but replaces strategic authorities with local planning authorities. The effect of this amendment is to place a duty on planning authorities to promote health improvement and health inequalities”.
The obvious question—and I am particularly interested in the answer—is: if it is appropriate for the top-tier authority to have regard to that, why is it not for the planning authority? Is the higher-level authority simply irrelevant, and are the words in the other Bill just words without any follow-through into planning itself?
My Amendments 189, 191 and 193 place similar duties on development corporations. They already have, in this Bill, duties on sustainable development and climate change and, I would add, the positive promotion of the physical, mental and social health of the residents in their areas by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods. These three elements —sustainable development, climate change and health improvement—fit very naturally together, as earlier debates today have shown, and actions to address one tend to reinforce the others.
My final two amendments, which are very familiar, are about healthy homes and neighbourhoods. Amendment 226 places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the health and well-being of the people in England and healthy homes and neighbourhoods. Amendment 351 provides a schedule describing that. This means dealing with all the health issues that I mentioned earlier on this group of amendments.
The current arrangements have not worked, and if not this regulatory framework—which I am not wedded to the detail of—what are the Government going to put in place? If the Government have the ambition to create decent homes and developments, which I think they do, they need some levers in place. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to three amendments in my name, but first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his generous comments with regard to the amendments that I tabled. I completely echo what he said in reverse: I am fully supportive of what he has just put before the Committee.
During the last sitting of the Committee, I spoke to a series of amendments on the importance of physical activity and well-being in the context of planning law, and I now rise to speak to Amendments 138A, 185SC and 185SD. In so doing I thank ukactive, a not-for-profit profit organisation that represents and supports the UK’s physical activity sector. I thank it for its consistent high-quality work on the subject in the interests of its members and the wider world of sport, recreation and physical activity, for which it is widely renowned.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Moynihan, who have very much set out the case for other amendments in this group. It is worth focusing on how we need to debate, consider and act on the parlous state of health in the UK and the significant contribution and terrible impact on people’s health that the built environment, the state of our housing and streets, and the way in which people are forced to live, is having. It is not the way that I would do it but, if nothing else, we should consider the economic impacts of that ill health.
I will focus on the three amendments in this group that I have tabled. They are fairly diverse; two of them are specific and one is a much more general purpose on adverts, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, previewed. Amendment 124 is about the display of advertisements. It would amend Section 220(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Currently, it allows the regulation of public advertisements for amenity or public safety reasons. The amendment would add environmental impact and public health as reasons for which advertising can be regulated. Noble Lords should think about how, when they were coming into the House today or when they are going home tonight, they are bombarded with advertisements for gambling companies, junk food and polluting substances. The odds are that there are a lot of them, and this is having a negative impact on public health. Many Members of your Lordships’ House are focusing on how out-of-control gambling is a public health issue in our country.
I pay tribute to the campaign group Adfree Cities, the inspiration for the amendment, which wants a complete ban on all outdoor corporate advertising. As one of its campaigners said, these ads are in a public space without any consultation about what is being shown on them. They cause light pollution—often these days they are digital—and they are for things that people cannot afford or do not need. The fact is that advertising is designed to make you miserable and suggests that you should spend some money to fix that misery.
This is not just the dreaming up of some new idea. To go back to 2006, São Paulo, the largest city in the southern hemisphere, banned all outdoor advertising. Under its clean city law, more than 15,000 billboards were removed, along with 300,000 store signs considered too large. Grenoble in 2014 said that it was not going to have digital advertising and that it would take advertising off its streets altogether. Amsterdam banned adverts for petrol and diesel cars and air travel, something that we have seen happen increasingly with local governments—with Bristol City Council, and Norwich is exploring it, as well as Sheffield and Edinburgh. That is protecting people and the public spaces that they have to be in.
In thinking about the public health impacts of this, Dr Nathan Critchlow from the Institute for Social Marketing and Health at the University of Stirling said:
“There is consistent evidence that exposure to marketing for unhealthy commodities—for example advertising for alcohol or food and drinks high in fat, salt, or sugar—is associated with consumption, including among … young people”.
This is being pushed to people and their health is suffering as a result. Many people will be familiar with the ban from Transport for London on unhealthy food advertising, which a study found prevented almost 100,000 obesity cases.
We can think of the positives instead of just the negatives. What if, in those spaces, we had community arts. One thing that our cities, towns and villages lack is more community arts, such as murals and local projects —or indeed, let us have some more trees. Would not that be nice?
It is worth saying that this is very much a public health issue. Adfree Cities found that four in five outdoor billboard advertisements are in the poorest half of England and Wales. They are actually increasing inequality, so we need something different there.
Amendment 132 deals with something very different. Noble Lords are used to debating purpose clauses. Very often, when we start to debate a Bill, someone puts an amendment down for a purpose clause. This amendment is about all planning functions. What is the purpose of planning? What are we trying to achieve? We have a lot of piecemeal provision in different legislation and different places, but why not say, as an overarching principle, what planning is for?
This is an amendment that I picked up from my honourable friend Ellie Chowns in the other place, and it was backed by the other Green MPs there. This is our attempt at suggesting a way of saying what planning is for. I am very happy to debate the detail, but it is to
“manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest”.
To spell that out a bit more, it
“addresses the long-term common good and wellbeing of current and future generations”.
The phrase “future generations” is one that many noble Lords will possibly recall from a Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, brought forward some Sessions back—I have forgotten how many—copying the model of the future generations Act in Wales, which says that we cannot just govern for the moment. We know that our democratic system has a real problem with short-term thinking, and this would be a way of introducing the idea that we have to think about our impacts on future generations. It ultimately draws on the very well-known law of seven generations. That comes from the great law of the Iroquois, also known as the Haudenosaunee, which says that you should make every decision on the basis of what impact it will have in seven generations’ time. It is about thinking about the future and leaving this place better than we found it.
The amendment refers to the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act 2021. I can predict that the Minister will say that the Government are bound by these Acts, but the amendment explicitly lays down that planning considerations have to take account of those Acts. It also says that the processes have to be “open, accessible and efficient”.
Finally, I come to Amendment 227, which brings me to ground on which noble Lords will have heard me speak many times. I will cross-reference amendments that I, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others brought to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill addressing concerns about the poisons and threats to health contained in school uniforms. This is an amendment to look explicitly at the threats to health from new buildings.
Noble Lords are probably aware that PFAS, the forever chemicals, are in many substances that are part of the fabric of buildings. There is an increasing understanding that there is a build-up of these chemicals—there is a reason why they are called “forever chemicals”—because we are all being exposed to them from our clothing and in our buildings and food. They are building up and up, and our bodies cannot get rid of them and our environment cannot get rid of them.
Again, this is a very simple review amendment. I cannot write an amendment that deals with all these issues for the Government now, but we are on a poisoned planet and we are living in poisoned buildings and this identifies some of the issues—the PFAS, the plastics—and it also very explicitly draws attention to something that many campaigners reach out to me regularly about: artificial turf. We were talking in an earlier group about how we need more green spaces, more natural environments, healthy soils. The absolute opposite of that is taking a piece of ground and covering it in plastic, because that is what artificial turf is.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 185SA. I have put my name to a number of other amendments; I support those and welcome the speech made by my noble friend Lord Crisp. He referred to this as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and I should say of my noble kinswoman that 48 hours and about 31 minutes ago, she was asked to go on the Government Front Bench and by the time we got here yesterday morning, it was too late to remove her name from the amendment in the conventional way. But what I have learned in those 48 hours and now 32 minutes is that if at home you say, “Yes, Minister” often enough, you can get your own way much more than you used to.
My intellectual inspiration for this amendment comes in fact from a man, a wonderful friend, David Levitt OBE, who is also my father-in-law. He is a very distinguished architect who, recently, in his 90th year, was given a lifetime award by the Architects’ Journal for his service to social housing, and I pay tribute to his work. I know from my time as a barrister and part-time judge and as an MP how inadequate housing—the lack of a decent home in which to live—blights the lives of all too many of our fellow citizens, and all too frequently plays a large part in their coming before the courts, so to me, decent housing is essential to the reduction of crime, especially among adults. In four words: “Good housing brings justice”, and this amendment is designed to achieve that on a large scale.
What is striking about this otherwise inspiring Bill is that it says little about the design—the architectural design—of the 1.5 million homes that the Government are going to build. I think we all agree that nobody wants to build badly. National planning policy already makes it clear that poor-quality design should not be allowed. Yet the general quality and design standard of much volume housebuilding in this country continues to be poor. I spoke earlier about financial irregularities, but it is not just that; it is the way in which the thinking about building takes place that leads to poor design. Not only does that affect the people inhabiting the houses, it contributes to local dissatisfaction with local government and opposition to further development. So, while there is widespread support for streamlining our slow and expensive planning processes—words I use cautiously with the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in the Chamber—there are legitimate concerns about the quality of new development if existing checks and standards are weakened.
There is widespread disquiet about whether the housebuilding industry has the ability or the incentives to make the change needed to deliver both the quantity and the quality of homes that are required. If it does have the ability, is it willing to make that change? The problem lies not with national planning policy, which is pretty clear. The fact that the guidance is currently under revision demonstrates ongoing commitment by the Government to achieving good design. In my view, the difficulty lies at local level. As a result of the erosion of skills over time, inadequate training, which has been discussed earlier, and pressure on budgets, few planning authorities have sufficiently strong policies and processes to allow them to require effective change confident in the knowledge that they will be able successfully to resist planning appeals.
Without enforceable design standards, local authorities have no firm policy footing to reject inadequate schemes, so such developments are frequently approved on the basis that they meet housing needs. Thus, an all too familiar scenario is that outline planning permission is sought and granted on the basis of some attractive early visual impressions, but where all the important design matters are reserved and thus the images produced in fact have no contractual force. Because of national housing targets, councils feel under pressure to approve outline permission. The site is typically then sold to a housebuilder and later the reserved matters submission proposes a generic design based on standard house types on a typology that has nothing to do with local circumstances and places too much emphasis on roads and cars and too little on people and their needs.
What we are trying to achieve is that if somebody lives in new-built social housing, they will say in the years to come, “I come from such and such a place”, and they will try to live there for as much of their life as is economically possible. When the final scheme looks nothing like what was promised, many residents and councillors feel misled, and this leads to a built-in resistance to future applications. To allow this situation to continue would, I suggest, be a betrayal of the excellent vision which has led to the promotion of the Bill.
The good news, as this amendment reveals, is that no radical change is needed. The tools already exist within the existing planning system. All we are proposing is basically a tweak, an adaptation which will set the threshold for good-quality design and will give the already excellent national standards more traction at local level. Doing this will embed consistency and predictability, which will help local authorities, the community, developers and landowners. Consistency and predictability will simplify and thus speed up the planning process and reduce the need for appeals. Thus, the quid pro quo for housebuilders is that those which comply will get their planning permission much more quickly and will therefore be able to maximise their profits by building well within the permitted period.
Simply, what this amendment proposes is a code of practice which requires a set of templates incorporating core design standards. If these are given greater weight through the National Planning Policy Framework, that will make it easy for local authorities to apply the principles at local level. This amendment has been developed with a team of leading architects and planners whose publication, Placemaking Not Plotting, will probably be published tomorrow—I have actually seen a draft of it during the debate.
Once these core quality standards are embedded at local level, local authorities should require compliance with them at the earliest practical stage in the planning process and ensure that they are not left to the reserved matters stage. Clear, predictable and measurable design requirements would enable officers to sign off significant components of planning applications, leaving much-streamlined areas which would then be the subject of proper democratic debate and decision-making in the council chamber—proper local accountability but much more quickly and efficiently. That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would love in his council chamber in south Norfolk, and he would have good cause to speak of it proudly in this Committee if so he wished.
So enacting a code of practice would allow applications which demonstrate compliance with the standards to be processed speedily within the current system. The promise of speedy approvals will provide an incentive for housebuilders to incorporate these measurable standards in their application.
The aim of this amendment is to find a practical way to use the best of architecture to provide the best in housing design quickly and efficiently. I hope that this approach will appeal to the Minister, who has such long experience of local government and the planning process and has demonstrated extraordinary understanding of it to us in the Chamber in recent days. I observe that this amendment is one of several related to design and quality, and I urge Ministers at least to include the basis of our amendment as part of the planning procedures at local government level to follow this Bill.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendment 132 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, concerning the purpose of planning. To my mind, there would be some advantage in following the precedent in Scotland, where a similar purpose clause exists in its planning legislation. It would provide a guiding light to remind everybody involved in the planning system what planning is for and why we are doing all this.
There are two advantages in practice to this. First, it would remind those responsible for planning decision-making that that is not only about those who shout loudest, who very often tend to be the vocal minority as opposed to the silent majority who may wish to live in an area, and work in the area, but cannot find or afford a home there. It would provide a daily reminder that planning is about long-term public interest and not short-term expediency. For reasons I outlined in a previous debate, it would—in combination with the proposal for a statutory chief planning officer that was discussed in the debate on my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment—buttress the independence of professional planning officers from undue influence. That would be all the more important in the world where the national scheme of delegation exists, to give full effect to that scheme and for it not to be undermined by undue pressure from members or officers. I have a few quibbles with the drafting—that is not for today, but maybe something we can take up later. I urge the Government to consider this amendment very carefully.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, would have been proud of the speech delivered on her behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and commend him for continuing a campaign that he has promoted for some time, through a Private Member’s Bill and amendments to then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill promoting healthy homes, but the challenge that faces him is that health and homes are in two different government departments. Successive attempts to bring them together have so far failed. Paradoxically, 100 years ago, the Ministry of Health was responsible for housing and health, and between the two World Wars, that led to a more integrated approach to both health and housing. Indeed, my great uncle, Sir Hilton Young MP, was Minister for Health in the 1930s, and as Health Minister he introduced the Housing Act 1935, which set down standards for accommodation—something which the noble Lord’s amendments seek to build on.
Winding forward, the importance of bringing health and housing together was central to the Black report, published in 1980, about inequalities and health outcomes. It said:
“The consequences, and importance, of housing policies for other areas of social policy, including health policies, have received increasing recognition in recent years—as have the problems of co-ordination deriving in part from the location of responsibilities for housing and personal social services … and Health services”.
Then we had the Acheson report. What I found compelling was the Resolution Foundation’s recent report which said that poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health.
I looked at the debate in the other place on this amendment—it was for new Clause 9. There were two Back-Bench speakers, and it was all over in under a quarter of an hour—I see a smile on the face of the noble Lord on the Government Bench—including two other new clauses. That underlines the importance of this House in scrutinising legislation. The Minister there dismissed the need for a new duty to promote health because he said existing policy was adequate. There may be a copy of what he said in the folder in the Minister’s possession.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I rise to give a few words of support to my noble friend in sport Lord Moynihan—that is his expression, but I will use it today. Sporting activity is an incredibly important part of building most communities in our country. It brings them together and contributes to health. We have heard a lot about the Department of Health; it may not be represented here, but I am sure the Ministers are quite capable of carrying the message to it that if you do not have good sporting facilities and activity, you cannot utilise this. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond she will tell us how they are going to work this—or some duty that looks at all the benefits—into the new structure. We have a great deal here about driving something forward; as other noble Lords have said, if we drive forward something that does not deliver a decent environment—the opening comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, got to the heart of it—you will ultimately create unpleasant environments. We have done so in the past. We have already heard Billy Connolly’s description of being moved out of the Gorbals, because it was a slum, to somewhere which rapidly became a slum except with new buildings, because it had no facilities. Can the Minister give us a description of how they are going to work in access to green spaces, active travel infrastructure, sport and physical activity? If these are excluded from planning up front, those making the decisions will not follow up on them—if you do not have to do it, you will not, because you are busy and you have a prime objective. I hope that the Minister will tell us how they are going to deal with this, because if they do not do so, I am afraid we are going to have to put it into the Bill, one way or another.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 123 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Design is so important. Buildings can be beautiful, or ugly. They can enhance communities, or they can destroy them. We need quality homes that are sustainable and that in 200 or 300 years, people still think are beautiful. It was Winston Churchill who once remarked:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]
Thus, upholding architectural standards and considering aesthetic standards is essential. Our environment has a dramatic impact upon our lives, affecting our outlook, our well-being and most importantly, our mental and general health.
We already have many beautiful buildings in the UK, big and small, but it would seem that this aspect is all too often forgotten in new construction. Houses need to include local area designs, and, where possible, use local, natural materials. We should not forget that concrete and steel contribute significantly to carbon dioxide emissions, exacerbating climate change.
I understand that this was discussed in detail in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, commonly known as LURB. I ask the Minister, when are the provisions in LURB going to be implemented, and can she guarantee that they will be? Is the office of the place up and running in this regard, and will this have an effect on what is going to be built?
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendments 138A, 185SC and 185SD in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has articulated very well why these amendments are so important and should be considered.
The focus of the amendments, as we have heard, is to ensure that any national or local plan or strategy relating to planning and development must be designed to provide access, spaces and facilities, and to preserve existing sites for sport and physical activity, so that we can improve the health and well-being of society.
A proper local plan and strategy is critically important. Why? Research from StreetGames, the sports charity I chaired for several years, showed that children and young people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods typically tend not to travel outside of their immediate locality, and with other barriers, they have less access to opportunities for sport and play.
Sport England’s active lives survey shows that individuals in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to be inactive, partly due to a lack of safe, affordable and welcoming home spaces and facilities. This disparity has not helped factors such as limited school facilities’ access for community use, with data showing the correlation between facilities available and activity levels.
The Fields in Trust charity, this year celebrating its centenary, publishes the green space index. It estimates that by 2033, 4,000 new parks will be needed to maintain the current level of accessible green spaces across the country—and the current level is not enough. To preserve these park spaces and sports facilities, planning in future will need to be truly focused if our country is not to be worse off. The pausing or ending of the Opening Schools Facilities Fund is also unhelpful and detrimental, as this fund was providing its worth.
If we are to tackle health and socioeconomic inequalities, we need to improve community provision of opportunities for all, including those in the most deprived neighbourhoods. To do this means making sure that integrating sport and physical activity in all planning decisions is an absolute requirement.
StreetGames and many other similar organisations daily demonstrate the importance of local community facilities, sports fields, leisure centres, gyms and parks. We know how sport and physical activity help to improve lives, whether the issue be obesity, isolation, physical and mental health, or crime and anti-social behaviour. These organisations help aid social cohesion and provide places for social interaction, provided they have access to the right facilities. They deal daily with the rebalancing of issues of health inequality, and without concerted efforts through planning, they will be unable to do their work.
For these reasons and many more, I hope we can prioritise the issues raised in these amendments. I support these amendments because they protect the provision of sport and physical activity in the National Planning Policy Framework. In so doing, sport and physical activity become the underpinning of health and well-being within communities, and help eliminate inequalities.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the LGA and chair of Sport Wales. While recognising the devolved nature of planning, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the social return on investment for physical activity and sport in Wales is £5.98 billion a year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised the Well-being of Future Generations Act. It is an incredibly important lens through which to make decisions on things like sport and physical activity.
We have a chance with these amendments to really cement opportunities to be active in our communities. We do not get the chance to talk about sport that much in the Chamber. We are in the middle of an exciting moment in women’s sport this summer. We have had the Women’s Open in Porthcawl, the Euros, and the Women’s Rugby World Cup, but sport is a small part of activity, which we really need to concentrate on.
All the people who played in these amazing tournaments started somewhere, but to be good at sport—and the nation is generally supportive of our sportspeople—we need to have lots of people being physically active. To be physically active, you need access to play, but you also need a place to do it.
I thank the all-party parliamentary group on sport, which met this afternoon. We had representatives from the Sport and Recreation Alliance, and from cricket, tennis, Sport England and the FA, who talked about what we are already missing. On current demand, we already need 12,000 extra grass pitches, let alone after this summer of sport, when we will hopefully get thousands more young women who want to play sport.
We are a nation that loves sport, but we are also a nation that needs to be more active. I happened to be chair of ukactive when it produced a number of reports, the first of which was called Generation Inactive; there was also Turning the tide of physical activity. They highlighted the challenges that need addressing. We have a generation of young people who are more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. People are hitting frailty in their 40s and living with that for decades. This is both costly for society and bad for the individuals, because it excludes them from society. Around one in eight children in England between the ages of two and 10 is obese, according to an NHS survey published in September 2024.
Approximately 39% of all sports facilities in England, including sports halls, studios and pitches, are located behind school gates and often remain inaccessible outside school hours. There is a need to open them, and we cannot afford to lose any more than we currently have.
I was delighted that my noble friend—in sport— Lord Moynihan talked about swimming pools. We have seen through Covid the challenges of keeping them open. Again, this is not sport for sport’s sake. The Royal Life Saving Society estimates that 328 UK and Irish citizens lose their lives to accidental drowning each year, so keeping swimming pools open is incredibly important. If we do not protect these facilities, we are dooming another generation to a lack of opportunity. It is going to have an increasingly negative impact on their health.
Looking back to the summer of sport, we are seeing amazing players like Georgia Evans in rugby and Alessia Russo in football. They provide a moment of inspiration, but we have to do more than that. We have to provide the right facilities, whether you want to make the elite pathway or just not be very good at sport. We should channel Wales’s Well-being of Future Generations Act and look at the legacy we are leaving the boys and girls who follow, who desperately need somewhere to play.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is the second of two debates we have had this afternoon on the link between health and well-being on the one hand, and planning laws on the other. The second one, relating to the link between creating healthy homes and sport, is fundamental to creating healthy communities.
As a councillor who represents an area where healthy living beyond the age of 60 is at one of the lowest levels in the country, I support totally all the amendments in this group, including the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He pursued it during consideration of the levelling-up Bill, but unfortunately it was mostly resisted by the then Government. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has clearly made the point about access to areas of play.
I will, at this point, mention one example. One of the most deprived towns in this country, Dewsbury, has had its swimming pool and leisure centre closed and it is not going to be replaced. When that occurs, you know we are in trouble as a country. I urge the Minister to respond positively, as she did to earlier amendments, to all the amendments in this group as they will make a difference now and in future.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this important group of amendments relates to the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods, the role of planning in promoting well-being, and the standards and accuracy of housing development. I thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments; their recognition of the need to place health and well-being at the heart of housing policy and planning is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation of the sentiment behind the amendments, and the desire to ensure that development is not just about numbers and units delivered, but about the quality of life of those who will live in them.
I note the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Taken together, these seek to integrate health and well-being considerations into housing and planning through duties on authorities’ reporting requirements and potential enforcement provisions. The link between housing and public health is well recognised but, as with many such proposals, the issue is one of balancing aspirations with the demands of regulation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has also brought forward a thoughtful proposal: Amendment 124 on advertising. This raises an important issue of public health and the role of advertising. The noble Baroness mentioned gambling advertising, but I would also add that for junk food, particularly in areas close to schools, for instance.
Amendment 132 on the disclosure of environmental performance in marketing materials and Amendment 227, clarifying local authority enforcement powers, raise important questions about consumer protection and transparency. We look forward to the Government’s reply.
I wish to recognise the valuable contribution of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and speak to his Amendment 138A. As he often emphasises, creating space for sport and physical activity can deliver wide-ranging benefits, not only for an individual’s fitness, but for community cohesion and long-term public health. His amendment would add the promotion of health and well-being to the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies. This raises an important and thought-provoking point, and we look forward with interest to the Government’s response.
Lastly, I return to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. We have already underlined the importance of respecting local vernacular and design in planning and development. The spirit of her Amendment 185SA is, I believe, a constructive one: namely, that there should be a preferred approach to the consideration of architectural style grounding in sound plan-making principles, and framed by an appropriate, locally distinctive context for building design. Where that is fitting, such an approach ensures that development is not only functional but reflective of the character and heritage of the community it serves.
That is why the previous Conservative Government set up the Office for Place: to ensure that good design was part of building. Unfortunately, this current Labour Government have closed the office. We should not just be building units; we must build homes that are well designed and form part of successful communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how this Government will ensure good design.
Across this group of amendments, there is a unifying theme: that housing should not merely be about shelter, but about creating places that sustain life, health and community—whether through high standards, clearer duties, better design or fairer advertising. These amendments challenge us to raise our ambition, but ambition must be tempered with practicality. The central question is how we embed these principles in a way that is workable, proportionate and does not risk unintended consequences for housing delivery, affordability or local discretion. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government intend to respond to these important proposals, and how they will ensure that the planning system and housing policy place health and the well-being of people and communities at their heart.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments tabled in this grouping. We have had a very useful and interesting debate on this topic this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lords who put forward amendments, who have deep expertise and are great advocates on the issue of health, housing and communities. That is greatly appreciated.
The Government agree that the quality of our homes, and the wider environment around them, are intrinsically linked to the creation of healthy communities. Taken together, planning policy, guidance and building regulations tackle these important matters and collectively promote the creation of healthy communities and homes for the people who reside there. It may be helpful if I quickly outline some of these provisions at the outset to show the interaction between the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, the National Model Design Code, building regulations and the Future Homes Standard—that sounds more like a PhD essay than a quick intervention, but I will do my best—in collectively promoting healthy homes and communities.
First, the NPPF has the goal of achieving sustainable development at its heart, which includes supporting a strong, vibrant and healthy community, and ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. I am not sure about the 70 years that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about, but we will do our best. The framework sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, and enable healthy lives, through both promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities. That is all set out in the National Planning Policy Framework; it is very clear what is expected.
The framework also recognises the importance of open space, sports and recreation facilities in supporting the health and well-being of communities. It is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities, and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are also set out in Planning Practice Guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.
Secondly, the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code are part of the suite of Planning Practice Guidance. They illustrate how well-designed, healthy, inclusive, social and green places can be achieved. They provide detailed advice on creating safe, inclusive and accessible homes, buildings and public spaces, prioritising walking and cycling, and green space and biodiversity in new development that promotes activity and social interaction.
All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are required to meet the nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. While under the permitted development right that allows for commercial buildings, such as shops and offices, to change use to homes, local authorities can consider the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers during the decision-making process. All new homes, whether delivered through a permitted development right or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations and fire safety requirements.
Lastly, building regulations set out the minimum legal performance standards that all new homes must meet to ensure that they protect people’s safety, health and welfare. We continue to review and strengthen these standards. For example, this autumn the Government will publish the Future Homes Standard, which will increase the energy efficiency requirements in building regulations. New homes will be equipped with low-carbon heating and, in most cases, solar panels, making them fit for the future, comfortable for occupants, and affordable to heat. At the same time, we will publish our response to the call for evidence on the new overheating requirement, which has been in effect since June 2022. This requires that new homes are designed to minimise overheating and thus remain resilient as our climate changes.
Amendment 123 is on health and well-being in development plans. Amendments 138A, 185SC, 185SD and 185SF are on ensuring adequate provision for spaces and facilities for sport and physical activity and making sure they are appropriately considered in the planning system and in new spatial development strategies. The provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework I have outlined mean that these matters will already be taken into account. Within Clause 52, new Section 12D(1) enables spatial development strategies to include policies relating to access to green space, active travel, and sports and physical activity facilities, providing that they are of strategic importance to the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is in the other place at the moment. Clause 43 of that Bill is a general duty which applies to all the duties that combined authorities have to have regard to—the need to improve health inequalities between people living in their area. It is not a specific planning duty, and we believe that in the case of planning we should deal with those matters through the National Planning Policy Framework.
Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to include environmental impact and public health as additional considerations to take into account in regulating advertisements. The advertisement consent regime is designed to ensure that outdoor advertisements are in the right locations. It is a light-touch system concerned with only two issues: the impact of the advertisement on amenity and public safety. Amenity includes oral and visual amenity and relevant factors such as the general characteristics of the locality. Public safety is largely concerned with the transport network: for example, distractions to road users or safety on railway lines. The content of advertisements is subject to a separate regulatory system—I know the noble Baroness is aware of this—which is overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. To widen the scope of matters which can be considered through the advertisement consent regime, particularly in relation to public health, is likely to bring the focus more on to the content of the advertisement. If that were the case it would create an overlap between the two regulatory regimes where at present there is a clear distinction, which would risk causing uncertainty and confusion. Therefore, while I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, we think the current scope of the advertisement consent regime remains appropriate.
Amendments 132 and 185D would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose. I must reiterate that the pursuit of sustainable development is at the heart of what the planning system seeks to achieve. Reflecting this, it is a principle which is woven through our National Planning Policy Framework, from the overarching objectives which it sets, through to the specific policies for achieving them. For example, the national planning policy sets out how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, essential community services and facilities, and the vital role of open space, green infrastructure and play in supporting health and well-being and recreation. It is clear that local plans should meet identified needs and seek opportunities for new provision. It also supports a transition to a low-carbon future and promotes renewable and low-carbon energy, and requires plans to take a proactive approach to climate change. These are all important principles, and we should not underestimate the role of the National Planning Policy Framework in translating these into practice. But I wish to resist these amendments, not just because they would impose significant burdens on any individual or body exercising a planning function in order to gauge compliance, but as inevitably these provisions will become a focus for challenges to plans and decisions.
Amendment 185SA seeks to introduce a code of practice for design. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Levitt on her well-deserved promotion to the Front Bench and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for speaking to her amendment—I suspect he may have a few more occasions when he has to say, “Yes, Minister”, but I do not want to interfere with that part of his life. I agree with my noble friend that we have a role to play in setting clear expectations for design and placemaking to support local authorities to demand better through the planning system, and a responsibility to ensure that they have the tools necessary to do this. I thank her very much for meeting with me to discuss this. As I have mentioned, the National Planning Policy Framework already emphasises that the creation of high-quality and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what planning and development should achieve. The framework is supplemented by national design guidance. I gather from this amendment that my noble friend believes we could go further, and that is exactly what we intend to do. We are consulting on national policies for decision-making, including on design, later in 2025, and we are also in the process of updating national design guidance and will publish this later this year.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I specifically address the issue of artificial turf, about which there is rising public concern. Perhaps the Minister could write to me later about whether the Government are taking a look at that, given the level of public concern.
Lord Banner (Con)
It appeared from what the Minister said that a key factor weighing in the Government’s mind against the purpose of planning is the risk of legal challenges. For my part, I think that that fear is probably overblown. The purpose would only be something that would have to be taken into account. Once it was taken into account, any decision that was rational would not be liable for judicial review. I invite the Government to reflect on that. Obviously, I am very happy to help in any way I can on that issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and am happy to reflect on any issues raised in Committee. If he wants further discussions on it, I am happy to have those.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, this has been another good, if lengthy, debate, which I thought mixed very well the principles and the practical. A lot of very practical points came up, such as those about the financial impact of activity from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; the very practical proposals from my noble friend Lord Carlile about the design principles; and some very important points from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, about the links between health and planning and whether those are actually brought together, anatomising the various ways in which it does not look as if they are.
I have listened very carefully to the Minister, and I will look at what she has to say about how the proposals that I and others have been putting forward cut across what is already happening in the various proposals from the Government. If I may, when I have done that, I might wish to come back to talk to her before Report to discuss those particular issues.
I shall resist the temptation to ask one last question. With all that panoply of action that the Government are taking, what happens if the result we all want is not delivered? How do we secure the actual delivery? But I am not going to ask that question at this point, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Tuesday 9th September 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-V(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (9 Sep 2025)
“Access to data on overheating risk(1) For the purposes of supporting the making of local plans, spatial development strategies and planning decisions, the Secretary of State must make provision for local planning authorities to have access to relevant data relating to overheating risk.(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that data on overheating risk made available to local planning authorities is updated at intervals not exceeding five years.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have access to up-to-date data on overheating risk, to support the making of local plans, spatial development strategies, and planning decisions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to several amendments in this group, Amendments 125, 126 and 181, all of which address the issues of overheating.
I shall constrain myself to commenting on the amendments in my name, but this is the direction of the overall travel of the group. I do not have any particular attachment to the different means by which this issue is addressed here. What is very clear from the level of engagement is that there is a serious issue of overheating, as reflected by this group of amendments.
I shall start with a statistic that is quite shocking. Since 2016, about 570,000 new homes have been built without adequate adaptations to respond to increased temperatures. We have heard from Members of your Lordships’ House who are members of the Committee on Climate Change, and many of us in this debate will have heard from the reports about the inadequacy of climate adaptation. We were speaking in an earlier group about the inadequacy of dealing with flooding. This is overheating, which brings huge financial costs. We have had heatwaves this year but, if we go back to 2022, we saw temperatures over 40 degrees centigrade for the first time, which resulted in more than 3,000 heat-related deaths, the highest level of mortality since the first heatwave plan was written in 2023. We know that, with the climate emergency, this is going to happen more and more often at greater and greater levels. It is particularly the young and old who are most vulnerable to this, but we are increasingly in a situation where everybody is vulnerable.
To go back to a point that I raised on an earlier group about ventilation and so on, we are also going to see, sadly, an increasing number of fires, in natural environments and probably, as we saw in London in 2022, in urban environments as well. That is where we also have to think about wildfire smoke and its impact on human health.
I want to go to the issue that we keep raising again and again in amendments—that this is very much a social justice and inequality issue. It is broadly the more economically disadvantaged households that are at greatest risks from these overheating issues, although it is not just those households. Almost 5.5 million children, over half of those in England, are living in homes at risk of overheating; according to the English Housing Survey 2022 analysis by the Resolution Foundation, more than 1 million of those children are living in London, mostly in social housing.
These amendments look at allowing local authorities, where the local climatic data indicates elevated risk—which, in essence, now means everywhere in the UK—to take specific action under the Town and Country Planning Act. Also—and this is important, and it is crucial that we discuss it under my Amendment 181 about cooling hierarchy guidance—we heard during the recent heatwaves that we have experienced in the UK a great deal of discussion about air conditioning: “Why do we not have air conditioning? Why don’t we install air conditioning?” Of course, the problem with air conditioning is that it is innately counterproductive: you are cooling the home and heating the outside, whether that is through the electricity used or even very directly, with urban heat islands, and so on. Air conditioning is not the answer—and then there are the inequality issues that arise from that as well.
Amendment 181 talks about the Secretary of State providing guidance to local planning authorities to outline a cooling hierarchy and provide guidance on how it is applied. This is where again—it is the problem with green politics of everything being related to everything else—I have to cross-reference back to our discussion about nature. One of the best ways to provide cooling in environments is to have trees and greenery; it is much better than concrete, as it reflects back the heat heating up the area around it. It is about having a structured approach and looking at greenery and at passive and sustainable design elements.
Let us think, for example, of the people of Yemen, who have a traditional architecture, in the hottest temperatures that humans can just about stand, that is cool and comfortable, based on centuries of knowledge of how to build in ways that encourage breezes and bring the air coming over. We come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, not currently in her place, and the value of water as a key cooling element—a breeze coming across water, circulating through a house and cooling it down; shades in the right directions and in the right places; and, obviously, the thermal mass of a house so that it does not heat up too quickly but also ensures that it can cool itself down.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I thank my supporters on Amendment 127, the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am very pleased to bring back this amendment, which I originally raised as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act a couple of years back. The reason I am pleased to bring it back is that it is a reminder that we have made a lot of progress in this area over the last couple of years. Noble Lords may remember the great progress we made following ping-pong on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, when we started that process of embedding net zero and climate into our planning system.
Since then, we have had the updates of the National Planning Policy Framework, again embedding climate further into the system, which is already good progress, but as Ministers and noble Lords like to say, there is always more to do. Despite this progress, it is vital that the Government go further, because Peers from all parties across the House have worked extremely hard in recent years to embed our climate and nature goals across a range of sectors and regulatory regimes. That includes the health service, in the Health and Care Act 2022; our skills framework, in the IfATE Bill; Ofwat; the Crown Estate; and Ofgem, in the Energy Act 2022. It is vital that we take those same steps for our planning system, embedding this in statute, not only to help the Government deliver on their overarching climate and environmental goals but to support the 2030 electricity system targets and the target to build 1.5 million homes.
It is particularly important in planning, and the reason is that there are so many different issues to contend with when decision-makers are considering a planning application. Part of the problem is that lack of strategic guidance and direction on which factors are important; that is partly what is leading to paralysis in our planning system. In recent years, we have had legal challenges which have actually delayed sustainable homes being built for years—for example, the Salt Cross development in Oxfordshire—and we have had pushback on solar farms and other aspects of our electricity grid because of a lack of clarity in the planning system.
I am sure that when the Minister responds, she will come back to the NPPF, as I mentioned earlier, but many noble Lords have set out today in previous groups the limitations of relying on the NPPF. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said that the guidance that has been there on green spaces for many years has just not delivered.
We really need the strength of a statutory duty in this area, because guidance in the NPPF is not future-proofed. It is only guidance and does not refer to our targets. It is also worth saying that, in the way we have structured the amendments, it is a statutory duty but it is worded around “special regard”, which is a well-tested legislative approach. It is not saying the environment must be considered, because there may be other material considerations that, on balance, override that, but it is saying that it should carry weight within the planning system. This perspective is fully supported by the recent Corry review undertaken for Defra, which says that Defra
“needs to find a way of ensuring clarity, from a spatial perspective, for how the multitude of nature and planning strategies come together in a way which local authorities and combined authorities can understand and deliver, in partnership with regulators”.
The duty would provide exactly that: a golden thread running through the whole town and country planning system to ensure that it delivers for our national goals. We heard earlier in the debate about the future homes standard, which is coming up in the autumn. This duty would complement and work with that future homes standard to make sure that our targets are delivered.
It is this simplification and clarity that is going to help the Government in their target to build those 1.5 million new homes. The House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 stated:
“Local plans are currently too complex and detailed, which results in delays. Alongside introducing time limits on plan-making processes, the Government should produce standardised definitions and simplified guidance for local planning authorities. Simplification will also aid community engagement with local plans”.
Ultimately, that is helping local authorities and local areas deliver. It is all about the devolution of power because in many areas local authorities want to play their part, but they are being blocked—fundamentally because there is little integration and join up at a local level, whether that is local area energy planning, rollout or clarity in our planning system. This leads to an inconsistent approach—a patchwork quilt of responses across the many local authorities in terms of their approach to the environment and net zero. Again, a thread throughout the system would help fix that.
To summarise, this amendment would have important practical effect through ensuring that the town and country planning system delivers against the UK’s strategic objectives: 1.5 million homes that are fit for the future, unblocking and simplifying the system and, critically, giving local authorities the power to play their part, working in concert with the future home standard. Rather than the current piecemeal mentions of climate change and planning policy scattered through the legislation and the NPPF, there is a fantastic opportunity here for the Government to update the Bill to fully embed these targets within statutes and ensure that there is a coherent thread running through the whole planning system.
I have added my name to Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. For me, this is just another case in which there is work being done within industry, but we need a central function to co-ordinate these efforts and bring that consistency to reporting. However, I will not say any more at this stage.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, my Amendments 145B and 216 on overheating and climate change are in this group. This is an important group, and we generally support all the amendments that have been put forward.
We have just had the warmest summer on record—the warmest since 1884. Summer temperatures were 1.51 degrees above the long-term meteorological average and all five of the hottest summers have been since 2000. A summer as warm as the one we have just had is now 70 times more likely due to climate change. Obviously, continuous exposure to heat is a slow-motion killer and it is bad for our population. Our homes are not built—or fit—for the future, which is here now.
Buildings are responsible for over 40% of the energy demand in the UK. Some 80% of the buildings that will be occupied in 2050 have already undergone construction. Therefore, we must do more—all of us—to ensure that the homes we build and plan today are fit for the future. My Amendment 145B asks that, where a spatial development strategy includes provisions relating to housing, it also includes provisions for housing to meet recognised high efficiency and climate resilient standards, including but not limited to Passivhaus standards. This is with a view to reducing energy consumption, improving temperature controls and ventilations, particularly in response to extreme heat and contributing to our regional climate change mitigation and adaption objectives.
We have to do more. The Climate Change Committee has also been clear on these points. The UK will not meet its emission targets
“without near-complete decarbonisation of the housing stock”.
The houses we build are places of shelter. They need to provide long-term security, affordability, to be resilient and to cope in the warming climate. This is about asking simple questions about the houses we are building. Are they fit for the future?
Each new home that we build without proper standards leads to higher emissions, higher heating costs and greater vulnerability for those that live within them. Conversely, if we build to high efficiency standards, we can curb our emissions, reduce future retrofitting costs, protect families from the risk of heatwaves and reduce their energy bills.
The amendment refers to standards, particularly Passivhaus, but it allows flexibility; it is not restrictive, and it is not telling local authorities what they have to do, but it is for them to have regard to these things. Therefore, it is not prescriptive. We believe that is a good way of doing these things. It can save people money and give them a better quality of life. We think that this is a good amendment.
Amendment 216 proposes that every new home built in the country should meet a net-zero carbon building standard and be equipped with solar-powered generation as standard. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for adding their names. This not a radical measure; this is a reasoned, practical response, designed to support government policies which are either in development or are being developed but have not fully been put forward. Obviously, it covers exactly the same points. As we know, retrofitting is five times more expensive, which is just too expensive. We do not have the time, and we cannot afford to wait.
I acknowledge and thank the Labour Party for the work it is doing in this space. We look forward to the future homes standard and welcome the moves the Government are making on installing rooftop solar. There are various different strands and elements of policy that all need to come together. There is a warm homes plan, the overheating requirement that the Minister has referred to as well, and general building regulatory reforms around zero-carbon buildings. But a lot of these measures are either not here or not strictly laid down in planning law with the certainty that my amendment has.
While I welcome the measure the Government are taking, and I know there will be policies published in the autumn, I want to push the Government as to whether, when those policies come forward, they will have the level of certainty to meet the actions we need. My amendment hopes to solidify and support the work that the Government themselves are actively doing, and to strengthen some of those measures. My question to the Government is: if you are not supporting my measures, what certainty can you give us around the weight the measures you will put forward will have in law?
I give my support to Amendment 127, so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Krebs and Lord Grantchester. I will not speak to it for too long, but this is an essential amendment. As the noble Lord said, it puts a golden thread through this stuff. “Have regard to” is good wording. This stuff needs to happen. All too often, these issues are ignored or set aside and do not have the clear weight within planning law that they need to. Therefore, we welcome this amendment. This needs to change and it is a sensible and well-reasoned amendment.
I am in favour of Amendment 180, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would introduce a carbon assessment, as required for larger developments. We are no longer blind to one of the most significant drivers of climate emissions. The construction sector is responsible for a quarter of the UK’s carbon footprint and that is set to rise. These emissions remain largely invisible within the planning system, and we need a proper system to take better account of them and to regulate them, so we also support this as a sensible amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 127, which I have put my name to, ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and to support the other amendments in this group.
I was glad to hear both the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referring to the work of the Climate Change Committee. It is so important that we understand what the expert advice is from our statutory body, and so I will quote a few sentences from the April report on climate adaptation:
“The UK’s preparations for climate change are inadequate… In terms of adaptation delivery, we do not find evidence to score a single outcome as ‘good’”.
About buildings, it says that
“6.3 million properties in England are in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea, and surface water. This is predicted to rise to around 8 million (25% of all properties) by 2050 … Towns and cities will become increasingly hot, with a large fraction of current buildings at risk of reaching uncomfortable and potentially dangerous temperatures in summer heatwaves”—
a point made so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
In table 1 of the summary of the adaptation committee’s report, there is a score card for delivery and implementation on the one hand and policies and plans on the other. Under “Planning system prioritises climate resilience”, for delivery and implementation it says, “Unable to evaluate”—there is no evidence—and for policies and plans it says, “Insufficient”. For “Buildings do not overheat”, on delivery it says, “Unable to evaluate”, and under policies it says, “Limited”. For “Buildings are prepared for flooding”, it says “Partial”—that is a good score—for both delivery and for policies and plans. For “Buildings are resilient to other climate risks”, it says “Unable to evaluate” for both delivery and for policies and plans. Here we have it, from the statutory expert advisers to the Government, that we are not doing enough to prepare our houses, public buildings and commercial buildings for the impact of climate change.
For me, the remarkable thing is that none of this is new. I chaired the adaptation committee between 2009 and 2017, and we were saying exactly the same things 15 years ago. Nobody is listening. It would be nice to hear from the Minister that this Government are listening and understand that this is not just some pie-in-the-sky thing for the future but urgent and needs to be addressed now.
Another important point was made in the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, when he said that things may be written in the NPPF but what we need is to strengthen the commitments by putting them firmly into the statute book. I listened to some of the debate earlier about green spaces, sport and recreation, and all these wonderful facilities in new developments, and we heard reassuring words from the Government. However, when I look at the new housing estates around Oxford, where I live, they are nothing like that. They are simply identikit houses, jammed in as close together as possible, with no green space, no recreation facilities, no climate resilience and no plans to deal with overheating—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said.
There are very simple things that could be done. If you go, as I sometimes do, to the south of France and rent a house, the house will have shutters. In the middle of the day, when it is hot, you close the shutters and they keep the heat out. Why are we not building new houses with shutters as a mandatory requirement? It would not cost much money and it would be a simple, effective tool to reduce the chance of overheating.
I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government have listened to the report of the adaptation committee of the Climate Change Committee and will do something about where it scored “Inadequate” or nul points under the various assessments, and that the Government are minded to firm up what is guidance and make it statutorily an obligation.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127 and 216.
Amendment 216, to which I have put my name, was led by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and concerns the zero-carbon standard for new homes. If the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, feels that the adaptation committee reports are cyclical and the same and getting nowhere then the zero-carbon standard discussion feels like Groundhog Day, to be frank. We got so close to having a zero-carbon home commitment in 2015. We were within two weeks of the commitment coming into effect, at a time when the housebuilders, in spite of some initial grumping, had tooled up to deliver it, when all of a sudden the Chancellor, George Osborne, stepped in at the last minute and summarily cancelled it. It was the biggest letdown for everybody. That meant that, for 10 years, we built houses which could have been zero carbon, significantly contributed to reducing our carbon footprint, helped people have warmer homes and helped the communities have lower bills—but we did not. We have lost 10 years of delivery. We have to now grip that and make sure that we do not lose any more years.
The current policy under the future homes standard requires new homes only to be zero-carbon ready by 2025. That does not go far enough. It also does not require anything on solar panels, which this amendment addresses. I know that there has been a bit of a shift in thinking within government over the last few months on the question of distributed solar. I press the Minister to tell us what improvements we are expecting to see on the future homes standard to reverse the harm that was done by Mr Osborne.
Before I sit down, I commend Amendment 127, in the name of the noble Lord, Ravensdale, which would give clear mitigation and adaptation climate change duties to planning authorities. I very much endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said. I was honoured to serve, at least for a brief period, on the adaptation committee. I helped get the legislation through this House to create it and then promptly did a runner after I had been appointed to it—as they say, it was a good idea at the time.
The whole role of planning authorities in climate change is absolutely crucial, not just for mitigation but for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. I draw the attention of the Minister and the Committee to a recent Local Government Association report which went out extensively to wide consultation. As a result of that consultation with a whole range of consultees, not only local government authorities, it came back with the proposition that there should be statutory powers and duties for local authorities on action for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
There was a bit of schadenfreude for me in that. When we originally got the climate Act through, it prescribed roles for local authorities. In fact, it had a reporting arrangement for local authorities that meant that they had a statutory requirement to report. That was cancelled very rapidly when the Conservative Government came in in 2010. We are now in a position where, although many local authorities are very committed to the idea of their place in mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, they are under no duress to report on that. The only thing they have to do is that, if they are asked by government to report, they are required to do so—but only if asked. That strikes me as a very strange way of keeping track of delivery on this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, the most recent report by the adaptation committee assessing the nation’s level of preparedness to adapt to the impacts of climate change was very gloomy about the lack of progress, and quite rightly so. Adaptation is the Cinderella, the poor relation of the whole climate change effort. It is not going to get any better; it is going to get worse, with heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods—it is being so cheerful at this time of night that keeps me going. Amendment 127, to clarify the climate change mitigation and adaptation duties of planning authorities, or something like it, is very important. I hope that the Minister will consider it seriously.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale; I think it is very important. I want to pick up what my noble friend said: many local authorities are very keen to develop policies in relation to climate change, particularly on this very important issue of adaptation. My noble friend will have seen recently that some local authorities have put into reverse any commitment towards net zero and climate change policies. My question to the House is: what do we do about this? It is not fashionable at the moment to mention climate change, for some remarkable reason, but I think it is the most important and biggest issue we face. What are we to do if local authorities are saying, “No, we’ll turn our backs on this. We’ll commit ourselves to fossil fuels. We will develop policies that are very distinct—in opposition almost—to issues around climate change”? My advice to the Government is that this is not acceptable. If we are really serious about net zero and if we are serious about climate change adaptation as well as mitigation, we have to have a much greater concerted effort, in which local government clearly has to play an important part. That is why I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is so important.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on this important group of amendments, which touch on the crucial matters of climate change and, more specifically, overheating, energy efficiency and net-zero carbon developments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have tabled these amendments. Their recognition of the pressing challenge that climate change presents and the role that planning and development must play in addressing it is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation for the sentiment behind the amendments in their name and the desire to ensure that our built environment is resilient and sustainable in the face of changing climate.
We on these Benches recognise the need to address climate change and overheating risks in our built environment. However, it is also essential that we balance these aims with the need to avoid introducing overly burdensome mandates and excessive regulation that could hinder much-needed housing delivery, achieving the 1.5 million homes and economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address these important and pressing issues, ensuring that we both protect our environment and support sustainable development and homes that are much needed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to climate change and overheating. It is obviously the biggest issue facing not just the Government and the country but the world. I turn first to Amendments 125, 126, 181 and 216, which concern efforts to adapt new homes and buildings to account for the risk of overheating and the need to drive energy efficiency in new homes. The Government agree that action is needed to address these risks, but we must be mindful of the existing regulatory and legislative regimes that underpin action in these areas.
The building regulations already set specific performance targets for new homes and non-domestic buildings. Compliance with these regulations is mandatory. Aspects of building construction concerned with heating, energy efficiency and cooling are best addressed through these regulations, which the Government are using to make progress on these vital issues. For example, in 2022, a new part of the building regulations was introduced, part O, which is specifically designed to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. We are already considering whether part O and its associated guidance can be improved, having run a call for evidence as part of the consultation on the future homes and building standards to seek views on this.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I appreciate the Minister’s response and that he has highlighted a number of areas of planning policy where this is mentioned. But the point I was trying to make was that there is no central duty that is tying all those areas of policy together into a framework and having that thread running throughout the planning system. Does he agree that this is needed?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
It is something that we should look at. The warm homes plan, for example, which will be published in October—in just a few weeks’ time—will look at our approach to heating in homes and the mitigation that we need to implement for climate change. We are looking at this and everything will continue to be under review.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can the Minister explain? I do not understand why he has not referred to the intended provisions of new Clause 12D(10) describing the content of a spatial development strategy. The Government are proposing that:
“A spatial development strategy must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”.
Can the Minister not say with some certainty that the effect of that would be to ensure that mitigation and adaptation to climate change do form a central part of plan-making?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Climate change mitigation does play a big part in all the planning arrangements that we are going to introduce. It is one of the central points of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we actually take those aspects into consideration.
I turn to Amendment 145B. It is vital that new homes are energy efficient and designed to mitigate the risk associated with overheating and spatial development strategies, particularly as climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme heat events. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act already allows strategic planning authorities to include policies requiring housing to meet standards on energy efficiency and climate resilience in their spatial development strategies, provided they are of strategic importance to the strategy area. As I mentioned previously, the spatial development strategies are intended to be high-level documents. Energy-efficiency and climate resilience standards are more detailed matters that are better suited to a local plan.
We intend to go further this autumn. We will set more ambitious energy-efficiency and carbon-emission requirements for new homes through the future homes and building standards. These standards will set new homes on a path that moves away from reliance on volatile fossil fuels. Homes built to these standards will use sustainable energy sources for their heating and hot water. This means they will be zero-carbon ready and will need no future work to achieve zero-carbon emissions when the electricity grid is fully decarbonised.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for proposing Amendment 180, which would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for developments of a specified size as part of planning applications. However, to reiterate a point I have made throughout the debate, the National Planning Policy Framework already makes it clear that the planning system must support the transition to a low-carbon future. It calls for a proactive approach to both mitigating and adapting to climate change, in line with the long-term goals set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.
In our consultation on changes to the framework last summer, we sought views on whether carbon could be reliably measured and accounted for in plan-making and decision-making. We wanted to understand the sector’s readiness and to identify any practical barriers to the wider use of carbon assessments in planning. The feedback we received was wide-ranging and constructive. Having carefully considered those views, we concluded that it would not be appropriate at this stage to introduce a mandatory requirement for carbon assessments, given the current state of evolution of assessment techniques and the need to consider very carefully the impact on applicants where additional information such as this is mandated.
However, we recognise the need for greater clarity and guidance. That is why we have committed to updating the planning practice guidance to help both decision-makers and developers make better use of available tools to reduce embodied and operational carbon in the built environment. We also acknowledge that embodied carbon is not just a challenge for buildings; it is a systemic issue across the construction and supply sector. As wider decarbonisation efforts take hold and industries evolve, we expect to see a natural reduction in the embodied carbon of buildings over time. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, may I ask a small question? With regard to overheating, which was so eloquently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, do the Government have any measurement of what proportion of houses that are being built now, as we speak, have within them measures to prevent overheating? Further, when all this new guidance that we have heard about comes into place, what proportion of homes will, in the future, from now onwards, incorporate measures to protect against overheating?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
To the first part of the noble Lord’s question, there has been an energy follow-up survey, which said that energy-efficiency measures that have been taken over recent years have not significantly increased the risk of overheating. On his second point, I will write to the noble Lord and give him the specific answer to his question.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this has been another rich and full debate, and I thank the Minister for his answers and everyone who has taken part in this debate. It will, I am sure, please the Whips to know that I am not going to run through the whole lot, but I want to pick out a couple of highlights.
The cri de coeur from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was “nobody listened”. I cannot help feeling that—we are here rather late in the evening, talking about what are truly matters of life and death, and this is perhaps not the ideal way to do it, but we are doing the best that we possibly can. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for failing to acknowledge his signing—I think I lost a page somewhere in the general pile of a very long evening. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, particularly for picking up the embodied carbon point, which is so crucial, as we have just been discussing. I particularly want to highlight, too, what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said in reminding us how close we got to net zero-carbon homes—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
May I revert to being the Whip and ask the noble Baroness to move the decision? It is not about rehearsing the whole of the debate, which is what is happening, but about getting to the point of what she needs to be saying.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am going to point to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said—how close we got, and a really bad decision was made. How do we make good decisions really quickly?
Okay, I will come to what the Minister said. It relied on building regulations and compliance with those, but we know what is being built now is not complying even with the inadequate regulations we have now, and that issue needs to be discussed. The final point I want to make is this: the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said that we cannot do anything to interfere with much-needed housing delivery. We have to build houses that people can safely live in. That has to be an absolute prerequisite. But, in the meantime, I—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I do not think I said that we cannot do anything. It is all about having a balance.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Planning Acts legal challenges: reduction in time limit(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).(2) In section 61N (legal challenges in relation to neighbourhood development orders)—(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(b) in subsection (2)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(c) in subsection (3)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(3) In section 106C (legal challenges relating to development consent obligations)—(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(b) in subsection (1A) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”; (c) in subsection (2)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(d) in subsection (3)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(4) In section 287 (proceedings for questioning validity of development plans and certain schemes and orders), in subsection (2B), for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(5) In section 288 (proceedings for questioning the validity of other orders, decisions and directions), in subsection (4B), for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(6) In section 289 (appeals to High Court relating to certain notices), after subsection (4B), insert—“(4C) An appeal under this section may not be made without the leave of the High Court.(4D) An application for leave for the purposes of subsection (4C) must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day after the decision of the Secretary of State is made.”.(7) In section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (proceedings for questioning the validity of other orders, decisions and directions), in subsection (3A), for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(8) In section 22 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (validity of decisions as to applications), in subsection (2B), for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(9) In section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent)—(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(b) in subsection (2)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(c) in subsection (3)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(d) in subsection (4)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(e) in subsection (5)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(f) in subsection (6)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(g) in subsection (7)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(10) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a decision made before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would reduce the time-limit for legal challenges to certain orders from 6 weeks to 21 days, in line with the deadline for an application for permission to appeal. Transitional provision is further made to ensure that the amendments made by the new Clause apply prospectively only. This amendment extends Amendment 128 to proceedings brought under section 22 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his outstanding work in relation to judicial review reform. It has clearly had a big impact on the Bill. At the risk of quoting the noble Lord to himself, he said in our earlier debate on this, which seems a long time ago, in relation to judicial review, that his review concludedusb that
“evidence demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of judicial reviews of NSIPs failed. It follows from this that the problem is not with the law, nor is it about ‘activist judges’ … It is about the time it takes for bad JRs to meet their doom”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; col. 2102.]
Obviously, the proposals in the Bill go quite some way towards meeting the noble Lord’s recommendations in the review. All I am trying to do here, with some probing amendments, is to test whether we could go a little further, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting his name to my Amendments 129 and 130. These, and Amendment 135D, attempt to replicate restriction appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court has certified the application as being totally without merit in relation to decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the listed buildings Act and the hazardous substances Act. Again, the noble Lord asked the Government at Second Reading for clarification as to whether the changes here would be made
“only to infrastructure judicial reviews or to judicial and statutory reviews in planning generally”.—[Official Report, 25/6/25; col. 318.]
It seems to me that there is a compelling case for doing that, and I hope my noble friend may be positive about this.
My Amendment 127 concerns the period within which legal challenges to planning decisions may be brought. It proposes the current six-week time limit be reduced to 21 days. I have used 21 days as a starting point as it reflects the standard time limit for civil appeals. The purpose is really to probe whether the six-week period continues to serve its intended purpose. I am aware that the noble Lord, on balance, in his independent review, did not support the shortening of time limits, but I would be interested in the Minister’s response on this.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I start by speaking in support of Amendments 129 and 130 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and, indeed, of his Amendment 135D, which would extrapolate those amendments to the hazardous substances Act.
The background, in brief, is that Clause 12 of the Bill, following the recommendations of my independent review on legal challenges to NSIPs, removes the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to judicial review permission applications which are totally without merit. My independent review did not opine on whether that should be rolled out to other kinds of planning proceedings, as that was outside the remit of my review, but it is, of course, within the remit of this House and this Bill. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said in relation to rolling it out to other kinds of planning proceedings. To my mind, there is no meaningful distinction of context between a nationally significant infrastructure project and, for example, the granting of planning permission for 2,000 homes. Both are of fundamental importance to the objectives of the planning system.
So I firmly support those amendments. I also support the other amendments associated with those two. The one exception, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has foreshadowed, is Amendment 128. I thought long and hard in the independent review about whether the time limits for judicial review should be shortened. My starting point was that they should be, but, on reflection, having taken soundings from a wide range of stakeholders, I concluded that that may end up being counterproductive. If there is too little time, claimants and their advisers might feel that it is better as a precaution to bring a judicial review claim and then review it and repent at leisure. In this context, I felt that the old adage, “I would have said less, but I did not have the time”, was applicable. It was a finely balanced conclusion, however. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, it would indeed be interesting to hear the Government’s view.
I next speak to Amendment 168 in my name. That amendment would stop the clock on the deadline for implementing a planning permission while a judicial review was under way. Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act have the effect that, for a full planning permission, one ordinarily has three years to commence development from the date of permission; for outline, it is the same period—three years—to bring forward an application for reserved matters.
Currently, however, it can take the best part of three years for a judicial review to run its course in cases that go to the Supreme Court, certainly, and even to the Court of Appeal. The delays in the planning court are such that even to get a permission decision in judicial review can take the best part of half a year. During that time, no rational developer, funder or land promoter would spend money, when a planning permission was at risk. That has real consequences for the status of planning permissions. I am aware of a number of planning permissions which have been put at risk because they have, in essence, been timed out. There was one well-known Supreme Court planning case a few years ago where the land promoter had to do a dummy reserved matters application just to keep the permission alive. Such applications can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and sometimes more—wasted money which could be better used; for example, in providing a high amount of affordable housing contributions.
It is also an incentive to claimants to bring a judicial review, because claimants and their well-honed lawyers know that you can cause stress and distress to commercial parties by bringing a judicial review, threatening to tire them out and then seeking to extract undue concessions. I urge the Government seriously to consider this amendment. I do not understand what political capital, or any kind of capital, could be lost by accepting it. There are not really any downsides and there are an awful lot of upsides.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak in support of Amendment 128. I am uncertain of the provenance of this amendment, but it is certainly well aligned with the Government’s agenda. It seeks to extend the provisions of Clause 12 of the Bill, which apply to nationally important infrastructure projects and other projects, notably those sponsored by local authorities. It seeks to limit the time available to make pleas against planning orders, reducing it from six weeks or 42 days to 21 days. I support this part of the amendment, which is entirely reasonable. More significantly, it proposes that an appeal to the High Court under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may not be made without leave of the court.
At an earlier stage of Committee, I spoke in favour of Amendment 52, which sought to limit the scope of judicial reviews that are liable to frustrate nationally important infrastructure projects. The proposal of that amendment is to bring the development orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects into Parliament. After a proposal has passed parliamentary scrutiny, then, by dint of an Act of Parliament, it should become legally incontestable and therefore it should not be subject to the hazards of a judicial review. Parliament must not be overburdened by such legislation; nevertheless, local development orders require greater protection against frivolous legal challenges.
I described the chicanery that obstructed the plans to eliminate a bottleneck on a major trunk road, the A303, where it passes close to Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain. The legal wrangling seemed almost interminable. The first grant of development consent for the bypass in 2020 was quashed by the High Court in July 2021. Then it was given a green light again by the DfT, which reissued the development consent two years later, in July 2023. The project was put on hold again because of another series of judicial reviews which were dismissed by the High Court in February 2024 and by the Court of Appeal in October 2024.
Undeterred by these two defeats, the claimants asked the Supreme Court whether they could appeal again, but on 29 January this year the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on the grounds that the challenge did not raise any arguable points of law. However, this decision was immaterial, since within weeks of taking office last July, the Labour Government scrapped the plans for a two-mile tunnel which would bypass the monument on the grounds that the cost of the project had become unaffordable. The decision to cancel the project was made three and a half years after the development consent had been given and after a very full and detailed examination of all the issues. In this case, it might be said that the campaigners had won not by virtue of the strength of their cause but by dint of legal chicanery and delay. Moreover, the same recourse is available to many other parties who, for various reasons, wish to stand in the way of important development projects.
It is worth noting the circumstances that made the project unaffordable. They were attributable largely to the delays that had been caused by the appeals. Major work was being undertaken to improve the A303 but, by the time the legal issues had been settled, that work had been completed and the contractors had moved on. To call them back in order to complete the project would have entailed inordinate costs in re-establishing the project. Amendment 128 is wholly reasonable and, I think, long overdue, and I strongly commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am really concerned about Amendment 128. The reason why I say that is that in this Bill, at the hands of the Government, we have already had an attack on democracy in terms of substantial decisions being removed from democratically elected councillors, and now it feels as if we are having an attack on communities. The reason why I say that is that six weeks from a determination to bringing about putting in a challenge when you believe that something may have been done unlawfully is already pretty short.
There are a number of factors. A judicial review probably costs between £100,000 and £150,000 just to get the process going, and it can be quite substantial in itself for a community to get that funding together. Normally you would do a pre-action protocol letter that the courts expect the Government—indeed, both sides—to comply with. Quite a lot of that will involve significant extractions of information from the Government. As a consequence, three weeks would end up timing out the opportunity for communities, which are concerned that something is being rammed through, to have a genuine opportunity to challenge it. This and previous Administrations will know that quite often—I will not say all the time, but there have been significant times—the courts have found the Government’s proceedings to be unlawful. That might be frustrating for the Government, but nevertheless there is still an opportunity for communities to do that.
So I am very concerned about halving the time for communities to consider how they might challenge a particular decision. We have seen that in a variety of ways, whether it is about housing, aspects of energy infrastructure or transport. I will not pretend that the Government will not often get frustrated, but nevertheless I think Amendment 128 in particular would still be an unnecessary adjustment. Frankly, although my noble friend Lord Banner is sympathetic to Amendment 128, as he said in his speech, I am delighted that he did not actually put his name to it.
Building on that, we then get into other considerations about going to the Court of Appeal. I have a lot more sympathy with the other amendments that have been put in this group in order not to have never-ending regulatory challenges through the courts. I used to represent Suffolk Coastal, and I know that Sizewell C in particular has had a lot of challenges that seem never ending and somewhat ridiculous, so I have some sympathy for that. However, I also have experience as a Secretary of State, not necessarily on infrastructure but on other judicial matters, where a judge in the High Court has ruled against the Government—despite, by the way, it having been through both Houses of Parliament in determining a particular aspect of legislation—and then initially said, “And you can’t appeal to the Court of Appeal”. There is a process that allows the Government, or indeed anyone, currently to go around that and just say, “That’s a bit ridiculous. You found against us and now, funnily enough, you’re actually accepting that you do not want your decision to be challenged”. That is where I have a bit of concern on where that particular aspect may go.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, happened to refer to the A303. I used to live quite near the A303 and while I am not trying to do a Second Reading speech—I am conscious of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield—I just want to remind noble Lords of some of the amendments that have already been put to this Bill trying to limit the number of different reasons why a judicial review can be brought on infrastructure project.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
The supposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seems to be that the consideration of a project by those that might oppose it is subsequent to the admission of a development order. In fact, usually the opposition long predates that, and so the limitation that we are proposing is not a denial of the opportunity to consider and to oppose a project.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
What is being proposed is drastically reducing the amount of time if anyone wants to bring a judicial review. I have already mentioned the barriers of raising money, assuming you can raise that. Perhaps this will be a change, but the High Court will not like this. It will absolutely kick off. Right now, Governments really struggle to not do the whole amount of—forgive me, I have forgotten quite the phrase, it is disclosure but there is a particular phrase that goes with candour. But if that is the way and we are going to go with three weeks, then honestly the delays will get worse. Be careful what one wishes for in regard to three weeks versus six weeks. I think this is an unnecessary amendment, whereas I am somewhat supportive of the other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their careful thought and experience in tabling these amendments. On Amendment 135D, I recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in seeking to restrict appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court has deemed an application to be totally without merit. This is, of course, a delicate balance between ensuring access to justice and preventing the courts from being encumbered by hopeless claims. I am grateful to him for placing this important matter before your Lordships’ Committee.
Similarly, the noble Lord’s Amendments 357, 358 and 360 raise pertinent questions about the commencement provisions of various clauses, particularly in relation to the new measures on planning and legal challenges. It is often the case that commencement by regulation can leave uncertainty. The proposal to provide for an automatic commencement two months after Royal Assent is, at the very least, a reminder of the need for clarity and timeliness in the law. These points merit careful reflection, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I now turn to Amendment 168, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. This amendment addresses a very practical difficulty—namely, the risk that development consents are lost due to time running out during the course of judicial or statutory reviews. By stopping the clock, the amendment would ensure that the permission does not simply expire while litigation is pending. This is important not only for developers and investors who require certainty but for local communities who deserve clarity about the projects affecting them. Without such a measure, there is a danger that meritless legal challenges might be deployed as a tactic to run down the clock, thereby frustrating legitimate development. I believe my noble friend is right to highlight this problem, and I warmly welcome his amendment.
I conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their thoughtful contributions. We on these Benches will listen very closely to the Minister’s response on these matters.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group. I turn first to Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which seeks to reduce the time limit for bringing a legal challenge against planning decisions from six weeks to 21 days.
Judicial and statutory review of planning decisions are already subject to a compressed six-week window within which a claim may be brought, compared with the three-month time limit in most judicial reviews. It is the Government’s view that the current time limit strikes the right balance between providing certainty for developers in local communities and preserving access to justice. Further shortened, the time limit for bringing a claim would risk restricting the public’s ability to hold the Government and planning authorities to account on planning decisions.
A shorter time limit would also leave less time for meaningful engagement between the parties to potentially resolve matters out of court or to narrow the scope of any claim. Claimants who fear being timed out may also feel compelled to lodge protective claims just in case. This could inadvertently lead to greater delays due to a potential increase in the number of challenges.
The Government are taking forward a wider package of reforms to improve the efficiency of the planning system, including measures to speed up decisions and encourage early engagement. These changes will have a far greater impact than trimming a few weeks off the judicial review timetable. While I recognise my noble friend’s intention to reduce uncertainty in the planning system, I believe the three-week time saving from the shortened time limit is outweighed by the risk of restricting access to justice and the practical implications of such a change. Therefore, I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
I turn next to Amendments 129, 130 and 135D, also tabled by my noble friend, which seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects that of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008.
The measures in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence that made clear the case for change regarding these major infrastructure projects. We currently do not have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. We will therefore need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of the changes made to Clause 12 will be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.
With regards to the amendment, which seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court, this is not necessary, as the process is set out clearly in the relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for his Amendments 357, 358 and 360 concerning the commencement of Clause 12 and the new judicial review provisions which he is proposing. The amendments seek to ensure that these provisions all come into force two months after Royal Assent. With regard to Clause 12, this requires changes to the relevant civil procedures, rules and practice directions. The current power, which allows this measure to be commenced by regulation, is designed to ensure that the necessary provisions are in place before the changes come into force. I reassure my noble friend that the Government intend to commence the measure by regulation as soon as practicable following Royal Assent. With regards to my noble friend’s amendment linked to his proposed new provisions, I think he would agree that this amendment is no longer required as the related provisions are now being withdrawn. For these reasons, I kindly ask that my noble friend withdraws his amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for Amendment 168, which would extend the time period to commence a planning permission if the permission was subject to judicial proceedings. The Government agree with the policy intention behind this amendment. The statutory commencement provisions under Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are an important and long-standing part of the legal framework for planning permissions to ensure that permissions are implemented in a timely manner, and lapsed if they have not begun within the prescribed time period.
However, we recognise that it would be unfair on the applicant if judicial proceedings—where the court has confirmed the lawfulness of the permission—led to delays that mean that the commencement period of the lawful permission is effectively curtailed. Legal challenges on the validity of the permission should not seek to time out the practical implementation of the permission. That is why Section 91(3A) to (3B) was introduced to automatically extend the commencement period for a formal planning permission by a further year if there were judicial proceedings questioning the validity of a planning permission. This extension of a year is sufficient to cover the typical period for a planning case at the High Court, so applicants, where their planning permission has been lawfully upheld, should not lose out from the delay caused by the legal challenge. In light of these points, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not press his amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
I thank the Minister for those comments. Does he accept that if it is only one year to cover the typical period of High Court proceedings, that gives unsuccessful claimants in the High Court an incentive to perpetuate the proceedings by taking it to the Court of Appeal and potentially thereafter to the Supreme Court to drag out the threat to the implementation of the permission in the way that I described?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am not a legal expert on these issues, but I am more than prepared to sit down with the noble Lord to discuss this specific point. We are extending it by a full year, but I think he was wanting to stop it; is that right?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
That means it could go on and on anyway, but it is a point that perhaps we could discuss if the noble Lord wants to do so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I was very grateful to my noble friend for his very responsive wind-up. My noble friend said that the Government would need to consider Amendments 129, 130 and 135D further, and I am very grateful for that. On Amendment 128, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his support, but I did not get much other support around the Committee. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey: this is not an attack on democracy. As someone with mainly an NHS background, I am only too well aware of the importance of judicial review in the case of local people concerned that NHS bodies have not followed proper procedures. I am afraid that there are too many cases, and I have too many very rich lawyer friends who have made a lot of money out of the NHS’s cavalier approach sometimes. I do understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but I was trying to press whether we could speed up some of the processes. However, I will obviously reflect on what has been said.
Finally, on Amendments 357, 358 and 360, my noble friend said that commencement depended on changes to civil procedure rules, which will be done as soon as practicable. I am trying to think back to what it meant when I said at the Dispatch Box, “as soon as practicable”. I think it is better than “as soon as possible”, and I will take that as a win. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Enforcement of planning decisions(1) A local planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the Planning Acts shall have a duty to—(a) enforce planning conditions, and(b) enforce the removal of any structure that has not received planning permission.(2) At the discretion of the local planning authority, minor infringements may be excepted from the duty to enforce.(3) Minor infringements under subsection (2) may not include any environmental, climate or nature-related conditions.(4) The costs of enforcement by a local planning authority shall be recovered by the application of a penalty payment regime.(5) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with local planning authorities, lay down a schedule of penalty charges.(6) The schedule under subsection (5) must—(a) reflect the full costs of enforcement by a local planning authority, and(b) be reviewed annually to reflect changes in costs.(7) The Secretary of State must lay down a schedule giving examples of what might be deemed as a minor infringement under subsection (2).”
Lord Teverson (LD)
I remind the Committee that I am chair of the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, but I am also a director of Wessex Development and Investments Limited, a development company, so I am on both sides of planning and nature issues.
This is a probing amendment but quite a specific one. It comes on to the area of planning enforcement. Generally, the planning system is meant to be a permissive one; unless there is good reason to stop development, it should happen. Paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that the planning system is discretionary and proportionate, but it also makes the point that enforcement of the planning system is there to maintain public confidence. It is that area that I want to concentrate on this evening.
We will all know of residents who are concerned that people move ahead with developments that are wrong, without planning permission. They feel that those individuals are cheating the system and moving ahead of other people who are trying to go through a system legally and properly. That can cause a great deal of discontent. At the moment, planning enforcement is not a duty of local authorities. When I have talked about this area with local authorities, they have made it very clear that they are not funded to enforce, so it is not an area always given a great deal of emphasis because there is no return.
One area that I came across with one of my own principal local authorities is that, with regard to environmental conditions on planning, the track record was that 40% of those environmental conditions were never actually implemented over quite a long period of time. That is why, in this amendment, I have stressed environmental, climate and nature conditions on planning that are widely ignored in development and, because they are relatively minor on individual cases, are not enforced. However, on a broader scale, because that is the case, they are a major threat to biodiversity and net gain in nature and all the things that we need to do to more forward the environment and climate agenda. As we all know, with the built environment, if we do not get it right to begin with then that is a problem for the length and total age of the building.
I am trying to find out from the Government how we get out of this issue. On the whole, local authorities do not want to enforce. I am clear that, on other things, such as minor infringements that are not to do with nature, we do not want a system that looks like a police state, but we have the balance wrong at the moment, particularly around planning conditions that seem minor but are important on a macro scale. That is my question for the Minister: how do we get out of this? I believe that there is a way forward on this if we can reflect the costs on people who do not comply with planning, if those particular issues then have to be enforced. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before we proceed, the Government Whip will make a brief statement about the progress of business.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Deputy Chairman of Committees. Just to confirm, we will be going to target this evening, so I urge brevity from everybody in making speeches, so that we can make progress and get through the business.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am tempted to make a 10-minute speech in response to that. If the Government decide they want to go to such a ridiculous length, it really is for the Government to—
Lord Katz (Lab)
I apologise. I should have added that it was agreed through the usual channels, with the Front Benches, that that would be an appropriate way to arrange business.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I accept that it has been agreed by the usual channels, but this is a revising Chamber and we are supposed to be looking at a serious Bill and taking its provisions seriously. If the Government want to get through 20 groups today then it will take the time it takes. None the less, when it comes to Amendment 135G, I shall be brief.
The main reason I hear for planning processes taking longer than they should is that planning authorities take longer than they should. The Government should have the power to do something about that, and that is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing their amendments to the attention of the Committee. They have raised a number of important points, and I look forward to hearing the Minister addressing both noble Lords’ concerns.
I turn to the amendments in my name. The purpose of Amendment 135HZG is to reduce costs and delays in the planning system by putting beyond doubt in legislation the principles that currently rely on case law. Where planning permission has already been granted and remains extant, decisions on subsequent planning applications relating to detailed matters, whether determined by an officer or a committee, should not reopen issues that were settled in the original planning permission. This matters because uncertainty in the system not only increases costs for applicants but creates unnecessary duplication of effort for planning authorities and applicants. Greater clarity will enable both sides to proceed with confidence, efficiency and speed.
Amendment 135HZH, in my name and that of noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is a probing amendment intended to test whether the planning system provides sufficient certainty once a permission has been granted and to explore how necessary changes prompted by new national legislation might be handled without reopening matters that have already been settled. The principle of finality is essential, particularly where significant work has already been undertaken and applications are well advanced. This amendment invites the Government to consider whether clearer statutory guidance on finality could help improve efficiency and reduce delay.
Finally, Amendment 185SE, tabled in my name, aims to provide clarity to the planning system, so that project delays are minimised where legislative changes necessitate modifications to an already approved permission—for instance, as we discussed earlier today, legislation that might require solar cells on all new homes.
In such circumstances, such modifications should be deemed to have planning permission in principle. It is vital, because projects can be significantly delayed and costs increased, and developers are required to seek fresh planning permissions simply to comply with new legislation that has come about after they receive their original planning permission. By ensuring that those modifications are covered in principle, we can safeguard progress while maintaining the integrity of the planning system.
If we are to achieve the Government’s objective of 1.5 million new homes, the planning system needs to deliver. These three amendments are guided by the same underlying principle. Clarity and certainty in planning law reduce unnecessary delay, avoid wasteful duplication and allow both applicants and authorities to focus their energies on what should be their priority, which is delivering high-quality developments of high-quality homes that support our residents and our communities.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I had not realised what the noble Lord was going to say from the Dispatch Box, but I wish to support his Amendments 135HZG and 135HZH What he could have said—but did not—was that there is almost an interaction with the previous group, in that sometimes there is a perverse incentive to add delay to a process to run down the clock. However, in this case, the noble Lord could have said that, as a result of those delays, a whole series of new studies would need to be remade. For instance, ecology studies may last for only two or three years so may be triggered once more, and they in turn can only be created at certain times of the year—in the spring, for example. The combination effect, in respect not just of the previous group but of this group, means that the delays could be even longer, so I strongly support the noble Lord. Finality and certainty are important, and I support him not only for the reasons he gives but for the avoidance of interference with the previous set of amendments.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teverson has raised an important aspect of the planning process in his amendment on planning enforcement. Planning enforcement can be a neglected part of the planning system, partly because it is not a statutory function but a discretionary one, and as such is not necessarily funded to the extent that it ought to be. Effective enforcement is vital in the planning process so that everyone—the developer, the council and local people—can have trust that what has been agreed will be fulfilled.
I will give noble Lords one example from my role as a councillor, when I was contacted about a housing development which is adjacent to a motorway. A resident raised the concern that the developers were not adhering to the agreed siting of units. Planning enforcement went on site to investigate and discovered that the construction was undermining the motorway banking, which would have had catastrophic consequences if it had continued. A stop notice was issued and the matter resolved; I should say that this was a major housing developer.
Enforcement is key for the integrity of the planning system, for the conditions that are applied to a planning application when it is given consent and for residents who have asked questions about its impact. It is therefore key to retaining the trust of residents, as my noble friend has said, and so that democratic decision-making can be relied on to check that planning conditions are properly fulfilled. That requires adequate funding. I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government are of a mind to make a move from a discretionary function to a statutory one, which would then be adequately funded for the very important role that planning enforcement plays.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Lucas and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments. I turn first to Amendment 131, which would place a duty on local planning authorities to take enforcement action in relation to certain breaches of planning control and introduce a system of penalty payments.
The Government recognise the frustration that many people feel when they see development carried out without planning permission. We understand therefore that effective enforcement is vital in maintaining public trust and confidence in the planning system.
While I can appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, it represents a fundamental change to the enforcement system and it is not something which could be introduced without very careful and detailed consideration, including consultation with interested parties. Furthermore, I believe that the current approach to enforcement represents the right balance. It gives local planning authorities discretion about when and how they use their enforcement powers. This flexibility is important, as local planning authorities are best placed to consider the circumstances of each case and reach a balanced and informed decision. While, as I have said, I think the current approach is the right one, I assure the Committee that we will keep the operation of the enforcement system under review.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I may have misunderstood what he said, but I thought the Minister was saying they were reducing the power of certain statutory consultees. I know we are probably advancing the consideration of the Bill, because we are going to deal with this next week, but the entirety of Part 3 creates entirely new burdens for an entirely new set of quangos. It is actually going to slow things down. I just wondered whether, in the light of this consideration of Part 3, he might like to review what he has said. If we truly are going to reduce the veto that these statutory undertakings have, then that is absolutely to be welcomed. It is just that the thrust of this Bill is going in the completely the other direction.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I would not accept that. It has to be a balance between what we can do to make things more flexible and ensuring that we have the right kind of infrastructure to lead to the growth we want in the local economy. We need a flexible system and what we are trying to devise here is that.
Amendments 135HZG and 135HZH cover the important but technical issue of decision-makers revisiting matters which have been established through the grant of planning permission when determining applications for supplementary consents, such as reserved matter approvals. I recognise that these are probing amendments, and I understand the concern about matters being revisited when they should not be. We want to see supplementary consents determined as swiftly as possible. Case law has long established that supplementary consents must focus on the specific matters directly related to the consent and not revisit wider matters which have been addressed by the original grant of planning permission.
However, we are sceptical about the merits of putting this case law on a statutory footing as suggested by Amendment 135HZG. The principle is well established among planning officers and putting it on a statutory footing will not speed up their decision-making. Indeed, it could create new grounds for legal challenges to planning decisions, which we want to avoid.
Similarly, I am not convinced that we need a review on this matter.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I gratefully appreciate the answer the Minister has given, but I want some clarity. He made two comments there. The reason for this, and I accept it is a probing amendment, is to bring into the planning process absolute clarity that a decision has been made and cannot be revisited. That certainly seems to be the case with case law. But the reason we have case law is because people are making decisions in the planning system which then have to go to court. By making things much clearer, it will enhance the role of those who are saying, “Hold on, we have already decided that there is planning approval for x”. Just because you are now changing the colour of the door, that does not mean you can revisit the original planning permission again. I am slightly puzzled why he is saying that, by making that clarification, it may even result in more legal processes. I am not necessarily expecting an answer tonight, because I appreciate he has valiantly stepped in at the last minute, but if he could think a little more about that and maybe we can have a conversation afterwards.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I could write to the noble Lord on that specific point. But it seems to me that the principle is well established among planning officers and putting it on a statutory footing will not speed up the decision-making. Similarly, we are not convinced that we need a review on this matter. We, of course, are always looking at opportunities to improve the planning system and if there is evidence that supplementary consents like reserved matter approvals were unnecessarily revisiting matters, we would want to take action, but we do not think a review would be proportionate.
Finally, Amendment 185SE seeks to ensure that changes required to extant planning permissions to comply with changes in legislation would benefit from automatic planning permission. I can say we share a common goal, which is to ensure that developments are not delayed by new legislative requirements. When the Government introduce changes to planning legislation, they are usually not applied retrospectively to avoid the uncertainty this would cause, but we recognise that changes to other regulatory regimes, such as building regulations, can impact on approved development and this may require subsequent amendments to the planning permission which can be frustrating for developers. However, we do not think this amendment provides a solution. It is too broad, and some regulatory changes can have a material impact on approved development which warrant further consideration from a planning perspective.
Instead, we are keen to ensure that, when new legislation is developed which could impact on development, the consequences for planning are recognised and minimised. There are already a number of mechanisms available within the planning system which allow changes to planning permissions in a proportionate way, such as light-touch applications for non-material amendments under Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and we are keen to see these mechanisms being used to address the consequences of any wider regulatory changes on approved development. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. To be honest, the enforcement regime is not the right balance at the moment that the Minister suggested. I think there is a real concern about the confidence that those that receive planning permissions apply them properly, and that those who do not feel that they are under pressure from enforcement when those issues come up.
The other issue is that, clearly, even it is not a duty, the principle that the offender should pay for the cost for enforcement, is one that the Treasury and department should find a way forward on and maybe solve it on that basis. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Promotion and use of mediation etc.(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 323A insert—“323B Promotion and use of mediation etc.(1) The Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers may issue guidance in relation to the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique in relation to the following—(a) the preparation of local development plans and related evidence reports under Part 2,(b) a prospective applicant’s compliance with any requirements in respect of pre-application consultation imposed under or by virtue of sections 61W or 61Z,(c) assisting in the determination of an application for planning permission, including related planning obligations or their variation under sections 106 and 106A, and(d) any other matter related to planning including the acquisition or appropriation of land for planning purposes that they consider appropriate.(2) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision about—(a) the form of mediation or other ADR technique that is to be used in a particular circumstance, and(b) the procedure to be followed in any such mediation.(3) Local authorities must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1).(4) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must consult—(a) planning authorities, and(b) such other persons that they consider appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must make any guidance issued under subsection (1) publicly available.(6) The power under subsection (1) to issue guidance includes power to—(a) issue guidance that varies guidance issued under that subsection, and(b) revoke guidance issued under that subsection.(7) For the purposes of this section, “mediation” and “ADR technique” includes any means of exploring, resolving or reducing disagreement between persons involving an impartial person that the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate.(8) The Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must issue guidance under subsection (1) within the period of two years beginning with the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that guidance must be issued on the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of ADR in the planning process. It is intended to engender a culture of informal resolution of disputes, in order to reduce the risk of the delay and expense caused by litigation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I once again declare my interest as a practising barrister and mediator in a set of chambers which specialises in public and planning law.
The Government’s objective, and the overriding objective of the Bill as I understand it, is to speed up the planning process and build more homes. One way—I suggest the best way—of achieving this would be to reduce conflict and to avoid lengthy litigation about planning matters, with all the delay and expenditure which results. I venture to suggest that Amendment 133 in my name could do more than any other single measure in the Bill to achieve that objective. It is a big claim, but I make no apologies to the Committee for making it. I have been most enheartened by the positive reception that this suggestion has already had from the Government Front Bench.
This amendment can, I believe, achieve what numerous amendments to planning legislation have never focused on: namely, giving a clear legislative steer from government that all stakeholders must now seek to engage in a more constructive conversation rather than defaulting to confrontation and, ultimately, to litigation. The alternative to this amendment is that the status quo of delays, confrontation and forced outcomes will be perpetuated—an alternative which is certainly not in the public interest.
The present system, in which mediation is permitted but not encouraged, frequently allows polarised positions to be perpetuated, and, too often, their related toxic conversations simply lead to the greater likelihood of confrontation and litigation in the planning sphere, with all the attendant division, costs and delay.
As I say, mediation within the English planning system is presently known and has been successfully deployed. However, it continues to be a significantly underused and underappreciated resource. In contrast, in other spheres of litigation, mediation has now become central to the civil justice system, greatly encouraged by repeated appellate court judgments—and it is increasingly becoming mandatory. This is all the case despite the planning system recognising that the potential of mediation is long acknowledged.
In the recent case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council in 2023, in the decision of the Court of Appeal, comprising the Lady Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Deputy Master of the Rolls, it was decided that a court can order the parties to engage in non-court-based dispute resolution and can order a stay in proceedings to allow that to take place. Of course, that applies in ordinary litigation, but this amendment would mean that it would apply with full force within the planning sphere.
Planning law lags behind almost all other areas of the law. There have been earlier efforts to try to incorporate mediation in the planning sector. As I explained to the House when first raising the possibility of this amendment at Second Reading, there have been four major examples. The first was the 2006 Barker Review of Land Use Planning. The second was the Government’s 2009 response to the Killian Pretty report, which urged investigation of the use of ADR at all stages of the planning process. Thirdly, there was the 2010 report commissioned by the National Planning Forum and the Planning Inspectorate, called Mediation in Planning, and fourthly, the National Planning Forum’s 2011 Mediation in Planning: A Short Guide, which was endorsed by the then Minister for Planning, Sir Bob Neill.
Then, in 2012, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, introduced something called Section 106 brokers, an initiative introduced when he was Communities Secretary. This system was designed to facilitate the agreement of Section 106 agreements, whereby a mediator sat with an independent surveyor and would discuss with landowners, developers and the local authority what agreements could be reached on Section 106. This was to have—and had—the effect of accelerating development projects. The initiative was then taken into legislation through the short-lived Sections 106(BA) to 106(BC) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and it allowed for renegotiation of Section 106 obligations in respect of affordable housing. The sunset provision for those measures expired in April 2016. The real problem with that model was that the Treasury was paying for the mediator and the independent surveyor. We then had another legislative provision brought in under Sir Brandon Lewis, when he was Planning Minister, and that led to new Sections 106(ZA) and 106(ZB) to allow for a form of adjudication of disputes. However, those measures were never implemented.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak broadly in support of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment would embed the promotion and use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in our planning system. I inform the Committee that I have been an elected local councillor sitting on a planning committee and worked for a number of years as a community mediator, helping to run a community mediation service specialising in neighbour disputes.
For too long, our approach to resolving planning disputes has been overly adversarial, leading to court battles, mounting costs, lengthy delays and frustrated developers, communities and local authorities. Too much of our planning process revolves around zero-sum games—talking to people, doing things to them and resorting to formal legal processes when things go wrong, as they inevitably do. The amendment is an invitation to do things better, for the benefit of all people and the interests of better governance and speeding up the planning process.
Mediation is no longer an untrusted novelty. It is widely used in all sectors of society. Its benefits are well established in many sectors and many areas of everyday life. It is used fairly infrequently, but it is used in the planning process. Properly structured and supported mediation interventions and processes can resolve specific contentious issues at an early stage, reducing hostility and helping to build trust, to foster positive relationships in a way that litigation is not capable of doing. When used, it produces high satisfaction, more creative solutions and results that last beyond the immediate dispute. As opposed to legal processes which are imposed from on high, mediation resolutions are designed and tailored by the parties themselves to fix exactly their individual needs. These outcomes can be transformative and, because the parties design them themselves, they tend to work more for their specific needs, meaning that they are more committed to the outcomes that they have helped to create.
Mediation will obviously not work in all cases, but it can work in some. What is certain is that, if mediation is not widely available, not promoted and not explored, it will not work in the planning processes. In some areas I do disagree with the noble Lord. My view is that mediation should be wholly a voluntary process for both parties. Every dispute that is kept out of lengthy appeals or court hearings is a saving to the public purse, a saving to local councils and a help with the Government’s stated aim of speeding up the planning processes. Studies have found that as many as 73% of mediated cases avoided further appeals, cut expenses and helped to reduce times.
It is not just about saving money. This is about making the system more accessible, making it work better for the people involved and making it more inclusive. Mediation enables genuine dialogue and empowers communities to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. It is especially effective in complex cases—major developments, local plans, Section 106 negotiation and compulsory purchase disputes—where misunderstandings and mistrust can easily escalate into enshrined conflict. Mediation offers confidentiality, tailored solutions and better governance. Some worry about the cost, but this could be overcome and lead to savings. I call for the Government to look at this and to take it seriously. However, for this system to work it would need some dedicated funding and support from government.
I conclude with a couple of questions. We know that we have some mediation processes within planning, but they are rarely used and not very well embedded. Have the Government done any assessment on the use of mediation to date? Has it helped to speed up processes? Has it resulted in better outcomes? Have those outcomes lasted longer than legal ones? If the Government are not going to support this amendment today, can they consider doing a larger-scale trial of the use of mediation within the planning process? Then the outcomes can be properly monitored and the Government can make a fair assessment of the use of mediation more wholly within the planning process.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on Amendment 133, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. We welcome the opportunity the amendment provides to hear more from the Government on how they intend to reduce the risk of lengthy and expensive litigation within the planning process. As many in the Committee will know, such disputes can cause considerable delays, uncertainty for local communities, and significant costs for both the applicants and local authorities. It is therefore important to understand what practical steps the Government are considering to streamline proceedings while ensuring that proper scrutiny and accountability remain in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his amendment on statutory guidance on mediation in planning. This would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation in a range of different planning activities, including plan-making, decision-taking and the use of compulsory purchase. The thrust of the amendment is to ensure that issues are dealt with upfront, as opposed to relying on issues to be dealt with through the courts.
As the noble Lord set out in his speech at Second Reading of the Bill, this is not a new issue. Previous Governments have explored this approach multiple times, but it has borne little fruit. Although we completely agree with the underlying objective of the amendment, we regretfully cannot accept it.
We feel that a statutory duty to have regard to such guidance would not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. In particular, when determining planning applications, planning law requires the decision-maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development plan and weigh this with other material planning considerations.
Given this legal framework, it would not always be possible to reach consensus on all matters—this is not the exercise when determining whether development should be granted permission. Where a planning application is refused by a local planning authority, there is a well-established procedure whereby the applicant can appeal the decision. In an appeal, an independent inspector from the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will consider planning matters afresh. The procedures used give relevant parties the opportunity to state their case further. As these processes are carried out in public, it ensures that the process is transparent and fair. This process provides a considerable benefit compared with mediation, in that mediation is carried out behind closed doors.
It is common practice, and encouraged through the NPPF, that when determining applications local planning authorities work positively and proactively with applicants. It is often the case that large-scale and complex development applicants and local planning authorities enter into planning performance agreements, which will help manage the process and provide a forum for dispute resolution.
There are some areas where we actively encourage mediation already. In relation to compulsory purchase, the Government have already published guidance on the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, including mediation, to help parties resolve concerns on the principle of compulsorily purchasing land by CPO. The Government are also committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions, including Section 106 planning obligations, to ensure new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we are considering a range of options to deliver on that commitment.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support of the amendment. I rather agree with the questions that he asked. I look forward to seeing a copy of the letter which I am sure the Minister will write in response to the questions posed by the noble Earl. I am also grateful for the support from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Turning then to the response from the Minister, I must confess that I am rather disappointed with the tone of the reply. Clearly, it is out of kilter with the approach taken by the senior courts of this country in encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution. I have to say I find the reasoning as to why this particular route should not be explored unpersuasive; saying that it has not worked in earlier iterations is not a reason not to try a better formulation. That does not stack up. The second reason given was that planning processes occur in public and mediation occurs in private. That is true in all civil litigation, where mediation is positively encouraged by the courts. The point is that, if we enable the parties to negotiate in advance, we can avoid litigation, save public money and avoid delay.
I hope the Government will revisit their resistance, because I would consider returning to this issue on Report. I look forward to my meeting with the Minister’s colleague, which may or may not result in a different position. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Thornhill
“Removal of Permitted Development Rights for Conversion to Dwellinghouses(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (2015/596) is amended as follows—(a) in Schedule 2, Part 3 (changes of use), the following Classes are repealed—(i) Class G (commercial, business and service or betting office or pay day loan shop to mixed use);(ii) Class L (small HMOs to dwellinghouses and vice versa)(iii) Class M (certain uses to dwellinghouses)(iv) Class MA (commercial, business and service uses to dwellinghouses);(v) Class N (specified sui generis uses to dwellinghouses);(vi) Class Q (buildings on agricultural units and former agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses);(b) Schedule 2, Part 20 (construction of new dwellinghouses) is repealed.(2) Any development under the revoked Classes in Part 3 and Part 20 of Schedule 2 that has—(a) commenced before the date on which this Act comes into force, and(b) received valid prior approval or notification from the local planning authority before that date,shall be allowed to proceed under the conditions applicable prior to the repeal.(3) No new applications for prior approval under the revoked Classes may be submitted after the date on which this Act comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a range of permitted development rights that previously allowed certain non-residential buildings to be converted into homes without full planning permission. It repeals specific change-of-use and new dwellinghouse construction rights in the General Permitted Development Order 2015. Developments already approved or commenced before the repeal may continue under existing rules, but no new applications can be made once the changes take effect.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 134 with a butchered, watered down and much shorter version of my speech than the one I was going to give, so forgive me if it is not quite up to my usual standards.
This amendment seeks to reverse the decision of previous Governments to give permitted development rights to allow the conversion of non-residential properties into dwelling houses—in other words, to get back to where we were, when they would have had to apply for planning permission. The incremental changes were brought about over 10 years ago. Now, there is loads of evidence, including the Government’s own, that this is failing, and on three main grounds. Given that, in future, with more working from home, there are likely to be—and there already are—a lot more empty office blocks, we feel that this needs to be looked at fully and seriously before our town centres and business centres are hollowed out.
First, on quality, there is no doubt that many of these conversions are substandard. Indeed, in my own borough, Watford, there is a case study of a small factory that had been made into several flats with no windows. This happened with PDRs. The case was brought to government—with a body of other things, obviously—and made the previous Government include that such dwellings should have windows.
Secondly, and close to our hearts—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Best, here—we have lost loads of affordable housing. Had planning permission been collected, we would certainly have had more. Indeed, the LGA reckons that we have had a loss of 28,000 affordable homes. Think how many could have been housed off the temporary accommodation list had we had those homes.
Thirdly, it rides roughshod through local plans and policies, and the design, sustainability and accessibility that have been worked up with local councils and communities to build the places that they want to see.
Amendment 134 is not anti-housing; it is pro quality housing. The amendment was drawn up by the LGA, and many councils and development partners have contributed. Some 39 organisations and many individuals have signed an open letter to the Government—I heard only today that Mayor Burnham has added his name to the letter—to ask them to seriously consider rescinding PDRs. This shows the strength of opposition. In opposition, several government Members, including the Minister, had strong feelings and concerns about PDRs. My question is very simple: what has happened? I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to find that I take exactly the opposite point of view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I see permitted development rights—as in my Private Member’s Bill, and as in my amendments to this Bill—as having a large potential to contribute substantially to housing expansion. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I shall curtail my remarks in the hope that what the Minister says will be so enlightening that I shall not need to ask her further questions.
My amendments propose a targeted set of expansions to permitted development rights to boost uptake and delivery by methods such as: removing unjustifiably onerous restrictions, including those concerning the ability to convert commercial buildings in areas of outstanding natural beauty, or the inability to extend upwards on pre-1948 buildings of no defined heritage value, or buildings postdating an arbitrary date; clarifying the wording of prior approval conditions to remove vagueness, which leads to a lack of consistency in decision-making between LPAs and more uncertainty in their application to, for example, natural light, flood risk or transport impacts; and removing the subjectivity currently allowed for within external appearance conditions for upward extensions, which are regularly used to refuse or frustrate upward extension in classes A and AA to AD and which act as a strong disincentive for the use of these permitted development rights by SME developers and housebuilders.
Instead, the local design code-based conditions in my amendments would provide certainty and consistency to decision-making, permitting the combined use and application of class MA and classes A and AA to AD, to maximise the development potential for existing buildings to deliver new homes.
Design codes are hugely important in this. Mandatory local design codes, already supported by the NPPF, are essential to make permitted development rights work at scale. They would replace subjective judgments on external appearance with rule-based certainty, define acceptable height, density, daylight and amenity standards to reduce the risk for developers, and be capable of delivery via a public/private model with some costs recovered through planning fee reforms, which could target PDR applications.
Reforms would bring consistency, reduce risk and make PDR a viable route to delivery. Local design codes would improve outcomes and boost developer confidence and certainty in the uptake and use of PDR. PDR allows for greater numbers of conversions and extensions of existing buildings to provide new housing and sustainable urban environments. This would help to reduce the demand and strain of granting housing developments in less sustainable greenfield locations.
Together, the amendments that I suggest would unlock new housing capacity in the most sustainable and accessible locations and benefit smaller building firms, while still maintaining quality and control over the urban environment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. With the Government’s ambition to increase the supply of social and affordable housing and the reforms to improve the capacity of the planning system, now seems the right time to reform PDR. The Government have rightly made the quality and safety of housing a priority, but conversions to PDR are not subject to the same standards compared to developments going through the full planning system.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, in its report on the impact of extending permitted development rights on public authorities and communities, found that the quality of office-to-residential conversions was significantly worse than those which had been brought through the planning process. Other than the nationally described space standards and requirements around natural light, there are no minimum standards for these converted homes relating to safety, facilities, communal space, or connection to amenities.
It is essential that the housing that is developed is the right housing to meet local needs and make a positive impact on the lives of residents. It is necessary to make it a viable solution for addressing the housing crisis. At a minimum, conversions should meet the healthy homes principle brought forward by the Town and Country Planning Association’s Healthy Homes campaign. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these points.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for bringing these matters to the attention of the Committee. Permitted development rights are a significant area of policy as they play a crucial role in both the supply and the quality of new homes. It is important not only for the delivery of more housing but also for ensuring that those homes meet the needs of the communities in which they are built. The rules which govern permitted development therefore deserve careful consideration and the contributions made in today’s debate have highlighted the balance that must be struck between delivering more homes and protections for local communities and ensuring quality homes.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a point of particular frustration for many homeowners in his Amendment 185A, and this reads across to other areas of government policy. I know owners of heritage properties and homes in conservation areas face particular challenges with increasing the energy efficiency of their home, and my noble friend is right to put this challenge to Ministers. I also note that the Government have announced that as of 2030 all private landlords will be required to meet a higher standard in their properties, with energy performance certificates of C or equivalent, up from the current level of E. Given the fact that many heritage and listed properties, including those in conservation areas, are often not permitted to instal double glazing—I refer to my comments in the previous group—can the Minister confirm that the new EPC requirement will not apply to listed and heritage properties? We look forward to hearing the Government’s view on these amendments and to understanding how they propose to address the concerns that have been raised.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before I address the amendments in this group, I want to correct an error that I made earlier when I was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has kindly pointed out my error. When I said the £39 billion allocated for social and affordable housing was for this Parliament, it is in fact a 10-year pledge of funding. I want to make sure that is corrected in Hansard.
All the amendments in this group tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to amend permitted development rights. Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order, generally following public consultation. This ensures that the views of the public are taken into account, including those that would benefit from or otherwise be impacted by the rights created or removed. We will continue to keep permitted development rights under review and I am grateful for the views that have been put forward by noble Lords in this regard.
Amendment 134 seeks to revoke the nationally set permitted development rights that deliver new homes through a change of use or by extending upwards and that allow dwelling houses to change use to a small house in multiple occupation and vice versa. The sustainable solution to the housing crisis is to accelerate the delivery of affordable, safe and decent purpose-built housing. I understand the intent of these amendments, with which I have a deal of sympathy. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill will know, we are in a housing crisis and these permitted development rights have provided over 113,000 new homes in the last nine years. Permitted development rights are subject to prior approval by the local planning authority to allow for local consideration of specific planning matters. We acknowledge the concerns that exist about the quality of some of the residential units created through permitted development rights, particularly those created from commercial-to-residential conversions. We have all seen booklets with pictures of horrendous examples of those conversions and I would not want to advocate that type of practice.
All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are now required to meet nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. All new homes, whether delivered through permitted development rights or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations.
We all know that small houses in multiple occupation can play an important part in providing low-cost accommodation. The permitted development right for a change of use from a dwelling house to a small house in multiple occupation helps to provide flexibility. The permitted development aspect of that can be removed by making an Article 4 direction where the local planning authority considers it necessary and in line with national planning policy. The amendment would make it harder to create new homes from existing buildings at a time of acute housing need. I have not seen the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to and I look forward to receiving that. But, for all the reasons that I have explained, I hope she will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful for the answers that the Minister has given, and I will think hard on what she said. I certainly understand what she said about the way of dealing with these things not being through the Bill. However, I urge the Government to remember that lots of small improvements—as the Minister has pointed out in terms of the last 10 years of permitted development rights—make a difference. They nourish the small end of the builders’ market and give some balance to the domination of housebuilding by the big housebuilders. It is really important that that end of the market works well.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will make a quick comment. Article 4 directions are actually a very challenging process; the Secretary of State really gives you a hard time about it and you usually have to justify covering a larger area. The problem with PDRs is they are all over the place and that makes an Article 4 direction a little bit more difficult.
I would like to challenge a fundamental misconception. The Minister talked about the 113,000 homes that have already been created. The misconception is that they would not have happened anyway. I am sure some of them would not, but the majority, if they had gone through the planning process, would have had things suggested, altered and improved to pull up the standard. But, of course, it would not have happened quite as quickly.
I am going to end on a slightly tangential anecdote that shows that we really need to look at this. The people in the house next door to me have informed me that they will be erecting a 12 metre by 20 metre single-storey building in their garden directly adjacent to mine. They do not need planning permission. It is half the size of the garden and they are allowed to do that. If I want to erect a fence to cover the hideous wall of brick that I am going to be looking on instead of a beautiful garden with mature trees, I will have to apply for planning permission. Therefore, I think it is time to review the whole set-up, but particularly office to residential. I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning permission for self-build and custom housebuilding(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 (2016/950) as follows.(2) After Regulation 3 (definition of a serviced plot of land), insert—3A. “(1) For the purposes of section 2A(2) and (5) of the Act (Duty to grant planning permission etc), only the following development permissions may be considered to meet the demand for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding in the planning authority’s area arising in each base period—(a) planning permission (as defined by section 58(1)(b) (granting of planning permission: general) and section 70 (determination of applications: general considerations) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”)) which is—(i) subject to a planning conditions restricting either the whole of or a specified number of units within the proposed development to self-build and custom housebuilding;(ii) subject to an obligation under section 106 of the 1990 Act (planning obligations), restricting either the whole of or a specified number of units within the proposed development to self-build and custom housebuilding;(b) permission in principle (as defined by section 58A of 1990 Act (permission in principle: general), where the description of the proposed development is for self-build and custom housebuilding.(2) For the purposes of this Regulation, self-build and custom housebuilding has the same meaning as in section 1(A1) and (A2) of the Act (Registers of persons seeking to acquire land to build a home).”.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, 10 groups done; 10 to go. I turn to Amendment 135. I am doing this in the name of a friend of mine, Richard Bacon, who used to be the Member of Parliament for South Norfolk. He retired at the last election and is watching proceedings now—I am delighted he is—and he has spent a lot of time on self-build, which is what this amendment is about.
To pay credit to my friend Richard, he had managed to get issues about self-build into primary legislation. It had been commenced, but there are still elements that seem to be holding back this potential of self-build. Recognising, as the Minister said earlier, the words of her latest Secretary of State, to “Build, baby, build”, we should unleash the self-builders, where it is appropriate, right across the country. As my friend has pointed out, this is tenure neutral. There are great examples. Anyone can read his report that was commissioned by the previous Administration. He has written extensively on this, so I do not need to repeat everything he has put in the public domain.
To give a sense, there are good examples of this in the Netherlands, where groups of people have come together. They have actually built high-density and multiple-storey by some housing being particularly desirable—the penthouse may have got more of a price. You see multi-generational homes being built. To some extent—recognising what has been already pointed out in several parts of the debate, not only today, but in earlier consideration of the Bill—self-build is certainly a sector which needs to have the opportunity to at least be given a go. I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has just said about permitted development rights, with her neighbour building something which sounds rather extraordinary. That said, as someone with a large garden, perhaps that persuaded them that this was a way to reduce the amount of gardening; but that is a different story.
The Bacon review recommended that a range of regulatory reforms be brought forward to support the scaling up of self-build and to help boost much-needed housebuilding across England. I have already referred to the fact that the amendment to the 2015 Act through LURA, which came into force last year, made it clear that only planning permissions that are specifically for self-build can count towards meeting an authority’s statutory duty.
Despite that amendment, there remains considerable uncertainty over what types of permissions should be counted towards the duty imposed on local authorities to permit enough plots of land to meet the demand on their self-build registers. The LURA therefore provided for this new power to allow the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the types of development permissions that can be counted by a relevant authority to comply with its duty to meet demand as defined under Section 2A(2) of the 2015 Act. This has not been taken forward yet by the Government.
Amendment 135 proposes to insert a new provision into the Bill to require the Government to amend the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 to clarify the types of development permissions that must be counted towards the duty of local authorities to meet their local demand for service plots of land for people to build their own homes. The amendment would have the effect of implementing the provision in Section 123(1)(a) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 that enables the Government to specify regulations on the types of development permissions that can be counted by local authorities to comply with their duty to meet demand under Section 2A(2) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015.
The Government’s plan for change set an ambitious target to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament. They say they are committed to reforming the planning system, that they are pro-growth and that they back SME builders to get Britain building. In May of this year, the former Deputy Prime Minister said that smaller housebuilders
“must be the bedrock of our Plan for Change”
and to get
“working people on the housing ladder”.
She also said that she was committed to making the planning system
“simpler, fairer and more cost effective, so smaller housebuilders can play a crucial role”
in building the homes we need, improving choice and boosting tenure mix on larger sites to improve buildout. To deliver against these objectives, the Government must surely look to operate all possible levers at their disposal, yet so far they have chosen not to bring forward much-needed further regulation to support more people to build their own homes.
The Competition and Markets Authority’s 2024 housebuilding market study report concluded that self-build and custom housebuilding is one of the main models in the UK housing market, with some 15,900 homes completed in 2021-22—admittedly, that was just as we were coming out of the variety of lockdowns. It concluded that, by enabling more alternative, private and non-speculative models, such as self-build and custom housebuilding development, dependence on the speculative housebuilding model can be reduced and market diversity improved, which in turn helps to speed up housing delivery. This could allow for more homes to be absorbed within local markets without housebuilders needing to reduce house prices, thereby speeding up housing delivery.
The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 places a statutory duty on local authorities in England to hold a register of people who want to acquire land to self or custom build in their area, and to grant planning permission for enough plots of land to satisfy that demand. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 set out that authorities must meet this demand—that is, grant sufficient planning permission within three years. Despite these provisions, the Government’s own data shows that the gap between the supply of SBCH plots and consumer demand continues to fall.
Self-build and custom housebuilding data released by the Minister’s department in February showed that the number of individuals on local registers had risen by 4% to over 64,000 and that group registrations are near to 1,000. Despite this increase, planning permissions have continued to fall, reaching just over 5,000 a couple of years ago—the lowest level since legislation was first introduced in 2016.
A key cause of the decline in supply plots is that many local authorities—including, I am led to believe, Winchester, Uttlesford, Dacorum, Rutland and South Kesteven—refuse planning applications on grounds that they are meeting local demand. Yet, when they are tested, it is often clear that they are counting planning permissions towards their annual targets, when they are plainly not for self-build or custom housing, to avoid releasing more land to meet growing demand. Such practices are frustrating delivery and costing taxpayers and developers many thousands of pounds in fighting planning appeals to prove councils wrong. It is not unusual for planning barristers, consultants and local authority officers to debate at length at appeal whether a council has correctly counted the number of such permissions it has given to meet local demand and for inspectors then to have to interpret the evidence submitted and decide what weight they should give to the arguments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 135 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and declare an interest in that the sponsor of her amendment, Richard Bacon, was the Member of Parliament for South Norfolk, where I represented the council for many years; it is worth putting it on record that he devoted the greater part of his parliamentary career to pursuing the importance of self-building in our nation. Self-building is not just the right thing to do because it is going to deliver more homes; it enables striving families to build a house of their dreams. Of course, they do not actually build it themselves. Self-building is not about getting all the tools; it is about procuring and possibly designing a home for you to live in for the long term—the basis of community and empowerment in that sense.
I welcome the amendment, not least because we have sleepwalked into a situation where a small number of national housebuilders have created for themselves a substantial monopoly, not just in the building of homes but in their design. Local distinctiveness and vernacular have been lost. A bungalow that has gone a bomb in Barnsley is built in Bunwell, 200 miles away, yet it is the same design language. We need distinctiveness. The logical conclusion, the spirit of what this amendment seeks to achieve, is that not only do we give those wanting to build their own home or procure their own residence the chance but local authorities can be very distinctive about making sure that we are capturing the correct need for those people who have the wherewithal to do it—not just the casual want, as was the original case and has now been tightened up.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 135H in this group. This is another of my attempts to help the Government make the way that housing is delivered slightly more efficient. I live in Eastbourne, and Eastbourne Borough Council has a long-standing partnership with a modular house builder called Boutique Modern, which has produced some very effective houses in the town, looking quite different from one another because it is easier to customise the outside of those modular homes; but the structure, what is happening inside, is the same. It is produced in a factory. It is daft, when you are producing identical goods, to have to go through type approval for them as if they were being built on the ground.
You have a design, which has passed all the tests and been approved by the Buildoffsite Property Assurance Scheme, I suggest—though it could equally be some other body—then you avoid all the processes and costs associated with whether it is an acceptable design for a place for someone to live in and can concentrate on how the site is laid out and what the building looks like. That makes a really effective way for people to build and procure their own houses, to go with my noble friend’s excellent amendment.
I urge this on the Government as a way in which they can make another small improvement that will, over time, decrease the cost and increase the rate of housebuilding.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a word or two about self-build and custom housebuilding, in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey—although I also want to ask a question about the precise terms in which her amendment is phrased.
I declare an interest, in that my nephew is seeking to build his own family home and has been on the register in Tandridge for a number of years now. He has received nothing from Tandridge by way of an offer of any plot anywhere, although he is entirely eligible, including being a locally connected person and so on.
I remember that we discussed this during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—I remember talking to Richard Bacon about the provisions. My noble friend is absolutely right: we put a regulation-making power in with the objective of trying to ensure that the development permissions that were granted for self-build and custom housebuilding were genuinely for that and not for something else. The question to Ministers is whether, at this stage, they will use this power and how they will they use it.
The phraseology in my noble friend’s amendment, in so far as it says that only the specific development permissions that are referred to are to be treated as meeting a demand, may have the benefit of excluding some things that should not be treated as such but may have the disbenefit of excluding some things that should be treated as such, including people who bring forward their own plots for this purpose that do not form part of a wider development. It is rather important that we bring in what should be part of development permissions that meet demand for self-build and custom housebuilding and exclude those that do not and get the structure of it right.
Where we need to think more, if I recall correctly, is about what we do in relation to local planning authorities that have persistent unmet demand on that basis for self-build and custom housebuilding. There is an enormous potential benefit here. Look at other similar countries that have very large numbers of self-build and custom housebuilding. If the Government are looking for an opportunity to add to the extent of building, and indeed to support small housebuilders, this is absolutely the right territory to be working on.
To return to a familiar subject for me, the use of national development management policies in relation to decisions on planning applications for people who wish to build for themselves may well be one of the routes that the Government might like to consider for taking this issue forward.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 135, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I piloted the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill through your Lordships’ House in 2015, so I have an ongoing vested interest in the progress that this has made. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, not just for a full account of where this has come from and where it might be going to but for the technical detail that she explained very fully, which saves me struggling to do the same.
I can add two things. One is this: why should the Government be interested in this? The self-build and custom housebuilding sector has so much merit and is so undeveloped. It does the following things. It adds additional homes toward the 1.5 million target. It introduces diversity and competition to the speculative housing model that has let us down on so many occasions. It brings back the small and medium housebuilder. It makes use of small sites that are of no interest to the large-scale developers. It supports the fledgling modern methods of construction—or MMC—sector. It enables people to create the homes they really want, not what is served up to them by the volume housebuilders. It does so many good things all at once and it is certainly worthy of support, especially as it does not cost the Government anything to provide that support, which is a rarity.
The Government initiated an equity loan scheme, through Homes England, which enabled people to borrow on preferential terms. That finished in April of 2025, leaving the sector without any real extra support or governmental backing. This amendment would be one helpful step forward for a sector that is providing between 5% and 10% of all the homes we are creating, so it is not insignificant in its scale.
If this particular amendment is not the way by which the Government could be more helpful in the future, is there any intention in government to do anything at this stage that would support the self-build and custom housebuilding sector? It is deserving of a bit more backing. I support the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 135 and 135H. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I think I am in the middle of building one of these self-build houses—I know I am, but I do not think of myself as a self-builder because I am not out there with bricks and mortar. More seriously, the complexity involved and time it takes for an individual who wants to convert their own little two-bedroom cottage to get through the planning system is unbelievable—it probably took me two and a half years. That is not acceptable and it does put people off, I am sure.
On Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, modern housing delivery, particularly self-build and custom housebuilding, is important because it can add to supply. It can provide homes that better meet local or individual needs, and it can encourage innovation. Too often, as I have said, individuals face barriers in accessing land or securing timely permission. Will the Minister set out how the Government intend to make the existing right to self-build more effective and ensure that local authorities bring forward and encourage more sites to be built out in this way?
Amendment 135H, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, addresses modular and off-site construction, where homes are manufactured to a set design and then assembled on site. When I was a Minister, I spoke many times on this, and I know that these methods can improve speed, quality and sustainability, yet planning delays can hold them back. Will the Minister please set out how the Government will support modern methods of construction in the planning system and whether they will streamline processes to encourage their wider use? Critical to making modular and off-site construction companies successful, and helping them survive, is that they need a pipeline of contractors putting in contracts. How do the Government propose to support the sector on this issue? It is a critical sector for building out these 1.5 million houses as quickly as possible and for them to be sustainable into the future. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for these amendments. By the way, I hope it is not the nephew of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is building the structure next door to the garden of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 135 seeks to restrict the types of development permission that may be counted by relevant authorities in meeting their duty to grant development permission for self-build and custom housebuilding under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 to those set out in the new clause. The Government recognise that self and custom-build housing can play an important role as part of measures to diversify the market and support SMEs to ensure we can deliver the homes we need and support home ownership.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. I welcome her to 10 September.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken—my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Lansley, and also the noble Lord, Lord Best. In response to my noble friend Lord Lansley, I am very conscious that perhaps there is a proper definition that can deal with this, so I will reflect on that and see what I can work through. He is absolutely right in saying that national development management policies are the way forward.
I inferred from what the Minister said that it is early days, and we will see where it goes. There is a group of willing people who want to get on. This is designed to make it as straightforward as possible for people to have homes. I know she supports that outcome, and I hope I can potentially work a little more with her and the noble Lord, Lord Best, in order to make that a reality. On that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning decisions: consideration of an EDPIn section 70(2)(aa) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations) at end insert—“(ab) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, so far as material to the application,””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when making a planning decision, the local planning authority must take into account any EDP applying to the land question.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 135A may perhaps look a little innocuous, but it is actually critical in considering how Part 3 of the Bill will work. By the way, I did not determine where this appeared in the Bill; that was done by the clerks.
It has arisen due to evidence given by the chief executive of Natural England, who was asked by the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons to address Part 3 of the Bill. I appreciate this is before the Government backtracked and made a number of changes to try and address the significant number of concerns, which have not been fully alleviated, in regard to the potential for environmental damage.
I am very pleased to set out this suggested amendment to the planning Bill, which would, in effect, put into place what was said by the chief executive of Natural England—the body being allocated all this power not only to create but to deliver the increase in biodiversity in compensation for the development the Government want to see.
Marian Spain, when asked about these powers being given to Natural England—it will be tasked with writing, delivering, monitoring and reporting on EDPs—responded by saying that developers will be able to choose not to pay the levy if they do not have the confidence in the relevant EDP, and also that planning authorities can refuse to grant planning permission to developers if they are not convinced that the EDP would work. That is not what is in the Bill today, but the chief executive—the accounting officer—of Natural England has said to Parliament that this is what the Bill is doing. This amendment, in effect, puts that into place.
She specifically said that, in terms of not choosing to pay the levy, there is a risk that developers could not have confidence in the EDPs. This is worrying. It means that, if developers promote a new scheme through the planning system, they will not know whether or where an EDP will land or what environmental features it will cover. They do not actually know if levies will be mandatory or voluntary or how much the levies will be. They will not know whether the local authority considers an existing EDP to be ineffective. Developers would need to navigate the added very real risk that planning permission is refused because a planning authority does not trust that an EDP is being or will be delivered properly.
As a consequence of what the chief executive has said, it seems that the planning authority would need to police the progress and effectiveness of EDPs in their local authority areas. That was not in the Government’s impact assessment and may not be the intention of the Government at all. I say to the Minister that the very person who will deliver exactly what is left out in Part 3 of this Bill is saying that is the case. Frankly, if it is the case, and that is what the chief executive has told Parliament, then this will be exceptionally worse than the status quo for developers.
Developers can already access strategic solutions for nature that are competitively brought forward by a range of actors, including landowners, charities, Natural England itself and private companies. These alternative solutions will be crowded out by EDPs, and we will get to that more substantial debate next week in Part 3. At the same time, there is a risk that planning permissions will be held up because local authorities will not trust that an underfunded, unscientific, non-locally led EDP will actually be delivered.
I have greater concerns about the whole concept of Part 3. However, what I think is good is that, by my amendment, we can put back in exactly what the chief executive of Natural England says this legislation is supposed to do. That is why I am moving this amendment.
Speaking to my noble friend’s amendment on planning information, it is a very straightforward amendment, and I support my noble friend. It is basically saying, “We are looking at biodiversity, we need to know what it is, why don’t we get it all ready and we can share it with the developers, so we can know what the basic part is”. I am sure my noble friend will explain it far more eloquently than I have tried to do in those 15 seconds. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 135F is basically saying, “Look, we are generating a lot of quality biodiversity information within the planning system, but we are not capturing it”.
As a previous Government—this Government are too, I believe—we were committed to restoring biodiversity in this country from a very unfortunate, low level. To do that well, we need really good data. There are a number of potential sources of that data, but the great majority of the quality biodiversity data—that which can absolutely be believed because it has been collected by people who are qualified and has been properly checked and done carefully—is generated by the planning system.
But the majority of the data collected by the planning system never finds itself going anywhere else. We have a system in the country of local environment record centres, where this data should be deposited; it is not. This is what I want the Government to do. I know there are those within the Government who are working in this direction, but they are in Defra not in MHCLG, so what I would like MHCLG to do is to say, “Yes, it is important that we collect this data; we will mandate that”. When it is created as part of the planning system, it should find its way into the national data record. This is not something that would impose huge costs, because the data will almost always be in an easily accessible format. If you are applying for planning permission, and you have done a biological survey, you have to say where you found what. That is basically all that is needed for the environmental record centres. What we need to do, though, is get the data flowing.
The other side of this is—within the limitations of the Bill—my second Amendment 253A is saying that we ought to be using this data much better than we do. We create things and make decisions without accessing the best possible data that we already hold, and we ought not to do that. We ought to be making the best possible informed decisions when it comes to biodiversity; otherwise, we will do stupid things that damage the environment even further. The best possible data—the best possible decisions. That requires that, when we are taking a decision which affects the environment, we go and get the best available data. Again, the planning system is central to that. There ought not to be an application within the planning system which does not use the best data. My amendment asks that we put that right.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am gravely concerned. Normally, of course, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lady Coffey, and perhaps I have misread her amendment, in which case I apologise, and she will correct me in the winding. In the evidence that the chief executive of Natural England gave to your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee 18 months ago, she said that it had no regard whatever for economic growth in determining its position on development proposals; it was purely, solely and entirely for environmental purposes. Of course, if growth is the principal and number one objective of this Government, these things need to be balanced. So the amendment puts a touching faith in the professionalism of Natural England, which, as I think we will discover next week, may be misplaced.
Natural England, in its provision of EDPs, as I read in the Bill, will be given monopoly powers to be a monopoly regulator, a monopoly provider and a monopoly price-maker of environmental schemes in this country. These EDPs, as I see it, could conceptually be 100 different EDPs on a national basis for 100 different species, each of which may be in a less favourable condition, or so forth.
If the experience of nutrient neutrality is anything to go by, it will take Natural England years to come up with mitigating programmes. That is what it has done, and in some parts of the country we are still waiting. So I have no faith that Natural England, vested as it will be in Part 3 of the Bill, will be prompt and complete in its provision of EDPs.
As I read this amendment, I see that it will be an excuse for local authorities not to grant an otherwise appropriate permission, which would in normal cases sail through because every other obligation and stipulation has been met. So I think we can contemplate that this could not only gum up and slow down the development, but there is a second problem. The risk is that the developer may have made his own inquiries and found his own local solution to a particular local requirement for an especially local problem, whether for species, environmental ecology, or whatever. I can see that the consequence of this amendment would be that he might have to pay three times: once for the delay, once for his own mitigation, which in so far as he or any reasonable person is concerned meets all the regulations, and another time to wait for the EDP, which may or may not be coming from Natural England in a prompt situation.
I am really concerned about this amendment. I do not believe that Natural England is the appropriate body to do this. If the Government take a different view, that is their prerogative. But we should not vest in Natural England monopoly powers that cut out private provision, private delivery, and especially local delivery, and sacrifice them on the altar of some national scheme at hugely inflated values.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for ensuring that one person is watching tonight—it is much appreciated—and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising interesting debates regarding Amendments 135A, 135F and 253A in the context of biodiversity protections through environmental delivery plans, or EDPs, and the capture and use of that data.
EDPs must do more than simply mitigate harm. They must require the active protection and enhancement of biodiversity, with clear enforceable timetables and measurable outcomes. Our concern is that EDPs risk becoming instruments of offsetting impact rather than delivering real local environmental recovery. We need a strong legal framework that prevents development-related damage to irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodlands and chalk streams, and makes sure these habitats receive the highest protection in planning decisions.
We welcome these amendments and look forward to some level of timetabling and monitoring in EDPs and the introduction of an overall improvement test seeking to ensure that conservation gains significantly outweigh harm. However, for us, questions remain about whether the provisions are sufficient in practice to guarantee meaningful biodiversity outcomes. The reliance on compensation rather than upfront prevention remains a concern, as does the limited timeframe for public scrutiny of EDPs. We all in this Committee note that Part 3 includes new measures on EDPs, including, as discussed, powers for Natural England to oversee and design conservation strategies, but it is still unclear how these changes will translate into on the ground improvements or prevent the loss of vulnerable habitats.
The hour is late, but it would be useful if the Minister could tell us to what extent these recent changes to Part 3 address the deep concerns about EDPs being used as a compromise rather than a solution. Will we see stronger enforcement, longer public consultations and better integration of biodiversity data into our planning decisions?
EDPs that guarantee biodiversity need to ensure that our natural heritage is a foundation, not a casualty, of sustainable development. I welcome this debate, therefore, and look forward to clarification—if not tonight then certainly when we debate Part 3 next week—to ensure that the Bill delivers the nature protections that we all believe this country urgently needs.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me that we are getting ahead of ourselves. We are yet to reach Part 3, but these seem to be mostly considerations relating to the content of Part 3 and how the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy are intended to work.
I understood my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment to be grouped where it is and say what it does because nowhere in Part 3 is there something that otherwise tells us how the making of an environmental delivery plan affects a local planning authority in making its decisions. It seemed to me that she had tabled a rather useful amendment that did precisely that.
I do not think it is relevant whether a developer has to pay the levy or not. It can request to pay the levy, or, as we can see in Clause 66 and Schedule 4, Natural England can make it mandatory that it pays the levy. Either way, it does not really matter. The point is that, if the environmental delivery plan is made, a local authority should clearly take it into account in determining any planning permission, in the same way as it would be required to have regard to all the legislation relating to protected sites and protected species. Schedule 4 simply tells us that when the local authority makes planning decisions it may disregard them because there is an environmental delivery plan in place. What my noble friend Lady Coffey is saying would be at least a useful addition, in a technical sense, to the Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his thoughtful ongoing contribution to our debate on this Bill. His amendment raises some significant questions about how biodiversity information is gathered, shared and used within the planning system.
This sparked a few questions that we wish to ask the Minister. First, can she clarify how the Government see the balance between requiring robust biodiversity data and avoiding unnecessary burdens on applicants—particularly smaller developers or individuals making household applications? Secondly, what consideration has been given to the readiness and capacity of local environmental record centres or other organisations to provide such information, should regulations of this kind be introduced? Thirdly, has consideration been given that this be addressed as part of the spatial development strategy or local plan? Lastly, how do the Government propose to ensure consistency and standardisation in biodiversity data collected so that it meaningfully informs local and national policy in the future?
Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that environmental delivery plans relevant to the land in question are considered when making planning decisions. This seems to be an eminently sensible and pragmatic measure that joins up the EDP process with planning decision-making. However, this amendment also raises the important point that I raised at Second Reading: the chicken and egg question. How can you develop an EDP without knowing what the spatial development strategy is that it is seeking to mitigate? Conversely, do you need an EDP to make a spatial development strategy deliverable? It would seem sensible that they are done in parallel. If so, why would an EDP not be part of the spatial development strategy? Can the Minister please provide a clearer answer than at Second Reading?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for their amendments in this group. There will be a very full debate on the wider issues around EDPs, the role of Natural England and so on next week. I will answer the specific points today and, in view of the hour, we will leave the wider discussions until next week.
Amendment 135A seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan is taken into account by a planning decision-maker when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. Although it is crucial that EDPs are fully integrated into the wider planning system, I assure the noble Baroness that how EDPs work in practice means that the amendment is not necessary. Where a developer makes a payment into an EDP, the making of that payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation. This means that the planning decision-maker will not need to consider the specific environmental obligation covered by the EDP when deciding on an application.
To respond to the points about the differences that came forward after we had met with the environmental NGOs, and the response of the OEP, the government amendments make changes explicit in the Bill which were only implicit. We met with noble Lords to discuss this.
Amendment 135F seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about the biodiversity information required for applications for planning permission and enable specific bodies providing this information to applicants to charge for it. The Government agree it is critical that developers reduce and mitigate their impacts on biodiversity. We also agree that to achieve this, robust biodiversity information should be provided with planning applications where habitats and wildlife are affected by development proposals. However, I am not convinced that we need further powers to achieve this or that we should specify precisely where and how such information needs to be sourced.
Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. As part of this framework, developers are now required to provide a baseline assessment of pre-development biodiversity value of the site using the statutory biodiversity metric published by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Natural England provides considerable guidance and support to developers and local planning authorities on the use of this metric. The biggest infrastructure developers will also be required to do so from May 2026 when BNG is extended to nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that answer by the noble Baroness, but she did not go as far as I hoped on my first amendment. I know that there is a lot of information being gathered as a result of the biodiversity net gain process. I am comforted that the noble Baroness appears to assume this will continue, because it has been a matter of doubt, given the recent consultation. But the problem is not that it is not generated; it is generated, but then nothing happens to it. It is locked up within that particular planning application; it never gets into the national records.
What I would really like to see coming through as planning policy is that where this information is generated, it must find its way into the national database because otherwise we lose it—it is inaccessible. We do not know what was found. We cannot draw on this information to take other decisions; we are depriving ourselves. Having generated this information and people having paid for this information, it then just disappears. That cannot be the right way of doing things. We must have a planning system which contributes to the national understanding of our biodiversity. The information that we gather as part of planning surely must become part of the national biodiversity database. That is something I would really like to pursue with the noble Baroness, if she will allow me to write to her further.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and, indeed, all noble Lords for speaking. I do not want to get into the whole Part 3 debate; we will be debating that next week. I say to my noble friend Lord Fuller that this is based on evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee on 30 June of this year by the chief executive, Marian Spain, rather than the chairman, Tony Juniper, over a year ago. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for giving me confidence—it was in the right place, after all—and for providing the clarity. The key point right now is that what the Minister has said tonight contradicts what the chief executive—the accounting officer—of Natural England told Members of Parliament about the effect of the Bill. I am going to read more carefully tomorrow what the Minister has said: I am not suggesting in any way that she is misleading the House either, but I think there is a problem. Putting this amendment in has got the outcome that I would like to see but perhaps not that of the Government. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“Meetings of local planning authorities to be available for participation online(1) This section applies to any meeting of a local authority held to discharge the authority’s planning functions, including a committee or a sub-committee of the authority held under section 101(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 (a “planning meeting”).(2) A local authority must make arrangements for the proceedings of a planning meeting to be available over the internet both in real time and for five years after the meeting, and those arrangements must include the ability for members of the public observing a planning meeting over the internet in real time to address the meeting where permitted by the person chairing the meeting.(3) Subsection (2) applies despite any prohibition or other restriction contained in the standing orders or any other rules of the authority governing a planning meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.(4) A local authority may make standing orders and any other rules governing participation by a member of the public in a planning meeting over the internet, which may include provision for access to documents.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require local planning authorities to make their meetings available for observation and participation online.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 135E—in another streamlined contribution—which is self-explanatory. I also speak to Amendment 135HZA in the name of noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who is sadly not in her place due to the hour; we believe it definitely has some merit.
The emphasis for this amendment comes very strongly from our commitment on these Benches to community engagement and, more importantly, from the fact that the community has never before been so apparently disengaged from the need to build houses and engaged instead in full blown opposition.
The pandemic changed everything, including how we did meetings. The one positive thing that is said is that remote council meetings increased the opportunities for planning committees to hear views from a far more diverse group of participants, because they were more accessible to a wider audience.
Several paragraphs have been chopped here. My amendment simply states that the Government would require local planning authorities to make their meetings available for observation and participation online—that latter word is key. It does allow for a degree of local authority autonomy in the way that it decides to allow such participation in meetings. It is not the intention of the amendment to be prescriptive, nor to favour one particular means over another. The purpose of the amendment is that meetings have to be recorded and should be kept for posterity. They could be used in appeals or public inquiries and are genuinely an accurate record of what was actually said.
The public being able to contribute is the key thing, and I believe that, unless this is mandatory, those councils that are not doing this will not choose to do so without compulsion. There are still a number of councils, around 15%, that do not even record their meetings, but, for the 85% that do, they are not always webcast in a way that people can participate in. It should also be said that many councils recognise a range of benefits from providing online availability for questions at meetings, so we must ask ourselves why these other councils are dragging their heels. Surely, giving more means to the public to participate, in a much less formal way than giving a five-minute presentation at the beginning of what can be, for many, a daunting meeting—which is what is afforded at most planning meetings that I have experienced—has got to be a benefit and make communities feel that their voice is being heard. It should be something we want all councils to do.
We know that there is plenty of research, particularly that done by the RTPI, that shows that digital transformation can help various groups, the young in particular. Half the people in the RTPI’s most recent survey said that being able to respond digitally would make them more likely to get involved in the system—and maybe we might then get some yimbys joining in the housing debate.
The Greater London Authority and the Local Government Association have been pioneering this. There are lots of good examples and good practice that we can learn from. This would particularly help people living in rural areas, who may have a long journey to get to meetings or be disadvantaged by poor public transport. It would better accommodate the needs of those with work or caring responsibilities, and people with personal or protected characteristics who may find online attendance or viewing much more accessible than turning up to the fairly stiff formal council meeting. That is why we believe this clause should be mandatory across all authorities.
The situation with regard to the public and planning has never been worse. Anything we can do to improve that has got to be tried, but we fear some local authorities will need the final push of mandatory provision to make it happen. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene, not least on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She is not here to speak to her amendment but, as a number of noble Lords will recall, she and I worked together during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill on amendments to the same effect. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will recall that she led an amendment for this purpose, all to the effect of bringing us firmly into the post-pandemic, 21st-century manner of holding meetings, enabling local authorities to hold virtual meetings. There are many reasons for that, which I will not rehearse.
I remind noble Lords, and especially the limited number of us who were here for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, that we went into ping-pong on this issue on the basis of the amendment at the time from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It was sent back to the other place on a second occasion with a narrow majority in this House, which included the Minister responding to this debate. The then Opposition committed themselves in principle to virtual meetings. I hope they will see that through now.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a brief comment. I very much sympathise with the thrust of this amendment, but I am anxious about the term “members of the public”. Those noble Lords who sit on a planning committee will know that there are decision-makers—the councillors who sit around the table—who will ultimately pass judgment one way or the other on the application. As I understand it, the amendment would contemplate that those decision-makers would be in the room and then members of the public outside, watching remotely, might contribute.
Is it the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that special participants, who are not members of the public but also are not decision-makers, will be able to contribute from outside the room? The people I have in mind are local members, for example, local parish council members, or the local neighbourhood group, who have special status in the sense that they are consultees. While I can see that the decision-makers need to be in the room and members of the public might be outside, perhaps the noble Baroness could help us by saying what would be the status of these special people—the local member and so forth—who may be members of the council but not decision-makers.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I do not think that it is for us to decide about these special stakeholders. I would have thought it would be up to the council to decide whether they are allowed in the room. In my council, they are certainly encouraged to attend. The key issue is the involvement of people who would not dream of turning up to a council meeting. Of course, the local member and all the other people the noble Lord mentioned would not fear going into a council meeting and could get there easily enough. It is those who are normally excluded who are the issue. I genuinely believe that, by expanding the voice of people who contribute, we may take some of the heat out of these really controversial planning decisions.
Lord Fuller (Con)
At the moment, some of these special stakeholders are not permitted to participate unless they are in the room. I take the noble Baroness’s amendment to say that they might be able to participate if they are outside the room. That is what I was trying to probe.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
It would certainly put more pressure on the council to allow that, which I think they should.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Baroness talked about people who would not dream of participating. It is also worth stressing that certain people would not be able to participate because of disabilities, caring responsibilities and other reasons. In fact, given the responsibilities the Government have in terms of protected characteristics, surely that would make the argument for this amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, ensuring that planning meetings can be held when they are needed and that they are accessible is of real importance. Equally, the clarity of outcome is critical, and the transparency. Applicants, the public and those participating need to see that proposals have been properly considered with clarity of decision-making, otherwise confidence in the system will be undermined. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration has been given to how these provisions will operate in practice. Linked to this issue, what safeguards can the Government provide to ensure that the decisions reached in local planning meetings are both transparent and understood by all? I hope the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House on these points.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady McIntosh, for the amendments relating to planning authority meetings. Amendment 135E would require councils to stream their planning meetings online, to publish records of those meetings and to allow members of the public to speak at them via online participation.
I have to say “well remembered” to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the levelling-up Bill—I think all of us who worked on that Bill deserve a badge to say that we survived. I indeed supported this issue, and the Government are committed to legislating to allow councils to meet remotely in response to our consultation. We are working with sector representatives such as the Local Government Association and others to clarify how this would work in practice, including how to ensure that existing rules around meetings are applied appropriately to remote and hybrid meetings without undermining democratic accountability or procedural integrity. We want to get this right and that might mean taking a little longer to work through the detail of the proposal to make sure that the changes are legally robust, practically workable and aligned with the expectation of both local authorities and the public.
We are committed to ending this micromanagement of local councils from Whitehall. Decisions about how councils run their day-to-day affairs should be taken locally. We do not think it is appropriate at the moment to make streaming meetings compulsory, as this amendment proposes. Councils can already stream their meetings online and can, if they wish, make arrangements to hear representations from the public online. Indeed, many councils already do this. The Government encourage councils to consider how they can make local democracy accessible to their residents, and that includes for reasons of disability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Streaming meetings may be a helpful step to make local decision-making more transparent. However, making that a locally operational decision and not because of a diktat is important.
Amendment 135HZA would allow planning committees and subcommittees to meet remotely or in hybrid form in circumstances to be specified in regulations. Outdated legislation has the implied effect of requiring all local authorities to hold their meetings in one physical location only. This was confirmed by a court case several years ago. As I mentioned earlier, all local authorities are independent bodies with their own democratic mandate, and as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has raised several times in this House in recent years, they should be able to decide how they want to organise their own meetings and Parliament should not stand in their way. That is why the Government have committed to allowing councils to make decisions themselves about whether to hold their meetings in person, to do them fully online, or to have a hybrid form.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Have the Government looked at any legal opinion as to whether a planning meeting is different from any other council meeting because it is quasi-judicial?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is exactly the detailed work that we are doing now with the Local Government Association and with other advisers to make sure that we get all the regulations right so that we do not breach any legal duty that councils have as we go through this process. We think this choice should apply to all council meetings and not just planning committees or planning authorities. We do not think there should be conditions attached to the decision. We trust that local authorities will make arrangements that work for them and for their residents, but we need to carry out the further work that I have referred to in order to bring this forward. However, I am very committed to moving it onwards, but we do not believe that the amendments are necessary and I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 135E.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was quite positive about the Minister’s response because I feel that if the work that she outlined is happening, and I understand why she said it may take a little longer, I think that will give good councils—which are a little bit fearful of doing this, but need that extra guidance—confidence to go ahead and give it a try. However, we all know that there is a group of councils which, let us just say, give rise to concern within the department for not completing their local plans. We know there are issues in council meetings that are reported every week in the planning newsletter that comes out. I think they will be allowed to drag their heels and will continue to cause concern.
I also had a wry smile when the Minister said that the Government did not want to give diktats, because they are certainly not averse to giving them in other areas. I thank the Minister for her positivity on the subject and let us hope that more and more councils do start to do this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Thursday 11th September 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (11 Sep 2025)
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that we have a large number of groups on this Bill to get through. While this is a Committee stage, I remind noble Lords of the guidance in the Companion, paragraph 8.81, on speeches at amending stages on Bills:
“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.
While there have many important contributions from all sides of the Committee, parts of our recent debates have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So that we can make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion and brief.
Clause 52: Spatial development strategies
Amendment 145
Baroness Whitaker
“(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), an amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing must include Gypsy and Traveller sites, whether provided privately, or by local authorities, or by other registered social landlords.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include Gypsy and Traveller sites in the strategically important housing identified in spatial development strategies.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to open the sixth day of Committee on this hugely important Bill with a set of amendments which may appear rather niche to some, but which I suggest are fundamental to our national values.
I speak to Amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 and 176 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who regrets he cannot be here, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for Amendment 145, together with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who have joined me for the others. I am very grateful for their support. I am also very grateful to Friends, Families and Travellers for its advice, and to the Public Bill Office for its heroic efforts to get our requirements within the scope of this Bill.
All these amendments address a gap in our understanding of the population of the United Kingdom: the centuries-old existence of a small number of fellow citizens, some Gypsies and Travellers, whose traditional way of life and culture is to live in their communities on caravan sites. The fact that they may reside in a different pattern from the majority does not lessen the validity of their citizenship, as the law has attested. Their rentals of caravans and associated amenities on a site as their permanent residence thus means that they should be entitled to standards of provision just as much as those who live in bricks and mortar on a street. But the omission of general acknowledgment of their way of life has meant that there is a significant shortage of sites and that the conditions that they are obliged to live in can easily be—and are—markedly inferior, insecure, dangerous, polluted and the cause of multiple disadvantage, to say nothing of the damage all this does to social cohesion.
These amendments are the way to close that gap. Amendment 145 would make it clear that Gypsy and Traveller sites must be considered within the strategically important housing sites identified in spatial development strategies. Amendment 173 would firm up the current obligation on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers so that plans and planning strategies, including the all-important new spatial development strategies, never omit the need for sites again. Thus, local authorities could not ignore the excellent guidance so far produced by this Government and must observe any further guidance. It is of particular importance to put an end to the inconsistent approaches and methodologies of assessment of need which have resulted in such marked inequality of provision. Amendment 174 would clarify the role of government in revising or developing guidance, so that Parliament has a proper opportunity to debate what is best.
Amendment 175 would create a similar framework for local authorities to ensure that they meet the assessed need for sites in their area in their role in planning, development and infrastructure. Here it is essential that needs for both private and socially rented pitches, transit as well as permanent, are taken account of.
Finally, Amendment 176 addresses the failure to date of many local authorities to meet the assessed need for Gypsy and Traveller sites by giving the Secretary of State the power to make them do it when they are carrying out their functions in relation to planning, development and infrastructure.
In conclusion, these amendments together would at last recognise the validity of that small Gypsy and Traveller population that follow their traditional way of life as full citizens. They would go far to eliminate the neighbourhood friction that comes of their having to live on unauthorised sites. Perhaps most poignantly of all, they would enable proper education for the children who suffer so markedly and in so many ways from the insecurity of constantly being evicted. It would remove a very long-standing injustice to adopt these amendments. I very much hope that my noble friend will do that, or devise amendments that would achieve the same end.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who has long been the House’s champion in these areas and provides us with great leadership. I was pleased to attach my name to Amendment 145, also supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I would have attached my name to all the others if there had been time.
I will put the context of this issue. Noble Lords who follow the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will know that, at the weekend, the biography it focused on was a woman called Elizabeth Canning who was one of the most celebrated criminal cases of the 18th century. She was a maidservant who disappeared for a month and said that she had been kidnapped. A woman identified at that time as an “Egyptian”—what we would now describe as a Gypsy—was then convicted of being responsible for that. if you read the account now, it is very obvious that this was simply a case of 18th-century prejudice.
I reference that case because it focuses on how long Gypsies in particular, but also Traveller people generally, have been part of our communities and lives, and how long the prejudice has gone on. In the 21st century, these amendments seek to make sure that we end some of that prejudice, at least in the structure of our law. We cannot always in your Lordships’ House address people’s attitudes, but we can address the law and make sure that there is provision for the housing needs that are so crucial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has set out most of the technical points. I will make one additional point. This aims to ensure that we have a level of accommodation needs provision for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people across the country that is to the same standards. Some noble Lords might suggest that I am often talking about the need for local devolution and decision-making, but we also want a basic level of standard across the country, which these amendments would provide. That does not mean that a local authority could not do better than the basic standard; this is saying that there have to be standards and there has to be provision. That has to be the crucial starting point.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments and particularly to Amendments 145, 174 and 175. In so far as Amendment 145 is concerned, which requires there to be an assessment, I am not sure that the amendment is actually needed. I have put many local plans through the local planning system, and this has been an integral part of our system. In fact, the inspector has written to us on more than one occasion to say that plans for building, housing, businesses and other environmental goods must be pari passu—alongside and equal with—the requirements to assess Gypsy and Traveller sites. The sense of what Amendment 145 seeks to achieve is already done—and I have the scars on my back to prove it.
As a leader, I have taken my responsibilities for this part of the population very seriously. One of the very last steps I took as the leader in my authority when I joined your Lordships’ House was to commit £1.8 million out of a net budget of £12 million—a significant proportion—to a complete refurbishment and upgrade of a transit site which, when it returned to us from a long lease, needed to be knocked back into shape and made decent. No one understands the importance of this more than I do.
I know that the guidance is listed in Amendment 175, but the custom and practice and effect of these assessments has changed since Covid. That has resulted through mission creep, though well meaning, to a systematic overstatement of the requirements as opposed to previous assessments. I draw noble Lords’ attention to some of the methodological changes. Amendment 174 contemplates a restatement of how we make these assessments and so it is important to lay before the Committee my knowledge of how the methodology has changed.
There has been a material reduction in travelling since Covid. Evidentially the use of transit sites has reduced, and the annual caravan count supports this assertion. The new methodologies that we seem to be sleepwalking into place significantly less regard and importance on the caravan count, a system that has supported the population over many years and has stood the test of time.
There have been other methodological changes. Instead of the face-to-face interviews that consultants engaged by councils have previously undertaken, there has been a switch to telephone interviews. Instead of the rigour and observation of family circumstance and history of travelling, custom and practice now is simply to ask youngsters whether they want a house. It is capturing wants not needs, with leading questions.
This is the point that we need to focus on. There needs to be more rigour as it is leading to a systematic overcounting. If you ask two youngsters whether they would like to have a house and they say yes, and then eventually they get together, the initial need for two is really for only one house, because they got together and are living in the same dwelling house.
I do not want to go through every single enumeration of all the changes, but we need to recognise that there has been a change in methodology since Covid, and the apparent increase in need is partly as a result of those changes and confusion between needs and wants. This is important.
As to my opening remarks, if the inspector places enormous weight on the importance of having a Gypsy and Traveller assessment alongside other parts of the local plan, if there has been a systematic overstatement and misrepresentation then otherwise good local plans could be sent back to the drawing board on a false premise. As the leader of the District Councils’ Network, although I cannot remember the precise example, I recall other districts where they suffered that indignity.
It is not good for the families concerned to have a misrepresentation, it is not good for the local economy to have plans delayed, and it is certainly not good for the national economy with the consequential of stopping building. By all means we must have the counts, but the methods must be robust and evidentially based. We need to get back to the system as it was, tried and tested, rather than the situation we have been sleepwalking into.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support this group of amendments, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I speak on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who has signed her name to all the amendments in this group.
I will not take up a lot of your Lordships’ time. It is a pleasure to support these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and others for proposing them. It is essential that, in this Bill, all communities and sections of society are included. It is important that we make sure that the Bill represents the needs of the Traveller and Gypsy communities.
Amendment 145 makes explicit something that is currently uncertain in the Bill: that Gypsy and Traveller sites must be recognised as part of the housing need when the strategic development plans are drawn up. The need for clarity is absolute and, without it, there is a danger that these communities will fall through the cracks and their needs will not be properly met and accounted for.
Amendments 173 and 174 seek to establish a statutory duty for local authorities to assess Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to conduct those assessments according to clear and consistent national guidance. These amendments are vital. We need consistency in methodologies, which often vary from area to area. These assessments are subject to criticism and there is worry about incoherence in the way they are done. We need to provide proper, clear and rigorous guidance to make sure that these obligations are carried out fairly and equitably across all areas and communities.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will make just one point. While I very much agree on the necessity of accurate and supportive assessments of the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities, alongside that, and as part of that, I hope that the needs of show people will not be forgotten. As a Member of Parliament, I had the pleasure of having quite a substantial show people site, which was developed from what was previously a Traveller site, and they were extremely good neighbours. Their needs should be taken into account. I do not want to see us in a situation where the loss of a Traveller site is treated as a detriment if, as in our case, it is converted for use by show people to come and go on a long-term basis. That actually was very successful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this group of amendments, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. On these Benches, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that Gypsy and Traveller communities have access to appropriate accommodation. However, we do not believe—to put it bluntly—that these amendments are the right way forward. Local authorities already have duties under existing planning and housing law to assess accommodation needs across their communities, including those of Gypsies and Travellers.
To impose further statutory duties of the kind envisaged in these amendments risks unnecessary duplication and centralisation, adding bureaucracy without improving outcomes. We believe that the better course is to ensure that the current framework is properly enforced, rather than creating new and overlapping obligations. For that reason, we cannot offer our support to these amendments; nevertheless, we look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 and 176, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a passionate advocate for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites. I was very happy to discuss this with her yesterday during the debate on Awaab’s law. We have had many meetings on the subject, which I welcome.
I completely agree with the need to ensure sufficient provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to make the distinction between show people and Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. I believe that local authorities can already make a distinction in planning terms between the two. If that is not right, I will correct that in writing. Therefore, local authorities have the ability to do that.
Amendment 145 requires the spatial development strategy to specify an amount or distribution of Traveller sites. However, under new Section 12D(5), the Bill would already allow for spatial development strategies to specify or describe housing needs for Gypsies and Travellers, provided that the strategic planning authority considers the issue to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. The new clause refers to
“any other kind of housing”
the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be part of its strategic consideration.
Amendments 173, 174, 175 and 176 seek to introduce measures into the Bill that would require an assessment of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs to inform local plans and development strategies. The amendment is unnecessary as there is an existing duty, in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of those people residing in, or resorting to, districts with respect to the provision of caravan sites or houseboats. This provision covers Gypsies and Travellers.
Furthermore, planning policy is already clear that local planning authorities should use a robust evidence base to establish Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to inform the preparation of local plans and planning decisions. In doing so, they should pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and Traveller communities and should work collaboratively with neighbouring planning authorities.
We have also committed to a further review of planning policy for Traveller sites this year, as part of which any further changes, including the need for guidance on the assessment of needs, will be considered. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that we will not be sleepwalking into these; they will be evidence based after clear consultation with all relevant bodies, including the communities themselves. As housing legislation, planning policy and the Bill already adequately support the provision of Traveller sites, I therefore ask my noble friend not to press her amendments.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support, as well as for the support given by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe to an amendment covering the principles of this group that was taken very late at night on a previous day in Committee.
I commend the actions taken by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in his own local authority, but, sadly, the evidence I have seen does not confirm what he says about assessment of needs and accommodation provision working well over the whole country.
I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for stepping up for the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, to express the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his welcome reminder of the very similar position of show people.
My noble friend the Minister has shown her usual welcome sympathy for the problems that we have been debating. I am grateful for her comprehensive answers and the glimmer of hope she extends to finding solutions. I know that she knows that I intend to pursue those solutions. I look forward to our further meetings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—(a) list any rivers or streams identified in the strategy area,(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified rivers or streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage, and(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list any rivers and streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 146 and speak to Amendment 354 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough. Amendment 146 would require spatial development strategies to list any rivers and streams within their areas, to outline specific measures to protect them from environmental harm, and to impose a clear responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. Amendment 354 would designate a river or stream as a protected site. Amendment 147, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, similarly requires spatial development strategies to specifically identify chalk streams within their areas.
Amendment 152ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, seeks to ensure that animal welfare is explicitly considered when spatial development strategies are produced. This amendment responds directly to the concerns raised by the Government’s Animal Sentience Committee in its June letter to Ministers, which highlighted that the Bill as drafted does not pay due regard to the welfare of sentient animals. It is crucial that our planning framework acknowledge and integrate animal welfare as a key consideration alongside environmental protections.
These amendments are vital. They recognise the urgent need for bespoke protections for our rivers and chalk streams, which are not only key environmental assets but are deeply woven into our national heritage. I am grateful to see many noble Lords across the Committee expressing the same concerns and recognising the unique value of these precious water courses.
I will also speak briefly to Amendments 148 and 150, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 178, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Amendments 148 and 150 seek to ensure that spatial development strategies include explicit policies to protect chalk streams and take proper account of local wildlife sites. Amendment 178 would ensure that local plans align with the land use framework and local nature recovery strategies. Chalk streams are not merely beautiful and iconic features of our landscape; they are symbols of our natural and cultural heritage. Often described as England’s rainforests, they are globally rare, ecologically rich and uniquely vulnerable, yet they face increasing threats from development pressures, pollution, over-abstraction and the escalating impacts of climate change.
Tragically, none of England’s rivers, including our chalk streams, currently meets the standard of good overall ecological health. This Bill offers a significant opportunity to embed the bespoke protections identified by the CaBA Chalk Stream Restoration Strategy directly into our planning system—protections that these rare waterways so desperately need. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill should ensure that growth is paired with stringent protections for these vital habitats, especially given that, across the south and east of England, chalk streams are already heavily impacted by over-abstraction and wastewater outflows.
In conclusion, can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the Environment Agency’s 2024 event duration monitoring dataset, particularly regarding the role of chalk streams in achieving the Environment Act’s targets to restore our precious waterbodies? I look forward to her response, and I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 147 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and Amendment 148 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, both of which deal with the issue of chalk streams, which has been well touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I give the apologies of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who is unavoidably in Papua New Guinea on a diocesan link meeting. If he were here, I know that he would wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support for his amendment.
There are many noble Lords in this Committee who know a lot about chalk streams. It was interesting to hear the Minister last week say that she knows about them because she has a chalk stream in Stevenage. They are globally significant, and their pristine water conditions and stable temperature are home to some of our most endangered species, including water voles, the long-clawed crayfish and kingfishers, so they really need our protection. I will not go into the issue of where the protections come from, because that was covered so well by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
When this issue was raised in the Commons, the Minister said that these additional protections were unnecessary. I contend that that is the wrong approach. The reasons the Minister gave in the Commons for it being unnecessary to have these additional protections in spatial development strategies were, first, that protection was provided in local nature recovery strategies. For those of us who are familiar with chalk streams, we know that they cross counties, and local nature recovery strategies are specific to individual areas. LNRSs therefore cannot deliver the protection that chalk streams need to cover that cross-county boundary.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Bellingham—who will I think speak later in this group—and other noble Lords in their Amendment 146. I agree with everything that has been said.
Your Lordships may wonder why I am also so keen to support Amendment 147, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who has just spoken most effectively. I declare an interest as the owner of a short stretch of the River Rib in Hertfordshire. I hope the Minister will not suggest that the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 147 is not necessary and will instead consider the arguments for special protection for chalk streams, as was accepted by the Government and supported by your Lordships’ House in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Two years ago, during the passage of that Act, I introduced an amendment designed to support a chalk stream recovery package and provide protection for our beautiful chalk streams as a specific, unique and precious natural resource.
I was delighted at that time that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, put her name to my amendment and spoke in support of it. I hope the Minister will not mind if I quote what she said:
“I am lucky enough to have spent my life living in the wonderful county of Hertfordshire. For those of you who are not aware, Hertfordshire contains over 20% of the world’s unique and special, natural and precious chalk streams.”
She continued:
“If our chalk streams were buildings, they would be UNESCO heritage sites. Let us protect them as though they were”.—[Official Report, 18/7/25; col. 2269.]
Like the noble Baroness, I was brought up in and live in Hertfordshire, and I was delighted that she appreciated the special and distinct needs of chalk streams, which have disproportionately suffered from pollution and excess abstraction. My noble friend Lord Caithness also supported my amendment. We successfully persuaded my then noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, to introduce a government amendment which broadly achieved the same purpose.
Can the Minister now confirm whether the Government intend to set explicit outcomes regarding the protection of chalk streams as specified in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? The previous Government had endorsed the “one big wish” put forward by the catchment-based approach initiative, CaBA, for statutory protection and priority status for chalk streams. Can she also say whether the Government intend to build on and maintain priority status for chalk streams? I think that she has supported the perseverance of CaBA, led by Charles Rangeley-Wilson.
The CaBA chalk stream strategy is very clear that a special status is needed for these globally rare and locally precious treasures, but progress on the strategy has been disappointing, although there has been a petition, “Don’t Abandon the Chalk Stream”, which secured enough signatures to require a government response, and the Petitions Committee of another place has requested an updated response to that petition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained very well just now why chalk streams need special protection, so I will not repeat the points that she so ably made, but I will say that to take specific account of chalk streams in spatial development strategies would allow local authorities to provide a safety net to protect them from the indirect impacts of development where other regimes have failed to do so. Taking chalk streams into account should facilitate the action so desperately needed to curb additional demand for water and make sure that appropriate wastewater infrastructure is in place before development occurs.
The Rivers Trust is right in calling for chalk streams to be defined as irreplaceable habitats. This would minimise direct harm from development and encourage enhancement of chalk streams through the biodiversity net gain regime. The Minister supported these arguments in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I look forward to hearing whether she still supports them in this Bill before your Lordships now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will concentrate chiefly on Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to which I have attached my name, but I shall briefly comment on Amendment 148, very comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Indeed, we have majored on chalk streams and I suspect we will hear a lot more about them. I am just going to cross-reference a contribution I made earlier this week about the River Itchen and the amount of plastics and fibreglass fibres that have just been discovered in new research in that chalk stream. This amendment addresses permissible activities. We do not know where those fibres in the River Itchen are coming from, but we desperately need to think about what activities we can afford to allow and what the planning permission can be beside those chalk streams. The extraction of water is the obvious issue here, but we also have to think about pollution and we really have to apply the precautionary principle to these crucial environments.
Amendment 150 says that a spatial development strategy must take account of local wildlife sites, which is crucial in this terribly nature-depleted country. There are, by a very precise count, 43,992 local wildlife sites, of which we know the status of only 15%. That is what the Wildlife Trusts say. SSSIs have greater legal protection. We know that very often does not work, but these local wildlife sites too often fall under the radar and are not sufficiently considered. They are often stepping stones for wildlife to get from one place to another crucial environment, or parts of corridors that enable wildlife communities to mix, to get genetic diversity, among other crucial factors, so it is crucial that the spatial development strategy totally takes these into account.
I think this also cross-references Amendment 152ZA, to which I shall speak briefly. I am strongly in favour of this amendment and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for bringing it. I am sure that she is going to introduce it shortly, but it is about the welfare of animals being considered in spatial development strategies. We think about such things as light pollution, noise pollution, the cutting off of corridors and the isolating of populations. These things that human developments are doing do not sufficiently consider the welfare of animals, and they very much relate to local wildlife sites as well.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 152ZA and 216A. I hope that noble Lords will not think I am in any way discourteous, but I think that there has been a transposition of numbers on Amendment 216ZA. I cannot find any such amendment in the Marshalled List. I think what was meant was Amendment 261A. I am not surprised if anybody has become confused, with the amount of amendments, so I will speak to both.
The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that the welfare of all sentient animals, both wild and domesticated, is systematically considered within the new planning frameworks established by the Bill. Amendment 152ZA addresses this for spatial development strategies and Amendment 261A addresses it for environmental delivery plans. We all understand the Government’s objectives within the Bill to streamline the planning system, deliver the necessary infrastructure and build more homes. Of course, these are vital aims. However, the Bill contains a significant omission that these amendments are designed to address. It is entirely silent on the welfare of the individual sentient animals living within the environments we seek to develop. This is not simply my opinion; it is also the view of the Animal Sentience Committee, the independent expert body established to advise on whether government policy pays proper regard to the welfare of sentient animals.
In its letter to Ministers this June, the committee expressed significant concern about the Bill. The committee warned that under the current proposals, existing animals—not just species of high conservation concern, but common species such as rabbits, voles or wrens—face severe negative impacts. They
“may be killed directly … by plant machinery … killed indirectly … if their burrows or food sources are destroyed … or displaced to highly uncertain futures”.
Furthermore, planning decisions will have a long-term impact on millions of wild and companion animals. The committee warned that the Bill appears to conceptualise “biodiversity” or “the environment” as abstract entities without recognising that these are populated by individual animals capable of experiencing pain, distress and suffering. Wild animal welfare is aligned with but distinct from species conservation.
Rather than protecting species at the population level, it is about improving well-being at the individual level. In fact, it is interesting that the Government grouped these amendments with others on the protection of rivers and chalk streams today, rather emphasising the committee’s concern that all “biodiversity” or “the environment” is being considered as one homogeneous group. Conscious of the time allotted to the Bill, I did not request to degroup on this occasion, but I assure the Minister that I will do so at the next stage if the Government do not give due consideration. The Animal Sentience Committee’s concerns have been echoed by NGOs such as the Wild Animal Welfare Committee and the UK Centre for Animal Law.
My amendments are designed to implement the recommendations of the Animal Sentience Committee in a constructive and proportionate manner. They are intended not to block development but to ensure that how we build is done responsibly and humanely. Amendment 152ZA would require that spatial development strategies consider animal welfare. It does not mandate specific outcomes and it provides flexibilities for planning authorities. In practice, it could mean such things as considering the impact of development on known wildlife movement corridors and roosting or breeding sites at the concept plan stage; specifying bird-safe lighting and glazing standards for tall or waterside buildings; or the creation of refuge areas with appropriate food and shelter for animals displaced during construction.
Amendment 261A would require that the environmental development plans drawn up by Natural England pay due regard to the welfare of all animals. This is about practical steps at the delivery stage, such as ensuring thorough preconstruction checks for hedgehogs or ground-nesting birds, avoiding key breeding seasons or requiring the humane relocation of animals where harm is unavoidable.
If Ministers are unwilling to consider legislative options on this, I hope they will give serious thought to what non-legislative policy commitments they could make in order to address the concerns of the Animal Sentience Committee. This could include, for example, making a commitment that the Secretary of State will include due regard for animal welfare as a prescribed matter for spatial development strategies or mentioning animal welfare in the regulations that they will establish for Natural England’s duties when preparing an environmental delivery plan. They could also issue voluntary guidelines on wild animal welfare-friendly approaches to planning, infrastructure, development and building. This could build on guidance that has been issued elsewhere—for example, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Good Practice Guidance for Habitats and Species, but with a specific focus on welfare.
However, I hope that the Government have a sincere commitment to animal welfare and will therefore feel able to accept these amendments.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 178, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their support. This amendment concerns local plans. As we all know, when it comes to planning, local plans are really the infrastructure, the plumbing, of decisions on whether stuff happens locally, and how it relates to local nature recovery strategies and land use frameworks. I rather hesitate to speak about land use frameworks and have never talked about them in this House before. The noble Baroness opposite is known as the world expert in this area, and I am sure she will put me right on any detail I have wrong in her subsequent contribution.
Two revolutionary things are happening or are about to happen to how we use our land in England in particular. First, local nature recovery strategies, part of the very enlightened Conservative Environment Act, are now being implemented. Local authorities, primarily—the responsible authorities for local nature recovery strategies—are going through this process at the moment. A handful of strategies have been agreed by Defra and signed off, and I hope the remaining 20 or so will be fairly soon. They are all about attempting to ensure that the decline of nature in our nation, which we are all too aware of, is not only reversed but becomes very positive as we move towards targets such as 30 by 30 later in the decade.
With land use frameworks under consultation at the moment, we are expecting recommendations to come out from government. I think the wish of us all is to ensure that land is used in appropriate ways, that there is multiuse and that dilemmas—or what are sometimes seen as conflicts, such as between food security and nature recovery in our countryside—are not that at all, and everybody works together to the benefit of everybody.
My amendment is really very simple, saying that for nature recovery and land use to be successful—which I am sure this Government and the Minister want them to be—they need to be delivered. Delivery is the key issue and the key challenge. One of the fundamental ways they can be delivered—and they will not be delivered if this does not happen—is if they are integrated into and taken account of well in local plans. That is what this amendment is asking. Huge amounts of work have gone into local nature recovery strategies across England in terms of consultation and the work of local authorities, environmental groups, landowners and farmers. All of that has been enthusiastic and positive, but delivery cannot happen if they are not part of our planning infrastructure.
I am not suggesting that this amendment is perfect; I would clearly fall on the floor if the Minister accepted it as it is, but I ask the Government and the Minister how they will ensure that these two key planks of previous and present government policy can be delivered and implemented through local plans.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has just said about Amendment 178—apart from his remarks about my expertise in land use frameworks. I am not expert; I am just old and have been around the block for so long promoting the idea of land use frameworks that people get confused about whether I actually know anything or not.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, absolutely hit the nail on the head. We have quite a number of new plans concerning land and nature around at the moment, invented by various pieces of legislation and policy, and it is vital that local plans, which are a key vehicle, take account of them. Otherwise, what is the point of doing them? Local plans are central vehicles for the delivery of the land use framework and local nature recovery strategies, which the noble Lord ably pointed out the value of.
I would just question the Minister as to whether local plans will be required to comply with the land use framework and local nature recovery strategies. If not, what will the delivery vehicles be for implementing these important plans, which we have only just agreed were important and are now being worked through? If there is no implementation vehicle, what is the point of doing them?
It would be good also to hear from the Minister what the latest is on the land use framework. The Conservative Party, when in government, promised me the land use framework by Christmas 2022, and then by Christmas 2023. The Labour Government went out to consultation fairly promptly after the election, before Christmas 2024. I was delighted yesterday to hear the new Defra Secretary of State endorse the importance of the land use framework under her new regime. We are again getting pretty close to Christmas. Can the Minister say whether we might see the next version by Christmas 2025?
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 152ZA and 261A tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson. These would require spatial development strategies and environmental delivery plans to take proper account of animal welfare as set out in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. This is not about adding extra bureaucracy; it is about recognising a truth that we often ignore. Planning is not just about where we place bricks and mortar; it is about the choices we make for the land, the habitats and the creatures that depend on them. At present, there is a yawning gap between what is promised and what is delivered.
The University of Sheffield has shown that in new developments, 83% of hedge-grown highways, three-quarters of bat and bird boxes and almost half the promised hedges never materialised. Trees specified on planning plans were found dead and not planted at all. There are fine words in planning documents, but in practice animals are left without space or shelter. This is why the warning of the Animal Sentience Committee must be heeded. In its formal response on 27 June this year, the committee rightly stressed that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill conceptualises biodiversity as an abstract environmental good but ignores the lived experience of sentient animals, which will be displaced, harmed and killed during construction. The image it gave was searing—a bulldozer driving through a badger sett, burying animals alive, justified by the promise of a new sett to be built a decade later, never to be seen. The committee made good and sensible recommendations on welfare impact assessments, construction and timetables that avoid breeding seasons, and practical measures such as swift bricks, wildlife tunnels and hedgerow highways.
The case of the brown hare teaches us what happens when welfare is absent from the statute book. Once abundant in England, hares are now in deep decline because we fail to legislate for a close season. Hundreds of thousands are killed in breeding months, leverets are left to die, and populations are down by 80% in certain areas. If that can happen to such a cherished and loved animal, we should not be surprised that less visible creatures fare even worse.
EDPs risk levies being paid at the expense of impacts on animal welfare. The Bill risks directly impacting protected species, with bats, birds, badgers and hares uprooted from their habitats, distressed, or destroyed altogether. Conservation is not only about biodiversity; it cannot exist without animal welfare.
We must do better. Yes, there is a need for new homes and better infrastructure, but we also want living hedgerows, thriving trees, wildlife corridors that actually function and a countryside that remains alive. These amendments do not hold back growth; they simply hold us to a higher standard of responsibility. By adopting them, we would show that planning for the future is about not only housing numbers but the kind of country we wish to be: one that values progress, but not at the expense of wildlife, and builds for people, while safeguarding the animals which share our land.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 152ZA and 261A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. She and the Animal Sentience Committee raise the important point that the lives of individual animals seem to have been overlooked in the Bill.
When we work in policy-making, we always have to weigh up whole-population decisions—potential benefits to one group against potential harms to another. Of course, we have to do that, but we never forget that those policy decisions involve individuals. We do not forget it when they are individual people, and anyone who has been close to an animal, such as a pet, knows that individual animals have their own emotions—they can experience fear, joy and pain. It is important that we bear this is mind. We discuss animal welfare matters when it comes to pets—we discussed the docking of tails in pet animals just last Friday. Whether it is a pet rabbit or a wild rabbit, they have the same experiences, so it is very important for us to consider whether there are ways in which we can acknowledge that in the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 147 on chalk streams. I was brought up in the Chilterns and I have been studying some of the streams there for a very long time. As other noble Lords have said, they are the most wonderful bits of the countryside, with clear water—which comes and goes, but it is usually there.
I became involved in this when I opposed some of the work that HS2 was doing in trying to drill a tunnel underneath the chalk stream near Amersham. The Chiltern Society, which led the opposition, was very keen that HS2 put some boreholes down to check what the ground was like and make sure that drilling a tunnel close to underneath a chalk stream would not have any adverse effect on it. Of course, HS2, being the rather arrogant organisation it often was, said, “It is not necessary. We know everything that is going to happen there and it is all planned for. We won’t have any special protection apart from the normal tunnel construction”.
Of course, HS2 was wrong and when the tunnel got to underneath the stream just west of Amersham, contamination started, water levels dropped and there was a lack of water supply in some places. It said, “Oh dear”, and did nothing about it. It is all right now—I think it has all been solved—but my point is that if this amendment had been on the statute book 10 years ago, the local people and the experts would have had much more credibility in attacking a government organisation trying to build a tunnel than has happened so far.
There are probably many other examples and noble Lords have mentioned some, but it is important that we map these chalk streams and make sure that they are looked after, because they are very special.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 146, on which I am a co-signatory, and Amendments 147 and 148. I will be brief because we have already heard from three noble Lords who have made very powerful contributions—the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Berkeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. We heard also from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, whom I know worked very closely on this agenda when she was chief executive of the CPRE 20 years or so ago.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, pointed out, 85% of chalk streams are in the UK and they face multiple threats, including the good example we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Very few meet good ecological standards, and we are seeing a series of irreplaceable habitats being put at grave risk.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 147, but before I come to that, I want to say how much I support what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. We need this jigsaw of plans and ideas to work on the ground.
The advantage of being sweeper behind my noble friend Lord Trenchard and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is that most of what I was going to say has already been said. I just reiterate the key point that we are failing to look after our national treasure of chalk streams. We have only about 280 in this country, which run from west Dorset up to Yorkshire, but those represent 85% of the chalk streams in the world.
Chalk streams are paying the price for being located often in some of the busiest areas of the country and they can be subject to both the direct impacts of development—for example, building next to a chalk stream—and the indirect effects of new development, in terms of additional water requirement and water discharges.
Only 17% of chalk stream water bodies are achieving “high” or “good” status under the water framework. It is clear that further work is needed to protect them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the recent work of Brighton University on the Itchen. One of the interesting things about that research—and I hope the Minister has read it—is the amount of tyre particles that were found. Can the Minister please confirm that any developments and infrastructure, including transport, will not create further pathways for contaminated surface water and road run-off to enter chalk streams and the drains, streams and brooks that feed them? Special status is needed for these globally rare and locally precious treasures to drive investment and ensure protection and restoration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, mentioned the local nature recovery strategies. She is right that those in themselves are not good enough and there are streams in Norfolk and Suffolk that are not included within LNRSs. LNRSs cannot account for a catchment-wide approach as chalk streams often span multiple local areas, so it is vital that local authorities work together if we are going to save our chalk streams, and that is why the spatial development strategy is important to them.
In conclusion, these low-energy, globally important river systems cannot simply be moved and certainly cannot be recreated elsewhere, so off-setting any impact via approaches such as the nature restoration fund is impossible. The practical, sensible solution is to give them greater protection where they are and include them in any spatial development plan. When I was in government, I was very pleased to work with the Minister on chalk streams. We worked well together and successfully. The tables are now turned; it is up to the Minister whether she will work with us.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support several of the amendments and will speak to most of them. Amendment 146, the lead amendment, is, in essence, the right approach. The importance of chalk streams has been mentioned. I used to live near the chalk stream in Hampshire, the River Test, and as a Minister I visited many.
I welcome the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about the importance of local nature recovery strategies and the land use framework. My noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Caithness have gently teased the Minister—often it is easy to say things in opposition and then, all of a sudden, you have to face the realities of government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked about the land use framework. A couple of years ago, I wrote quite a substantial LUF. MHCLG—DLUHC at the time—was concerned about the impact it could have on housebuilding, when we were trying to get a combination of food security and the development of homes and the like. The good news is that it was Steve Reed, who was Secretary of State at Defra until a few days ago, who put out this consultation. Now, of course, he is Secretary of State at MHCLG. I hope that, in his new department, he will not put a barrier in the way of the land use framework, and that together with the new Secretary of State for Defra, Emma Reynolds, this can be published as quickly as possible. I am conscious that new Secretaries of State often want to have a look at these things, but I am sure that Emma Reynolds will trust the judgment of Steve Reed and have an excellent land use framework, which should absolutely be incorporated into spatial development strategies.
I will not say more about LNRSs, other than to say they will be one of the most critical things to happen as a consequence of local government. Therefore, it is a no-brainer that they should be an integral part of SDSs.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who tabled the amendment, cannot respond, but I will pick up on that separately. I want to get clarity on permissible activities. I would not want the SDS to start getting into the nitty-gritty of where there are existing rights. For example, there will be challenges around abstraction rights for a lot of landowners and farmers in 2027, when there will be a significant reduction in abstraction. The people putting together the SDS should be aware of that and need to think carefully about how that interplay goes. However, while it should be considered, I am not convinced the SDS should be the way in which permitting starts to happen—though I may have misinterpreted the amendment.
One reason why the Test is the best place in the world to go fishing for various kinds of trout is that it is a chalk stream. It was fishing that got Feargal Sharkey into the whole issue of water. Through my friend Charles Walker, who used to be an MP until the last election, when he retired—it happens to be his birthday today, so happy birthday to Charles—I know that anglers are very protective of those rights and substantially concerned about the water. My noble friend referred to the importance of good eco status. The Environment Agency’s principal measure in assessing eco status is the size of fish—it is a classic measure. There is a reason for that, and, as a consequence, that is why anglers are so involved. I would be nervous if the spatial development strategy started to get involved in aspects of licensing in that regard.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard tabled the related Amendment 355, which is more strategic and will be debated in a later group, but in one fell swoop Amendment 354 would give formal designation and protection status to rivers, which at the moment only 11% of chalk streams have. That is a clever device in order to achieve the outcomes your Lordships would want.
I wish the Minister well in making sure that her new Secretary of State gives a clean bill to what he proposed in his previous role, and that we get the land use framework as a welcome Christmas present, not only for this House but for the country at large.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I make one suggestion to the Minister, if I may. One way of achieving the objective that many of us seek for chalk streams would be to include specific reference to them in footnote 7 to the National Planning Policy Framework. That would carry through very successfully into many other decisions.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope that, when considering how to implement what I hope will be agreement with these amendments, the Government pay close attention to the need to gather much better data than they have at the moment. The financial strictures on the Environment Agency over the last couple of decades have meant that its water quality monitoring is a long way short of what it should be.
I take this opportunity to praise my brother, Tim Palmer, for what he and other farmers on the River Wylye in Wiltshire have done to create their own farmer-owned laboratory to monitor water quality and to take action which has considerably improved it.
There is a lot that can be done, but you cannot take decisions on how things are going to affect rivers unless you are collecting good data, and that is not happening at the moment. If the Government work with farmers to collect better data, they will find that they get better results from this and other aspects of their environmental policy.
The other aspect I want to raise is this. Please can we end the snobbish definition of chalk streams that seems to have crept in during the last Government? I put in a plea for the Lottbridge Sewer, which is Eastbourne’s chalk stream. These little chalk streams that occur in odd places around the hill and the escarpment are important parts of the natural tapestry of life. They need protection just as much as the Test or Itchen. The definition of a chalk stream should be water type and water quality, not whether or not I can catch a big trout in it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As ever in your Lordships’ Committee, it has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments. I thank noble Lords for tabling amendments on the important topics of the protection of rivers, wildlife and animal welfare.
I will pick up a couple of general points. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the Environment Agency’s dataset assessment. I will reply to him in writing, if that is okay, because I do not have the latest update.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that I had said there was a chalk stream in Stevenage. I hope I did not say that, because that would not be accurate. There is a chalk stream just outside Stevenage, in the village of Aston, in East Hertfordshire. I think I remember commenting that I visited there with Feargal Sharkey a few months before the election. We had an interesting discussion with Mr Sharkey about chalk streams. It is not technically in Stevenage—it is just outside our borough.
Amendments 146, 147 and 148 all seek to add new requirements on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection of rivers and streams, notably chalk streams. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I am not responsible for the definition of “chalk stream”, but I am sure it is not just to do with how big the trout are that you can catch in them; there is a much more scientific method of defining chalk streams. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to restoring and protecting chalk streams. They are a source of national pride. As one of Britain’s most nature-rich habitats, they support some of our rarest wildlife, from chalk salmon to trout, and are home to beloved and endangered species. There are just 260 chalk streams in the world and, as one noble Lord commented, 85% of them are in this country, which we can all be proud of.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today with such clarity, conviction and genuine concern for the future of our environment. All their speeches were thoughtful, constructive and rooted in a shared desire to see our planning system deliver not only growth but lasting stewardship of our natural heritage. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for bringing forward Amendment 146, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for Amendment 147. Both amendments highlight the special importance of our rivers and in particular our chalk streams—an issue that has clearly resonated across all Benches.
If the Minister and the Government do not wish to take on board all the excellent contributions from this side, perhaps she will take on board the contributions from her noble friends. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about the importance of chalk streams. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, may deny being a world expert but we all know that she, possibly followed only by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, are the two top experts in this House on all aspects of biodiversity. The noble Baroness has signed Amendment 178 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which calls for local development plans to pay attention to local nature recovery strategies—that is absolutely right; they are key. Local nature recovery strategies would inevitably include chalk streams, so I suggest that, by implication, the noble Baroness is entirely in support of what we are saying about protecting chalk streams, just as I completely support her in protecting ancient woodlands.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that there are 48 local nature recovery strategies. I think only four have been announced at the moment, maybe five, Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s being the last one. So there are about 44 still to go, but Defra hopes that they will all be concluded by the end of this year.
Lord Jamieson
“(12A) Any local plan prepared after the spatial development strategy is in place must not be inconsistent with, or (in substance) repeat, any policies in the strategy.(12B) Where any local plan is subject to representations under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/767) (preparation of a local plan), or a subsequent stage of preparation process, it may continue on the basis existing at the time of that stage of the preparation process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the principle of finality. This amendment seeks to ensure that local plans are aligned with spatial development strategies, while allowing transitional arrangements for local plans already at an advanced stage of preparation.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the two amendments in my name, Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB, concern coherence in the planning pyramid. Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground.
The Bill rightly proposes that spatial development strategies should be aligned with national policies. That is entirely proper, but it is equally important that the whole planning framework—the pyramid, you might say—of national policy guidance, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans is coherent. We must not have a situation where they contradict one another: where an application complies with one part of the system but is rejected for failing to comply with another. That is an issue that—I declare my interest as a member—the previous Government’s London Plan review identified. The conflicts between the London Plan and local borough plans caused issues.
Amendment 150ZA makes it clear that a local plan must not be inconsistent with the relevant spatial development strategy. This does not mean a top-down approach. It does not mean that local plans have to be identical—quite the opposite. They will be tailored to local areas, they may go further in key respects, and they will provide much of the detail that a high-level spatial strategy cannot and should not cover. Equally, those developing a spatial development strategy should be building on existing local plans, not cutting across them.
I also know from my experience as a councillor, having borne the scars of a local plan that took eight years to deliver, that one of the greatest challenges in plan-making is the constant shifting of the planning landscape: new regulations and guidance arriving part-way through the process, forcing local authorities to retrace their steps and start again, causing serious delays. My amendment therefore proposes a point of stability: that once a local authority has reached Regulation 18 stage—that is where you go out and consult on the broad strategy with residents and others on the plan, and that is typically about halfway through to submission—any subsequent changes resulting from a new spatial development strategy should not require the authority to start again; in other words, the clock stops. Obviously, when the local plan is reviewed again in five years, it would take into account the new spatial development strategy. That gives certainty to the council to complete its work.
Amendment 150ZB follows the same principle for neighbourhood plans. Again, it would require that neighbourhood plans not be inconsistent with the local plan, but again, this is not a top-down instruction. Neighbourhood plans will, rightly, reflect local priorities. They may also choose to go further—for instance, by allocating more housing where there is a specific local need, or by setting local priorities that speak to the character of the area. Local plans, in turn, should build on the work already undertaken by neighbourhood forums and parish councils. Here too, there needs to be a fair transition. Where a new local plan is adopted part-way through the preparation of a neighbourhood plan, my amendment provides that there should be a 12-month window in which that neighbourhood plan can be completed on the basis of the previous local plan. That strikes the right balance. It gives communities certainty, avoids wasted effort and ensures that local plans and neighbourhood plans can evolve in step.
Let us be clear, these amendments are not about diluting localism. On the contrary, they are about safeguarding it, ensuring a coherent planning pyramid that does not weaken distinctiveness but strengthens trust in the system and ensures that local voices are heard within a coherent framework where national, strategic, local and neighbourhood priorities reinforce rather than contradict each other. That, I submit, is the only way that we can achieve genuine consistency in housing delivery, infrastructure planning and sustainable development while preserving the vital principle of local voice and local choice. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 150ZB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which he has very helpfully introduced, takes us into the question of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development plans. My amendments in this group—Amendments 154, 161 and 163—all relate to neighbourhood plans, plus one additional issue, which I will raise in a moment.
We are in the territory of revisiting questions which we debated during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Amendment 154 relates to what is presently in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act at Section 97 and Schedule 7. It is a part of Schedule 7. Noble Lords will recall that Schedule 7 has a wide range of planning and plan-making provisions. I think none of them has been brought into force.
With Amendment 154, I have extracted the provision within Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 that allowed for the production of neighbourhood priorities statements. Neighbourhood priorities statements would enable neighbourhood bodies—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood forums—to provide views on local matters such as development and nature. For the purposes of this Bill it would include, for example, environmental delivery plans as they emerge, the distribution and location of housing, facilities and infrastructure, all of which will be relevant to local plan making.
This is intended not to be a neighbourhood development plan as such but to enable neighbourhoods to comment on what are wider plan-making issues and to be a more accessible format for neighbourhood views on development and not require neighbourhoods necessarily to have incorporated their comments on issues in their neighbourhood development plan. It is to allow neighbourhoods to have their priorities stated in relation to the wider development issues. Neighbourhood priorities statements would not, for example, be subject to independent examination or require a local referendum. They would be a means for neighbourhoods to engage with the spatial development strategy and local plan making and the processes involved. They would potentially ensure an overall increase in the engagement of neighbourhoods with plan making.
I keep coming back to the central importance of the plan-making process. We are all, in our various guises, as councillors, council leaders and Members of Parliament, disappointed—and often find it incredibly frustrating—that so many individuals, and sometimes even parishes and communities, have not engaged thoroughly with the plan-making process but subsequently wish to object to what development proposals are brought forward consistent and in accordance with the development plan.
This is an important opportunity to have neighbourhood priorities statements. It is also thoroughly consistent with emerging government policy. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill presently in the other place, in Clause 58, provides:
“Local authorities in England must make appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance”
of a neighbourhood area. That Bill provides for a structure of governance for neighbourhoods It gives us no detail on what functions may be conferred on such neighbourhood government structures. This amendment would positively equip the forthcoming English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill with a very clear function for such neighbourhood governance to provide such a key function. I commend it to Ministers as consistent with their emerging policies in support of neighbourhood governance. They can start to fill in the detail of what neighbourhood governance can achieve.
Amendments 161 and 163 relate to the provisions in Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Those sections have also not been brought into force. Section 98 had the effect of providing detail about the content of a neighbourhood development plan. Some noble Lords who follow these matters about development plans will be aware that the legislation as it stands at the moment, which is essentially Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, includes processes around the development of a neighbourhood development plan but no information about the content of a neighbourhood development plan.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on the Front Bench will recall taking these measures through the House. The purpose was a very clear one, which was largely endorsed—that it would be extremely helpful to parishes, town councils and the like, when they are preparing a development plan, to know what content it should provide for. I will not go through it in detail, but it principally includes the amount, type and location of development, related land use, infrastructure requirements, the need for affordable housing and the importance of reflecting on design. These are all considerations which in our debates on this Bill we have determined are very important. This provision would allow the neighbourhood development plan to contribute to exactly these issues.
Amendment 163 is about bringing Sections 98 and 100 of the levelling-up Act into force. My Amendment 161 would amend Section 100 to make it consistent with this Bill by including powers to require assistance with spatial development strategies and neighbourhood development plans when plan-making.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 167, which stands in my name. It would require future neighbourhood plans to be consistent with national planning policy, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework. Neighbourhood plans, once made, form part of the statutory development plan in accordance with which planning decisions must be made, unless there are other material considerations indicating to the contrary.
Typically, for their first five years, neighbourhood plans attract the protection of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Even if the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, the proposed development is consistent with the NPPF and there is a lack of a five-year housing land supply, a development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan will fail to get permission, so they carry real force in the plan-making and development control system. The problem with this is that, under the so-called basic conditions against which new neighbourhood plans are examined, a neighbourhood plan has only to have regard to national policy, not be consistent with it. There is a world of difference between the two. I am sure that the Minister will have regard to everything that we say in this debate, but I dare say that not everything in her response will be consistent with it. There is a world of difference.
Neighbourhood plans of course have a role to play in what my noble friend Lord Jamieson called the “pyramid” of planning policy, in giving effect to national and district policy, but they should not be able to undermine it—yet that can happen currently. From my experience at the coalface of planning decision-making, as an advocate in planning proceedings, I know that happens with real regularity. For example, a neighbourhood plan can have regard to NPPF policies on greenfield development but then impose more restrictive criteria, making it harder than national policy envisages for developers to get permission on greenfield sites. Neighbourhood plans can self-impose a housing requirement for their area that is not consistent with the NPPF’s standard method for assessing local housing need, thereby downplaying local needs within their area and stifling necessary growth.
With the greater direction on planning policy from central government under this Government—something with which I have more sympathy than perhaps some other colleagues on this side of the House—the risk of neighbourhood plans undermining national policy is even greater. This tends, in my experience, to be particularly prevalent in those areas where parish councils or other neighbourhood planning authorities are well resourced: areas which are wealthy, where the affordability gap is perhaps greatest and where the need for new affordable homes is particularly severe. It is in those kinds of areas where neighbourhood plans tend to have the most deleterious effect on delivering necessary growth.
My Amendment 167 would eliminate this issue by putting neighbourhood plans in their proper place in the hierarchy of planning policy—not letting the tail wag the dog, as so often happens. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that bringing Section 98(3) of LURA into effect would also help in relation to national development management policies, but that would still leave a lacuna in relation to the NPPF. I urge the Government to consider this proposal very carefully. I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Jamieson on his Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 185M, which proposes a vital duty to ensure due consideration of neighbourhood plans. I am delighted that, in discussions on the Bill, we are spending time considering the importance of neighbourhood plans, because they represent the heart and soul of local communities’ aspirations for their areas. They are often painstakingly developed by local people, often without much in the way of expert advice, and the plans reflect the needs, the character and the priorities they want for their areas. However, without adequate statutory backing, these plans risk being marginalised by larger-scale development decisions.
If adopted, Amendment 185M would achieve two important outcomes. The first would be that a planning authority, including the Secretary of State, would have to give due consideration to any neighbourhood plan or, indeed, any draft neighbourhood plan when making a decision on an application for planning consent. If that happens, the voices of local residents, as expressed through their neighbourhood plans, will not just be there but be factored into major development decisions. Maybe that is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others in this group of amendments.
The other outcome of the amendment would be that the Secretary of State would permit a variation to a neighbourhood plan only if the variation were clearly justifiable and unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan that has been proposed in a clear manner. The amendment would safeguard the integrity of neighbourhood plans, preventing arbitrary or poorly considered alterations that could undermine their community-driven objectives.
I suppose that, in the end, it depends how we look at planning. We have had two analogies today: a planning hierarchy from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a pyramid from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and I wonder whether using those images makes us think that the important bit is the apex. I would use a different analogy: our road system. The big NPPF, strategic plans and local plans are like major roads and motorways, but what gets us from one place to another are local lanes and byways—and that is the neighbourhood plans. Those are the ones that matter to people. Once we start thinking of pyramids and hierarchies, I think we tend to think that the top of the pyramid is the important bit, but actually it is the foundations. I have probably said what I need to say about that.
I am in broad agreement with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We went through all of them during the passage of the Levelling-up and Whatever Bill, now an Act. It is important that public bodies are made to assist with plan-making. If you do not, where does that end? The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is trying to get us to think about is that frequently, in my experience, local people engage in planning only when it comes to a practical application on the table for a planning decision on a housing site, a commercial development or whatever it is.
Unfortunately, my starting point is that as a local councillor I often have to say to people that a housing site is already in the local plan and therefore the principle of development has been determined. Often, they will say, “Well, where was our say in this?” I will go through what I and others tried to engage with them and let them know what the proposals were. The difficulty that people often find is that this is a theoretical plan at a strategic level with great big sort of proposals for transport infrastructure, commercial development or housing. It is theoretical, as is local planning, even when it is allocation of sites. People often struggle to engage at that level. In this era of thinking about the creation of strategic planning and local authority local plans, we need to think very carefully about how that information is transmitted to the public.
Amendments in an earlier group on this Bill, probably two or three days ago, were about digital modelling. I think that would bring to life for people land-use planning and the allocation of sites. So that is my only difficulty with the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
The collective impact of all these amendments would create a more integrated and responsive planning system. If we want to put local communities at the heart of engaging with and taking part in responsible decision-making about what happens where they live, neighbourhood planning must be at the heart of that, because it enables proper democratic participation in making decisions about their area for their future. I hope that the Minister will give that a positive nod.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group concern the interaction between spatial development strategies, local plans and the neighbourhood planning system. I absolutely take the point that this must be a coherent system. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the scars on our backs from local plan delivery, we in Stevenage found ourselves in the crazy situation of having had three years of consultation on our local plan and a three-week public inquiry, which is quite unusual, and then having the plan held up for 452 days on a holding direction. That is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about; we have to get over these delays and glitches in the system.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am just seeking clarity. As the Minister knows, many of us in local government bear the scars from changes. The implication of her response is that, in practical terms, someone would not be going to regulation 18 stage in a local plan until they were very clear about what the spatial development strategy was going to be. That potentially means that you end up having a cascade of plans that are entirely dependent on the spatial development strategy, and that will delay local plans and, potentially, neighbourhood plans.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I made it clear that, as an SDS is in preparation, the evidence base and policies being used will become apparent. It is the collaboration between the different elements of the plan-making process that is critical here. Suggesting that we might hold up the provision of a plan is not correct. Regulation 18 stage is a quite an early stage and we do not want to weaken the production of the SDS, given the time it would take to produce the next local plan to be consistent with the SDS. So the evidence for the SDS will be very clear and, if there is good collaboration between all parts of the system, they should not need to wait for the SDS to be finalised even before or after they get to regulation 18 stage. I hope that is clear. If the noble Lord wants to talk about that some more, I am happy to do so.
Amendment 154, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would create a power for neighbourhood planning groups to produce neighbourhood priority statements. As the noble Lord knows, provision for these was one of many measures first included in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. We are mindful of the scale of reform to the planning system with which we are asking local authorities to engage. Later in the year, we intend to set out the detail of our reforms to the system of local plans, and we are wary of introducing further complexity into the new system before it has been allowed to become established. If we were to do so, we would risk undermining both the local plan reforms and the neighbourhood priorities statements, with overstretched planning authorities potentially failing to give statements the consideration they would deserve. For this reason, the Government’s current priority for the neighbourhood planning system is maintaining the existing rights for communities in the new context of strategic and reformed local plans—that is what I was talking about just now. We will consider whether there is a need for reform to neighbourhood planning, including whether to commence the relevant provisions in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, once our wider reforms have taken effect.
Amendments 161 and 163 propose to amend the power to require assistance with certain plan-making in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and to commence the power in Section 98 which makes provision regarding the contents of neighbourhood plans. The noble Lord will, I hope, be pleased to hear that, so far as spatial development strategies are concerned, we are entirely in agreement. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill gives effect to his proposal to add spatial development strategies to the list of plans where assistance can be required.
When it comes to neighbourhood plans, I am afraid I must disappoint the noble Lord. This power was not designed for neighbourhood plans. It is intended to cover plan-making at far greater geographic scale and to obtain assistance on issues with which no voluntary neighbourhood planning group could be expected to grapple, no matter the extent of the assistance. His point about provisions for support to neighbourhood governance in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is noted, but I believe they are intended for a much wider remit than planning—no doubt we will debate what that might be during the course of that Bill. Neighbourhood plans are not supposed to be local plans in miniature, and they should not be treated as such.
As far as commencement of Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are concerned, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that these provisions will be commenced alongside our wider reforms, which we think will allow all the legislative changes to be viewed in the round, rather than having to be pieced together over time.
I turn next to Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am grateful to him, as always, for his constructive engagement and for all his amendments, including this one. He raised important concerns at Second Reading around the potential for neighbourhood plans to conflict with national policy, especially in relation to development on grey-belt land. I assure the Committee that neighbourhood plans cannot be used to prevent housing development and they cannot designate grey-belt land, nor can they unilaterally ignore national policy.
The test of “have regard to” is a well-established one—I hesitate to discuss this with a lawyer of such eminence as the noble Lord—across planning and beyond. It requires serious consideration of the policy and its objectives, and a rational basis for any departure. The starting point for any such test, including in neighbourhood planning, is that the regard should normally see the policy being followed. This point, among others, should be rigorously tested by the examiner during the public examination of a neighbourhood plan. We think this is the right balance. National policy is designed to be flexible. It must be, because local circumstances and needs vary widely, and so it is important that flexibility is maintained.
Amendment 185M, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to insert a requirement into the development consent order process for a Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when making a decision on a nationally significant project, and to allow her to limit variations to neighbourhood plans—that should be “him”, sorry; this was obviously a note written before the change of the Secretary of State. While I agree it is essential that neighbourhood plans inform the Government’s decision-making on these projects, this amendment is not necessary to deliver that outcome.
As the Housing Minister said in the other place, the DCO process has been designed to enable timely decisions to be taken on nationally significant infrastructure projects, taking account of national need and priority, as well as local impacts. Neighbourhood plans give communities the ability to shape and direct development and the use of land at a local level, and play an important role in the planning system. For NSIP applications, national policy statements are the primary policy framework; they set out the need for NSIPs, guidance for promoters and assessment criteria, and guidance for decision-making.
The Planning Act 2008 process provides ample opportunities for input from local communities and local authorities, which I know is the noble Baroness’s key concern. As part of the decision-making process, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters considered both important and relevant; this can include matters of local significance. Local communities can make representations as part of the examination process, which can address whether proposals comply with or otherwise impact on issues of concern set out in relevant neighbourhood plans. Local authorities are fully engaged in the DCO process and are invited to submit local impact reports setting out the potential impacts of the project on the local area. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the local impact report in deciding an application.
As a matter of law, the Secretary of State must decide any application for a development consent order in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, except to the extent that any limited statutory exemption applies. Where there is no relevant national policy statement in effect, the Secretary of State must have regard to specified matters, including the local impact report and any other matters which the Secretary of State considers both important and relevant to the decision. These safeguards, which are already embedded in the statutory process, are sufficient to ensure that Secretaries of State take account of existing development plans, including neighbourhood plans, as appropriate. Where there is a relevant national policy statement in effect, this amendment could serve to frustrate the clear legal requirement on the Secretary of State to determine an application in accordance with the NPS.
This amendment would add another unnecessary requirement to the DCO process, which is contradictory to the Government’s ambitions of streamlining the planning system and the DCO decision-making process. Furthermore, the Secretary of State currently has no role in approving neighbourhood plans. It would therefore not be appropriate to enable him to make variations to them, as this is, rightly, a decision for communities. For these reasons, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
I invite the Minister and her government colleagues to consider, if in my Amendment 167 a requirement for consistency with the NPPF is considered to be too onerous in relation to neighbourhood plans, a middle ground of general conformity. That language was used back in the days of regional spatial strategies; local development plans had to be in “general conformity” with RSSs. It is an established formula that has been considered by the courts already, and it is a stronger direction than “have regard to” but with at least a degree of more minor flex.
I fear that the Minister and her government colleagues overestimate the rigour of the neighbourhood plan examination process. This is not done by independent planning inspectors; it tends to be done by consultants who are in the business of examining neighbourhood plans, so they have a degree of incentive to sign them off. It tends not to involve an oral hearing, being done on paper, and tends to give neighbourhood planning authorities a very wide margin of appreciation in practice. It is a lot easier for neighbourhood plans to depart from national policy in practice than it may appear to be on paper. That is my experience, and I encourage the Government to consider that midway ground between now and Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. I will take it back and reply to him in writing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I start by thanking the Minister for her reply. I reiterate what my noble friend said earlier: it appears that she has had regard to our comments but her response is not consistent with our proposals, and hence I am disappointed with that response. We will take some time carefully to consider these areas of disagreement. Our focus will be on how the planning system can deliver the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised, and how these can be quality homes that people need and that are part of communities and serve them.
Amendments 154, 161 and 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concern the benefits of a neighbourhood priority statement. I completely agree with his comments: producing a neighbourhood plan can be quite onerous, but coming up with a statement of priorities can be done much more readily and be very helpful.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I wrote to the noble Lord during the course of a previous Bill to set out which provisions would be implemented, with rough dates for when they would come forward. I hope he has received that letter.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister. I will review my correspondence; I may have missed it, but I will double-check. I apologise if that is the case.
As I acknowledged earlier, Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground to my own amendments. We are grateful for my noble friend’s contribution and for his determination to drive forward housebuilding and ensure consistency across the planning system. We will continue to lean on his wisdom on these issues.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Through the mechanism of interrupting my noble friend, I say to the Minister that it would be jolly helpful to have sight of those details about when some of the commencement orders might be made. As my noble friend said, we could save ourselves an awful lot of trouble on Report if we knew that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before I comment on Amendment 185, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I will describe my view of a pyramid. A pyramid needs foundations and is built from the ground up; I tend to take that view rather than the helicopter view. The amendment requires that neighbourhood plans be given consideration in the local plan. That is a similar point to my own—that local plans should build on neighbourhood plans. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Baroness Grender
“Identification and protection of green belt(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act, a local planning authority must identify land within its area which it is necessary to protect from development.(2) It is necessary to protect land from development under subsection (1) if such protection would—(a) limit the expansion of large built-up areas;(b) prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;(c) preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;(d) encourage the development of previously-developed land in urban areas. (3) A local planning authority may designate as green belt any land identified under subsection (1) as necessary to protect, including undeveloped land within, and green wedges of land that extend into, built up areas.(4) A local planning authority must prevent any development of land designated as green belt under this section for a minimum period of 20 years starting on the day on which it is so designated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure that a local planning authority can identify land which it deems necessary to protect from development.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for putting her name to my Amendment 157. This amendment seeks to provide local planning authorities with a clear duty and power to protect land that plays a vital role in both shaping our environment and defining our communities. It would require councils to identify within two years the land most in need of protection and, crucially, would offer long-term certainty through its designation as green belt for the next 20 years. We on these Benches recognise that the Government have set out their plans for the green belt in the NPPF, but where we differ is on the freedom of local authorities to release green-belt land.
The character of our towns, villages and countryside is at stake. The green belt has long served as a safeguard against the unrestrained spread of our cities. Without it, the pressure for housing demand and speculative development risks turning neighbouring towns into single sprawling conurbations. Local distinctiveness would be lost, with cherished historic towns increasingly subsumed by continuous development. I welcome Amendment 215 in this group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, which sets out a similar objective. Preserving the gaps between towns helps maintain not only their character but their identity and community. The Minister—who is not in her place—fully understands this, given the protections around her own new town of Stevenage.
This amendment tries to set out a quid pro quo, in effect, for green-belt release, identifying new areas and protecting them over a long period. The amendment is pragmatic rather than dogmatic; it does not seek to prevent all new housing development—far from it—but would firmly direct growth to the right places by requiring authorities to prioritise the redevelopment of previously used urban land, as set out in proposed new subsection 2(d). It would strengthen the case for making full use of the extensive brownfield sites that lie dormant, particularly across our cities. Research from planning bodies such as the CPRE already shows that enough brownfield land exists right now for 1.2 million homes to be built. These sites are often in locations with existing infrastructure and transport. This promotes a principle of “brownfield first”, which we will continue to pursue throughout the progress of the Bill.
Moreover, the new clause proposed in this amendment would provide local communities with a degree of confidence and stability. One of the greatest frustrations, which we all experience when we knock on doors in communities, is the total uncertainty over whether some new development will take up valued local green spaces that will suddenly be lost to it, and that the infrastructure will be stretched beyond its means. By guaranteeing that the newly designated green belt is protected for at least two decades, people will know that, when their council takes action to protect land, the decision is secure over the long term and not subject to immediate challenge or reversal.
Finally, we must recognise that the objectives of housing delivery and environmental stewardship are not in conflict but entirely complementary. Directing resources towards brownfield regeneration helps us in that all-important effort to revitalise high streets, make better use of existing public transport and breathe new life into underused urban spaces, all while protecting the green lungs of our towns and cities. For all these reasons, this is a balanced and necessary amendment that would strengthen local control, ensure sustainable development and safeguard the green belt for today and tomorrow. I beg to move.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 215 is in my name, but I also support Amendment 157 and echo many of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. Amendment 215 would insert a new clause after Clause 106 that would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We have already discussed the importance of design and the impact that the built environment can have on health, productivity and sense of community cohesion, and that we need to put the right house in the right place. This clause is, in part, an extension of these arguments, in that it also looks to preserve the special character of individual villages, and of historic villages in particular. Be it medieval cottages or Victorian buildings, historic architecture reflects an era and the influences that shaped a village.
The UK is known for being a green and pleasant land, with villages and communities that are embedded in the landscape, hewn over centuries of rural life and livelihoods. Many people prefer to live and work in smaller communities closer to nature, often with a strong sense of being rooted in a community. Yet you need only read the debate in the other place to see many Members sharing examples of where some of their villages are no longer recognisable, having grown exponentially, often with housing insensitively tacked on. Members spoke of fields with as many houses as a developer can cram in, with no reference to local styles or consideration of infrastructure, rather than villages being developed organically in a way that existing residents feel comfortable with. Too often, this challenges the rural identity of an area and sounds a death knell for the green belt.
There are key elements that contribute to a village’s identity: architecture; cultural traditions and community narratives; and local pride, with traditions and festivals often reinforcing historical awareness as well as supporting heritage tourism. According to a report by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, heritage-led regeneration projects in UK villages have led to a 20% increase in local business activity, demonstrating the economic benefits of maintaining historical identity. Meanwhile, Historic England argues:
“Understanding the significance of places is vital”.
The risk that the Bill poses is of opening up development so much that we lose these gems or, in the worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless, depressing urban sprawl.
There is a significant threat to the authenticity and continuity of historical narratives that define UK villages and their identity. The Government have reported that between 2000 and 2017, more than 1,000 listed buildings were lost due to redevelopment. How could that have happened? It seems to happen all too easily. I argue that we should afford villages the same protection as towns under the NPPF, to ensure that they can retain their character and charm. This amendment would enable that and I hope it will gain the support of the Committee.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hodgson. At this point, I wish to thank the hard-working Whips’ Office, which, in this combination of amendments, has done an excellent job of tying together two things. I acknowledge just how much of a difficult job we have been giving it with Bills at the moment, with our alphabet soups. I think we should acknowledge that and say thank you.
Amendment 157, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, might have been written after my visit to Belper in the Amber Valley in Derbyshire in about 2012. This was a visit focused on trying to protect the green-belt patch of land between Belper and an adjoining village. The plan was to build across the lot and join up that village and Belper together. It was also for speculative development, as the noble Baroness said, and there was a lot of frustration about that. Then we went to lunch. We were sitting in the café and above us there was a lovely woodcut, a historic piece of art, of an old mill in town when it was in operation. I said to the local party, “What’s happening with that mill?”, and they said, “Oh, it’s derelict and we worry about it being burned down”. We were going to build on the green belt and destroy the village environment, and there was that obvious place where we could have been putting housing, right in the centre of town, where all the facilities were, where there was public transport, et cetera.
I am afraid that the Government often do not seem to understand the point of the green belt, and I think that is clear in the invention of the term “grey belt”. Yes, green belt can be to protect beautiful green spaces, nature, farming land, et cetera, but it is also to prevent communities—towns, cities and villages—sprawling and linking up together. The whole idea of “grey belt” really avoids understanding that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and to support my noble friend Lady Hodgson in her Amendment 215. I will focus on villages.
The Committee will recall that the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the purposes of the green-belt policy, one of which—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, may not entirely agree that it is working—is to restrict the sprawl of large built-up areas. That essentially is where the London green belt really came from. Having absorbed Hampstead Heath, Dulwich Village and Wimbledon and so on, the question was: how far is this all going to go?
Let us accept that but what is interesting is that the NPPF goes on in paragraph 143(b) to say that another purpose is
“to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another”;
“towns” is the key word here. Separately, and I note it because otherwise the Minister would be on my case to refer to it, paragraph 150 says:
“If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt”.
I submit that that is essentially about the character of that village from landscape and related points of view, rather than anything to do with its relationship to any other settlement, or its history.
We tend to focus on the National Planning Policy Framework, but we should bear in mind that it was followed in February this year by further guidance, which in three respects looked at those purposes and tried to categorise the contributions to the purposes in various respects. It is interesting that one of the three purposes is about urban sprawl. It says that
“villages should not be considered large built-up areas”,
which seems obvious, but the point is that the guidance selects villages to be excluded from this purpose. Under “Preventing neighbourhood towns merging”, it goes on to say “towns, not villages”. In the third purpose, relating to the setting of historic towns, it says:
“This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages”.
What have historic villages done to make themselves so unpopular from this point of view? Why are historic villages not important in the same way as historic towns—and, for that matter, historic cities?
Ministers, including the Minister responding to this debate, will not recall previous debates in which I was very supportive of green-belt reviews. We had a green-belt review in Cambridge and, if we had not had one nearly 20 years ago, we would not have the Cambridge Biomedical Campus that we have today—we gave up green-belt land. I declare an interest in that I was Member of Parliament there, so I had to represent both sides of the argument, and I am currently chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, so I have skin in that game too. Nearly 20 years ago, we gave up a significant part of the green belt to enable that to happen. Subsequently, a planning application came through for development to the west side of the Trumpington Road, which would have built on to Grantchester Meadows. We resisted that, because it was not necessary to take the development across the Trumpington Road and nor was it necessary for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The central point is that Cambridge would not be regarded as a large built-up area for this purpose, but it would have reached out and this would have meant the coalescence of Cambridge with Grantchester, a historic village. The same could apply to somewhere such as Bladon, in relation to Oxford.
This is about the coalescence of settlements and a recognition that the historic setting of a historic city, town or village should be protected. Can Ministers agree to continue to look at the definitions of towns and villages, and the way villages are being excluded from any protections, whereas towns are included? This is not an immaterial issue; it has been the subject of a number of appeals to inspectors and they have more or less said—I paraphrase—“Okay, this is a village. It is not a town and therefore it does not have protection”. There are circumstances in which villages should have protection; they have an openness of character and contribute to the green belt for landscape purposes, but in specific instances the nature of that village as a settlement should be recognised in relation to its historic role.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for raising this important issue of village and specific land protection.
We fully appreciate the intention behind seeking to make better use of underused land by the Government, but concerns remain about the potential impact of such changes on the wider countryside and, crucially, on the identity of our villages. Although this matter may not directly be in scope of the Bill, it clearly interacts with it, and I hope Ministers will continue to reflect very carefully on the balance between flexibility in planning and long-standing protections afforded to rural communities.
In particular, I draw attention to Amendment 215, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. This is an important amendment, which states:
“Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate”
to those afforded to towns. I will not go into an explanation, because that has been given clearly and concisely by my noble friend Lord Lansley. However, it is important specifically in relation to preventing villages merging into one another, and in preserving the setting and special characteristic of many of our historic villages, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
We must ensure that village identity is properly protected. Rural communities are not simply pockets of houses; they are places with history, distinctiveness and a character that contributes immeasurably to our national heritage, and to the lives of the people who live there. This is a firmly held view on these Benches. I shall not detain your Lordships’ House by rehearsing our manifesto, but we will continue to stand up for the green belt and for all our villages.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to an interesting debate. As someone who lives in a small village in the north-east of England, I found it really interesting. I am obviously concerned for personal reasons about saving the green belt and looking after historic buildings. When I look out of the window, I can see a grade 1 listed church, so I know the importance of looking after these buildings.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hodgson, for their amendments, which arise, I suspect, as much from our revision of green-belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework as from the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we published the updated framework last December. The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least by checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another.
Amendment 157 would require local authorities to identify land that contributes towards the green-belt purposes, and, once this land is designated as green belt, prevent any development of such land for a minimum of 20 years.
Planning policy is already clear on the ability of local authorities to establish green belts, and provides strong protections against development on green-belt land. As I have mentioned, our revised National Planning Policy Framework maintains these strong protections and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. The framework also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.
However, we know that brownfield land alone will never be enough to meet needs. This is why the revised framework continues to recognise the limited circumstances in which the use of some green-belt land for development may be justified and allow for the alteration of green-belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances.
A new requirement to prevent any development on designated green belt or alterations to green-belt boundaries for 20 years would limit authorities’ ability to respond to changing circumstances. It would override the discretion of the local community to discuss and consider whether existing green-belt land is still serving the purposes of green belt, and how and where to allow new homes or other essential development in sustainable locations.
Amendment 215 would require the issuing or updating of guidance for local planning authorities to restrict the development of villages. I make clear that neither our green-belt reforms nor the green-belt guidance make any change to the long-standing green-belt purposes, which include preventing the merging of towns and safeguarding the setting and special character of historic towns. Our guidance is clear that, when identifying grey belt, it is the contribution land makes to the relevant purposes that should be considered.
This reflects the fact that the fundamental aim of green-belt policy is, rightly, preventing urban sprawl, with an explicit focus on larger built-up areas and towns. The guidance does not remove appropriate and relevant green-belt protections from land around villages. It makes clear that any green-belt land, including land in or near villages, which contributes strongly to the relevant purposes should not be identified as grey belt.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Will the planning policy be changed to include villages? At the moment the protection is for urban areas, not rural areas. If the Government continue to look at changing green belt to grey belt, surely there should be further protection for villages to stop them being coalesced together.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I hope to address that in a little bit—the noble Baroness may think that I will not, but that is the intention.
Local authorities continue to have various other ways to manage development in villages, and neither the Bill nor our policy reforms exclude the consideration of matters such as the character of a village or the scale and style of development, where relevant, in planning determinations. For instance, a local plan may designate local green space safe from inappropriate development or recognise a Defra-registered village green. Historic village character can also be preserved by using conservation area policies, neighbourhood planning, local listing of important buildings or local design guidance.
As planning policy already sets out adequate and appropriate protection from and support for development relating to villages, both inside and outside the green belt, I do not believe this amendment seeking to use green-belt protections to restrict development in villages is appropriate. Neither of these amendments is necessary to protect the green belt or the character of villages, and their statutory nature would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies and make the decisions necessary to ensure new homes and jobs in the right places. I therefore ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I point out that, in the guidance from February, the Government said of purpose D on the setting of historic towns:
“This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages”.
One simple change that would make an enormous difference would be to recognise that that purpose should relate to historic villages as well. Many of our historic villages used to be historic towns. Lavenham was to all intents and purposes a town; you can go to the coast in Suffolk and see towns from the Middle Ages that now are small villages or, frankly, have virtually disappeared. The history is what should be important—not the present size of the settlement.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
From what I understand, the new regulations were to provide clarity on the green belt. As we have said, they are concerned with preventing urban sprawl, but they do not remove villages from the green belt or prevent land near villages being protected from development through green belt designation. Land around villages that makes a strong contribution to these purposes should not be identified as grey belt, for example. We think that we now have consistency with these regulations and that villages and their historic value and character are already protected in the planning process.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank Ministers for spending a great deal of time with us, especially the lengthy meeting this morning after the week we have all had. It is very much appreciated. The characterisation of this as a straitjacket on local authorities is a misreading of the wording of the amendment. It is entirely up to local authorities to identify these areas, and it would provide a level of certainty and trust for local people that they currently do not have, as they believe that future developments will lead to them losing beautiful areas of green belt.
We will want to revisit this issue when we come to Report and work behind the scenes with Ministers and civil servants to see whether we can find a better way make progress. We think it is incredibly important, and we have strong concerns about forcing local authorities to release green-belt land. That, in a way, is the critical issue here. That said, I thank all noble Peers for participating in this group, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Planning: duty of candourAfter section 8A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (The Homes and Communities Agency) insert—“8B Planning: duty of candour(1) A local planning authority who have the function of plan-making and determining applications for planning permission or permission in principle shall, in its interactions with applicants and those who make representations in connection to such applications, operate with a duty of candour.(2) A local planning authority operates with a duty of candour where—(a) in general, it acts in an open and transparent way with respect to its decision-making process in preparing and approving the development plan for its area;(b) in general, it acts in an open and transparent way with respect to its decision-making process in determining whether a planning application should be approved, and in making determinations in connection with the approvals process of such applications;(c) where it has made a decision, including with respect to the approval or otherwise of a planning application, the acceptance or otherwise of submissions or representations with respect to a planning application, or in connection with other activities inherent in the processing of a planning application, it outlines the reasoning for that decision in a way that is—(i) publicly accessible,(ii) written in clear language,(iii) consistent with the Nolan Principles on Standards in Public Life, and(iv) in accordance with national planning policy guidance.(3) An officer of a local planning authority shall, in their interactions with elected members of the authority, operate with a duty of candour in respect of their professional obligations.(4) An officer of a local planning authority operates with a duty of candour where they explain, clearly, accurately and in accessible language, what the rights and duties of the local planning authority are in respect of any application, potential application or development plan matter, regardless of the policies or preferences of the elected member concerned.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, if I may I will start by being grumpy in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others. This is Committee, and it is inappropriate to say, “Before the Minister sits down”. Saying that, as a Back-Bencher, suggests that allowing us to speak again is in some ways a concession on the part of the Minister. In Committee we can speak as many times as we like, whenever we like. That is a right which I do not see much exercised today, but we really should preserve it. On Report we are restricted; Committee is a free-for-all. It is important for getting to the bottom of things that we assert our right as Back-Benchers to speak when we wish to, and do not act as if this is a concession by the Government or Ministers.
Anyway, to turn to my amendment, my object here is to see whether we can make the planning system work better and improve the flow of national planning policy into decisions taken on the ground by imposing a duty of candour on the system. At the bottom end, the duty of candour is a strengthening of the power of officers because it removes from them the pressure to bend their advice to what they think will please the members of their authority, or maybe the public beyond that. It gives them a duty to be straightforward, honest and open about what things actually are. It is a considerable help to an official in dealing with members that they know they have to be clear—that they cannot say things just because they will get it in the neck from members if they do not say what members think they want.
Similarly, it helps members in their dealings with the public if the public know that the members are under a duty of candour to say things as they are, rather than trying to pretend that things are difficult or duck awkward decisions. In addition, operating the system in such a way that everybody knows that it has to be open and truthful, and that what is said is the way things are, is a great help to the public in dealing with change, which is naturally often unwelcome, and understanding how that fits into the development of the country as a whole.
Everybody I have talked to is committed to us having more houses. We want the Government to succeed in their ambitions, but it is often painful when it comes down to individual decisions, as the last group of amendments has demonstrated. There are always reasons not to do something. Having a system that we trust, and really understanding how it works, must be helpful, and having a duty of candour would make a difference to that. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for signing my Amendment 185. This amendment was originally in a separate group but, for the benefit of the Committee, I put it into what I would call the odds and sods group—I am not suggesting that any of the amendments are odd or, indeed, that any noble Lords are sods. Nevertheless, this is about addressing a particular situation where it is right that Members of Parliament should be calm, considered, important consultees on any nationally significant infrastructure projects that are proposed in their constituency. Many constituents fully expect Members of Parliament to have opinions on such matters. I appreciate that, at times, many Members of Parliament will say that they have no say on planning because it is a matter for the council. Well, of course, with NSIPs, it is different: it is a matter for the Secretary of State, who may delegate. It is therefore important that Members of Parliament have, in effect, an automatic right to participate in the examination.
The other thing—this came up for me when I used to be an MP—is that it is not always straightforward when modifications to NSIPs are made once consent has already been granted. That part of the process tends to just fly by with very little awareness but can be hugely significant. There is limited resource for MPs compared to, say, councillors, who can access their council officers in local authorities. For me, this would be a helpful check in both ways: first, being guaranteed not only to be notified of the original application and being able to speak at the various examinations but also to be made fully made of subsequent changes. I am very conscious that noble Lords may suggest that this is a barrier; it is not. It is about empowering the rights of local communities through the inclusion of their Member of Parliament.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 185J, which is on the GDPR, the general data protection regulation, which I am sure we all have to deal with on the internet every day when we make an inquiry on anything. It is around the issue of transparency versus data regulation. As we have talked about before, one of the key things about the planning system is that it has to have public confidence. One of the key ways that it has public confidence is through transparency. When that transparency disappears, it becomes a real issue. This is one of the conflicts that has come out between planning and GDPR.
It really came about in 2017, when Basildon Council—which I do not know well, I have to admit—received a £150,000 fine for disclosures that it made of personal information during a planning application. It was a major case, clearly, as reflected in the fine, but it was due to the failure of the council to redact certain personal information in that planning decision and procedure. The reaction to that from local authorities generally was to go into panic mode and decide that—quite rightly, as far as council tax payers were concerned—they did not want to be seen to be risking public money by making mistakes on procedural issues on planning and by contraventions of the GDPR.
Having done some research on this, as far as I can see, I think that this is the only example or incidence ever of a significant GDPR fine for planning on a local authority. However, I have come across in my local community people who have suffered from local authorities, in terms of planning, particularly in the area of enforcement, going through a process of overredaction or restricted disclosure—in fact, blanket non-disclosure on a number of occasions. This means that transparency is disappearing. People are often unable to find out what is happening in terms of enforcement cases, meaning that community confidence in that procedure and its outcomes is lost. There is also a definite inconsistency between local authorities in how this is applied.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 185, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey.
Only about half a dozen noble Lords in the Committee at the moment have previously served as Members of Parliament. From my own experience, there is nothing more annoying as an MP than to find constituents writing to you about some planning development that you know nothing about when other stakeholders have been notified. The Member of Parliament must then ask the council, the Government or the agency what the issues are about before forming a view on it and either supporting the constituents’ concerns or not. Constituents simply do not understand why MPs are not already in the loop. That diminishes their status when it seems that every other Tom, Dick and Harry has been on the stakeholder consultation list.
I appreciate that this amendment is narrowly focused, with a much smaller range of stakeholders. However, the issue here, as my noble friend has said, concerns nationally significant infrastructure projects, where the Secretary of State is the decider. Therefore, while MPs might not be on the general planning consultation list, it would be reasonable for them to be on the list for these nationally significant infrastructure projects. The principle is the same. That is why I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 185SG, can I thank colleagues from all parties across the Committee who have supported me, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is in Birmingham today?
I declare my interests relating to this amendment. I am the chairman of the 360 Degree Society. This is a national social business that is applying the lessons learned from over 40 years of practical work in east London to community developments across the UK. Today, my colleagues and I are focusing on integrated development and placemaking, with business, public and social sector partners. The relevant business partners for this amendment include Barratt Redrow, Kier Group, Morgan Sindall Group, HLM Architects, the NHS and various local authorities.
This amendment is aimed at preparing the ground for and supporting the Secretary State for Health Wes Streeting’s 10-year plan for the future of the health service as he seeks to move services out of hospitals and into the community. It is my view, and that of my colleagues with many years of experience, that the health service needs to get upstream into the prevention agenda and move services out of expensive hospitals and into the community. This Planning and Infrastructure Bill is about not just housing but building truly joined-up places and cultures, where families want to live and where communities can thrive. It is my experience that the built environment and culture are profoundly connected. We really are the places that we live, work and play within.
Many of our inner cities and their fractured communities show the social costs of getting this wrong. This Bill and this amendment provide us with an opportunity to nudge the right direction of travel in a practical way, and it comes at a crucial time. So many previous attempts by government departments to encourage a more joined-up approach to development at a macro level have failed. I suggest that the opportunities to join the dots that make a real-world difference are in the micro, at place.
This amendment seeks both to support the Government’s desire to build 1.5 million homes and to ensure that we learn from the mistakes of the past. We need to create more joined-up services and communities and move beyond rhetoric into practice.
I could take noble Lords to so many places across the country where services are literally hiding behind their own fences and are not joined up, either physically at place or structurally in a co-ordinated operating culture. The main players barely know each other on the same street, yet they all work with the same families. This is an expensive disaster that continues to replicate. It needs to stop.
In new developments, we are still witnessing on the ground a fragmented health and community infrastructure. Not only are they not creating a sense of place but they are in danger of unintentionally repeating many of the same mistakes of large-scale housing developments of the past. We could be in the 1960s or 1970s: soulless housing estates, created by both the private and public sectors, that generate well-documented social and economic problems over time. Local communities need a soul and beating heart at their centre.
In the modern world, health is everybody’s business. It is no longer a matter for just the medical profession. The focus now rightly needs to be on the social determinants of health. We urgently need to build more joined-up social and health developments in local communities and neighbourhoods. In front of us is a real opportunity, as this Government commit themselves to building 1.5 million homes, to rethink the social, health and welfare infrastructure in these communities, and to bring together housing, health, education, welfare, and jobs and skills, truly encouraging innovation and more joined-up approaches.
Lots of research out there gives endless data on why all this makes sense; we just need to start doing it. One housing association’s social prescribing programme supported 277 people and reported a 90.8% change in their well-being. Mixed-use developments that blend residential, commercial, health and recreational spaces stimulate local economies by attracting businesses, creating jobs and prosperity. This research shows that the proximity of services encourages residents to shop and dine locally, creating a self-sustaining economic ecosystem. Siloed housing schemes are not only less effective but more expensive in the long run.
This amendment seeks to encourage closer working relationships between the public, private and social sectors so that, in this next major building phase, we actively encourage innovations, best practice and greater co-operation between these sectors. We cannot force people to work together, but we can actively encourage them to do so. We need to create learning-by-doing cultures across the country, which share best practice, as we set out on this new, exciting journey of housebuilding and infrastructure.
This amendment is a first attempt to find a form of words that encourages greater co-operation at place between the place-makers. The wording is not perfect and I am sure we can improve it, but it allows us to have a cross-party debate about the siloed machinery of the state that is not delivering the change that people want to see and experience. Very good people from different political parties have attempted, over the years, to mend these disconnects at departmental level. I have worked with many of them and this has proved really difficult to do. This amendment offers a simple, practical solution that encourages a direction of travel and a clear steer to practitioners and people of good will on the ground.
In my experience, what really counts when it comes to innovation and change is not diktats from government or more process and strategy, but transparent, joined-up, working relationships between partners involved on the ground. The siloed world of government is increasingly not fit for purpose and is daily hindering the very relationships we now need to bring together and help flourish.
The 360 Degree Society, which I help run, has a proven methodology that is enabling co-operation between major parties involved in place-making from the public, business and social sectors, and residents. There seems to be a consensus around what Wes Streeting is proposing for the future of the health service. We are at a moment where the players in local authorities, the NHS, the social and private sectors and housebuilders want to build a more joined-up world. We have all talked about joining up services and cultures; this amendment provides a practical next step on this journey.
Some of this is about ensuring that community infrastructure is an integrated part of large-scale developments and is created early on, rather than the last element to be built, but also that a much wider range of partners are involved in creating high-quality new places where people are healthy and can thrive and prosper. The 360 Degree Society, which I lead, has created a social value toolkit to explore the practicalities of how to do this. To take just one example, we suggest getting beyond the often confrontational, usually purely transactional approach between developers and local authorities and special interest groups to get to a place where there is a genuine commitment and endeavour to agree a shared vision for the place.
Our experience suggests that this is partly achieved by surprisingly straightforward changes, such as developing human relationships between key players and focusing on them. When we get to know someone, rather than just reading their papers and emails, it is surprising how often a way forward can be found. Relationships with the key players, rather than consulting and engaging absolutely everyone, are part of a way forward we suggest. The purpose of this amendment is to help create the appetite and desire to encourage colleagues to take this approach and encourage innovation in this space.
I was in east London recently, in a multi-million pound development. I was met by an African mother with two rather beautiful children. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent; the health centre is at one end of the estate, the community building at another, the nursery somewhere else and the school somewhere else. She described how her child was already picking up needles in the play area and she showed me a small video of two youths outside the housing association office jumping into a van and stealing the contents. The culture was already starting and I can imagine this mother already wondering—these estates need strong families —whether she was going to stay.
Let me briefly share with you a practical example of what success looks like in practice. My colleagues and I do not like papers; we tend to build practical examples with partners. In 2007, I was asked by Christine Gilbert, then CEO of Tower Hamlets Council, who went on to run Ofsted, to lead what became a multi-million pound development in Tower Hamlets, following a murder and considerable violence between two warring white and Bengali housing estates. The details of this development are in Hansard, because we debated it in the levelling-up Bill, but the basic points are: you had a failing school with a fence; next door, a failing health centre with a fence; attempts to build 600 homes that had spent £3 million on schemes, with not a flat built; and two warring communities, one Bengali and one white.
My colleagues and I spent time building relationships with local residents and with the local authority, the NHS and the housing association—top, middle and front line. We started with no investment and we have rebuilt a £40 million school; a £16 million health centre; 600 homes, with 200 for sale; and now a new primary school. In June, Professor Brian Cox and I did our 13th science summer school, and he led a masterclass at the end of the day; this school had involved 695 children and, at the end of the day, a group of them in a masterclass debated quantum physics—an extraordinary experience.
What were the lessons learned? First, it was not about structure but about people and relationships—
Lord Mawson (CB)
I am just about to finish. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, told us on Tuesday that there is a rising tide in this space. My suggestion is that we all need to grasp the moment or we will lose it yet again. The foundation stones need to be laid now. Let us take the first step together. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the Committee for jumping ahead of him in speaking to my noble friend’s amendment. I had not clocked that he was due to speak and that it was his amendment. I apologise for my discourtesy.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and I shall add a very brief footnote to what he has just said.
It of course makes sense for there to be co-operation and co-ordination between public authorities as they develop community infrastructure. Otherwise, as the noble Lord has just said, you get housing estates without the shops, schools and medical centres that are needed. A local plan would normally do this. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify which authorities do it best. It is some time since I was a Planning Minister, but it was certainly the case that some planning authorities were exemplary in how they led the planning system and others fell far behind. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify the leaders in the field, publish the best practice and invite local authorities to follow that best practice. That seems to me to be in everyone’s interest, because the whole planning system depends on high-quality, up-to-date local plans. The amendment is seeking to do that. If a new clause is a step too far for the Minister, perhaps it could be incorporated into the NPPF or other guidance.
I shall say a final word on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment about involving local MPs, which in some cases is linked to what I have just spoken about. Her amendment would simply add the local MP to the list of interested parties in a development that has national implications. It would not give them any additional rights; it would simply ensure that, if there is a development, one of the people who has to be notified is the local MP. My noble friend Lord Blencathra outlined the case very well. Any sensible developer would have involved the local MP at a much earlier stage, so I see this as a long stop, so that if for any reason the local MP has not been involved he is not at a loss when the local paper rings him up just before deadline asking him whether he has a view on what has just been proposed. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible amendment, and I hope the Minister is able to smile on it.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points on these amendments. They are a wee bit difficult to link up in some respects. I understand that most of them are about providing checks and balances within the system, or as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, framed it, more transparency.
I support the broad principle of these amendments, including the duty of candour, if we can refine that in the planning system. On Amendment 185SG, the key is getting public authorities and local authorities to work together. I support public authorities having a general principle for their schools, health authorities, hospitals or whatever, provided that it gives enough flexibility for local areas to make decisions, which might be different in a rural area from decisions in London. We need to make sure there is that flexibility.
Finally, we need to ensure that it does not delay the processes. Sometimes, if you put additional checks and balances in planning, local authorities will use them as an excuse for why there is a delay in a planning decision being taken at a much earlier stage. In broad principle, I support the basis of these amendments, but we need to make sure that they would not delay the processes.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I will make a few quick points in the absence of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made his own points very well, so I will not repeat them.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I imagine most MPs recognise that their local councils put all their planning applications online now, and a quick look online on a Friday afternoon by a researcher might find exactly what has gone up that week without the need for any change to legislation. But I understand how it feels when someone gets in touch with you and you do not know; I recognise her dilemma.
We wholeheartedly agree with the impassioned plea from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about consultation and communities. However, when things get as bad as the estate that he described, it has gone way beyond the need for planning to put it right. It sounded more as if it was heading towards the Bronx or similar, and in that sort of instance other processes have to kick in. I was tempted to add the rider, “Other consultants are also available for this work”—I thought he did a good advertising job there.
The amendment that I really want to turn to is Amendment 158, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand where he is coming from, but, when I read the amendment, I felt that the planning authorities actually do all those things and try to act appropriately. The whole list that he put in his amendment—I will not read it out again—is, in my experience, what they plan to do. I guess what he is getting at is that he has experience, as have I, of officers being leaned on—those are the words he used, but I would go so far as to say that sometimes they are bullied—by politicians into making decisions.
Thanks to the last Government’s work, carried on by this Government, we now have a lot more information about what is going on in planning committees—we have statistics and things that actually tell us what is going on. If you read the planning press, you see that it is clear which authorities, be it members or officers, are not functioning properly. There is help out there for dysfunctional councils in that regard. A council that will remain nameless was in that position and got a very poor peer review, but then at a council meeting all said, “We don’t agree with this poor peer review”. I guess the question then is what happens next when councils really are failing.
Officers are really good. The amendment makes it seem as if it is black and white, but planning officers understand the role of politicians in the planning procedure—they understand political will—and recognise that they have a legitimate role in what is happening in planning. I have had many a discussion—when I was a councillor, not a mayor—where I have said what residents feel, and the officers have said, “Well, you could say that, but…”. They are good at understanding that you have a role and want to help. They are professional. However, when discussing specific cases, officers make you realise that there is nuance. Interpreting a planning rule is not black and white but very grey. People might say, “It says the gardens have to be this big”, but the officer’s response might be, “The gardens are a bit smaller but do other things that are better and more than we expect, so we’re going to give it planning permission”. It is not simple; it is all a question of nuance and interpretation.
I am quite confident that the system should work if things are done as they already happen. My concern sometimes, when things are demonstrably going wrong or exposed to be so, is what happens next.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 158, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, sets out the principle that local planning authorities should operate under a duty of candour. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that many, if not most, local authorities operate very good planning services and do what I believe my noble friend is setting out.
However, I agree with my noble friend that there would be a benefit to this. I think it would support planning officers in their job, because they would not be so arm-twisted by others outside—and not just by councillors; I can think of some developers and others who do some arm-twisting at times. This matter is important. Communities need confidence that decisions that shape the character and future of their towns, villages and cities are taken in good faith and that the process is accessible, transparent and fair. The amendment makes a constructive contribution to this discussion.
On Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as a councillor I agree—I think all of us ex-councillors here will agree—that we have frustrations as we know how it ought to be, but it is not. I remember having a very long conversation with people at my local hospital about some things we were seeking to do, asking why they could not move this, or do this or that. They basically said, “We would love to work with you and do it, but every Monday morning we get a call from the chief executive of the NHS and all he wants to know is about delayed transfers out of hospital”. Doing something that would fix a problem in six or 12 months’ time was not on the priority agenda.
This is a big issue with all public bodies: they all have their own priorities and all operate in silos, as has been so eloquently made clear. Placing a duty on public bodies and authorities, not only to follow best practice but to co-operate, could be very beneficial in coming up with better communities and better plans for our areas. This is a vital point. We need joined-up thinking, collaboration and co-ordination. They are not optional extras; they are fundamental. There needs to be some mechanism or tool that makes it very clear for those public bodies that they need to co-operate. I emphasise that sometimes it is the local authority that gets criticised when, in many instances—I would say the vast majority of them—it is about the inability to convene the whole public sector and quasi-public bodies together. Therefore, I am very supportive of the sentiments of this amendment.
Amendment 185J in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises another practical and sensible point. I appreciate it is a probing amendment, but the issue of GDPR is a crucial one within local government. Again, I can say from personal experience—my noble friend Lord Banner made a comment earlier about the precautionary principle—I find that officers generally have a precautionary principle and will move to the safest option. That is not necessarily the most transparent option. If there is clear guidance that gives them clarity about where that line is, that could be very helpful in enabling officers to do their job better and more transparently, while securing, quite rightly, the privacy of residents and the public.
I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling Amendment 185. There have been a number of comments on this. As set out in Section 102B of the Planning Act 2008, a person within category 1, if they are the owner, lessee, tenant—whatever the tenancy period—or occupier of the land concerned, whose property may be subject to compulsory purchase acquisition under a development consent order, is automatically deemed an interested party. They have notification rights and a statutory place in the examination of an application. The amendment would extend this category to include any Members of Parliament in whose constituency a proposed development is to take place.
I completely agree it is appropriate that MPs know what is going on within their constituencies. However, such a change would give them a formal role in the process rather than relying on access through public channels or discretion. It might alter how MPs engage with nationally significant infrastructure projects, including those that are more contentious. I can see the case and recognise the change in balance between local involvement and the national framework of planning. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position. Do they see merit in giving MPs a statutory role in this way? How does that sit with the strengthening of local voices within planning law?
In closing, I thank all noble Lords for raising important questions of candour, co-operation and transparency. These are not just procedural matters but go to the heart of how we deliver in this country—how we build trust with communities and ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments, and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Candour, co-operation and transparency are key issues in planning.
Amendment 158, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to impose a duty of candour on local planning authorities and their officers when carrying out planning functions. This Government completely support the principle of this amendment. It is important that local authorities and their officers act with candour when carrying out their duties. I hope that I can provide the noble Lord with assurance that this amendment is not needed.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply.
The common theme between the amendments is empowering officials to do their job well. I will pick up an example from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. If an official in the local hospital is only looking up the line to someone in the health department, it is very hard for them to take into account the needs of other aspects of the community.
If there is something in law or secondary legislation—whatever it is, I look forward to seeing it—that the Government produce that says, “You must consult, you must talk to these people and you must take them into account”, that empowers the official to do so. It does not make it happen, but it sets out a structure where we can communicate properly between silos. We can get things done as a community and not in little bits.
I am sure that we can all think of examples of where things would have been done much better if the community had been involved. In fact, we do not need to look much further than our own front door. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has a lot of experience with construction, but when I took one of my friends who is in the industry through the front door and asked him how much he thought it cost, he was at about a 50th of what it was. We were not involved; the community was not consulted. This has been done to us; we were not part of that decision. The same applies to our “HMP Westminster”-style enclosure. I therefore really encourage the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, to work with my noble friends Lord Hayward and Lord Forsyth to see whether we can get our own mechanisms to be rather better than they are.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I have commented on the door and had conversations with various people around the House, which was very fascinating as a parable of this problem.
Christine Gilbert was a very good local authority leader who understood the limitations of the state and understood that just the processes and systems alone would not get us there. Something else needed to happen in which the local authority, the NHS and the normal players were obviously key partners. It was about the people and relationships; the machinery was not going to get us there, and she understood that as a very capable leader.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I also felt that the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was good, but I would be grateful if he could send him and us a link to the guidance that he referred to so that we can check through it and understand how it works before Report. In the case of my amendment, I await the Hillsborough law. If it can do what Amendment 158 is setting out to do and a lot more across government, it will make a huge contribution. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
“Local planning authority duty: statutory environment and climate change targetsIn the exercise of any of its planning or development functions, a local planning authority must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for supporting me in this amendment, which would give a statutory duty to local authorities to promote climate change and nature recovery targets. It would specifically ensure that planning decisions actively supported climate adaptation, mitigation and nature recovery, thereby helping us to deliver our legally binding targets for net zero and the restoration of biodiversity.
We know that local authorities play a fundamentally important role in meeting our net-zero and nature restoration targets, because planning decisions fundamentally determine where infrastructure goes. We have to think not just about houses but about transport, which is responsible for half of our climate change emissions in the UK. Our land use determines whether we are providing the necessary homes for nature.
It is not just us making this case: the Climate Change Committee in its report to Parliament last year argued strongly that net-zero objectives should be consistently prioritised in planning decisions. Many businesses have been arguing for some time for a statutory duty in this regard, in order to provide policy certainty and encourage the necessary investment in net-zero and nature recovery objectives.
When the Government produced its Statement on the climate and nature crisis on 14 July, Ed Miliband said that
“the actions we need are not just about Government, we are also determined to help communities take climate and nature action in their own area … supporting mayors and local government to accelerate action”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/25; col. 31.]
This amendment would do just that.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 164 from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who has laid out the case very clearly. Local planning authorities are vital if the Government and we as a nation are going to achieve the legally binding targets and programmes for climate, environment and biodiversity listed in the amendment. We are likely to have this debate on multiple occasions over the next few months and years. Of course, we have already gone through this process of debating why major bodies—new bodies in legislation or bodies whose legislation is being changed—should have the opportunity of a statutory duty to promote these issues.
We had some success in this House in giving such a duty to the Crown Estate. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, played a sterling role there, and although it was not actually adopted in the legislation, it was included in the guidance to the Crown Estate. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, had he been in his place, would have been reminding the Committee that he, of course, has a Private Member’s Bill that would do the job in a sort of bulk-buy fashion and give a whole list of the key implementation public authorities a similar duty in one fell swoop. It would be absolutely the right way forward if that private legislation were adopted by the Government and put forward as a government Bill, because that is the most efficient way of doing it. Otherwise, noble Lords are going to have to listen to the likes of me, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, bang on about this sequentially as each body comes forward, until such time as we have debated the whole lot.
So, I commend this amendment and issue a stern address to the Government that accepting the Krebs Private Member’s Bill would be a splendid shortcut to the right destination.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Young, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for supporting this amendment. It is something of the usual crew, and “Green Member gets up to support climate and biodiversity action” is, I know, not terribly original, but I just want to make a couple of specific points. One is that there was a climate reporting duty on local authorities until 2010, brought in by a previous Labour Government. This amendment is seeking to reinstate something that Labour Governments brought in.
Repeated calls have come from the Climate Change Committee, businesses and the independent net zero review for a statutory local duty on climate, which is what this amendment aims to introduce. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred memorably to the “NERC Act”, a phrase I had not heard before; I think I will call it the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, because it is perhaps a bit clearer. It links with the Environment Act 2021, and research on the implementation of it is clear—it exists but it is all terribly obscure, and people are not catching up with it. This amendment introduces something very clear and simple.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, this is a debate that we keep having, so let us bring in a climate duty. Your Lordships’ House has had some real success over the years in having impact on Bills. I can go back to the pensions dashboards Bill, which will predate quite a number of people sitting in this Chamber. It was the first Committee stage I ever worked on, and we were trying to get climate measurements into the pensions dashboard. We really need to get to the point where your Lordships’ House does not have to keep doing this Bill after Bill. I know the noble Lord is concerned about the rate of progress, but if the Government put this in at the start, we would save a lot of time in your Lordships’ House.
I want to make one other crucial point. Local authorities have clear statutory duties, including a growth duty under the Deregulation Act 2015. There is a real imbalance between the fact that they have this growth duty but not a duty to look after the environment, climate and nature. Whatever I may think about growth, if you do not have a healthy environment, if communities are being battered by heatwaves, floods and droughts and you are not doing the climate mitigation you need to do, then you are not going to get the growth. These two things have to fit together.
We are all well aware that different parties with different views are coming into local authorities now, but this is a communal responsibility. Loss of biodiversity does not stop at county or district boundaries; climate change does not stop there either. All local authorities must have the duty, so that everyone is looked after. We cannot allow some people a free ride.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, this is a crucial amendment, not least for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put forward. We are going to go on about this until we have an overall demand that this is how we think about matters. We have to recognise that unless we make all our decisions in the context of recovering our biodiversity and protecting our nation and the world against climate change, we are going to make a mess of the decisions we make. That is absolutely central.
I know the Government will be inclined to say it is already there—it is in the guidance, and it is all very proper—but I am afraid that there are many in local authorities who do not see this as the priority it ought to be. I really must ask the Minister to think seriously about the fact that every local authority at least must know that it has to think about things through this lens, because it is the most important lens for all of us.
I live in, and used to represent, a very agricultural constituency, and anyone who has seen the effect of the drought on all our farms at the moment will realise just how desperate the effect of climate change is, particularly for farmers who, only 18 months ago, could not get their crops out because of the water and could not plant because it was still too wet to do so.
People do not understand the impact of climate change today—it is amazing. I am upset and concerned that the good common view of all major political parties is beginning to be eroded. Only by working together are we going to solve these problems. It is no good just saying, “Oh well, we can put it off. We can’t do it by this or that time”. I congratulate the Government on sticking to the fact that we have to do this very quickly indeed. The trouble is that the timetable is not in our hands. We have allowed the timetable to be led by the fact that nature is now reacting to what we have done, and doing so in an increasingly extreme way.
I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and consider an overall view of this in a whole lot of other areas, so that we do not have to have this discussion on a permanent basis. Frankly, it ought to be the given for everything we do that we look at in the light of the fact of climate change. If there are Members of the Committee who have still not seen this, I remind them that it is necessary for growth. If we do not do this, we will not be a country in which people will invest, and we will not have new jobs or the kind of society, nature and climate that will be suitable not only for our children and grandchildren but for us. At my age, I can still say that we have to do this, otherwise the climate in which I will go on living will be increasingly unhappy for me, and for my children and grandchildren. Please accept this amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Amendment 187A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to probe the practical meaning of the new definitions, particularly the “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation” of climate change. Repetition signals importance; the fact that the same definition appears three times in such a short clause suggests it would carry significant legal and practical weight. That makes it vital that Parliament understands precisely what is meant. These terms, though laudable, are broad and open to interpretation. Without clear parameters, they risk being applied inconsistently by different authorities. If undefined, in unmeasurable or unenforceable terms, they could slip into the realm of aspiration rather than action, undermining their purpose as guiding principles for planning and infrastructure decisions. Ambiguity would not only weaken decision-making but could result in delays, disputes and costly appeals.
I appreciate that the Government’s Amendment 187 is not grouped here, but it is relevant. That amendment creates a new clause clarifying the relationship between different types of development corporation, ensuring that any overlap is resolved in favour of the higher tier authority. Will the Government consider committing to something similar in relation to these definitions, so that we secure the same kind of clarity and consistency?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for that short but important debate. Climate change affects everybody. Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I live in a rural area and when taking the dog out for a walk during the summer I could see that the crops were not what they should be. We know this affects everybody in their everyday lives. It is something that this Government, with our net zero policies, et cetera, take very seriously.
Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would place a statutory duty on local authorities to contribute to targets set out under the Environment Act and Climate Change Act and to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act, and achieve targets set out under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.
We already have existing tools and duties that support efforts to contribute towards targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act, so there is already a legal requirement. The latter Act requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy, as well as to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England. Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, drive clean growth, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, and it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a statutory duty would bring.
Lord Deben (Con)
The noble Lord mentions the local authorities that are doing the job but he does not mention the local authorities that are not. It would not do any harm to increase the pressure on them—it would do a great deal of good. I was a Minister for 16 years and I know the case he is putting forward. It is a very interesting case, normally pressed by civil servants, who say to the Minister that we really do not need this as we already have this, that and the other. I say to the noble Lord that it would not do any harm, and it may well do some good and might remind certain local authorities, such as Kent and Lancashire, that they ought to be doing this instead of doing exactly the opposite and saying that they are doing the opposite. This is the moment to remind them.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I very much appreciate what the noble Lord said, As I said, these requirements are a duty on all public authorities, and I am sure we will keep revising this. We know how important it is that we get this right. We will continue to press it with local authorities and all public organisations to achieve that end.
Amendment 187A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to probe the need to make additional climate change provision in respect of the new towns development corporation. This model is currently the only one that has any climate change objectives built into its legislation. Through the Bill, we are going further by including climate change mitigation and adaptation in the already existing aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The same objectives will be replicated for all the other development corporation models which currently have no specific objectives in relation to climate change written into their legislative framework. Where development corporations are conferred the role of local planning authority for local plans, they will automatically fall under the planning legislation duties which place specific obligations in relation to sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, not all development corporations will take on the local planning role.
With this in mind, regardless of whether the development corporation takes on planning functions, they will all be required to meet this objective. The UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme weather events. The effects of extreme weather and nature loss are already here and have impacted all our lives. But there are small wins which can have a big impact. By updating the current framework and making it consistent across the development corporation models and the National Planning Policy Framework, our message is clear that we will place sustainable development and climate change at the heart of all development corporations and guide the use of their powers.
I hope my explanation has reassured the noble Baronesses sufficiently, and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
To be clear, my point was about the clarity of those definitions and whether they could be somewhat better defined, referring in particular to “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation of climate change”. It was not about climate change in general, but rather our need for clarity on the definitions in those clauses, because they are fairly broad-brush.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We believe that what is already there is specific and offers clarity. It is fundamental to the planning regime that we want to bring in. If the noble Lord wants, I can write to him in greater detail about what is on offer here.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister at least for the consistency of his reply with that given in the Commons. I thank all other noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the point well: time is not on our side, and local authorities have a critical part to play in meeting our net-zero targets. The Government cannot do it on their own and we as individuals wanting to drive electric cars cannot do it if local authorities have not put in place plug points or if the houses are in the wrong places. They are pivotal. At some point, you have to start creating the overall conditions to show that the Government and local government are acting in partnership to achieve the legally binding targets which this Government are signed up to and which I am sure they wish to keep to.
To pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, what will this Government do if the big local authorities start refusing to take these responsibilities seriously? They will have no chance of getting to the targets that they want to achieve and which this country needs unless they start biting the bullet now and putting some target statutory duties in, as the previous Government gave local authorities statutory duties to promote growth. Without that, they will not get there. I ask them urgently to think again on this. I suspect that we may well return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Addington
“Preservation of playing fields and pitches(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to— (a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development, or(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing fields” and “playing pitches” have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we now come to one of those wonderful issues where we have something in place that works, which this Bill will remove, and that is the protection provided by Sport England for playing fields and recreational facilities. I am in danger of making a very short speech or a very long one and am trying to draw a line down the middle.
Lord Addington (LD)
Clearly, my noble friend has heard me often enough.
The best playing fields are in nice, urban environments where people can get to them. Effectively, you have a greenfield site, often owned by a cash-strapped local authority or an independent school that has been increasingly under pressure to improve exam results rather than develop the whole picture. The playing field owners say, “Wouldn’t it be better if we had a slightly better new gym court and got rid of the field?” or “Nobody else is playing on the playing field because we haven’t maintained it”; they sell it off and get rid of it. Who cares? The people who play the sport do and the people you want to play the sport should.
What is sport? It is the ultimate community activity with health benefits, and public playing fields are essential for those in grass-roots sport to be able to address this. Go to any successful sports club, especially for sports such as football, rugby, and cricket, and it will have started on a public playing field. That is where you start. Even with these property-owning sports—rugby and cricket are the classic examples—where you are encouraged to take over, manage and own your own ground, you start somewhere else and develop on from it. You can expand your playing numbers by taking on smaller pitches for your junior teams by using them. It is an integrated part of it. If you do not have that capacity, the nature of the club will be threatened. So we have something which adds to it, but it is potentially a cash cow for some other groups and is sitting there in the right place, very tempting for any housing plan.
The body that has been protecting such places, Sport England, is no longer a consultee. That is what it is thinking and feeling. If we are wrong about that, I would be very grateful to hear it when whichever Minister replies, and your Lordships will not be hearing from me again. If that is not the case, there is something to be answered here.
My amendment would put in another duty; of course, it is Committee and this is just the first go, but I hope that the Government will tell me here if there is another solution to this—if they cannot tell me exactly at this stage, I will make myself available for any meetings to make sure that I know and can tell the rest of the House. If something positive is going to happen there, I will be more than grateful to go away and spread the word. If the Government are not going to do something like this and will just leave it to a general duty, they are basically guaranteeing losses, and possibly catastrophic losses. Unless you understand this and your current drive is for something else, you will ignore it, because we all do. What is your primary objective? We go there. I hope that the Government will tell me something positive and supportive with regard to this group.
We should also remember that you are supporting voluntary groups which do this at very little cost to the state at the moment. That culture of gathering together, paying for the use of the pitch and running up has to have a little space to grow. If we remove that, we will stifle the whole thing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has another amendment down here; I think we all know enough not to say exactly what her amendments mean, but the idea of play also comes in and tags on there. Such play is not as formalised or structured, but it is also important.
I hope that whichever Minister replies will be able to tell us that something solid will address this, not a general air or duty of “Oh yes, of course they will deal with it”, because we all know that things like that get ignored. We need something solid that will make sure there is a protection at least compatible with what is going on now. If we do not, we will have to go back to this, at least once, and possibly it will have to be decided by a decision of the whole House. I hope we do not need to do that, but I am quite prepared to do it. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Just to reassure him, I did not dream up Amendment 179; it was originally presented in the other place, and I am taking it forward with the support of Play England. I hope that what it means will be very clear.
I was happy to attach my name to Amendment 165, which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, just presented. In a sense, the first amendment we have had here is a subset of the broader amendment. Amendment 165 is about formal play, if you like, such as organised games and structured activities; my amendment covers those but also looks more broadly at unstructured play and interaction where young people in particular have the chance to mix.
The proposed new clause introduces a play-sufficiency duty to ensure that every local planning authority
“must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect”—
“protect” is particularly important—
“sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions”.
Far too often, play is seen as something frivolous and childish, to be fitted around the edges of cramming for exams; rigid, structured arrangements. Yet we know that play is essential for physical and mental health. It is vital for the development of minds and bodies. It offers a space for the flowering of social skills and the development, crucially, of independence: the ability to assess risks, to take risks and to deal with the consequences, particularly in an unstructured environment. Yet this is being squeezed out of children’s lives in urban and other environments. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about playing fields being sold off. We have also seen a huge number of closures of swimming pools, which has real public safety implications.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I fully agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said about the importance of play, and with her imaginative approach to putting a play-sufficiency duty in this legislation. I hope that she pursues it further. She can be assured of good support from across the House, and certainly from me.
I will concentrate on the amendment from my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the protection of playing fields. This is of vital importance for numerous social, health, educational and environmental reasons. These outdoor spaces serve as essential community areas, fostering physical activity, social interaction and mental well-being among people of all ages. As urban development accelerates and land becomes increasingly valuable, safeguarding these playing fields ensures that they remain accessible and functional for future generations.
The noble Lord made the point that playing fields provide crucial opportunities for physical activity, which is fundamental for maintaining good health. The health perspective is important. Regular exercise helps prevent chronic illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. For children and teenagers, playing fields offer a safe environment for sports, games and recreational activities that promote healthy growth and development. The availability of quality playing fields encourages active lifestyles, reduces sedentary behaviours and contributes to the overall well-being of communities. We should be increasing the number of playing fields for these reasons alone, not building over them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised another important environmental point. These spaces provide significant social benefits. Playing fields serve as communal hubs where people can come together to engage in team sports, recreational activities and play, or simply socialise. They foster community spirit, inclusivity and teamwork and are vital for social cohesion. Playing fields often host local events and tournaments, strengthening community bonds and promoting a sense of pride and ownership among residents. There are also educational benefits. Access to playing fields supports schools and youth organisations in delivering physical education and extracurricular activities. Physical education is a key component of a well-rounded curriculum, contributing to students’ physical and mental development.
My noble friend Lord Deben would agree that, from an environmental perspective, playing fields contribute positively to urban ecosystems. They help combat air pollution and support biodiversity by providing habitats for various flora and fauna. The loss of playing fields can have detrimental long-term effects. Where green spaces are developed for housing or commercial use, communities lose critical, recreational and health assets. This land use change often leads to increased traffic, pollution and social inequalities, especially for residents who rely on local sports facilities for leisure and health. That is why legal protections and strategic planning are vital in safeguarding these spaces.
What is the trend? A report by Fields in Trust in 2016 highlighted that, between 2000 and 2015, approximately 3,574 outdoor sports pitches and playing fields were lost across England alone. When considering the entire UK, the total loss is estimated to be over 4,000. That trend started in the mid-1990s and continues to this day. Thousands of playing fields have been lost in the UK in recent decades, underscoring the urgent need for continued protection and strategic land use planning.
My final point is that it is essential that Sport England continue as a statutory consultee for planning applications as they affect playing fields. Sport England objects to proposals that would result in a net loss of sports provision and works to safeguard and enhance playing fields across England, with over 1,000 playing fields protected by Sport England in the year to March 2023.
Earlier this year, the Government made it clear that Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee is under threat. Sport England continues to play a key role in safeguarding sports facilities, including playing fields, by advising planning authorities and working to protect and enhance sports infrastructure across the country. If the Government cannot give a commitment that Sports England will continue in this role, I believe we should consider placing this in the Bill on Report.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I will speak to Amendment 165, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this amendment, which addresses the important issue of preserving our playing fields and pitches from potential changes to the planning process.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything that has been said, and which does not need repeating. The startling statistics mentioned speak for themselves. I just want to add a few comments, some of which are from organisations on the front line. As someone who has been involved in the youth justice and sport sectors for many years, and who is presently a co-chair of both the APPG for Sport and Physical Activity and the APPG for Sport and Physical Activity in the Criminal Justice System, I have seen and heard first-hand how access to playing fields and green spaces can transform lives. They are more than just open spaces; they are gateways to better health and stronger communities.
Sport and physical activity have a huge impact on the nation’s health and well-being, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan just mentioned, not to mention all the positives that children and young people receive from an active and regular sports lifestyle, which many will carry into their adult lives. Protecting our playing fields and facilities is therefore crucial, because once they are lost, they are gone for ever.
We have heard of the many risks involved in the recent announcement of the withdrawal of Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on planning applications. It has an impressive record of protecting more than 1,000 playing fields across the country between 2022 and 2023 alone. Removing Sports England from the planning process will leave a huge hole.
Earlier this year, Alex Welsh, the CEO of the London Playing Fields Foundation, eloquently explained that making such a move would be a huge loss. He said that:
“When a local group are worried about losing the field at the end of the road … They call us and we start by saying, ‘Do Sport England know?’”
He also stated that:
“Over the past five years, out of 398 concluded planning applications, 90% have resulted in improved or safeguarded conditions because of Sport England. What we can’t quantify is how many people are put off from blatant building on fields because they are in that role. Who will be doing it when they are gone?”
Railroading through planning will certainly see many of our sports fields vanish. Fields in Trust, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan also mentioned, is an organisation that protects 3,000 local parks, playgrounds, playing fields and green spaces across the country. It is constantly being contacted by local community groups and individuals who are concerned about the potential loss of their park or playing field and who are having to navigate a complex planning system to make their concerns heard.
We have also learned from recent research published by the journal Cities & Health, which found that planners were prioritising the approval of new homes ahead of outdoor play spaces due to a combination of policy misalignment, financial constraints and pressures stemming from a lack of housing. We can have both; it should not be one or the other.
When I was chair of StreetGames, a national charity delivering sport into disadvantaged neighbourhoods, we saw how important it is to have local and community-based facilities that are accessible for all. If we want to tackle inequalities, making access to facilities more challenging will make it more difficult for everyone to be active and healthy, which will only be compounded for those with less.
The noble Lords and Baronesses here today who are involved in sport feel very passionately about ensuring that we protect our precious sports fields and pitches, so I hope their protection can be preserved in the Bill.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington: he and I have shared a number of sporting events together. I had the privilege of playing rugby, cricket, squash, golf, tennis—I am not quite as fit as I was, I am afraid, coming up to 89.
On the preservation of playing fields, pitches and courts, I remember when, in 1968, amazingly, there was a change in the government of the London Borough of Islington, and I had the privilege of being the leader of the incoming party. The first challenge that was put on my desk was Highbury Corner: the change to the roundabout there would take away four tennis courts. I said, “Have we not talked to the GLC about this problem?” I was told that we had but had had no positive response. This seemed to me absolutely wrong for a section of London that, on the whole, is not at all well off, and Highbury Fields was fundamental to the people of Islington. I had to go to see the then leader of the Greater London Council and, after some fairly hectic and heated discussion—in which it was pointed out to me how many millions, allegedly, it was going to take to alter the planning of the roundabout—they agreed to look at it again. I am pleased to say that those tennis courts were never removed and are still there today.
We also have to realise that the numbers taking part in sport today have grown hugely. You only have to look at sport on TNT, on television. How many of our wives were as active in sport as our daughters and granddaughters are? A very small percentage. All women’s sport has grown exponentially. It does not matter what it is—rugby, football, cricket or tennis. All have grown hugely. Against that background, the fundamental point about this amendment is so important.
I now have to declare a specific interest: I am a member of Wimbledon. This is the most successful tennis tournament in the world. It has grown exponentially over the last century. It set up a foundation—and I was one of those involved in the very early stages of that—to help those who, for financial reasons, were less well off and needed help. It attracts visitors from all over the world, and it is the biggest sporting event in the UK economy—and I did not personally understand that until I double-checked it.
There is a tangential amendment to this, which is Amendment 227E. I see my noble friend Lord Banner is sitting in his place. Sadly, I had heart failure in late December; I cannot take part as much as I would wish in your Lordships’ House, and I could not be here for that amendment because of the problems and restrictions I have, which have to be looked after. I would otherwise have spoken to that as well.
I merely re-emphasise to the Minister—I probably do not need to, really—that sport in general, and tennis in particular, is growing all the time. How wonderful it is to see our young people, and young people from all over the world, taking part. I hope that, when the Government reflect on this, they will recognise the absolute importance of this amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments has given me something of a sense of déjà vu. This is not to diminish their importance—far from it. These are serious and considered proposals. They strike at an issue that has surfaced time and again in our debates: the protection and promotion of those spaces which enable sport, recreation and play. Only last week, in moving his Amendment 138A, my noble friend Lord Moynihan reminded us, as he so frequently does, of the profound benefits that flow from creating space for sport and physical activity.
It is not merely about fitness, although that alone would be reason enough; it is about community cohesion, opportunities for young people, the long-term health of the nation, team-building, learning to get on with colleagues and working together. Well-being should be among the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies.
I regret that the Government were not able to give more ground on that occasion, but there is a replay. We have VAR, and there is an opportunity for them to reconsider and give a clearer signal recognising the urgency of embedding health and well-being into the very fabric of planning. Perhaps today, in responding to this group, the Minister might move a little further.
Amendment 165, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is on the preservation of playing fields and pitches. They are not luxuries; they are the bedrock of grass-roots sport. They are where future Olympians take their first steps, but more importantly, they are where countless young people gain the habits of teamwork, discipline and healthy living. Once lost to development, they are rarely, if ever, replaced. It is therefore entirely right that a planning authority should be required to treat their preservation as a priority, not an afterthought.
In a similar vein, Amendment 179 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, reminds us of the importance of children’s play. A child who has a safe, stimulating play space nearby is a child who will grow in confidence, develop social bonds and establish the foundations of a healthy life. Deny them that, and we entrench disadvantage from the very start. I therefore commend both noble Lords for their contributions. I hope the Government will today recognise that without firm protection we risk losing something that cannot be rebuilt: our green lungs, our playing fields and the spaces where our children first learn to run, play and thrive.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for this debate on an issue that the Government take seriously. Amendments 165 and 179 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am very grateful to them for raising these issues. There is nothing in the Bill that removes the strong protection for playing fields, especially the commitments in the NPPF. Play spaces are vital for supporting the health and well-being of local communities and as such are already considered through existing planning policy and guidance which collectively protect their provision. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that development plans should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. This includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal, including playing fields. Development plans then use those assessments to determine what provision of recreational space is required for local communities.
In December last year, the Government updated planning policy to make specific reference to safeguarding formal play spaces in the National Planning Policy Framework, enhancing the protection of those spaces where they may be threatened by other development types. The framework is clear that play spaces can be lost only if the facility is no longer of community need or there is a justified alternative somewhere else. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework when preparing a local or strategic plan or making a planning decision is a legal requirement.
In recognition of the importance of play space provision for communities, we are also considering what more we can say about this important area as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision-making, on which we intend to consult this year. Further considerations on play spaces are set out in national design guidance that encourages the provision of such spaces and sets out how they can be integrated into new development. As an aside, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are aware that there is now an APPG on play, which was established by Tom Hayes MP.
The Government are in the process of updating that guidance. A new version is expected to be published later this year and play spaces have been reviewed as part of the update. Play spaces can be funded by developer contribution, secured through Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy, the CIL, which play an important role in helping to deliver the infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system.
The Government have established the parks working group, with local authorities and industry specialists, to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces, including improving the number of playgrounds. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will help deliver funding to enable new neighbourhood boards across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. Upgrading play areas is a possible scheme that such funding will be used for, enabling the enhanced provision of public areas of play for many communities.
The Government also believe that the amendments may limit a local authority’s ability to respond to its community’s needs around play spaces by setting an overly rigid framework of assessments and legislative requirements.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, once more, and reiterate my acknowledgment of how important play spaces are for local communities and the role that our planning system plays in enabling and protecting them.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response. Do the Government recognise the role of Sport England in the context of the protection of playing fields as effective and as an important consultee in statutory consultation over the future protection of playing fields? Do they respect the fact that Sport England has done an enormous amount of good work in this context and should continue to have the opportunity to do so?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The Government have committed to consult on the impact of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. We will do that shortly and see what the result is, and I suggest that the noble Lord takes part in that consultation as well.
As I have set out, we have robust processes in place to support and protect spaces for play and recreation, and we will consider this issue further as we update our planning policies. These matters are best addressed through our policy and funding. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press these amendments.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is the answer that I expected: “There’s a process in place that’s going to take care of this and look at it, because we’re basically nice people, we’re going to do the right thing”. The problem with that is that you may be basically nice people trying to do the right thing, but you have a thousand different pressures pulling at you.
Preserving these spaces is going to annoy planners and people doing other things, so it is a trade-off. At the moment, there is public consultation and public pressure to make sure they are kept going. If the Minister could expand on his answer and tell us whether this will be made public so we knew what is going on, I would have a bit more faith. How do the general public or the national governing bodies know what is going through? How can they put pressure on from the outside? You would have a little bit more faith then.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Lord mentions this or that consultation. We have put in £1.5 billion of funding for neighbourhoods, part of which can be used for enabling the provision of public areas for play. The noble Lord cannot say that it is just about consultation and warm words; it is real money put to real effect.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, real money has been put to real effect in planning disasters throughout my adult life. It is a case of making sure that you get someone who understands what this means and is publicly able to answer. Would the Minister be able to facilitate me being able to see what this means? That is something I would like to see, and I am sure there are a couple of people here with experience in this area who might want to come in on this.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I have laid out quite specifically what we intend on doing and how much money we are going to spend. I know we have lost playing fields. That was not under this Government but under the previous Government. Local government was affected by major cuts in funding. So, yes, we have a plan, and we mean to implement it. We are going to spend £1.5 billion on neighbourhood boards. They will have the right to give enhanced provision of public areas for play, et cetera, so I think there is a lot that we are doing. If the noble Lord wants to meet in the near future, I am sure we can organise something so that we can discuss this and explain it further.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I asked whether the Minister would be prepared to have a meeting with me and other interested Peers and campaigners on Amendment 179.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that undertaking; I will take him up on it. I have to say I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We have to get this right because the potential for cock-up is massive. It is damaging to the communities around them. There is no point in having a lovely home in a dreadful environment. I thank the Minister, and I am quite happy to withdraw this amendment. What I do with it in future will depend on the outcomes of those meetings. Under those circumstances, I withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
The noble Lord has withdrawn his amendment.
Lord Banner
“Principle of proportionality in planning(1) The principle of proportionality in planning shall apply to—(a) applications for any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, including the supporting evidence base,(b) environmental impact assessment and habitats assessment,(c) the exercise of any functions within the scope of the Planning Acts, including but not limited to procedural and substantive decision-making (by local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State), and the preparation and provision of consultation responses (by statutory and non-statutory consultees), and(d) the determination by the Courts of claims for judicial and statutory review.(2) Applications for any permission, consent or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, and appeals against the refusal or non-determination of such applications, must be determined in accordance with the principle of proportionality in planning.(3) So far as it is possible to do so, the Planning Acts and any secondary legislation enacted pursuant to them must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the principle of proportionality in planning.(4) The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made (whether in the plan-making or development control context) and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation (whether by way of planning conditions and obligations, or other regulation whether or not pursuant to the Planning Acts).(5) The Secretary of State may publish guidance on how the principle of proportionality in planning is to be applied.(6) The principle of proportionality in planning must not be interpreted as affecting existing requirements for local planning authorities to justify the refusal or withholding of planning permission.(7) In this section the term “Planning Acts” includes all primary legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions, including—(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,(c) the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,(d) the Planning Act 2008,(e) the Localism Act 2011,(f) the Housing and Planning Act 2016,(g) the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023,(h) the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025,(i) any secondary legislation relating to environmental impact assessment or habitats assessment, and(j) any other legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a principle of proportionality in planning to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that less can be more, so as to facilitate more focused decision-making and more effective public participation.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, this amendment stands alone and is tabled in my name. It seeks to introduce a principle of proportionality in planning, in accordance with which all planning functions would need to be exercised and all planning laws would need to be interpreted.
Although the basic structures of the planning environmental impact assessment and habitat assessment processes have remained broadly the same for a long time, their application has, over the years, become increasingly and unnecessarily disproportionate. For example, there is now in widespread areas of the planning system an overprecautionary approach to the precautionary principle which, in practice, is treated by many in the system as requiring zero risk even though the case law does not require that. Environmental statements, which in the early years of the EIA regime were reasonably concise, are now frequently delivered in vans and take up a whole room in offices, which is unhelpful to everybody concerned in the system. There is a recent instance of a DCO examining inspector asking 2,000 questions in relation to a DCO application. Again, it is not outside the norm.
Statutory consultees insist on planning applications providing a level of detail wholly disproportionate to the stage of decision-making in question. For example, in the context of an application for outline planning permission simply to confirm the principle of development for an allocated site, the principle of which is baked into the allocation, the developers can routinely be required to retest points that are already baked into the allocation or descend into matters of very granular detailed design that are far more suitable for reserved matters and discharge at condition stage. We frequently see consultants producing voluminous reports, often out of caution because of fear of being tripped up and being subject to a professional negligence claim, with considerable liability later.
These are not exceptions that prove a contrary rule; they are all too commonplace. The tendency for prolixity and disproportionality does not make decision-making any better; it just clogs up and slows down the system. This amendment is designed to give all stakeholders in the planning process the confidence that less can, and indeed should, be more, to deter them from delving into unnecessary detail and duplication. It would leave the precautionary principle untouched, so it would not amount to environmental regression, but it would, importantly, anchor it in reality and pragmatism.
There is provision in the drafting of this amendment for the Secretary of State to make and update statutory guidance on how the principle of proportionality is to be applied, which would ensure that the principle is adequately flexible and future-proof.
The proposal for the principle of proportionality has received widespread support in the development sector, including an emphatic endorsement from the Land, Planning and Development Federation, a leading representative body. Moreover, it is entirely consistent with the recently published findings of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, whose interim report was published last month. I commend that report to the Minister, if she has not had the opportunity to see it; it strays into other areas, and other ministerial responsibilities in other departments, but chapter 6 has a whole section on disproportionality in the planning context, specifically but not exclusively looking at the nuclear context. I shall quote from the summary of the findings, where it says:
“The preliminary view of the Taskforce is that problems with proportionate decision-making are interrelated and systemic. Various incentives drive more costly and time-consuming standards with no substantive safety or environmental benefits”.
There we have it in clear back and white letters from the regulatory task force that a principle of proportionality would add a huge amount of value to the planning system but at no environmental cost. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Banner in this amendment about proportionality. My experience of this come from my membership of the CIL review, to which I was appointed by the Minister about 10 years ago to imagine a new approach to developer contributions. I do not have the report in front of me—it was a long time ago—but there was one statistic as part of my evidence-gathering process that remains with me today. Ninety percent of all planning applications are for 10 dwellings or less, but the 10% that are for 11 or more are well over half of the total number of houses that are planned to be built in this country. There is an asymmetry; the larger applications are significantly larger than the smaller ones, yet we treat everything the same.
If we are to encourage local builders who spend much time with the local vernacular, local contractors and local supply chains, we must have a more flexible and proportionate system. Proportionality exists in so many walks of life. Just to reflect for a moment on some of the Bills that we have been looking at in the last few months, there is proportionality for small businesses in employment legislation. The Minister and I debated in the Moses Room the other day the definition of a smaller authority, with a different audit test that would happen to those smaller authorities with a turnover of £15 million or less. In the brewing industry, the smaller brewers have an adventitious duty regime. Proportionality should not be alien; in fact, it should be something to be encouraged.
As part of the CIL review work, we looked at how we might help smaller builders and postulated that developments of less than 10 dwellings, as a threshold, would be exempted from Section 106; they would pay the CIL—the community infrastructure levy—instead. I thought that that would be a really proportionate way of doing it. People would make a meaningful contribution to the local infrastructure, but without getting tied up in knots on some of the smaller minutiae. That is an approach we could follow.
In local authorities, when someone applies for planning permission, there is a validation exercise. Unless you have submitted your ecology assessment, CIL form and everything else, the clock does not even start ticking. I would not want whole areas of legislation to be cast aside, and I am sure my noble friend agrees. I do not believe he is suggesting for one moment that there would be no ecology report; it is just that an ecology report for a set of five bungalows in a village on the outskirts of the development boundary should not be subject to the same test as a much more significant development.
That is important because it is significantly more expensive to deliver smaller schemes. There are certain fixed costs of applying for a planning application that have to be amortised—jam-spread, if you will—over a small number of developments. There is a diseconomy of scale. I did some fag-paper arithmetic and found that it is about £40,000 more per dwelling house when you take in some of the extra burdens of a smaller-scale development over a larger one. That is why we do not have affordable housing, a subject that detained us in our debate on the Bill on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.
We need to drag out the simple truth that smaller schemes are more expensive and that affects viability, which is a significant challenge to getting Britain building. If only we could have this proportionate effect and make a virtue of it, we would give a bit more choice to the market, and with speedy delivery. It would increase the liquidity of the local supply chains in local economies, which would make us all richer and play a significant part in getting Britain building and the economy growing.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as I have said on several occasions, we need to cut down on the bureaucracy of planning and the excessive application of policy on habitats. Even the Prime Minister has criticised the HS2 £100 million bat tunnel.
In my experience, we have an over-precautionary approach in planning, so I am attracted by the principle of proportionality, especially as it is promoted by a well-known planning KC, who has already contributed very positively to this Committee. My only question, either to him or to the Minister, is whether there is a risk of rising legal costs rather than the reverse, which I think is the intention behind the provision. Indeed, could this unintentionally hurt smaller builders?
Lord Banner (Con)
No, in my assessment. Whenever the law changes, there will be an adaptation period. That is axiomatic, but it will be the case anyway because we will have new legislation. The intention behind it, if anything, is to streamline and therefore reduce costs, including legal costs.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am intrigued by this exchange, because the thought had occurred to me that, by introducing a principle of proportionality into the legislation, we would then open the floodgates to contention about what is proportional. The question of JR seems to be immediately rearing its head. Therefore, I cannot see how, rather than simplifying the system, it would not add a layer of complication.
The argument about the CIL in relation to small developments is a different one. There is some merit in that because of the flexibility one needs for small builders. However, that is only part of an ancillary argument to the broader and slightly dangerous argument brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in favour of over-complicating the planning system in the way he suggests.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, proportionality is in the eye of the beholder; it depends on your perspective. These ideas—proportionality, reducing bureaucracy, speeding up small developments and reducing costs—are seen from the perspective of the developer. Those are fair arguments to make, but, equally, if we are to be proportionate, we need to see the other side of the balancing scales: the perspective of those on the receiving end of the development. For example, taking away the importance of bats, badgers or whatever might reduce costs and bureaucracy and speed up development, but it would anger local people.
Lord Banner (Con)
There is a definition in proposed new subsection (4) of the amendment:
“The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made … and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation”.
Proposed new subsection (5) then says:
“The Secretary of State may publish guidance”.
It is spelled out and would be eminently capable of being applied.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, it is about “having regard to”. We have had that debate on other groups.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thought that everybody would be in favour of this. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling Amendment 166 and bringing this important issue before the House. The principle of proportionality deserves to stand alone in this debate, for it goes directly to the heart of the speed, efficiency and accuracy of our planning system.
As ever, my noble friend has presented the case with his customary clarity and intellectual weight; I thank him for that. He has shown that this principle is not only desirable, but essential. His amendment would embed proportionality firmly within the planning process, giving decision-makers, applicants, consultees and indeed the courts confidence that less can sometimes be more. It would allow for decision-making that is sharper in focus and public participation that is clearer and more effective.
I accept that this is a technically complicated clause, but it is also a vital one. At its core, it states that the information and evidence required to determine any planning application should be proportionate to the real issues at stake, taking into account decisions already made at the plan-making stage and recognising where issues could be dealt with later, whether through planning conditions, obligations or other forms of regulation. It is important to be clear about what this amendment would not do. It would not dilute or weaken the responsibility of local planning authorities to justify their decisions, particularly when refusing or withholding planning permission. Rather, it would ensure that planning does not become mired in an endless accumulation of unnecessary reports, assessments and duplications that add little value but cause delay and frustration.
That is why this apparently technical definition is in fact deeply needed reform. It would be a practical safeguard against a system that too often risks becoming paralysed by its own complexity. If we are serious about unblocking progress and enabling the timely delivery of new homes—1.5 million in the next three and a half or four years—and, with them, the wider infrastructure and investment our communities require, principles such as this must be at the heart of a modern planning system. The Government would do well to accept this amendment. In doing so, they would signal that they are not just merely managing a process but are serious about reforming it, serious about tackling the barriers that hold us back and serious about delivering the homes and the growth that this country so urgently needs.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to Amendment 166, regarding proportionality in the planning system, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank him for bringing it forward. It seeks
“to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that”
in the planning system
“less can be more”.
We agree with this sentiment. If we are to meet the 1.5 million homes target, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just outlined, the planning system needs to operate more effectively and with greater certainty. Of course, the problem here is that although the noble Lord described it as reality and pragmatism, unfortunately one man or woman’s reality and pragmatism will be somebody else’s dystopian nightmare, so we have to be a bit careful about how we move forward.
We all know that planning has got much more complex and litigious, which has led many local planning authorities to take a precautionary approach when preparing local plans and dealing with planning applications. This is why we too want to see a more proportionate approach to planning. However—and this is where, unfortunately, we disagree with the noble Lord—we feel that introducing a new statutory principle of proportionality across all of planning is not the way to achieve this. This itself would introduce a new legal test, which risks more opportunities for legal challenge and grounds for disagreements—points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. Instead, we believe it is better to promote proportionality through national planning policy and by looking at specific opportunities to streamline procedures through regulatory reform.
The Bill already includes important reforms to achieve this, including the nationally significant infrastructure projects reforms and the creation of the nature restoration fund. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, issues concerning SME builders and how to support them are under very serious consideration, including the large package of financial support that the Government have already announced, and we will continue to consider what more might be done in that regard. We are also doing much more alongside the Bill—for example, scaling back the role of statutory consultees through our review of those bodies, and examining whether there should be a new medium development category where policy and regulatory requirements would be more proportionate, as we recently set out in our site thresholds working paper. For all the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banner (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comments. It is encouraging that we share the overall objective of proportionate, streamlined decision-making, even if we part company, for now, on how to achieve it.
I would like to come back on a couple of points. On legal risk, the first point made by the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Pinnock, was about the definition—would there be ambiguity regarding what the principle means? I suggest not. It is set out in terms in subparagraph (5), with the ability of the Secretary of State to promote statutory guidance. It may be that the language can be improved, but I encourage the Government to continue the helpful discussions we have had outside this Chamber on whether that risk might be reduced.
In any case, given that the interpretive duty in the principle of proportionality is to interpret all planning laws in a proportionate, pragmatic way, the overall net effect of this amendment would in fact be to reduce legal risk. Because in any judicial review context, if somebody came along arguing for a particularly restrictive, over-precautionary interpretation, the court would have, in neon lights, messaging from Parliament that the court should take a less onerous, less prescriptive approach, which is bound to reduce the overall success rate of judicial reviews in the planning context. So, I suggest that, overall, this would reduce rather than increase legal risk. The stress test of that is the LPDF, which represents SMEs—those developers who would be particularly affected by increased legal costs were they to arise. Its emphatic view—in fact, this is the amendment, of all those before the Committee, it is most emphatic on—is that the amendment would be helpful. So, I will pursue it on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Banner
“Relationship between overlapping permissionsAfter section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission for development already carried out), insert—“73AA Relationship between overlapping permissions(1) Where there is more than one planning permission which relates to some or all of the same land, the lawfulness of both past and future development carried out pursuant to one of those planning permissions shall be unaffected by the carrying out of development pursuant to another of those planning permissions, except to the extent expressly stated in any of those permissions or in any obligation under section 106 of this Act (planning obligations) related to any of those permissions.(2) Subsection (1) applies only where one of the relevant planning permissions was granted after the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.(3) In this section “planning permission” means—(a) a planning permission under Part 3 of this Act, and (b) a planning permission granted by article 3 (permitted development) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596).”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment addresses the potentially deleterious implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 169 seeks to mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in a case called Hillside. I should at the outset declare an interest, in that I was leading counsel in Hillside, albeit I am no longer retained by the party in question. It is a highly technical amendment but really important, and I will do my best for the record to summarise the problem. The Minister and I have had discussions, and I know she is aware of the issue.
Large developments—the most important ones for the growth this country needs—such as urban regeneration schemes, new settlements, large urban extensions, infrastructure and the like can take many years, and quite often decades, to build out. Over that time, it is almost inevitable that some of the details of the later phases will need, by the time they get built out, to change and adapt to evolving needs, to things that have changed in the economy or in our ways of life since the original planning permission was granted.
To put a bit of flesh on that, for example, a mixed-use urban extension might have offices in the later phases that can no longer be filled due to the post-Covid shift to working from home, which could not have been foreseen at the time the original outline permission was granted. Therefore, it may be proposed to swap out those offices, which would simply be a white elephant, for last mile logistics, as the need for that sector has increased. A hotel planned for a later phase may no longer be viable because of changing tourism patterns, but there may be a greater need for a care home instead.
A very well-known example is the largest outline permission in this country, Liverpool Waters. The planning permission for the regeneration of Liverpool Docklands was granted in 2011. The city council is on the record as indicating that would be a three-decade planning permission to build out. During the currency of that development, an opportunity was identified to relocate Everton Football Club into its amazing new stadium, which opened only a few weeks ago. Therefore, the development had to be rejigged to accommodate the stadium.
For various reasons, applying for a new site-wide planning permission in circumstances where there has been a need to adapt and change in relation to evolving circumstances is not practical. It is too onerous in terms of the evidence base, because you need a new site-wide EIA, for example. It is too expensive for that reason, and due to the cost of planning fees for site-wide permissions and large-scale developments. Importantly, it is too slow, because everything would have to be reappraised. You would have to redo the surveys, which can take place only at certain times of the year, even in relation to those elements that are not changing, because the site-wide second permission would apply to the whole.
Therefore, a widespread practice has developed in the planning field in what is often called drop-in or stand-alone permissions, where the planning application red line is drawn not around the whole site area, but around the area it is going to change. In one of the examples I gave earlier, you would draw the line around the area earmarked for offices, not around the whole development. You would then apply to swap the particular development within that stand-alone planning permission area. The local authority would consider the planning merits of the change going on in that stand-alone area without having to re-appraise everything.
The developer would obviously have to make a good case for the change and if it did not, it would not be allowed. But if it did, and this routinely has happened, a change would be authorised. If permission was granted, the change would take effect pursuant to the stand-alone permission, so the area for the offices would become logistics in the example I gave, and the remainder of the wider development would proceed unchanged under the original site-wide permission.
The Supreme Court in the Hillside case has drastically affected this practice. The legal principle that the Supreme Court has enshrined is that if implementing a later stand-alone permission has the effect that it is now physically impossible in a material way to build out the site-wide permission in its entirety, the site-wide permission can no longer be relied on for any future development that is authorised by it but no longer built, so the residual site-wide permission is essentially lost, with very profound consequences.
There are sometimes workarounds, but they are incomplete and, even when they do exist, they can be uncertain, risky, cumbersome, slow and costly. To give a sense of the magnitude of this problem, since the Hillside judgment was given in late 2022, I estimate that I have written between 300 and 400 opinions on how to work around Hillside—so the one person who will lose out because of this amendment is me. This amendment would clear up the uncertainty and provide a clear route through.
I am not wedded to the precise drafting, if the Minister and her officials consider it could be improved. I expect the Minister will say that the Government recognise the difficulty presented by Hillside but that finding a solution to it is a complex matter which requires detailed consideration—and so it is. However, with respect, it is the job of the Government and Parliament to grapple with those complexities and come up with a workable solution, rather than kick the can down the road.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Banner for raising this issue through Amendment 169. His last point was that this is the second piece of planning legislation since the Hillside judgment in 2022. The earlier legislation was the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. My noble friend was not in your Lordships’ House at the time of its consideration but he will no doubt have noted that Section 110 of the Act provides for the insertion of new Section 73B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the purpose of which is to say that material variations are permitted, as long as they are not substantially different from the original permission.
What reading the legislation will not tell him is that, during the course of the debate on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I introduced an original amendment, the purpose of which was to restore the law to the Pilkington principle—in effect that overlapping permissions would be lawful, as long as the subsequent permission sought did not render the original permission no longer physically capable of being implemented. My noble friend on the Front Bench, then the Minister, may recall that the Government at the time did not accept it, but did accept that they should legislate. There is a difference between Section 110 and the Pilkington principle. There are, in practice, quite a lot of cases in which the permission that is sought does not render the original permission incapable but would substantially amend the original permission, and does not meet the narrow test of being not substantially different from the original permission.
It was not all that I was looking for but it was considerable progress in the right direction. It was important, because a judgment subsequent to Hillside, as my noble friend will recall, said that the original planning permissions in these cases were not severable. You cannot go in, take some part of an original permission and amend it, and treat the rest of the permission as being valid. The whole permission needs to be sought all over again, which is exactly what has caused a substantial part of the problem that my noble friend has benefitted from, in the professional sense, because there are so many such permissions that would otherwise have to be sought all over again.
I agree with my noble friend that something more needs to be done. I happen not to agree with his drafting of Amendment 169. We would be better off saying of overlapping permissions that, where the later permission does not render the original permission wholly incapable of being implemented, it would remain lawful, otherwise you run the risk of inconsistent, overlapping planning permissions, which is not a place we wish to get to. It would also be entirely helpful if the amendment to be introduced would make it clear that, for the purposes of this, the original planning permission is severable—you can have a drop-in permission.
I hope my noble friend would agree with all of that. More to the point, I hope Ministers will agree that we have not solved this problem. In particular, we have not solved the problem as Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, bringing in the new Section 73B, has not been brought into force. I have asked this question before and had a positive answer, and so I hope it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 110 into force, and I hope that can be done soon. At the same time, I suggest that my noble friend comes back to this issue on Report and perhaps brings us an amendment capable of amending the new Section 73B to restore the Pilkington principle and enable planning permissions that would otherwise relate to the same overall red line to be severable for the purposes of a material change in planning permissions.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for bringing to our attention the practical implications of the Hillside judgment within Amendment 169 today. These are complex issues, but his amendment shines a clear light on the risks to developers and local authorities alike, and the potential chilling effect on much-needed projects. It is precisely at moments like these that the Government should lean on the wisdom and experience of noble Lords who understand the realities of these issues on the ground.
We have had the benefit of meeting my noble friend Lord Banner privately to discuss these matters in detail. That conversation was extremely valuable in setting out the issues so clearly, and we are grateful for his time and expertise. We will continue to work with him to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed. I very much hope the Minister will give a positive and constructive reply and that the concerns raised today will be fully taken into account.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, one of the great benefits of being in your Lordships’ House is that every day is a school day and you learn something new. I had no idea there was anything like a reverse declaration of interests, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, just made, in saying that he is going to lose out if this amendment is taken into account.
This is a highly technical amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, for his explanations of the background to the case and for setting it in a context which made it a little easier to understand. I am grateful for the amendments around the Hillside Supreme Court judgment.
Amendments 169 and 185SB are technical but important amendments about overlapping consents. Amendment 169 seeks to address the implications of the Hillside judgment in relation to overlapping planning permissions. It seeks in particular to enable the carrying out of a development under an initial permission when an overlapping permission has been implemented, making it physically impossible for the first permission to be carried out.
Amendment 185SB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, focuses on overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders. The Government recognise that the Hillside judgment and subsequent court decisions have caused concerns across the development sector, and the noble Lord was kind enough to send me some of the articles that have been written since, setting out which problems they are causing. It has made it more challenging to use the practice of drop-in permissions to deal with changes in development proposals for plots on large-scale residential and commercial development in response to changing circumstances. There have been concerns about the implications for the implementation of development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects when planning permissions have been used to deal with minor variations.
We want to ensure that large-scale developments, where they need to change, can secure the necessary consents to deal with these changes effectively and proportionately. Unfortunately, we are not persuaded that Amendment 169 is the solution to Hillside for overlapping planning permissions. It is too broad in scope, and we must be absolutely sure that it would not undermine the integrity of the planning system. The long-standing principle that Hillside endorsed—that it is unlawful to carry out a development when another permission makes it physically impossible to carry it out—is a sound one. Decisions are made on the merits of the entire development proposal, and this amendment would allow developers to pick and choose what parts of an approved development they wanted to implement when they had a choice.
Similarly, we need to consider carefully the implications of legislating to deal with overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders in general terms. While I understand the desire for certainty, there is more flexibility through a development consent order to deal with the overlap with planning permissions.
That said, I emphasise again that, as a Government committed to ensuring that the planning system supports growth, we are keen to ensure that the right development can be consented and implemented quickly. We want to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with change to large-scale developments. Clause 11 already provides a framework for a more streamlined and proportionate process to change development consent orders, but we also want to look at how the framework can be improved for planning permissions. We would welcome further discussions with your Lordships and the wider sector on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for pointing out issues around Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I need to revisit our correspondence to refresh my mind on what we said about that, but his point about restoring the law to the Pilkington principle is noted and I am sure we will come back to this.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendment 227F and for his continued commitment to energy security and net-zero objectives. This amendment seeks to create a statutory timeframe of 10 weeks for decisions to be made on compulsory purchase orders made under the Electricity Act 1989. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and it is clear that rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. We recognise the importance of providing all parties with a clear understanding of likely timelines to support project planning and investment decisions but do not consider the imposition of statutory deadlines for processing applications to be the best way to achieve this.
The process required for a CPO varies depending on the features of each case, which means that different types of case require different timescales. Guidance from MHCLG already includes indicative timings for the determination of CPOs in England. These range from four to 24 weeks, depending on the case and the process required. Using shorter deadlines to speed up a process is like passing a law that outlaws any delay in your journey up the motorway. That might sound appealing—especially if, like me, you have to travel on the M25 quite regularly—but, if something needs to be done more quickly, one must first find out what things are causing it to take the time that it takes and then address those issues. Otherwise, one is simply legislating in a way that says: “Do it faster”.
I know that, as a former Minister in DESNZ responsible for planning decisions, my noble friend will recognise that what is really needed are system reforms and simplifications, a more efficient digital case handling system and more capacity. I am delighted to confirm that the Government are already delivering on all three of these things. We are treating the disease, not just the symptom.
I have listened carefully to all the arguments put forward today and can assure noble Lords that we share the aim of ensuring that all processes for CPOs proceed as expeditiously as possible. I hope, for these reasons, that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I am relieved to know that, if I get hit by a bus on the way home today—which is very unlikely, given the strikes—my legacy to this House will be the concept of a reverse declaration of interest.
It seems that there is unanimity across the Committee that the Hillside judgment generates a cause for a legislative solution. It also appears to be common ground that new Section 73B, if and when it is enacted pursuant to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, would not be a panacea. It may help in some cases—probably about one-third, but no more than that, so there is a need to go further.
Where we part is on the drafting and what the right-worded solution is. I am very much not wedded to the wording of my amendment; it is really there as a challenge in the hope that, collectively, we can come up with something that carries the overall consent of this House. I look forward to working with the Minister and my noble friend Lady Scott to find a form of words that will achieve the solution that we need. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before I call the next amendment, just to help the Committee, I point out that Amendments 185K and 220 in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, appear to be identical. I am sure that she will explain that to the Committee when she makes her contribution.
Lord Gascoigne
“Community infrastructure levy and section 106 obligations(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations amend the legislation in subsection (2) to ensure that— (a) local authorities publish annual data on the use of planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) and Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) funds, including—(i) the purpose of the planning obligation or CIL fund;(ii) any amount of money committed under a planning obligation or CIL fund which is left unspent;(iii) the reason for any unspent money;(b) the Secretary of State has the power to require the local authority to undertake the planning obligation or works under a CIL, in the event that adequate efforts to do so have not been made;(c) if the local authority has not spent the developer funds during an agreed timeline, then the local authority must contact the developer to explore joint working to deliver the agreed service or improvements.(2) The legislation this section applies to are—(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) the Planning Act 2008, and(c) the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/948).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Banner is doing reverse declarations, I should probably just check; I think I have made them at this stage, but just in case, I declare that I am a director of Peers for the Planet, although I speak entirely independently of them on this and on all the amendments I have tabled to the Bill.
It is a pleasure to kick-start this group and speak to Amendment 170. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who, sadly, is unable to speak to this amendment today but has assured me of his continued support despite his absence. I am grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken to me of late to support me on this and to the external organisations that have been in touch too.
The amendment has a series of parts to it. First, I will set out the context of why I feel something is necessary before talking through what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment relates to two aspects of planning law where a local authority receives funds through development. These are Section 106, which is part of the planning law that allows councils to negotiate money from developers in exchange for granting planning permission to offset the impact of new development and fund specific improvements in the area, while CIL, the community infrastructure levy, is a charge for infrastructure in the broader area.
For background, I first became interested in support of these forms of investment many moons ago when I worked in London City Hall alongside another noble friend who is sadly not with us, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. It was amazing to see, alongside many other developments across the capital, things that were being delivered through this funding. In particular, I was always struck by the work that was taking place in Vauxhall Nine Elms and the extension to the Northern line, and how that unlocked the wider development in that area.
I was blown away only recently when the Bill started when someone mentioned in passing that, last year, the Home Builders Federation did an analysis in which it calculated that around £8 billion-worth of unspent money is sitting in local authorities across England and Wales. I say that again: £8 billion. I know in today’s age of Monopoly money that may not mean much to some, but it certainly means a hell of a lot to me. Within that, there is money for affordable housing, which could unlock around 11,000 affordable homes, and an estimated £1 billion for highways and roads—I know we have elections next year; let us just dream of all those leaflets where we could have candidates pointing at the potholes being filled. There is £2 billion-worth to go towards schools and education and an estimated £850 million that could go towards recreation and play areas. In the same report, the HBF estimates that
“the total amount of unspent Section 106 contributions has more than doubled”
since the year before, suggesting a growing backlog of undelivered infrastructure. I think everyone would accept that obviously it takes time to deliver and build, but it is worth noting that
“around a quarter of the unspent contributions have been held for more than five years”,
and some councils
“admit to holding on to funds for more than 20 years”.
How did HBF get that information and is it easy for any of us to gather? It is not, and that is another part of the problem. There are, as I am sure the Minister will say, the infrastructure funding statements that each receiving authority has to publish annually. Much of the information is mandatory and some information is advisory, but it could be clearer and more transparent. The statistics that I have used earlier, where there is a breakdown, do not have to be sought through the FoI process, which is what the HBF had go through. The same goes for how long the funds have been held and why there has been a delay. In today’s data age, there is no reason why this information could not be readily accessible and available.
Turning specifically to the proposed new clause in the amendment, noble Lords will see that it contains a number of parts tackling the challenges I have laid out. The first relates to transparency, and seeks to ensure that the data which is published through the infrastructure funding statement has even more information—information which the local authority will already have—setting out the purpose of the original funding, the amount which has been unspent and the reason for it not being spent. If there is readily accessible information, the public can see what is expected and not have to put in FoIs to understand why it is not happening.
This in itself can help the local authority deliver, but I want to explore what more can be done. The second part relates to delivery. If the government department deems that the local authority has not done enough to attempt to deliver this improvement, the Secretary of State would be able to require an authority to get on with the job, or at least make steps to deliver what has been agreed. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, nodding—I will come to her in a moment, but it is good that I have her support already. This in itself is not radical. It says only that the local authority should be doing what it said it would do. For the public, it would mean additional accountability.
Finally, the third part would require that, if the developer’s funds have not been spent during a previously agreed timeline, the local authority must contact the developer to ensure that it is possible to work together to deliver this service. I did contemplate, when I was drafting this, including another line in the amendment which would effectively mean that, if a local authority had failed to deliver the agreed improvement during the agreed timeline, the funds would be handed back to the developer, as I know has happened in some circumstances. I took it out in the end because, ultimately, I thought that it would be the local communities who would be losing out on the benefit and it would let the local authority off the hook. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would agree with that, given her Amendment 220.
I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my good and noble friend Lord Lansley sat here. This was, I think, touched on two days ago, when we last convened on this Bill. As ever, my noble friend made the customarily brainy observation that, ultimately, this is a contract with the developer. Further, it is something that the National Audit Office looked at in only the last couple of months.
I want to be clear that I am moving this amendment not because I want us to debate the virtue or otherwise of such measures on development. I am not suggesting that we change how these charges are levied, or indeed whether they should be reduced or made higher. Most people would say that we need to be acutely aware of not making development so burdensome and costly that it happens even less than it already is. I am merely trying to find a better way to deliver what is in the existing law.
From every aspect, this seems to me to be an absolute no-brainer. For example, many developers say that they want something like this—they want people to know not just about the development that they have built but that they are contributing something to the community. Local people too want it; rather than the money sitting in a council—perhaps they do not even know about it—and gathering dust in someone else’s account, local people would actually benefit from it.
Some may think that this would put additional pressures on the local authority to deliver when it is, as we all know, facing many pressures. Obviously, we respect everyone who works in a local authority, from the leader down. I just need to look around the Chamber to know that we recognise on all our Front Benches the importance of local authorities. But these funds should be spent as they were intended. It cannot be right, to my mind, that up and down the land £8 billion pounds is sat there when it is meant to be for the people.
Without adequate information, it is not possible to ascertain why this money has not been spent in every location. In some cases, it has been made clear that it is for a multitude of reasons, but there should be an element of pressure on an authority to deliver. If it does not, it should be compelled to go back to the developer to explore what else is possible to make it happen. I am not suggesting that the developer should therefore contribute even more again. The authority should have secured enough to deliver in the first place. It may be that the agreement needs to be revised, or it could be that the development can deliver something in collaboration with the authority, or that the intended amenity is no longer required as previously intended. While that money is in limbo and not being spent, it is not delivering for the people who felt the impact of the original development in the first place.
I start from the position that growth and development are good. We need good-quality homes, more business and the economy to grow. I know some do, but I do not see growth as a bad thing. At the same time that we say that growth is good and we need it, we must say that need people to see the benefit. Yes, there will be more people buying things in shops and milling around, with more money going into the general pot.
Equally, people in those communities will have had some upheaval with the development that was there first. As a result, people may be concerned about the extra demands on local services and that their trains and roads may be busier. At Second Reading, everyone said that they broadly support growth and development. If the Government are serious about changing the public’s views on growth and development then giving communities better visibility of the benefits of that development is essential. Recent polling from Public First, published in the last few days, found that 55% of people generally support development in their area. Some of the reasons for that are that they want to see regeneration, jobs, investment, and more shops and amenities. But by far the biggest reason for people opposing development is concern about pressures on local infrastructure. That is what I am trying to fix.
This amendment is not political—it is certainly not party political. It would help the Government, as they would be able to demonstrate that growth is good and that they are on the side of the people. It would not be onerous because it would not put anything additional on to a developer. It would not stop development; in fact, I genuinely think that it would be good for development and would improve accountability and transparency. Because of that, I want it to be there for people, to deliver what they expect and deserve. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 185K, 185L, 218 and 220 in my name follow on well from the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which these Benches fully support. The noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the importance of community benefits coming from development and ensuring that they are delivered. The amendments in my name would add to those that the noble Lord has just introduced.
Amendments 185K and 185L would insert new clauses after Clause 52 providing a duty to compel a complete local infrastructure. Amendment 185K seeks to make legally binding agreements associated with development consent orders or SDSs. Community benefits are the elements of a consent order that will be the last stage, almost inevitably, of implementation of a scheme. Without legal enforcement, it is possible for developers to significantly delay that implementation. Amendment 185K would empower local planning authorities to resist such moves and ensure that community benefits are fulfilled.
Amendment 185L would provide a further safeguard for local communities where a developer has signed a Section 106 agreement for the provision of a local amenity. If the amenity has not been built, the relevant local authority will have the power under this amendment to take over that responsibility but, crucially, will not be able to use that land for any other purpose, and neither will the developer. Those amendments relate to development consent orders and SDSs.
Amendments 218 and 220, although they have identical wording, relate to later parts of the Bill concerning compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 218 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 106, relating to compulsory development orders. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of land value capture. This is a policy concept and a way of raising funds, where public authorities recover the unearned increase in land value, often created by public investment in infrastructure or planning permissions, then reinvest it in public services and projects. This ensures that the benefits of public development—I emphasise that it is public development—are shared with the community, rather than solely accruing to the private landowners. That seems fair to me.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I relinquished my position in the queue of speakers on these amendments, as it seemed obvious that my noble friend Lady Pinnock should follow the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I am speaking to my Amendment 184. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, described her group 5 as the “odds and sods” group; this should probably have gone in that, as it applies to something rather different, but here we are.
Amendment 184 relates to what is becoming known as stepping-stone housing provision, which is a tool to combat youth homelessness across the UK. The amendment seeks an exemption to national space standards to facilitate this particular kind of housing more quickly and with less stress than it appears to need to achieve it at the moment.
We all know that youth homelessness blights the nation, with almost 120,000 young people—people between the ages of 16 and 24—asking their councils for help because they are homeless or at risk of homelessness, according to the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint. Many colleagues are familiar with Centrepoint: the charity’s efforts to address youth homelessness started, as many did, with a single night shelter in the late 1960s; its work with young people has spanned the last 50 years.
One of the greatest challenges to ending youth homelessness is a lack of genuinely affordable housing options for young people, especially those who are ready to move on from a hostel or temporary accommodation to living independently. One of the key differences for young homeless people is that they are not yet entrenched in that world; they are in the circumstances they are in, and, with the right sort of support and help, they could, and do, manage to go on to lead stable and fulfilling lives. The sooner we get them, the better. Unfortunately, thousands of young people are trapped in a cycle of emergency housing, unemployment and benefit reliance and are prevented from becoming independent adults who can fulfil their potential.
Along with other charities in the same situation—move-on accommodation is the big issue for homelessness charities—Centrepoint has delivered an innovative housing model called stepping-stone accommodation, because it is just that: a transitional accommodation solution which provides the independence, agency and space for young people at risk of homelessness to realise their potential. As part of this model, Centrepoint is building stepping-stone houses at 24 square metres for young people at risk of becoming homeless. The problem that the amendment is trying to solve—and I hope the Minister may empathise with the problem and even come up with a better solution—is that this housing is below the national space standard of 37 square metres for one-bedroom dwellings. Councils are desperate for more housing, but the rigid application of the space standard has meant that planning applications have been bogged down for years—in this case, four years.
We all get asked to do amendments, and we think whether we will take them on. Well, before I decided to take this on, I went to see this accommodation. I found myself in Peckham, where I had not been for many decades—I taught there briefly, many moons ago. Quite frankly, I was blown away—I can use no other words. What I saw was uplifting and encouraging. It was good. The first thing you notice is a solid front door. They have their own front door; they are not in an HMO. They have a lovely shower to the left, a bedroom area, a wardrobe, and a little kitchenette area with a table and chair. The people there were just safe and pleased to be there.
I know many colleagues are wary of reducing space standards, as am I, but this is for very good reason, which is looking for a way to be able to exempt this. Noble Lords will know why they need to do this—I am sure they are already a step ahead of me. It is to do with cost. If you make them a little bit smaller, you can make more.
The model is about getting these young people into work and independent. Unlike with an RSL, which might set its rents according to what the Government allow, the rent is set according to the individual young person’s job. You can have a situation, which there is at Reuben House, where they are paying different rents, but it is according to their ability to pay. It is about getting the young person to be more responsible and eventually to move into ordinary accommodation. Of course, if you cannot guarantee what your rent is going to be, that makes it trickier. There are many good reasons with regard to rent and income, and I do not want to go into that now, but I would be prepared to meet with the Minister to explain that further.
The size is key to being able to do that. The young people in these starter homes are quite clear that a few more metres would not make much odds to them, quite frankly. The homes are for single young people, living on their own for the first time, who need a manageable home that is economic to run. They are indeed that, with all the fuel efficiency and everything else. It gets the young people off benefits and into work, and to make a positive contribution.
Centrepoint and others have proved that this is viable and that it can have a transformative impact by helping young people escape homelessness for good. A targeted exemption—that is the key—should make the planning process easier for charities, so that they can build more homes more quickly for young people and help towards ending the housing crisis. I would value an opportunity to bring Centrepoint officers here to discuss this model and how it works in practice, and to offer a visit to anyone who felt it was appropriate.
I shall leave noble Lords with the words of one of the young people living in Reuben House, who said, “Stepping Stone not only provided me with a safe place to sleep but offered me a sense of hope and dignity during a challenging time in my life. Thanks to your assistance, I am now on a path towards stability and independence”.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of Amendment 184 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on stepping-stone accommodation. This worthwhile amendment promotes transitional housing solutions for those at risk of homelessness, as well as creating incentives for young people to stay at work with financial independence and living in quality, affordable accommodation.
I have been a long-term supporter of the charity Centrepoint, which has done incredible work in providing solutions for those who have been unfortunate enough to be homeless. The stepping-stone homes initiative has delivered self-contained, high-quality homes for young people, with the rent capped, as the noble Baroness mentioned, at one-third of their income. Like the noble Baroness, I have been to see the Reuben homes in Peckham, and I was enormously moved. This cost-effective transitional housing solution has the advantage of not just supporting financial independence and reducing reliance on benefits but, most importantly, helping young people to build a stable future. It provides not just a roof but services, such as helping residents to get over the problems of unemployment, as well as education and other life skills.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, covered the obstacles to scaling this model nationally and the inflexible application of the national described space standards, the NDSS—there are all these abbreviations—which currently block these smart schemes from expanding. She mentioned the limitation of 34 square metres. These pods, as I would call them, are 24 square metres, but none of the young people complained about a lack of space. This amendment provides checks and balances for a limited and carefully designed exemption for accredited stepping-stone accommodation for young people while ensuring—I stress this—that there are still robust safeguards around design quality.
A transitional solution for two to five years, helping young people to settle into work, live independently and save money makes a massive difference to them moving on with their careers. The limited tenure of two to five years provides the push factor that makes stepping-stone homes a sustainable source of affordable housing. It is not just Centrepoint: several other charities are trying similar initiatives. For this reason, I warmly support this amendment, which effectively provides a crucial piece of the puzzle of tackling homelessness.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 184, to which I have lent my name. There is not much I can add to the eloquent and compelling case for it that has just been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord St John.
As I see it, the key point is about scaling up with necessary speed. While space standards can in principle be departed from, that requires negotiation and time, and there are concerns about the threat of judicial review, et cetera. The amendment would provide clarity and certainty that, for this specific kind of invaluable accommodation, the space standards do not apply. Bearing in mind that the space standards were not designed with this kind of accommodation in mind, because it has come afterwards, to my mind that would be a considerable advantage of this kind of accommodation.
I have looked at the draft and it seems to me to be watertight. There is no scope for other kinds of developers and developments to piggyback on to it and seek to avoid space standards for the kinds of developments that should be subject to them. So I urge the Minister to consider this amendment very carefully. I also emphatically endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne in relation to his amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, possibly it is suitable for me to go next, because I shall speak also to Amendment 184, just to conclude the debate on that.
Amendment 184 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who has presented it in such an engaging way that I hardly feel it worth any of the rest of us saying anything. She was nobly supported by my noble friend Lord St John and the noble Lord, Lord Banner. Centrepoint, the promoter of the amendment, is a highly respected homelessness charity, and its ideas for creating stepping-stone accommodation are innovative and imaginative.
When asked to support the amendment, I raised three queries and received some helpful responses that I will share with your Lordships, as others may have had similar thoughts to mine. First, I noted that the scheme depended on the young renters moving on to permanent homes in due course to make way for the next young person. But what if the acute shortages of affordable homes made this move-on impossible? The clogging up of short-term supported housing has been the undoing of many earlier such projects. In response, I was assured that these tenants would be supported by a visiting tenancy sustainment worker, who would not only help the young people to pay their rent and maintain their home but would help with move-on options.
Secondly, I pointed out that living in 24 square metres would not normally be regarded as tolerable. The national minimum space standard for a flat is 37 square metres, which is over 50% bigger. Was there a danger that this might be the thin end of the wedge, leading to more exemptions from the norm over time? Experience of the abuse of permitted development rights for property conversions into tiny slums shows us where this might lead. In response, it was pointed out that the circumstances in which the amendment would permit the much-reduced space standards exclusively for otherwise homeless young people were very tightly circumscribed, defined and limited—and I note that they get the seal of approval from the noble Lord, Lord Banner.
Finally, I wondered whether it would be more companionable for the young renters to be in a shared flat with three or four others with their own room but sharing a bathroom and kitchen diner. The reply was very convincing: Centrepoint had consulted widely with young people and those who had spent their time in local authority supported housing with communal areas and shared facilities, and they wanted space that was entirely their own responsibility. Small developments of 12 to 36 studio flats would mean young people living alongside each other while learning to live independently.
It would be up to local planning authorities as to whether any stepping-stone schemes emerged, but this amendment would make them a possibility. Centrepoint and maybe other charities should be enabled to take their model forward to its next stage, no doubt with further pilot schemes to test the concept. With these comments, I support the amendment and look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s deliberations. I say at the outset that Amendment 184 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Banner is eminently sensible, and there appears to be a strong consensus in its favour. I therefore that my Front Bench but also the Minister will give it a fair hearing and possibly support it, because it seems to be a great compromise.
I was fortunate when serving in the other place to support a very good charity called Hope into Action, with local churches banding together to buy residential properties for those in the most acute need, sometimes ex-offenders or people who were just generally down on their luck economically. However, I understand that that is very much a niche activity and it is not possible to buy freeholds outright, so you need this intermediate accommodation in order to give people a chance to get back on the employment or education ladder. So I strongly commend that amendment.
Principally, I want to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I am old enough to remember when the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 got Royal Assent. I declare from the outset—practically everyone declares this in this Committee—that I am another former vice-president of the Local Government Association, although quite some time ago. I was also a London borough councillor, and I had the good fortune to serve on the planning committee.
It should be remembered that the purpose of Section 106 was very much benign and supported by the community. It was essentially about whether expenditure was necessary, directly relevant to the planning application, and proportionate. It was absolutely the right thing to seek to ameliorate some of the impacts of residential development by providing community facilities such as schools, GP surgeries, community centres and transport infrastructure. Obviously, there was a distinction between the community infrastructure levy and Section 106. Of course, when I was a Member of Parliament and member of the borough council, those financial contributions made in support of affordable housing were very important. They obviously made a big contribution to the provision of decent housing in our borough and in my constituency.
The reason why I think this is an excellent amendment is that not all local authorities are the same. One of the frustrations is that, unless you are focused every day on trying to find the audit trail of funding from Section 106, when you have multiple stakeholders, landowners, local councillors and council officers—who often change over time—it is very difficult to follow the money in terms of what was actually delivered.
You often found in my experience that residential developments ended up with groups of homeowners or local residents who were very unhappy at, for instance, being members of a limited company and responsible for the management of their community areas. They did not want to do that; they just wanted a children’s playground, a bus shelter or a bus route, or a post office, for instance. Therefore, the openness and transparency that this very laudable amendment would give rise to would allow the distinction between good authorities which are putting much-needed money into local communities in a timely way, and those local authorities which are dragging their feet.
I accept that there is a distinction between preparing a local development plan and a county structure plan, et cetera. That is much more of a legalistic exercise, which has to be undertaken under various pieces of legislation. This is about keeping the faith and the trust of the local people you are interested in providing with very good local services, using what is effectively a tax—public money. Having the imperative of publishing that information on a regular basis would allow you in real time to account for why you have not spent that money, what priorities have changed and what the needs of the community as they evolve might be.
I cannot really see why there would be a reason not to do this. Irrespective of party in local government, whether it is independent, Liberal Democrat, Reform, Conservative or Labour—I think that is everyone; unless you are in Epsom and Ewell, and then it is ratepayers, bizarrely—everyone has an opportunity to make sure that that money is spent effectively and in a timely way.
For that reason, I support the amendment. I hope that, if the Minister rejects the amendment, she explains clearly why it is not possible to support it and incorporate it into the Bill. It is long overdue; it is what transparency campaigners in local government want, what local councillors want and probably even what planning officers want, providing clarity on expenditure. It would be a very good development, and I hope the Minister will support it.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. As I indicated in the previous group, I sat on the CIL review 10 years ago with Liz Peace, whom some noble Lords may know from the restoration and renewal programme, as well as Andrew Whitaker from the Home Builders Federation, which is probably where my noble friend gets his figure of £8 billion from.
When I was a council leader, we had three councils that came together in the Greater Norwich area, and we were early adopters on CIL. We were only the 12th area to do it, and we pooled our CIL, blind to the administrative boundaries between us, to try to make a step change in the amount of infrastructure delivered. Sadly, following the CIL review in 2017, few other areas joined the bandwagon, and now many areas are not in scope—they have Section 106. But in principle the community infrastructure levy has much to commend it, as it is quick, simple, clear and a lot more straightforward than Section 106. However, there are some problems, one of them being sufficiency.
What we discovered on the CIL review was that the amount of money generated by the CIL was probably some 15% of the total infrastructure requirement, aggravated in many cases by a large number of exemptions—self-built homes, offices converted under permitted development to residence, and so forth. There was a further aggravating factor, in that local authorities are not permitted to borrow against future CIL receipts as they are against Section 106. That made it significantly harder to get the big, chunky infrastructure done.
As a group of local authorities, we created the Section 123 list, where we listed all the things we expected CIL to fund—and there were sections on green infrastructure, social infrastructure, education, highways and community facilities, including libraries. More than 400 lines populated that Section 123 list, which was published annually as a big report, so that everybody could see what we planned to spend the money on. Of course, I support completely the principle of Amendment 170, but it does not go far enough. It is not enough just to say, “Well, this much money is being raised on this job, and that is it”. You have to balance it—not just with the money coming in but with what you plan to spend out on, and the cash flow. It is a simple truth that after you raise the money, and it is only 15%, the next work and the hardest work is leveraging that 15% in with other sources of money, possibly joint ventures and so forth.
CIL is about financing infrastructure, not just funding it. Financing is putting that deal together, whereas funding is just writing the cheque. It is really important that we help the public to understand and see that essential difficulty. Time does not permit describing all the ways in which we have tried to do that, but this amendment does not go far enough. We need to ensure the money coming in and the Section 123 list of the infrastructure going out, as well as the financing. The most important thing that this amendment falls short on is that it does not set the cash flowing—where do you see the money going in 2026, 2027, 2028 and so forth, in a 10-year rolling period? Unless you do that, just by publishing the amount of money that you have raised, there is pressure to get the money out of the door on less important projects with lower impact, which is where we found a difficulty.
By having a more thoughtful, five or 10-year rolling programme, which contains the income, expenditure and cashflow, you would also give clarity to the development community. If you wish, and if it is sensible to do so, you could make a substitution—take an investment in kind, if you will—instead of making an upfront cash payment. That can be very useful. If a new school, for example, is on the Section 123 list, and the developer is interested in it, the new school can help him sell his houses in a large development, but if the money is not quite there yet, being open, honest and transparent, in this more complete way, makes it clear how schools can be financed in kind by the developer, and sometimes you can leverage more in that case.
I support the principle, although I do not believe it goes far enough; we need a five or 10-year programme. In my area, we publish a comprehensive annual report, which includes all the lines—the income and the outcome. However, while posting the balance is useful, it does not tell the whole story. That is what we need to do to get the infrastructure built but also the public onside.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, in another life, I had the privilege of taking through the then Planning Bill 2008, which introduced CIL. In this House, we had some very vigorous arguments, not about its purpose but about its methodology. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord said about the subsequent review. With the support of my Front Bench, we were very proud to be able to lever that additional money for crucial infrastructure.
I have some sympathy for the amendment, because it is a confusing strategy in some respects. I would like to see CIL and local authorities getting greater credit, as well as for there to be more transparency around what developers’ funds go into. While I want to pay tribute to my earlier Government’s effort to raise these funds, I support greater transparency and clarity for developers as well as for local authorities and communities.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and congratulate her on taking through the legislation. At the outset, when she was taking the legislation through your Lordships’ House, she would have contemplated that CIL was going to carry the lion’s share of the cost of infrastructure. Sadly, that never turned out to be the case. To a certain extent, the areas that have had CIL have ended up in a worst-of-all-worlds situation, where they have some CIL but they also have Section 106. That is a disappointment. It has not reached the promise that we all wanted for it, because everything has become so much more expensive. As I alluded to earlier, the developers give up with CIL and just want to build the school themselves. In fact, they are probably best placed to build the school while they are onsite, mobilised and with the construction equipment all around them. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps forcing the council to build the school when they do not have some of that brownfield risk would have been an improvement.
I am getting off the point. In short, I support the amendment, but it needs to be embellished on Report.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, described Amendment 184 as compelling, and I entirely agree with him. In the interests of time, that is all I will say on that amendment.
I will briefly speak to Amendment 218, taking us back some time to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who has already introduced the idea of a review of land value capture. I am going to brandish a historical figure in defence of this suggestion. It may surprise the Benches to my right, because I am going to start by saying that I agree with Winston Churchill. That is not a phrase that I bring out very often, but I do in this context. In 1909, he said that
“the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts or at the centre of one of our great cities … sits still and does nothing. Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains—and all while the landlord sits still … To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced”.
That was identified more than a century ago, but it exactly addresses the issue that still exists and that we have not come to deal with.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Okay—I am not going to get that far into the history.
I declare an interest in that land value tax is a long-term Green Party policy and one that I am very happy to talk about at length, but I am not going to do that because it is not what this amendment would do. However, it is worth thinking about the fact that the problem with how we tax land goes back a very long way. There was a royal commission on the housing of the working classes set up in 1885; it was the first time that an inquiry had referred to land value taxation—it was called site value rating then—and it said that this would be a better way to solve a housing crisis. These are issues that we have been wrestling with and failing to solve for a very long time.
My final point is that this amendment by itself would not deal with the crunching, terrible elephant-in-the-room issue of council tax, but it would start to provide the Government with a way to open up these issues. This is all regarded as too politically difficult, too challenging and too complicated to explain—I know what it is like to try to explain land value tax in 15 seconds, because it is a challenge. We are now 35 years on from when council tax was created. It was an emergency crunch measure created by the Treasury after the political disaster of the poll tax. It is a deeply regressive tax. Someone living in a home worth £100,000 pays an effective tax rate five times as high as someone in a £1 million property. The average net council tax is only 2.7 times higher for the top 10% of properties than for the bottom 10%. This is something that we have to address. This amendment would not address all, or even the bulk, of it, but it would start to inch us into a space where we could tackle some issues that desperately need to be tackled.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have already debated some complex topics in Committee and the issue of land value capture certainly continues in that vein.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Yes—maybe we need a review of the Committee stage of this Bill.
I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his amendment and agree with the spirit of his proposals. Greater transparency is positive, and most good authorities would have that information readily available. I can say that, for my own council, I could phone up and get a spreadsheet of exactly how much each development has contributed in my ward.
As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I just want to say something in defence of councils and the fact that there is a considerable sum, so to speak, sitting on the balance books. As an ex-leader, I know how difficult it is to get these big projects over the line. Even a good secondary school can cost £25 million or £30 million; you will be reliant on four or five different Section 106 payments for that, you will be waiting for grants, and you will have to get the land. These things can take three, four, five or six years. To go on to the topic of bypasses, that is an entirely different timescale. We should look not just at the quantum of money but at how difficult it is to pull these sums together and get things going.
I come to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, where I think that review might even address some of these timescale issues. The noble Baroness has raised a number of important issues, particularly around the delivery of infrastructure promised through development agreements, the use and protection of land set aside for community purposes and the broader question of how the public might benefit when land values increase sharply. I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on the principles raised and, in that spirit, I want to put a few questions to the Minister, which I hope she might be able to respond to today; if not, perhaps she could come back at a later time.
First, what assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of existing mechanisms, principally Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, in ensuring that local communities receive the schools, highways, GP surgeries and other facilities promised? Too often, we hear of permissions granted on the basis that there will be improved infrastructure and then, over time, it is slowly whittled away and we find new housing without that infrastructure and communities having to cope with more traffic on the roads, more crowded GP surgeries, schools with portakabins and so forth. If residents see new developments going up without the infrastructure that they were promised, they will lose confidence in the planning system and will therefore fight every single development, which some of us do find. We need reforms that get trust back in the system.
Secondly, does the Minister agree that there is a risk that infrastructure commitments can in practice be watered down or renegotiated, leaving communities without these services?
Thirdly, on land value capture more broadly, does the Minister believe that the current system allows sufficient benefit from rising land values to be shared with the wider public, or does she see scope for reform, as envisaged in Amendment 218?
Fourthly, will the Government commit to reviewing international examples of land value capture—for instance, models used in parts of Europe or Asia—to see whether there are lessons that might be drawn for a UK context?
Finally, how do the Government intend to balance the need to secure fair contributions for infrastructure and community benefit while ensuring that development remains viable and attractive to investors? I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is important that we resolve them.
Moving on, Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raises a really important issue. We have a housing crisis and we need to look at all solutions that may resolve it. I commend her for once again placing the needs of young people at the centre of our deliberations. The question before us is a delicate but important one. It concerns whether planning authorities should be permitted to approve high-quality transitional accommodation for young people leaving supported housing or at the risk of homelessness in circumstances where our national space standards would otherwise disallow such provision. The case for doing so is strong. The housing crisis is not abstract; it is a real matter facing the young of today. Too many of them find themselves renting late into life, sofa surfing or returning to the parental home, not through choice but because there are no realistic alternatives. At precisely the stage in life when young people should be gaining independence, putting down roots, building families and contributing to the wider economy, instead they face barriers at every turn.
We are all familiar with the macroeconomic challenges of house prices that have outpaced wages, a lack of genuinely affordable starter homes and, in certain parts of the country, rents which are, frankly, extortionate. That is why the noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of stepping-stone accommodation, a flexible transitional model that can bridge the gap between institutional supported housing and permanent independence.
But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of the amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our space standards were developed for a good reason. They exist to prevent the return of poor-quality housing, of rabbit-hutch flats, of homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability. If we are to disapply such standards in certain cases, we must do so with clear safeguards in place. So, I urge that, if this amendment is taken forward, it is accompanied by precise definitions, strict planning guidance and a rigorous framework, to ensure that genuine transitional high-quality schemes can benefit from the flexibilities proposed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group relating to community infrastructure, land value capture and space standards for stepping-stone accommodation.
I turn first to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which would impose new reporting requirements on local planning authorities and introduce new mechanisms to ensure that works funded through developer contributions are delivered. The stories about the delivery of Section 106 and CIL are legendary. My two favourite examples were a bus stop delivered in an area that did not have a bus route, which was wonderful, and a playground that had not been built to safety standards that would ever allow it to be opened, so it never opened—it got closed again before it even opened. We get some nonsense stories like this, and I accept that that is not acceptable.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I would be very interested to know whether the Minister has the figure—if not, she could let us know later—but I think the National Audit Office said 17% of local authorities had not submitted their infrastructure funding statements. I wondered if she had any update on that and perhaps would let us know how many have failed to disclose.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Lord predicts, I do not have the figure in front of me, but I will write to noble Lords and confirm what it is.
Amendment 185L seeks to deal with instances in which community infrastructure secured through Section 106 cannot be delivered as originally intended. In our view, this amendment risks unintended consequences which could hinder, rather than facilitate, sustainable development. I emphasise that local planning authorities can already take enforcement action if a developer fails to deliver on the obligations they have committed to in a Section 106 agreement, including failure to deliver community infrastructure where relevant. This may include a local planning authority entering the land to complete the works and then seeking to recover the costs or applying to the court for an injunction to prevent further construction or occupation of dwellings. This amendment would prevent the modification of planning obligations even where a change of circumstances means that the community infrastructure in question can no longer be delivered by the developer.
As I have set out, the Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions, including Section 106 planning obligations. To deliver on this commitment, we are taking a number of steps, including reviewing planning practice guidance on viability. However, we must have flexibility where necessary to ensure that development, where there are genuine changes in circumstance, can continue to come forward. We must also think carefully about the demands we are placing on local planning authorities, which may not have the capacity or resources to take on responsibility for delivery in the way this amendment proposes.
Amendments 185K and 220 focus on the development consent order process and strategic development schemes and seek to achieve the same outcome. The clauses proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would place a legal requirement on developers to deliver on commitments made to provide specified local infrastructure as part of their projects.
First, I want to express my sympathy with the spirit behind this proposal. We all agree that communities must be able to secure the infrastructure they need, especially when new development brings added pressure on local services and existing infrastructure, including schools, nurseries and GP surgeries. In particular, I acknowledge that the concerns that may be driving the amendment relate to the impact of temporary workers or additional traffic on local communities caused by large-scale infrastructure projects, which can remain under construction for significant periods of time.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the problem with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is that the viability of affordable housing changes all the time? Because there is a link between the viability of residential housing and community facilities, that amendment could lock in the development in a restrictive way—for instance, it might not allow off-site commutation of funding to fund other projects.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s point, and it is of course important that we get the balance right between the delivery of the infrastructure as set out and having flexibility, so that when circumstances change, this can change too.
The amendments seek to focus on the issue by ensuring that commitments to delivering local infrastructure need to reduce the impact of a large-scale scheme. In responding, I have assumed that the reference to strategic development schemes is intended to relate to spatial development strategies, which are introduced through this Bill. These strategies, along with local development plans, set out infrastructure needs but are not applications and do not have developments attached to them. I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, and when it comes to large-scale new developments, the Government agree that delivering local infrastructure is crucial. If a project approved through a development consent order creates a need for local infrastructure such as roads, schools or drainage works, those needs can be addressed in two ways.
First, development consent order requirements, which are similar to planning conditions on planning permissions issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, control how and when the development is carried out, and may require the approval of subsequent details by the local planning authority. These can be used in cases where changes to local infrastructure are needed to make development acceptable in planning terms. For example, if a developer is providing a relief road to mitigate an identified impact on local infrastructure as a result of constructing a large-scale infrastructure project, the necessary works can be detailed in the requirements. Relevant requirements may mandate subsequent plans—which outline proposed design, works phasing and traffic management—to be submitted to the highways authority, and these plans would then need to be approved and adhered to when implementing the development consent order.
Secondly, local infrastructure can be secured through development consent order obligations. These legal agreements can be used to require the payment of money as contributions towards the provision of local infrastructure, or to secure commitments to delivering that infrastructure. An obligation can be used to ensure that impacts on local infrastructure are properly taken into account and to mitigate identified adverse effects. The Secretary of State may take into account development consent obligations that meet the relevant legal and policy tests when deciding whether to grant development consent for the project. Once an obligation is enforced, it becomes legally binding and runs with the land, even if the land changes hands. A local planning authority has a range of enforcement options available to it if developers or the owners of the land, subject to the development consent obligation, do not fulfil their legal commitments.
While we fully support the goal of ensuring communities get the infrastructure they need, we believe the existing system already provides the right tools through legal requirements where appropriate, and these clauses would not add clarity or effectiveness to that process. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his series of questions. I will check in Hansard which ones I answered. If there are any I did not answer, I will reply to him in writing. However, for all the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 218 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of land value capture, including consideration of the merits of alternative methods of land value capture, within six months of Royal Assent to the Bill, and to report on the findings to Parliament.
I thank the noble Baronesses for raising this amendment. It is critically important that local planning authorities can capture a proportion of the land value uplift that often occurs when planning permission is granted in order to deliver affordable housing and the infrastructure needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Local planning authorities currently use the well-established and effective mechanisms of Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system, and we have chosen not to implement alternative proposals for land value capture provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, such as the infrastructure levy.
The Government have already made important progress in delivering against this commitment. For example, through the revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 12 December last year, the Government introduced new “golden rules” for major development involving the provision of housing on land within or released from the green belt. Our “golden rules” aim to deliver higher levels of affordable housing alongside necessary infrastructure and accessible green space.
Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently in the other place, we are also legislating to give mayors of strategic authorities the power to raise a mayoral CIL alongside the requirement to have a spatial development strategy in place, enabling them to raise revenue for strategic growth-supporting infrastructure where this is balanced with viability. The department has provided evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee inquiry into land value capture, and we very much look forward to engaging with the findings and recommendations of that inquiry in due course.
Amendment 184, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to exempt local planning authorities from applying the nationally described space standards on planning applications concerning the delivery of “stepping stone” accommodation. I also thank Centrepoint for its continuing and proactive support regarding the housing crisis among young people, and for its work on the Bill.
As helpfully set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her explanatory note, the thrust of this amendment is to promote accommodation for young people who are leaving supported housing or who are at risk of homelessness. I have delivered similar schemes to the ones she described through our housing first scheme in Stevenage, including some for young people with learning disabilities, which was a remarkable experience. It was a small development, but it was life-changing for those young people. The community they formed in that housing development was wonderful to see, so I do not need any convincing of the reasons for delivering schemes such as these.
I give my support to the principle of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and agree that regulation should not unnecessarily get in the way of providing safe and secure housing for our most vulnerable, particularly vulnerable young people. However, I hope I can reassure her that the amendment is not needed.
The purpose of the space standards is to provide guidance on the minimum area of new dwellings across all types of tenures, based on the number of bedrooms and bedspaces. The nationally described space standards are not set out in legislation, and they are not mandatory. It is at the discretion of local planning authorities to choose to adopt the space standards through their local planning policies where there is an identified need for additional technical requirements. As set out in planning practice guidance, when establishing a clear need for adopting the space standards locally, they must assess the impact on local viability and housing supply.
By law, planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Each application is judged on its own individual merit, and the weight given to these considerations is a matter for the local planning authority as the usual decision-taker in the first instance.
What constitutes a material consideration is very widely defined and it is for the planning decision-maker to determine what is a relevant consideration, based on the circumstances of a particular case. We feel this is best for local areas to determine on a case-by-case basis, rather than being dictated by central government. For example, if the local planning authority considers that the need for a particular housing tenure—such as “stepping stone” housing—would, when considering all relevant material considerations, outweigh the policy requirement to have that housing meet the optional space standards adopted in its local plan, it may grant planning permission. In short, the current planning framework—
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I absolutely understand what the Minister is saying but, given the actual experience—four years for planning permission—could we explore together a way of giving this a shove up the agenda and in some way make it a little better? It definitely feels as though there is a wall there that we need to shove a digger through. The Minister says it is there in legislation, but it is clearly not happening in practice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to do that. As I explained, I fully understand the intention behind the amendment. I hope my explanations have reassured noble Lords sufficiently and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am genuinely always grateful when the Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, as well as to all those who spoke in this group. It has been a good, illuminating discussion, and I like the ambition of my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Jackson and my noble friend—I will call her that—Lady Andrews, my fellow committee member. I cannot remember what she subsequently said, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, called this an odds and sods group, but it did have two key components.
I liked that, at the beginning, it felt as though we had rediscovered the 2010 rose garden treaty, when the Lib Dem-Tory alliance was going strong—though my noble friend Lord Jackson should not worry. We are hand in glove on Amendments 220 and 170 and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Banner was very good. I wholeheartedly support it; you have people with real experience who understand the complexities of the issue but, for those who need it most, it is worth trying to find a way to make it possible, and a load of work has been done on this already.
I think we should explore my amendment. I accept that some will say that it should be bolder and some that it should be weaker. I am afraid that I am not sure what the position of my Front Bench was—it is not the first time I have had that problem. I know that local authorities deliver and are under pressure, but 20 years is a very long time. As my noble friend Lord Banner said, it seems odd that, during this period, local people do not even know what is happening in their area. As I said, I know that there are infrastructure funding statements but, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, when 17% of them are not even being delivered we cannot say that the system is working. There must be some way that we can work together to find something to give the system a little nudge and remind and show people that there is some benefit beyond what is being put through development. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Andrews
“Conservation of the historic environment(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In sections 16(2), 66(1) and 66(2), for “preserving”, in each place in which it occurs, substitute “conserving or enhancing”.(3) In section 72(1), for “preserving” substitute “conserving”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the fundamental inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and safeguarding heritage by encouraging desirable change.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I feel that I have been reprieved on this amendment. I will do my best to keep it short, although it is a bit technical. It is a proposed new clause. The Front Bench will be relieved to know that none of my supporters can be here; they are all in far better places and having a much better time, which will definitely cut down the time taken on this.
The amendment is supported and was mainly drafted by the Heritage Alliance, which represents 200 of the heritage bodies in the country. It is a very weighty amendment that has been extremely well thought-through by the umbrella body for the heritage sector. Who could resist an amendment drafted by such a public-spirited body? It is also in the spirit of the Bill. It is about freeing up growth and innovation through housing, public services and more besides. The clinching argument is that it would bring out-of-date legislation into current policy, guidance and best practice. I think the Minister can only commend this amendment, because it would bring clarity and confidence across the whole field of heritage and planning.
Briefly, national heritage planning policy is based throughout on the principle of conservation, defined in the NPPF, which we have heard about a lot on this Bill, as:
“The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance”.
The definition goes back decades. It was pioneered in America and we incorporated it into English Heritage’s conservation principles when I had the privilege of being its chair in 2012. It was incorporated into the NPPF in that year too. It has meant in practice that conservation has become the lodestar of heritage practice, encouraging and enabling the repurposing of historic buildings into working spaces for today’s students, crafts men and women, housing families and organisations, while retaining the character of those post-industrial towns and their buildings which means so much.
Anybody who has watched “The Great Pottery Throw Down” will know Middleport Pottery, which was rescued at the very last minute, supported by the King, and restored to all its glory. There is the marvellous work on St John’s, at Waterloo, which has kept its extraordinary heritage and community activities and so on. There are hundreds of outstanding examples. Were the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, here, he would talk about historic farm buildings and the contribution they make to the continuing character and vitality of the countryside.
What needs changing? Lurking in the planning legislation is a residual leftover from another age, when the object of heritage was to preserve and not conserve. Let me explain. The concept of preservation dates back to the 19th century, well before there was any consciousness of what historic buildings might be used for. There was then a binary choice: knock it down and lose it or preserve it. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 was the attempt to provide legal protection for the first time. That concept of preservation against loss prevailed for a century and it remains at the heart of the planning system. In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is still a legal presumption in favour of preservation. This amendment seeks to bring planning policy and guidance into line and substitute the phrase “conserving or enhancing” for “preserving” in each of the relevant subsections.
Why is it urgent to do this now? Every listed building consent and planning decision near any listed building, and every planning decision in England’s 10,000 conservation areas, must explicitly give special regard to “preservation”, not “conservation”. Planning law overrides and outranks policy and guidance, so this planning legislation can have a chilling effect on imagination, innovation, and the creative use of rare and useful buildings, working against the possibility of housing, public services, leisure and much else.
This is not some nit-picking attempt to tidy up legislation. Heritage is not a peripheral issue in planning. We are an old country, with lots of stuff, and a third of planning applications involve heritage. But heritage is now so often seen, and can be seen in the Bill, as blocking change—a lazy reaction. At a time when we are looking for economic growth, and growth in housing and services, this prejudice prevents the right sort of change and growth. It is bad for the past and bad for the future.
Take town centres, for example—which our Select Committee recently looked at. They are robbed of their original purpose and yet still recognisable in the churches, civic buildings and law courts which make up the heart of the community. They may have lost their original purposes but they are immensely useful buildings which can transform community engagement. They are ripe for repurposing for local authority services, diagnostic medical centres, craft workshops and galleries —all it needs is imagination and the change in the law that we are proposing in this amendment. Historic England estimated that 670,000 new homes could be created in England alone by repairing and repurposing existing historic buildings.
This is an obvious and timely change to make and is extremely discreet. It is a very limited amendment and would have no damaging implications for any other form of legislation. It would simply remove the inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and ensuring that heritage becomes part of the wealth of the future as well as the past. I really hope the Minister will support this. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, heritage assets, as we have heard, are not simply buildings or sites of historic interest; they are living reminders of who we are, where we come from and the values we wish to pass on. Turning to the amendments before us, in Amendment 172 the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raises an important and interesting issue—the inconsistency, as I understand it, between heritage policy and heritage legislation. I am keen to hear the Government’s reflections on this matter and whether they believe that an amendment of this kind is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the system. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and I would love a conversation about this with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
Turning to a series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as he so often does, he has raised some significant, thought-provoking issues. We worked tirelessly on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act. Anything that helps to get on with the commencement of some of the key aspects of that legislation would be most welcome. In that context, Amendment 182, on the commencement of provisions concerning the duty to have regard to heritage assets in planning functions, is of particular importance. Ensuring that heritage is properly taken into account in planning decisions is a safeguard for the future as much as a means of showing respect for the past.
We also hear what my noble friend says in Amendment 185C, which proposes that national listed building consent orders under Section 26C of the 1990 Act be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That seems a practical suggestion, and I hope the Government and the noble Baroness will consider it carefully. Heritage is, after all, not about blocking change but about managing it well and ensuring that the past informs and enriches the future. These amendments, in different ways, all seek that balance model.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. Amendment 172 would align the terminology of the listed buildings Act with that of the National Planning Policy Framework. It also seeks to encourage desirable change which will benefit our heritage assets. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, the use of the word “preserve” in heritage legislation is long standing and supported by case law. Case law, in particular, has emphasised that if a decision-maker follows the policies protecting designated heritage assets in the NPPF, including giving greater weight to their conservation, it will have discharged its duty to have special regard to the preservation of a listed building. I am wary, therefore, of changing the wording to “conserve”, as doing so might create more uncertainty and lead to further legal challenge when the position is settled in case law.
As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which are the subject of Amendment 182 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seek to introduce the term “enhancing” into heritage legislation. My noble friend Lady Taylor has met with the heritage organisations and the DCMS once in the past, and we are committed to meeting them again before Report.
I now turn to Amendments 182 and 183, which both seek to commence provisions in the 2023 Act. I reassure the Committee that the Government have not forgotten about these provisions. We are continuing to consider our approach to heritage planning policy in the context of the wider planning reforms, including further revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework. We will keep implementation of the 2023 Act heritage measures under review as part of that work.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 185C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would make national listed building consent orders subject to the negative procedure. My noble friend Lady Andrews, especially, but perhaps also other long-serving Members, will recall that it was the intention of Parliament that national listed building consent orders be subject to the affirmative procedure. This was largely in response to concerns raised about the power and breadth of discretion given to the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness commented during the debates on the 2013 Act:
“There is concern that a general national class consent order, saying something about the works that could be done to listed buildings without consent, could not conceivably be so sensitive that it did not have some perverse or damaging consequences”.—[Official Report, 14/11/12; col. 1545.]
Therefore, we need to be very cautious about changing the procedure to the negative procedure without significant engagement with the heritage sector and others. With these explanations, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s reply. I will of course withdraw the amendment, but it is rather disappointing. I am very glad that the Minister has met with the conservation and heritage bodies. They have a view about this, which is why they framed the amendment as they did. Although I accept the argument, there is a point in thinking again about whether we need to align this legislation and guidance, for the reasons I gave.
There is a wider argument. There are other aspects of heritage protections that are now very much in the frame for change. It is four or five decades since we had heritage legislation. The 1985 Act is well out of date. We need new heritage legislation. When the Minister meets with the heritage bodies again, perhaps she could ask them what they think of that idea and whether they would have an interest in framing new heritage legislation which makes more sense of where we are in terms of how we now regard historic buildings in their setting, and their purposes. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Local plan compliance with Habitats Regulations assessmentsWhen developing a local plan, a local planning authority must consider whether the plan complies with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012) and conduct full environmental impact assessments for all sites being proposed as suitable for development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable local plans to guide developers towards sites most appropriate for development and speed up and simplify the subsequent planning application process by conducting Habitats Regulations assessments at local plan stage, rather than individual planning application stage.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the House satisfaction by saying “Not moved”. Like my noble friend Lady Andrews, I feel that it is bad enough tabling amendments to your own Government’s Bill, but I am doing it when the whole House wants to go home. Also, all my supporters were expecting this to come up next week as part of the Part 3 discussions and have all gone off to do whatever it is that they are up to. My noble friend Lady Andrews has got the inside track on that. It really is a big order. I will try to be brief, but I actually regard these amendments as probably the most important ones that I have tabled to the whole Bill. Perhaps this debate can be regarded as a warm-up act for the main discussions on EDPs and the nature restoration fund next week.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, in his absence—I think that he is off fishing—for putting his name to my amendments. I am very grateful for that. These three amendments are a package, to be taken together, as they outline an alternative approach to Part 3 of the Bill by seeking to tackle the real blockages that are being experienced by developers, not by throwing the habitats regulations baby out with the bath-water but by streamlining the way they are implemented.
The habitats regulations have been portrayed as significant blockages to development and that needs a bit of unpicking. First, they cover only internationally important habitats and species that need and deserve the highest level of protection. Secondly, some see them as gold-plating by the European Union, but it was actually us Brits who invented the habitats regulations and negotiated them into the rest of Europe. They are pretty fundamental to the protection of those habitats and species that are the feedstock from which nature restoration is fed.
Thirdly, many developers and others are clear that nature issues are not actually the biggest cause of delays to development; they come quite a long way down the lists that developers have, behind the lack of planning, resources and skills in local planning authorities, behind the same problem in the various regulators and consultees and behind the inbuilt reluctance of developers to build out sites. We have extant planning permissions for 1.2 million homes that have not been built and we have heard tonight about delays that have happened as a result of CIL and Section 106. I gather that, at the moment, building safety requirements as a result of the Grenfell Tower event can delay planning permissions for up to a year. So it is not just the habs regs that are a problem, as is sometimes the impression you would get from Part 3 of the Bill.
I have put forward these amendments against that background of seeking to resolve these real problems, knowing that next week we will hear considerable and more detailed concerns from others about how EDPs and the nature restoration fund will work; and that is in spite of the very useful amendments that the Government have already put down following the Commons stages to meet the significant concerns expressed in the other place and to respond to the criticism by the Office for Environmental Protection that Part 3 represents a regression from current standards.
So I am not the only person concerned about the Part 3 proposals. Indeed, a recent legal opinion by David Elvin KC, subsequent to the laying of the government amendments, concluded that, even with these changes, Part 3 represents a regression on environmental standards that could be in breach of international law. That is the context.
I will briefly lay out these three simple amendments, which offer an alternative way forward. Amendment 242A would restrict EDPs to only those issues where approaches are required at a strategic landscape scale in order to be effective. These are issues of nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resources and air quality—the issues that developers are most worried about. EDPs would not be put in place for individual species issues. There are already good models, such as the newt district licensing scheme, which work and often involve leveraging private sector investment. These private sector investors already see EDPs as undermining their schemes and chilling investment. So development of further species schemes along those lines is perfectly possible.
Amendments 185F and 185G would tackle other concerns about the habitats regulations beyond the four priorities that are listed in Amendment 242A by moving the requirements to comply with the habitats regulations substantially upstream to spatial development strategies and local plans. This would mean that, by the time developers came forward with planning applications on specific sites, the heavy lifting of habs regs, surveys and assessments would have been done at the spatial strategy and local plan stage. This would have the added benefit of guiding developers towards the simplest sites for development, where there would be least opposition, reducing unnecessary conflict and simplifying the planning application phase considerably.
I have talked to developers, both housing and infrastructure, about these proposals, and to the environmental NGOs. They believe that they could be made to work. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am very supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Roborough. I would actually encourage the noble Baroness to retable Amendment 242A, if she is allowed to, because I do not think we will have deliberated on it—I am sure the Public Bill Office can advise—and it will work well, as she says, next week.
On Amendments 185F and 185G, the noble Baroness made a very good point. This is one of my wider frustrations with aspects of people using certain things, certain regulations or “the nature” as an excuse. As the noble Baroness has well laid out, quite often it can be a factor: there are things that can change—rulings and decisions about licensing. The abstraction of water is one example I have used before when talking about the impact—that happened at Sizewell C. Nevertheless, one of my wider points would be that, if you really want to accelerate a lot of infrastructure, do not start planning to build stuff in a place that has already been designated as the most important for nature in this country; find somewhere else, and think it through. One reason why quite a lot of people move to certain places in the country is that they are beautiful, environmental places. I do not want to go over Sizewell C, and I will keep to the point of the regulation, but this is really a way to future-proof and to get a lot of this infrastructure flowing.
There are things that we could get into about which species are the right ones to consider in habitat regulations; there are other debates forming about whether we should look after only things that are really at risk. That does not necessarily work. We have already heard today about the importance of global biodiversity and chalk streams, but I think this is a very useful amendment.
I am glad that we are doing at least part of the debate today, because it will give the Government time over the weekend to think about whether their modest proposals in revising Part 3, which are welcome, really go far enough to help local communities, local developers and local councillors so that we can move forward. By getting rid of some of these unnecessary arguments, we would have the homes and the development that are much desired, and we would still have places, right around our country, that are special for nature and special for our planet.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on Amendment 185F, tabled by her and supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough. I do not need to talk at length, because the noble Baroness has set out excellent arguments for progressing this and other amendments. She said that this is one of the most important amendments in the Bill, and she is right. We are touching on it today in advance of next week, when we will discuss this and similar improvements.
The noble Baroness has set out a simpler solution than the massive bureaucracy created in Part 3. Part 3 and the EDPs are a massive sledgehammer to crack the nut of nutrient neutrality. With the amendments that we will discuss next week in addition to this one, we can offer the Government a simpler solution than the EDP monolith. We need to tackle the problems of nutrient neutrality and will address some of the amendments next week.
Amendment 185F would require local planning authorities to consider compliance with the habitats regulations and to conduct full environmental impact assessments on sites that are proposed as suitable for development. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, let us plan this in advance—do not wait until developers come along to put in a planning application and then discover that they are trying to do it in the wrong place. This is not about adding a new layer of bureaucracy; on the contrary, it is about moving necessary assessment upstream to where it can do the most good.
Too often, local plans identify sites for housing or infrastructure which turn out to be wholly unsuitable when subjected to proper ecological scrutiny. By then, the damage is done: developers are frustrated, communities are confused and valuable habitats are placed at risk. This amendment from the noble Baroness would support local authorities to screen out inappropriate sites early, giving greater certainty to developers and the public. It would also help to ensure that sites allocated in the plan were truly deliverable. It is, in short, a sensible and proportionate proposal, reflecting long-standing principles that plan-making is a stage at which big environmental choices should be made and that doing so reduces conflict and costs later on. I hope the Minister will take the advice of our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. As I said earlier, she is an expert on this matter, no matter how much she may deny being a world expert.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough would shift the process for habitats regulations assessment from the level of individual planning applications to the local plan stage or, in the case of Amendment 185G, the spatial development strategy. I appreciate this amendment. It is in line with comments I made earlier about EDPs, which should be part of the spatial development strategy, rather than separate. The whole point is moving things upstream and doing them once for the whole area rather than having to have multiple assessments with each planning application. We had comments earlier about the sheer bureaucracy and the difficulty of some of these planning applications. My noble friend Lord Fuller is not in his place, but he made a point about smaller applications being burdened with large amounts of paperwork that could be done as part of the local plan.
The intention is clear: it is to guide developers more effectively towards sites most appropriate for development and to speed up and simplify the subsequent application process. That is a constructive alternative approach to how we currently handle habitats assessments, and it merits serious consideration.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, have the Government assessed the benefits of carrying out work earlier in the process? If not, will they commit to doing so? Secondly, how can the Government ensure that local authorities have the capacity to do that and that duplication is avoided?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young for her amendments on habitats regulations assessments. Amendment 185F seeks to ensure that local plans are in compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and that the local authority preparing the plan carries out full environmental impact assessments when proposing sites for development. It is important that the environmental impacts of a local plan are properly assessed as part of their preparation, arrangements for which are set out in existing legislation.
All local plans are already required to undertake a habitats regulations assessment where they have the potential for impacts on a site or species protected under the regulations. In addition, all local plans are required to carry out an assessment incorporating the requirements of a strategic environmental assessment where a local plan will result in likely significant effects on the environment. This obligation is for a strategic environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact assessment, as the latter requires in-depth information about a specific development proposal—information that will not generally be available at the plan-making stage. However, any development that comes forward subsequent to the plan’s adoption that, due to its size, nature or location, is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will require an environmental impact assessment. With this reassurance about the way that environmental impacts are considered during plan preparation and in support of its implementation, I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
In Amendment 185G, my noble friend raises an important issue about how habitats regulations requirements will apply to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already applies the assessment requirements under the habitats regulations to spatial development strategies. This means that strategic planning authorities will be required to carry out habitats regulations assessments where necessary, bringing new spatial development strategies in line with the spatial development strategy for London. The proposed amendment would require full assessment of specific sites allocated within spatial development strategies, yet the Bill expressly does not allow them to allocate specific sites. It will therefore not be possible for strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments for specific sites as part of SDS preparation. This would need to happen, where needed, later in the planning process.
Amendment 242A would limit the scope of environmental delivery plans to a narrow list of environmental impacts on protected sites: namely, nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I share my noble friend’s desire to ensure that EDPs are used only where they can be shown to deliver for the environment. This is why the Government sought to clarify their position in the recent government amendments, which highlight that the Secretary of State could make an EDP only where the conservation measures materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature. That ensures that EDPs could be brought forward only to address issues that would benefit from a strategic approach and would deliver an environmental uplift that goes beyond the status quo position required under the current system.
With the assurance that an EDP would be made only where it would deliver that environmental uplift, we feel it is right to allow EDPs to be brought forward to address the range of environmental impacts set out in the Bill. Limiting types of environmental impacts that EDPs can address would remove the ability for EDPs to respond to other environmental impacts that may result from development, where a strategic approach could deliver in line with the overall improvement test, especially to protected species. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the Opposition Front Bench for their support for my amendments. The Minister has expressed concerns that environmental impact assessments can happen only when there is a specific site concerned. I have some detailed working papers that I can provide to Ministers, and talk them through, showing how that could be bridged to do the maximum amount of work on a preparatory basis at local plan level before any final touches were applied when a site was up for proposal. Perhaps I could share those next week.
On the overall improvement test, the reality is that it is probably possible to demonstrate—although I have not had time tonight—that the process of overall improvement and the issues that would be most amenable to that are going to be the things that can be resolved only on a strategic basis at landscape scale. We are arguing from two ends of the same spectrum, really: the Government are saying that EDPs apply to everything but that they have to meet these tests, which would actually restrict the things that EDPs could be used for, while I am arguing that we probably know right now what the restrictions would be, so why not put those in the Bill? I am sure we will come to resolve some of these issues when we have the real run at these points next week.
My message is simple. Let us make sure we are focusing on the real blockages. Let us recognise that Part 3 has flaws. Let us take my three simple steps, with some of the elaboration that I have promised. Let us reduce conflict, reduce costs and speed development. But at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 15th September 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VII(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (15 Sep 2025)
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to remind noble Lords that we have a large number of groups on this Bill to get through today. While this is Committee, I rise to remind noble Lords of the guidance in the Companian at paragraph 8.81 on speeches at the amending stages of Bills:
“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.
While there have many important contributions from all sides of the Committee, parts of our recent debates have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So that we can make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion, and brief.
Amendment 185N
Earl Russell
“Energy consumption of AI and technology-related infrastructure(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of this Act coming into force, prepare and publish a National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy for the purposes of informing planning policy and guiding the development of artificial intelligence and technology-related infrastructure under this Act, in so far as it relates to energy consumption.(2) For the purposes of this section, “artificial intelligence and technology-related infrastructure” includes, but is not limited to—(a) data centres,(b) high-performance computing facilities,(c) server farms,(d) AI research, training, and testing facilities, and(e) any other installations primarily designed to support AI and large-scale digital processing.(3) The purpose of the strategy is to—(a) balance the energy demands of artificial intelligence against the energy efficiencies enabled by artificial intelligence,(b) achieve a national objective of ensuring that AI energy use is better than carbon neutral before 2030, and(c) support the integration of AI-enabled efficiencies into national energy planning.(4) The projected energy consumption of a proposed development and its contribution to national energy efficiencies, as set out in the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy, shall be treated as material planning considerations.(5) An application for planning permission relating to such infrastructure must be accompanied by an assessment covering—(a) the expected level of energy demand arising from the development,(b) proposed measures to improve the energy efficiency of the development, and(c) proposed steps to reduce or mitigate the impact of energy consumption on local and national energy supply. (6) In determining an application to which this section applies, a planning authority must have regard to—(a) the extent to which the development will utilise renewable or other low-carbon sources of energy, and(b) the consistency of the development with the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy.(7) The Secretary of State must issue guidance specifying minimum energy efficiency standards for such infrastructure.(8) Planning authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (7) in exercising their functions under the Planning Acts.(9) Planning conditions attached to permissions under this section must include local arrangements enabling independent AI-related energy sources to provide surplus capacity to the national grid at times of surplus or at times of national demand, including requirements for grid-balancing.(10) The Secretary of State must, not later than 18 months after the publication of the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy, and every three years thereafter, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—(a) the progress made in reducing the energy consumption of AI and technology-related infrastructure,(b) the contribution of such infrastructure to national energy efficiencies,(c) the effectiveness of planning conditions imposed under this section, and(d) whether additional measures are required to meet the objectives set out in subsection (3)(b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to make the energy use and efficiency of AI-related infrastructure a statutory planning consideration supported by a national strategy, guidance, and reporting duties.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in opening this group of amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy I will move my Amendment 185N and speak also to Amendment 185P. The simple truth is that AI’s energy and water demands are outpacing our development of policies to regulate AI’s energy and water usage. AI’s expected energy usage is due to go up from 7 terawatt hours to 62 terawatt hours by 2050, which is enough to power 27 million homes. Some estimate that it could go up to 71 terawatt hours by 2050. AI is exceptionally power-hungry just at the pinch point when we are desperately trying to reach clean power.
Against this background, our overall electricity demand is set to double by 2050. SMRs will help, but we should note that they will not come online until the mid-2030s. Meanwhile, many big tech companies are rowing back from their clean energy targets; Google is one example. This Bill is notably silent on AI, meaning that planning frameworks lack explicit provisions to assess or moderate the substantial energy and water demands of AI. I believe that, with the right legislation, we can make provision to require that AI is used for public good by ensuring that its power is also applied to finding ways we can drive national energy savings and efficiencies. AI is a powerful tool used to drive energy efficiencies, for example by enhancing the electricity grid, providing stability and efficiency and improving forecasting and integrations of variable amounts of new renewable energy generation and unlocking substantial transmission capacity savings without the need for new power lines.
More widely, AI can be used to heat and cool our buildings, improve our transport sector and to improve any number of industrial processes requiring large amounts of energy. So there is potential for huge savings by employing AI. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a national AI energy efficiency strategy within 18 months. This would establish projections of energy use as material planning considerations and mandate developers to account for both supply and efficiency measures in their applications. The measure also aims to ensure that surplus energy resources from data centres can be fed back into the national grid at times of energy need.
Amendment 185P also looks at the significant issue of projected water usage by AI. A typical data centre can use as much water as 100,000 homes. At present, 8.5 million homes in the UK are subject to hosepipe bans. Seven out of 17 regions in England are expected to have water stress by 2030 and 12 by 2040. The shortfall between sustainable water supplies and expected demand is projected by Defra to be nearly 5 billion litres per day by 2050. This represents more than one-third of the 14 million litres we use daily. Facing a warmer world, it is essential that national policy demands a clear water efficiency strategy, enforces targets for alternative cooling technologies and ensures that planning authorities rigorously assess water availability and resilience before consenting to new developments.
I absolutely welcome the relatively newly established AI Energy Council and the work being done but, to date, this is an evolving project without any clear outcomes. Will the Government, at the very least, mandate that the AI Energy Council formulates clear policies and formally reports on these matters within a set timeframe? I also ask the Government to give a clear commitment to an energy and water efficiency strategy for AI and to develop a national energy policy statement on AI energy use.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He referred to two different utilities. Energy should, in effect, be unlimited in the resource available, but it is concerning to a number of communities that, suddenly, energy projects, substations and so on are popping up around the country and lots of planning applications are going in alongside them from solar farms and for other significant uses of data, including data centres and other AI infrastructure. As a consequence, what proportion of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3a land is now being taken up with planning applications, due to not only solar farms but all the AI-related infrastructure to which the amendments refer? I do not know whether the Minister has that information; if not, I would be grateful if she could write to us.
On Amendment 185P, unlike electricity and energy, water is very much a constrained utility in this country. The amount of water available to keep powering homes, businesses and other activities, including energy stations, is significantly under threat. That is one reason why there will be one of the most significant contractions in the amount of water available to the farming sector in just two years’ time. There is something to be said about the amount of water that we think will be used by AI data centres and the like. At the moment, there seems to be no thinking about how we prioritise the different industrial sectors across our country. Nor am I aware—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we are necessarily considering this in planning guidance, although there will be something more widely about whether water is available. This is a really important activity and the Government should absolutely be looking at it, regardless of whether this goes into the Bill.
When I did the plan for water, on making sure there was a clean supply of water—that was part of the intention—and thinking ahead, I do not think that we had really given much thought to this sort of consumption that we are now due to have. To give an example, one reason for the major delays to Sizewell C was that, all of a sudden, the water company responsible said that it could not necessarily guarantee the amount of water to be used in the construction and operation of the nuclear energy plant. That has led to Sizewell C having to think about desalination plants and reservoirs but, at the moment, there are constraints on how some of these things can be spread across sectors in the generation of a nuclear energy station. It is imperative that we think about where else this could happen; to be serious, in terms of the building planned and business growth in the east of England, after Sizewell C was given its consent, no other business has been eligible to get or ask for any more water.
This is a genuinely critical area that the Government need to look at, which is why I welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Earl today. I hope that they will give it serious consideration and I encourage the noble Earl to bring it back on Report.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I suspect that many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House are not yet fully aware of the growth, scale and significance of what we call AI-related infrastructure—the hardware and software required to create, train and deploy AI-powered applications and solutions. If we are to fully harness the benefits of AI, unlocking these new efficiencies, fuelling economic growth and creating opportunities for infrastructure investment, we must be mindful of the practical impacts that come with it, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Coffey have pointed out, with the two key areas being energy use and water.
As the noble Earl has highlighted, the sheer computational power required for advanced AI models is immense, leading to rising energy demand. Equally, the cooling systems necessary for AI data centres can involve significant water usage. These are important considerations and it makes sense that our planning system and national guidance should take them into account to ensure that infrastructure growth is both sustainable and resilient. I do not believe it is the noble Earl’s intention that these amendments hold back innovation; rather, they call for statutory recognition of these impacts within the planning system, supported by a clear national strategy, guidance and reporting requirements. That seems to me both proportionate and sensible.
The noble Earl’s Amendments 185R and 185S rightly highlight the urgent challenge of climate change and the central role that planning and development must play in addressing it. Their emphasis on ensuring a resilient and sustainable built environment is both timely and welcome, and I place on record our appreciation of the sentiment behind them. At the same time, however, it is important to strike a balance, supporting sustainability while avoiding overly burdensome requirements or excessive regulation that could impede housing delivery or economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to respond to these concerns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy projects. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of the water and power required by data centres. Before I respond, I should say that we need to be very proud of our AI in this country. We have the third largest AI market in the world. The AI sector was valued at £72 billion in 2024 and is projected to be worth over £800 billion by 2035. Over £44 billion of investment has been announced for data centres in the UK since July 2024, which is a very good record, but of course the noble Earl raises some very important issues that run alongside this.
Turning first to Amendment 185N, noble Lords will be aware that we had an in-depth discussion in Committee last week on overheating and climate change, and I appreciate the intent behind this amendment of considering this matter in the context of emerging AI technologies. During my time as a Minister—and until last week I had responsibility for AI in my department; it has moved on now—I had the chance to see some of the real opportunities that AI presents. It has the potential to transform our public services, secure growth and raise living standards, and not least to support our colleagues in planning in order to help them move things on much more quickly. It is this Government’s ambition to harness it for the good of our country, which is why we are actively monitoring the data centre sector and published the first government Estimate of Data Centre Capacity in May 2025, which includes measures indicating energy use.
Some data centre applications will have the option of being consented through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. Officials from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are in the process of developing a national policy statement to guide this process, which will also be treated, importantly, as a materially significant consideration in the local authority-led planning process. This statement will include an assessment of the sustainability of the sector, and we are aiming for publication in 2026. The Government have also, as the noble Earl mentioned, established the AI Energy Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, to provide expert insight into the energy needs of AI and the role of AI in an efficient and sustainable energy system. To do this, the council has established a sustainability working group which will explore options to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy solutions to power AI, tools to reduce carbon emissions from AI, and metrics to support energy efficiency.
Amendment 185P is focused on the water use of AI infrastructure. The Government are committed to reducing the use of public water supply by 20% by 2037-38, with a 9% interim target for non-household reduction by 31 March 2038. As part of this commitment, Defra is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Business and Trade and the Environment Agency to determine how water efficiency and demand in data centres can be improved. Data centres use a variety of cooling systems, with only a small proportion using entirely water-based ones. Water-cooled data centres can use water very intensively, as has already been highlighted, particularly at times of peak demand, such as hotter periods. In summer 2025, the Environment Agency conducted a survey with the data centre sector, through techUK, the trade association for data centres, to gain a better understanding of current water needs. As set out, the Government are developing a national policy statement to guide data centre planning applications, and the water efficiency of data centres will form part of this assessment, including options for water reuse and non-potable water systems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked me about the use of agricultural land for data centres. The MPPF is, and the future land use framework will be, very clear that grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land should be protected and used only where there is no alternative. That is already set out in planning policy.
Amendment 185R, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require planning authorities to consider and support the inclusion of community energy projects in new developments. I agree with the noble Earl that renewable energy generation in households—we have already had a discussion on this—is a vital approach to help cut bills for families, boost our national energy security and deliver the clean energy mission. On the practicalities of increasing renewable energy generation in new developments, I am pleased to say that my department is working very closely with DESNZ on the future homes standard. The future homes standard will include renewable electricity generation on the majority of new homes through routes like rooftop solar. I therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot of opportunity in the context of this Bill to mandate that new towns be preferred as sites for data centres, because the excess heat can be used in the district heating scheme.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes an important point about reusing the energy created by data centres, which we are exploring. It is very important that the new towns task force has a chance to do its work. They will be subject to the planning process, just like all other applicants, when they put them forward. But, as I said, we are aiming to protect grades 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land, and I hope that other areas come forward to site the data centres. They are very important; we cannot do without them, that is for sure, so we need to consider very carefully where they might be sited, and the land use framework will give us a good indication about that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it was right to bring these amendments forward; they are important considerations on the future of AI and community energy. I thank all those who have spoken and broadly supported the amendments—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the Conservative Front Bench—and the Minister for the detailed response I have received to the issues I raised. I welcome the fact that a national policy statement will be forthcoming; it is needed, and I look forward to seeing that.
The bit that is still slightly missing on AI is embedding the idea of energy efficiency in the planning system and making sure that we hold these big tech companies to account, because it is very easy for them to consume energy, and that causes a lot of problems for us as we transition to clean power. If the Government allow them to build data centres, they need a system to get access to those data centres to drive energy efficiency. I was trying to create a mechanism to do that with these amendments. My mechanism might not be the right one, but there is a conversation to be had about being able to use the power of AI to redesign the energy network according to how we best plug in renewables, for example, to drive energy efficiencies. I will leave that as a problem for all of us to think about going forward.
I also welcome the commitment and work from the Government on community energy; they added it as one the objectives of the Great British Energy Act and are coming forward with further guidance on that. I very much welcome the efforts being made to ensure that communities can not only generate power but benefit from it. That is essential to ensure that the public’s support stays with all of us who support the transition and that the next wave of energy is not done “to people” but “for people”, so that they get to benefit from the transition in the longer term. I look forward to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Restriction on works affecting listed buildings: exemptionAfter section 7(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (restriction on works affecting listed buildings), insert—“(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any internal maintenance, repairs or changes to Grade II listed buildings.””Member's explanatory statement
This removes the requirement for listed building consent being required for internal maintenance, repairs or changes to Grade II listed buildings.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring that I own a grade 2 listed property.
This is intended to be a probing amendment and a deregulatory measure. We read in the newspapers today that the Chancellor has recently recruited a planning and infrastructure adviser; clearly, the advice from the ministry is not enough for her. However, it is reported that Rachel Reeves is also keen to have fewer regulators and to get on with a deregulatory approach.
In England, there are about 400,000 grade 1, 2* or 2 listed buildings. Of those, according to Historic England, 91.7% are grade 2, 5.8% are grade 2* and 2.5% are grade 1. We often think about what a grade 2 listed building is. When I did my research, I randomly sampled 100 grade 2 properties on the Historic England database. Only six had any internal features. Nevertheless, the guidance is that one has to apply for listed building consent if there is any concern not just about painting but about whether you might change aspects of the internal character or any of the original materials.
From that research—my sample was of 100 properties, but the ONS uses 1,000 as its statistically relevant sample size when it does surveys—I think it is fair to say that very few are currently considered to have internal features that are deemed worthy for listing. Consequently, it feels like a lot of work—through a lot of approaches—is done on exploring listed building consent. Dare I say it, people will often ask for forgiveness rather than permission, in case somebody in the local village or town suddenly decides to dob them in if they have heard that some internal work has been done. Perhaps that is more a story for “Midsomer Murders” than for a learned debate here today.
I completely understand that, for grade 2* listed buildings, we start to see much more consideration of internal features such as prominent fireplaces, prominent staircases and a lot of other relevant things. However, quite often, for grade 2 listed buildings, the focus is on the external. For example, the house that I own is thatched. Apparently, the brickwork was done with a particular thing called Flemish bond; you can see that only on the chimney, which is however high up. Bearing in mind those sorts of features, this amendment would offer a simple, deregulatory approach that would not particularly harm the heritage of our country. Therefore, I beg to move.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not completely in tune with my noble friend Lady Coffey, for which I hope she will forgive me. While I agree that maintenance and repairs are essential and should not be held up in any way, I urge caution about some internal changes.
In recent years, a minimalistic approach has gained popularity. In the case of grade 2 listed buildings, this may mean ripping out features of historic importance and changing floor levels, ruining the proportions and character of beautiful, old buildings. While I acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck, as sometimes, with modern living, removing a wall or making small changes can be beneficial, I would urge that this is not done without oversight.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that buildings of 1850 and before receive pretty much automatic listing. However, there are many lovely houses that are built after this, especially Victorian houses from 1850 to 1900, and they do not qualify because they are not considered special. They have no real protection. Even where those houses fall in a conservation area, it will mean that only the façade is preserved.
We are losing internal features of many historically interesting buildings. We need to put a brake on this, because once gone, we will never get them back.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the whole purpose of listed building legislation is to ensure the integrity of the listed structure. The requirement to apply for listed building consent is in order to protect the building from inappropriate changes which would compromise the listing. Many people in civic society care deeply about retaining and protecting listed buildings. As listed building applications are free, as we debated on an earlier day in Committee, that helps those who own listed buildings—there is no cost to it. Heritage planning officers know that some buildings need a fundamental change of use if they are not to lie empty and decay. That is okay, as long as it goes through a listed building consent application.
I know that these are large changes, but I will give one example. In my own town, there is a grade 2* listed building which is a former united reformed chapel—there are lots of great methodist, congregational or united reform chapels in the north. It was altered to become an Indian restaurant, allegedly the largest in the world, with room for 1,000 people. Subsequent alterations to the access, inevitably with lots of stairs to reach the front, were given permission, but the listed building consent application enabled local people to know that a treasured building was not being changed without the appropriate permissions. Even if such changes are relatively minor in comparison to the structure as a whole, constant minor changes could nevertheless add up to a big change that would not be appropriate and compromise the integrity of the listing.
As your Lordships can perhaps tell from the comments I have made, I am not a supporter of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an interesting issue on exemption for listed buildings for internal repairs and renovations. I understand the desire for a lightening of the regulatory burden and that this a probing amendment, but there is also a need for balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would remove the requirement to get listed building consent for internal repairs, maintenance or changes to grade 2 listed buildings. I will just very briefly recount a cautionary retail in this respect. We do not have many old properties in Stevenage, and listed ones are even rarer. There was one in my ward, which was an 18th-century farmhouse. A builder put a planning application in and we tried very quickly to get a listing for it, because in the context of my town it is quite an unusual feature, but we could not. That was because the internal alterations to the building that had been done were so extensive that the listing people held that it was no longer representative of the properties that the listing would have recognised. So, although I very much appreciate the intention behind the amendment, which is to streamline the process and free up capacity in the system, we must be careful not inadvertently to remove important protections for our heritage assets.
The Government are committed to the protection of the historic environment, which is an irreplaceable resource, so that these important assets can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Our listed building framework offers legal protection for buildings of special architectural or historic interest. Many of these listings include those internal features that the noble Baroness mentioned—staircases, fireplaces and decorative plasterwork—and internal changes such as removing walls or exposing brickwork can erode the historic character of the building if not carefully considered. That is why we believe it is important that changes, including internal works, should continue to be subject to listed building consent. Without this vital scrutiny, we risk losing and damaging some of our most important heritage assets. The process of applying for listed building consent encourages owners to design any alterations sensitively.
We have, however, given local authorities powers to create listed building consent orders locally, which would allow them to grant a general listed building consent for specific types of work across their area. We have seen examples of this, including in Cheshire East, which grant permission for working—including, for example, relocation of loft hatches in certain listed properties in the area. We think these tools are a useful opportunity to streamline the consent process where there are specific works that would be suitable in their area.
I add that I had a first meeting last week and I now have a regular round table with DCMS colleagues and many of the bodies that support and champion the need of historic houses, so we will continue to have a dialogue with them about how we move this forward. For all those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank noble Lords who participated. I say gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that I specifically did not include 2*, which I think is the example to which she referred. I am also conscious of what the Minister has said. It could be worth considering. I am encouraged to hear what Cheshire East Council has done, but it feels very limited for moving a loft hatch, which I cannot believe would in any way necessarily have been representative of pre-1850 homes. But, going further, I think that there could be something to be said for having a further category, where the listing does not include internal features, whether listed building consents are needed. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change that would be helpful because subsection (1B), referred to in the clause, is not yet in force and therefore is not yet shown on legislation.gov.uk.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 187, 200, 201, 202 and 203, which relate to the relationship between development corporations.
Development corporations are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. As we continue to deliver the many homes that this country desperately needs, we expect the number of development corporations to increase in the coming years. Different types of development corporations have been created in law to respond to the circumstances of that time. This has created ambiguities within the current legislative framework so that multiple development corporations could be created within the same locality. This risks creating confusion and delaying the speed of delivery for key strategic projects, which can be unhelpful and frustrating for all.
As the intention of our reforms in this Bill is to create a clearer, more flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework, I believe that these amendments are necessary. This is because they will set out the relationship between different types of development corporations by aligning their boundaries and removing any doubt over decision-making. These amendments will create a backstop so that, for example, if, following consultation, a centrally led development corporation had an overlap with a mayoral development corporation or a locally led development corporation, the overlapping part would automatically become part of the government-led area. The same would apply for a mayoral development corporation, which would have the same power over a locally led development corporation.
I hope that noble Lords understand why the amendments are necessary. Before I respond to the other amendments in this group, it would be helpful to listen to noble Lords’ views, so I shall reserve any comment on them until I wind up. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 206A, 351ZA and 362 in this group, which also relate to mayoral development corporations. I am supportive of what the Minister is proposing in Amendment 186 and the related amendments. It is helpful to see that there is an established hierarchy between development corporations so that, if the Government establish a development corporation, it trumps a mayoral development corporation, in effect, while a mayoral development corporation trumps a locally led development corporation. However, my amendments raise an additional—and, I hope, helpful—issue.
Before I come on to that, let me say this: the underlying purpose of the development corporations in Part 4 of this Bill is to give mayors, through such corporations, the scope to engage in not just regeneration but development. So mayoral development corporations can be the vehicle for significant new settlements, both as urban extensions and in new sites. That is helpful, too.
Of course, what we do not have in this hierarchy of development corporations is the availability of local authorities to propose locally led development corporations on the same basis as the Government and mayors can do. That was in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but has not yet, with the exception of one of the accountability measures at the back of the section, been brought into force. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, as I understand it, it is not the Government’s intention to bring into force the further provisions of that Act on locally led development corporations. For the avoidance of doubt, if I am wrong about that, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us so in her response to this debate.
Members who were attentive to the running list of amendments will recall that I tabled Amendments 204 and 205 back in July. Their purpose is to give other mayors access to the same powers to establish—I should say “propose”, since the Government establish them—mayoral development corporations as are available to the Mayor of London under the Localism Act. This is not to say that mayors do not have any such powers. However, since the Localism Act, they have generally been established under statutory instruments. Some of those have given mayors similar powers to those of the Mayor of London, but there are often gaps; the time pressures on these debates does not permit me the pleasure of examining precisely which gaps have been identified and for which mayors, but that does not matter. The point is that my Amendments 204 and 205 had the objective of giving mayors—all mayors—the same powers as are available to the London mayor.
I then found, when the Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, that Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill provided for other mayors to have the same powers as the London mayor. It struck me that, under those circumstances, there was no merit in my continuing to push Amendments 204 and 205, so I withdrew them. It further struck me that, if we provide for other mayors to have those powers under the English devolution Bill, it will run to a slower timetable than this Bill.
Therefore, Amendment 206A, which would bring into the Bill the new schedule proposed in Amendment 351ZA, is drafted in the same terms, substantially, as the Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It would have the same effect—to give mayors generally the same powers as the London mayor—but it would do so in this Bill. Instead of waiting until some time next year—a time to be determined—and given that this is the Government’s number one legislative priority and that we are going to debate into the night if we have to, we can be confident that the provision would reach the statute book this year.
Based on the past experience of the unwillingness of Ministers to bring provisions of Bills that we have passed into force, Amendment 362 requires that the provision be brought into force within two months after the passing of this Bill. Therefore, we would be looking at all mayors having the powers by the early part of next year. This is important and relevant because we are already beyond the point at which the New Towns Taskforce said that it would publish its recommendations, including sites for new towns. It said in its interim report that it would publish the final report and recommendations in the summer; it is definitely now no longer the summer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it will do so shortly, as there is a degree of planning blight associated with their not being published. There is benefit to delivering on the objective to build more homes if we publish them sooner rather than later.
I hope that this Bill will secure Royal Assent this year—ideally, by the end of November—and that, by the end of January, with the inclusion of Amendment 206A and the proposed new schedule, the mayors will have access to those powers by the end of January.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195A and to our probing opposition to Clause 93 standing part of the Bill.
Starting with Amendment 195A, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant in practice by the provision that allows a development corporation to
“do anything necessary … for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.
How is such a wide power to be defined, limited and safeguarded in its use? I would be grateful for a clear answer on that point.
Turning to Clause 93 more broadly, I make it clear that we are supportive of development corporations. Our concern is to understand more fully how they are intended to function under the Bill and to ensure that they are established on a sound and accountable footing.
I ask the Minister how local accountability will be preserved under the changes to the development corporations, given that they already have the ability to operate across multiple non-contiguous sites, an ability that will no doubt take on greater significance with the advance of devolution. How will such corporations function in practice alongside devolution? What safeguards will be in place to avoid confusion or diluted accountability, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation? This question seems especially pressing in the light of the changes that may arise from the forthcoming English devolution Bill, which your Lordships’ House will be considering in the coming months. How will the Government ensure that the role of development corporations sits coherently alongside wider reforms to local and regional governance?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, having listened very carefully to the debate so far, I think the next best step would be to hear from the Minister, but I want to express some support for Amendment 362 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and Amendment 195A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on those when she replies.
On 3 April, guidance was issued by the Government to clarify the legislation, scrutiny and governance of mayoral development corporations in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I am pleased that steps have been taken to incorporate the recommendations of the Tees Valley Review, published over 18 months ago, to clarify the regulations for the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the South Tees Development Corporation. It is important to ensure that there is absolute clarity about oversight, reserved matters, consent and stranded liabilities, and I welcome the Government’s firm intention to do so.
However, it has puzzled me that the words “risk” and “risk management” do not appear in the guidance published in April. There is also nothing about capacity building; that point was raised a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. It is very important that development corporations have the capacity to fulfil the expectations of the Government.
There is an issue, which we may come to in the next group of amendments, about where the development corporations will get their income from. I look forward to that discussion. I am concerned about how the mayoral development corporations will be structured to ensure that full risk analysis takes place on the decision-making for what will be major capital infrastructure investment. Overview and scrutiny are overview and scrutiny: scrutiny is scrutiny of a decision, and overview is overview of how decisions are being made. Risk and risk analysis come at the start of a decision to invest money, so this is not just about overview and scrutiny; it is about preventing risky investments.
When the Minister replies, will she explain who is going to pick up the bill if risk is not properly considered at the right point in the decision-making process? At the moment, I suspect that the bill will be carried by council tax payers in the area concerned and I would like that point to be clarified, because I do not think that a system based on the council tax payer being the body of last resort to make up a loss would be appropriate. I very much hope to hear the Minister’s views on those matters.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with the notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposing Clause 93 standing part. I welcome the opportunity to explain the intentions behind this clause. Clause 93 clarifies and extends areas for development and the remit of development corporation models. It includes changes to legislation that would extend the remit of mayoral development corporations, so that they can deliver regeneration and new town development rather than just regeneration. It also allows that separate parcels of land can be designated as one new town area, overseen by one new town development corporation.
The current framework is outdated and not fit for purpose. Each development corporation model was developed to address a specific circumstance at the time of its introduction. This poses a significant risk to the effective delivery of the development corporations. For example, mayoral development corporations can be used only for regeneration projects, as the model was developed initially for London but then widened out to areas outside London, including rural areas. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will enable strategic authorities to create more mayoral development corporations, so it is even more important to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose.
Amendment 195A aims to remove the power permitting new town development corporations
“to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.
I reassure the noble Baroness that this is not a new addition to the new town development corporation framework. This provision is already written into primary legislation underpinning new town development corporations, as well as urban development corporation models. The changes to the infrastructure provision include listing specific functions and bringing them in line with mayoral development corporations, with the addition of heat pumps, which have been added to the list of infrastructure that can be delivered by all models.
As development corporations are used to respond to the specific needs of developments or regeneration schemes, it is important that the legislation offers this level of flexibility so that they can be tailored accordingly. We all want to see large-scale developments and infrastructure projects that will support housing and economic growth, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure without compromising existing provisions. It would be a step backwards if we were to take the power away from new town development corporations and instead provide only a list of infrastructure, as some developments may require new technologies. Decisions to establish development corporations and the powers each will have will be made via regulations. Their oversight will be carefully designed and subject to statutory consultation.
Amendments 351ZA and 362, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I welcome his proposal. It is vital that we empower local leaders to transform underused sites to create thriving communities tailored to local needs. For this purpose, mayoral development corporations should be part of every mayor’s toolkit. However, we believe these amendments are unnecessary. The changes the noble Lord is proposing are already being made through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill introduced on 10 July 2025. Given its scope, that Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for these changes. I take the noble Lord’s point about delay, but I am not under the impression that there is going to be any grass growing under the feet of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think that is going to get moved on at pace and I hope that it will be appropriate for the changes that we are talking about.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Since we have in this Bill Part 4 relating to development corporations, I fail to see why it is not the appropriate place to legislate for mayoral development corporations, rather than the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think the evidence points to completely the opposite conclusion to the one the Minister just used.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think it sits alongside other measures in that Bill. That is why it has been put into the EDCE Bill rather than this Bill.
Amendment 362 would commence provisions in relation to the development corporations within two months of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill passing. I welcome the noble Lord’s enthusiasm in wanting the changes to be implemented quickly, and I share his passion for that. We recognise that they are important measures, creating a clear, flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework to unlock more housing across the country, co-ordinating that with infrastructure and transport to support sustained economic growth. We also want the changes to come into force as soon as practically possible. However—and I would say this—there is further legislative work and guidance to ensure that development corporations are set up for success. It takes a significant amount of time to establish a development corporation, including essential preparatory and scoping work. We do not envisage that this will cause any delays to those interested in setting up a mayoral development corporation, but I do not think the progress of the other Bill is going to hold things up unnecessarily either.
It might be helpful if I cover some issues around how this is going to work. We know that development corporations are a vital tool for delivering large-scale, complex property developments, particularly where the risk—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned risk—is too great for private sector delivery alone. To encourage the use of development corporations and reduce the risk of challenge, there should be clarity around their remit and functions.
Decisions to designate and grant powers to development corporations must be made by regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation, and they must be made with careful consideration of all the issues of oversight that we have heard about. The department consulted on oversight regulations for locally led urban development corporations last year, and the Government’s response is expected later this calendar year—I hope it does not run out before “later” arrives. Locally led urban development corporations cannot be set up before provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 are commenced.
In relation to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about South Tees, the Government have issued a response to the independent review of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture, which included clarifying the available measures to strengthen the oversight for mayoral development corporations. On 3 April 2025, guidance was published which clarified legislation and scrutiny of mayoral development corporations. I hope that that gives an adequate response to his question.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Can the Minister explain who the funder of last resort is when a loss is delivered by a mayoral development corporation? Is it the council tax payer for the geographical area of the development corporation, the combined authority or the Government? To put it another way, who makes up, pays for, a loss if a development corporation makes one?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Of course, we all hope there will not be a loss, but we must always have provision in place for that. I know that there is ongoing discussion with Sir Michael Lyons and others in the taskforce about how the financial details and programme work, so it is probably best if I reply to noble Lords in writing on that issue.
In relation to the points about capacity, which were very well made, again, discussions are going on with Sir Michael Lyons about how we make all this happen. We have already allocated £46 million to planning, but we will continue to have those discussions with the taskforce about what the delivery mechanisms are to be. That said, I hope that the noble Lord has had some reassurance and that he will agree not to press his amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in respect of my noble friend’s Amendment 195A, and reading the words in the Bill, I would be really interested in the Minister helping me understand what places limits on the last words on page 123 of the Bill. Would it be open to a development corporation, for instance, to do an Ireland and say that any business moving its headquarters to the area of the development corporation would pay half the tax rate current in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is not my understanding that there will be fiscal devolution powers in that way, but I will take that back and write to the noble Lord if I am wrong.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I understood from what the Minister was saying that it is the Government’s intention to bring all of Section 172 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act relating to locally led new towns into force. Am I correct in that? I got the impression that that is the Government’s intention, but it was not quite explicit.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that the powers in the Act relating to locally led development corporations will be brought into force, but I have committed to write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, with a full explanation. I will circulate that letter when I have published it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Minister also mentioned the money that has been put aside by the Government to support further planning, skills training et cetera. Did she say that that could be used also by development corporations? I had the understanding that it was for local government and not for development corporations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry if I misled the noble Baroness. I meant to say that the Government recognise the issue around planning capacity. We have already allocated that £46 million for local government, and we must have the discussions with Sir Michael Lyons that recognise that we need to make sure that the capacity is there to deal with new town development corporations as well.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can the Minister tell us when we can expect to see the report of the New Towns Taskforce?
“Relationship between different types of development corporation(1) The New Towns Act 1981 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).(2) In section 1 (designation of areas), after subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) An order under this section may designate an area of land that includes any area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under— (a) section 1ZB(2) (designation of locally-led new town in England),(b) section 134(1B) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of locally-led urban development area), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(3ZB) On the coming into force of an order that makes provision as mentioned in subsection (3ZA), the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(3ZC) Where the Secretary of State makes an order that contains provision as mentioned in subsection (3ZA), the Secretary of State may also make regulations—(a) amending any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) providing for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the new town;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, providing for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area;(d) making consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(3ZD) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3ZC), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the new town (see also section 9B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”(3) In section 1ZA (local authority proposal for designation of locally-led new town in England, as inserted by section 172(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A proposal area must not include any area of land that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(a) section 1 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State),(b) section 134(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(See also section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC), section 197(2B) and (2C) of the Localism Act 2011 and section 134(1E) and (1F) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.)”(4) In section 1ZB (designation of locally-led new town in England, as inserted by section 172(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), in subsection (2)—(a) for “may” substitute “must”;(b) omit from “if” to the end.(5) In section 77 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (2A), after “section” insert “1(3ZC) or”;(b) in subsection (3C), after “order” insert “or regulations”.(6) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as set out in subsections (7) to (9).(7) In section 197 (designation of Mayoral development areas)—(a) in subsection (1), for “any” substitute “an”; (b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) An area of land designated under subsection (1)—(a) may include any area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area of land that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under—(i) section 1ZB(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of locally-led new town in England), or(ii) section 134(1B) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of locally-led urban development area);(b) may not include any area that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(i) section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State), or(ii) section 134(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State).(See also section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC) of the New Towns Act 1981 and section 134(1E) and (1F) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.)(2B) Where the Mayor designates an area as mentioned in subsection (2A)(a), the Secretary of State must make regulations providing that the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(2C) The regulations may also—(a) amend any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) provide for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the Mayoral development area;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, provide for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area.(2D) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under this section, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the Mayoral development area (see also section 218 (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”(8) In section 218 (transfer schemes: general provisions, in the definition of “transfer scheme” in subsection (1), after “section” insert “197(2D),”.(9) In section 235 (orders and regulations)—(a) in subsection (7), after paragraph (j) insert—“(ja) regulations under section 197;”;(b) in subsection (14), after “52” insert “or regulations under section 197”.(10) The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as set out in subsections (11) to (13).(11) In section 134 (urban development areas)—(a) in subsection (1B) (as inserted by section 171(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “may” substitute “must”;(ii) omit paragraph (b) (and the “and” immediately before it);(b) after subsection (1C) (inserted by section 93) insert— “(1D) An order under subsection (1) may designate any area of land that includes an area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under—(a) subsection (1B) (designation of locally-led urban development area),(b) section 1ZB(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of locally-led new town in England), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(1E) On the coming into force of an order that makes provision as mentioned in subsection (1D), the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(1F) Where the Secretary of State makes an order that contains provision as mentioned in subsection (1D), the Secretary of State may also by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) amend any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) provide for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the urban development area;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, provide for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area;(d) make consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(1G) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (1F), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the urban development area (see also section 140B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”;(c) in subsection (4), after “(1B)” insert “or regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1F)”;(d) in subsection (4A), after “(1B)” insert “or regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1F)”.(12) In section 134A (local authority proposal for designation of locally-led urban development area in England, as inserted by section 171(3) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A proposal area must not include any area of land that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(a) section 134(1) (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State),(b) section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(See also section 134(1E) and (1F), section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC) of the New Towns Act 1981 and section 197(2B) and (2C) of the Localism Act 2011.)”(13) In section 171 (interpretation), in the definition of “urban development area”, after “it” insert “by virtue of subsection (1E) of that section or”.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would clarify the relationship between different types of development corporation so that any area of overlap in proposed new corporations will be resolved in favour of the higher-tier authority.
Lord Fuller
“(c) the funding and financing of development proposals, which may extend to the issuance of bonds, debt or similar financial instruments.”
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 190 and 192. I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations contemplated in the legislation. This is the best part of a complex Bill, although we know that it has already been overtaken by the devolution Bill launched in the other place.
Clause 94 seeks the achievement of sustainable development, and the mitigation of and adaption to climate change, but there would be no sustainable development without commercially sustainable financing of the proposals that the corporations bring forward. My amendment seeks to bring sustainable finance alongside those other sustainability issues. I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised and that mayors may be created in what we now learn to be a cat’s cradle of overlapping and competing responsibilities. Regardless of that, the day-to-day financial pressures felt by national and local government have never been greater.
In a former time, development corporations would simply hold out their hand to the Government or local councils for funding. Of course, that route may still be open, but we need to recognise that the old ways, with joint severability between various tiers of local government, are falling away. Building new towns is the work of generations; it goes beyond political cycles. Relying on national and local politicians will not be enough in a world where building a secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover £100 million. In the pursuit of sustainable development and delivery on the plans, the money needs to be right, because without the money, how can all the desirable options in Clause 94 be delivered?
We need to give the development corporations powers to exploit the difference between funding and financing—by explanation, funding is writing the cheque, but financing is putting the deal together. It is no surprise that it is the financiers in the City of London who are the highest paid, because their task of turning those good ideas into reality is the hardest.
Development corporations are independent, but they have the benefit of being able to lean on the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body. I will not dwell too much on the significance of the governance of development corporations, but I will make the factual observation that strong governance leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash. We need to make it easy for development corporations to raise funds in new and creative ways at the lowest possible coupon. My amendments would path find those.
Get this right and we will provide investable opportunities for pension funds that desire to invest in infrastructure bonds, for local people who want to invest in local facilities that benefit their area, or for sovereign wealth that seeks a home for its money within an advanced economy with well-defined property rights. But the well of wealth from these sources may not be enough, and there may be other ways to skin the cat. The corporations need to be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the traditional issuance of bonds, debt or similar instruments. But we should contemplate other sources of finance. That extends to entering into joint ventures with landowners whose land is to be incorporated as an in-kind contribution to the whole, so that they may enjoy the uplift over a long period rather than cash up front.
It should not be right that development corporations feel they need to reach for the CPO lever by default and then be forced to pony-up a premium price to the owner up front after the unpleasantness of the process—there are lots of “p”s in that sentence. In other words, development corporations need to have powers not just to assemble land but to be creative in the assembly of that land. The creative concept of the joint venture would allow more money to be spent on upfront infrastructure than on land acquisition. That is a better-value enterprise. By thinking creatively like this, the amount of upfront funding will be less and the ability to deliver essential infrastructure at the outset greater.
I want to place finance in its widest possible context, not just rooting it in the sort of funding where you stand on the street corner with your hand out. Let us seed these stand-alone corporations away from the other financial pressures that afflict local government and free them from the apron strings of those local authorities. While I accept that the development corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, contemplated in Clause 93, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together. That is what my amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, I am interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and will be even more interested in the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what I said in the previous group about management of risk and who underpins a development corporation in the event of financial loss.
Amendment 197 is very important. There are two issues: the automatic
“removal of hope value from the valuation of the relevant land”
proposed for development and, secondly, whether land purchases by development corporations should be seen as
“public sector investments to be counted against departmental expenditure limits”.
This amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is important and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments. The financing of development corporations is an important issue and we will continue to engage on it. I look forward to the views of Sir Michael Lyons’s task force on the issues raised by noble Lords in this and the previous group on the financial aspects of development corporations.
We need to ensure that financing is long term and sustainable. If corporations are to take on debt to fund infrastructure, they and their lenders will need confidence that the debt will be repaid. This is a particular issue as a current Government cannot bind a future one. I will not comment on the issues in Amendment 197 as it has not been spoken to, but I assume that they will be discussed in group seven.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 188, 190 and 192 would add to the objectives of development corporations, such that all development corporations would be obliged to aim to contribute to the funding and financing of development proposals, with the option of using financial instruments such as bonds and debts to achieve this objective.
In addition to my earlier comments about how there are still further discussions to take place in relation to financing, I should have mentioned that resource funding will be available for the costs associated with running a development corporation. There are capital grant programmes as well, such as the national housing delivery fund and the social and affordable housing programme. Development corporations will be able to enter joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital. They will also be able to obtain further capital financing through loans and equity from the national housing bank and the national wealth fund. I thought it was important to clarify all that.
It is vital that development corporations, as well as the developments they co-ordinate and deliver, are properly financed. I therefore welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendments. They should not, however, be brought forward for two main reasons.
First, the amendments would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations. This Bill seeks to ensure that the development corporation legislative framework is clear, flexible and robust. Importantly, development corporations are used to address different types of development challenges depending on the nature of the project, including planning, land assembly and convening private sector investment. Development corporations need not directly fund development to be successful, as, for example, is the case for the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation. Requiring that all development corporations fund or finance development would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations, rendering the model unnecessarily inflexible.
Secondly, development corporations are able to borrow more affordably from central government. The existing legislation provides that both new town development corporations and urban development corporations can borrow directly from central government, irrespective of whether they are centrally or locally led. A mayoral development corporation can also borrow indirectly via its oversight authority, including from the Public Works Loan Board. If, instead, development corporations were to issue bonds or raise debt directly to fund development, this would likely be at a higher interest rate and less affordable than if they borrowed from government.
Amendment 197 relates to the technical area of compulsory purchase compensation. This seeks to amend the New Towns Act 1981 to allow new town development corporations to use their compulsory purchase powers under that Act to acquire land for large-scale housing and transport schemes without paying hope value compensation or needing to justify a direction in the public interest. This amendment would also ensure that land purchased under these powers would not count against departmental expenditure limits.
While I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment and the aims it seeks to achieve, I am not able to support it. Compensation for the compulsory purchase of land is calculated on the basis of the value of the land if it was sold on the open market where no development is being proposed. The assessment of the open market value of land includes value attributed to the prospect of planning permission being granted for development other than for development which has planning permission. I think that is the term described as hope value.
Compulsorily purchasing land raises questions of common-law fairness and engages the European Convention on Human Rights. Any reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules must be made in accordance with the convention. To respond to this constraint, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduced the power to allow development corporations, when making CPOs under the New Towns Act 1981 to facilitate affordable housing provision, to seek directions for the non-payment of hope value from compensation providing there is justification in the public interest. The power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 allows a fair balance test to be conducted in each case between the public and private interests in making a direction and ensures compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The proposed amendment is a blanket, non-discretionary approach to removing hope value. The Government do not consider they have sufficient evidence to be confident that the amendment is consistent with ECHR rights, because it is not clear that the public benefit of removing hope value in these situations would outweigh the impact on the individual landowners affected by the proposed measure in all cases.
Under proposed new subsection (2B) in the amendment, land purchases would create an asset that does not have a direct financial return. Allowing development corporation land purchases to be excluded from departmental expenditure limits could significantly increase levels of public sector borrowing. The Government are committed to ensuring economic stability and sustainable levels of public debt through their fiscal rules. I therefore cannot support this change.
For these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, as part of my research for this series of amendments, I looked at the New Towns Act and I note that it is 80 years since the Minister’s home town of Stevenage was seeded, so to speak; it is now time to bring things up to date. At that time, central government had the power and the finance to get these things off the ground, but things have moved on and we need some more creative thinking. There are wider sources of capital and finance in the world and more players want to participate.
I do not accept that my amendment would arbitrarily constrain the development corporations in pursuance of financing their quite weighty objectives, many of which are enumerated in the next clause, Clause 95. It would not constrain them, but would give them a choice: an option—not a compulsion—to widen the pool of finance should they wish.
The Minister in her winding suggested that powers exist to borrow from central government. She referred specifically to the Public Works Loan Board. Anybody who knows anything about the Public Works Loan Board knows that, as a result of some rather ill-advised advances, it is now capped. I believe the sum is at £90 million; I cannot remember exactly, but that does not matter. The fact is that it is thus far and no further. The Minister asserts that the Public Works Loan Board is always cheaper than others. We know that not to be the case. As the example of the Municipal Bonds Agency demonstrated, there was a well of capital for international markets willing to invest in local infrastructure projects at lower rates than the councils were able to borrow from the PWLB—had the headroom existed. So the premise not only that central government is the only route but that any other routes would be more expensive is demonstrably false.
That is further the case if, as in the example I gave earlier, a landowner may wish to cede some of his land to the development corporations as part of the red line, in kind rather than in cash, it is possible that there would be no coupon to be paid at all. The interest—the return—would come long-term as the development proceeded.
So I do not accept that this is a constraining amendment. I take from what the Minister said that is its highly likely that the consequence of not accepting this option is that, first of all, capital may be constrained, it is possible the development corporations may pay more, and the opportunity to assemble land in a creative manner may be taken away. Clearly, we are in Committee; perhaps we ought to engage on this between now and Report. I fear that the Minister’s brief is labouring under a false premise. I think we can say that this can be resolved, and should be if the promise of development corporations is to be fulfilled. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not think I said that PWLB was the only source of funding for development corporations. I did mention that they will be able to enter into joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital and use the National Housing Bank and the National Wealth Fund.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw. Perhaps we can return to this on Report.
“(6A) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between the corporation and the relevant transport authority to which the regulations relate (see also section 9B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 96, leaving out lines 33 to 38 of page 127.
“Transfer schemes: general
9B Transfer schemes under sections 1 and 9A: general provisions(1) In this section “transfer scheme” means a scheme under section 1(3ZD) or 9A(6A).”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be to extend the provision about transfer schemes, drafted to cover schemes under new section 9A of the New Towns Act 1981 (transfer of transport functions) to schemes under section 1(3ZD) (transfer schemes in case of overlapping development corporation areas), inserted by my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 93.
“(7A) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between the corporation and the relevant transport authority to which the regulations relate (see also section 140B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 96, leaving out lines 1 to 6 of page 130.
“Transfer schemes: general
140B Transfer schemes under sections 134 and 140A: general provisions(1) In this section “transfer scheme” means a scheme under section 134(1G) or 140A(7A).”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be to extend the provision about transfer schemes, drafted to cover schemes under new section 140A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (transfer of transport functions) to schemes under section 134(1G) (transfer schemes in case of overlapping development corporation areas), inserted by my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 93.
Lord Lucas
“(A1) In section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, after the definition of “local authority” insert—““local news publisher” has the meaning prescribed to it in Schedule 2ZA.”(A2) After Schedule 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, insert—“Schedule 2ZALocal news publishersDefinition of local news publisher
1 The term “local news publisher” means—(a) a business that—(i) has as its principal purpose the publication of original, local news content, where such material—(A) concerns issues or events that are relevant in engaging the British public in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making,(B) is reported and published in the United Kingdom,(C) is published, online or in print, no less than once every 31 days, and(D) is subject to editorial control,(ii) is legally resident in the United Kingdom,(iii) possesses at least one director who is legally resident in the United Kingdom,(iv) employs on a salaried, freelance or voluntary basis at least one journalist,(v) is not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution,(vi) is subject to a code of ethical standards—(A) which is recognised in this schedule, and(B) which is published or administered by an independent regulator,(vii) has in place publicly available policies and procedures for handling complaints and resolving editorial inaccuracies and mistakes transparently, and that these policies and procedures are reasonably accessible to the public,(viii) maintains editorial independence from political parties, organisations that engage in lobbying or advocacy, and advertisers, and(ix) can demonstrate strong connections to the locality in which it operates.2 It is not relevant to the definition whether publication of such material as described in paragraph 1(a)(i) is done so with a view to making profit.3 Material is “subject to editorial control” under paragraph 1(a)(i)(D) if it meets the like definition set out in section 41(2) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.4 For the purposes of paragraph 1(a)(v), “government” means— (a) the Government of the United Kingdom, or the government of the devolved nations, or local, municipal and regional governments within the United Kingdom, or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof,(b) the government of a foreign nation, whether recognised by the Government of the United Kingdom or otherwise, or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof, or any devolved administrations, local, municipal or regional governments therein, or(c) any other body or international movement holding itself out as the legitimate government of a foreign nation, and/or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof.5 For the purposes of paragraph 1(a)(v), “legislative institution” means—(a) the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or a constituent house or committee thereof, or any officer thereof,(b) the devolved legislatures of the devolved nations, or a constituent house or committee thereof,(c) the legislative assembly of a local, regional or municipal authority, such as the London Assembly, or a constituent house or committee thereof, or any officer thereof, or(d) the legislative assembly, local, regional, municipal or national, in or of a foreign nation as described in paragraphs 4(b) or (c).6 Further to paragraph 1(a)(vi)(B), the following organisations are considered valid independent regulators for the purpose of recognition as a local news publisher—(a) IMPRESS, and(b) the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).7 The Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, amend paragraph 6 to add or remove organisations.8 A statutory instrument containing regulations under paragraph 7 not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament9 Any statutory instrument issued to effect the Secretary of State’s authority under paragraph 7 must—(a) be laid before Parliament for 60 days before enactment, and(b) in the event that an organisation is to be delisted, be published and transmitted to the organisation at issue in such a way as to entitle them to make representations to the contrary.10 A local news publisher is advantaged in demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which it operates under paragraph 1(a)(ix) where it—(a) is owned and operated by or within its community;(b) can demonstrate a high level of local readership;(c) employs a large number of locally resident journalists;(d) can demonstrate a positive relationship with its readership.11 Where an authority is required under this Act to publish a notice with a local news publisher, as in section 11(1)(a), it is required to give preference to local news publishers that—(a) can demonstrate high local readership comparative to other local news publishers in its locality, or(b) can demonstrate low financial burden to access for customers in its locality.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 207 I will speak also to my Amendments 208 and 209. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for adding her name to these; I am sorry that she cannot be here today.
Clause 98 refers to newspaper notices. The purpose of requiring notices in local newspapers is to inform the public. Most of the public now get their local news from sources other than traditional local newspapers. As the Government accept the need for notices—as evidenced by Clause 98—and we are looking at a system that costs the public purse around 50 million quid a year, I hope that they will agree that the notices that they are requiring and paying for should be placed where people will read them.
My amendments propose a much-needed update to the 1881 definition of a newspaper, which is what rules these notices at the moment, to allow local councils to place public notices in relation to planning and infrastructure with trusted, professional and widely read online local news outlets. That was what the 1881 legislation achieved in its day—it made sure that these notices were placed where people would read them and in publications that they could access and trust. We need to move that on a bit.
The local news industry has undergone a deep transformation with the rise of online news and the decline of printed papers. Last year, more than half of traditional regional dailies had a circulation of below 5,000 copies. Comparatively, the average local independent online news outlet attracted almost 500,000 unique users. Across the UK, digital outlets established in the past decade or so are connecting with growing audiences; I would name the Bristol Cable, the Waltham Forest Echo, the Manchester Mill, the Greater Govanhill in Glasgow, VIEWdigital in Belfast, and many others—including, of course, my local Eastbourne Reporter.
There have been countless calls in recent years to review the public notices system to support the regeneration of local news, including by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s Sustainability of Local Journalism report and the House of Lords report The Future of News, published less than a year ago.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am amazed that no other Members of your Lordships’ House want to speak about local news and newspapers. I broadly agree with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right that the question we have to ask ourselves is: with the sad decline, as I see it, of printed local news, how best do we make sure that important public notices, as defined in legislation, that are currently placed only in printed news outlets, get a greater reading and more information about them spread by including them in reputable or quality online news outlets?
I agree with the noble Lord that it should be both, because a number of people still read a paper version of a local newspaper. I am amazed that there are people where I live—they contact me—who read these public notices and ask, “What on earth is going on here?”, even though they are printed in font size 6 or 7, so you need a magnifying glass to read them. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has considered that public notices in the print media are very tightly printed, and how they can be accessible online. Sometimes, you get a whole page of public notices. I generally agree that we have to do something to make sure that more people have access to important information.
My understanding is that currently there is a public notice portal—public notices are gathered from the print media and put on to this portal. It would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is thinking about enabling councils, through legislation, to choose whether to publish directly on to that public portal.
Generally, I more or less support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have to have reform and your Lordships’ House and others have considered this in detail, so the question is how we set about it. With those remarks, I look forward to other comments on this group of amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas highlight and reaffirm the importance of local news publishers. Increasingly, these are online, but not always. Some areas still have quite successful newspapers that have print runs, sometimes daily but now often weekly, but this differs in local areas, so I think that local authorities are best placed to decide what medium they use for advertising all things planning.
On this side of the Committee, we support the existence of local news publishers across the United Kingdom. As we have heard, they serve as an important conduit between local people and their authorities and are crucial for upholding community engagement and local democracy, values which I hope all noble Lords will join me in supporting. Indeed, the importance of local news publishers is even more significant when we consider it in context of important planning and development decisions. Local people are those most affected by such decisions and it is important that their voices are heard and meaningfully listened to. Local news publishers play a vital role in making sure both that local people are represented and that the relevant information is disseminated to them. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I look forward to hearing how they will be addressed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling these interesting amendments, which relate to the publicity of notices on compulsory purchase orders. I cannot help thinking that there is a solution to this, but perhaps not exactly this one. We have to have a think about this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I support local news publications. I am one of the sad local government geeks who always turns straight to the public notices, not just because I want to see what my own council is doing—now that I am not there anymore—but because I want to see what the next-door councils are doing as well.
Local newspapers are an important part of the way that information is shared, but they also play an important role in supporting democracy, communicating with our residents and being a signpost to all kinds of events that are going on locally. I know that they have been through a very tough time recently. In my area, if we did not have the paper edition of the newspaper, we would probably not have an online paper either—the paper is produced online but also produced as a paper copy. It is not delivered anymore but you can pick it up in a supermarket, so it is an important part of our local life.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper that notices of making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain quality and readership criteria, including possessing at least one director legally resident in the United Kingdom, employing at least one journalist not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution, being subject to a code of ethical standards and demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which they operate.
The legislation currently requires acquiring authorities to publish notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. The Government consider that the requirement to publish notices in newspapers is an important part of the CPO process. Acquiring authorities are already motivated to ensure that notices are well publicised, because that helps them to avoid legal challenge.
However, these amendments would constrain and place unnecessary burdens on acquiring authorities when attempting to comply with the requirement to publish notices. The amendments would make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process, increase the potential risk of legal challenges, which would result in additional costs, and delay decision-making and the delivery of benefits in the public interest. The amendments would therefore complicate and delay the CPO process further, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives.
It would be helpful if the notices could be published in a bigger font. I believe that the noble Baroness said that it is usually size 6, but it is more like size 2 in my local newspaper. Something I find helpful is taking a picture of them on my phone and then expanding that.
For all the reasons I have given, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I understand what the Minister said about the quality criteria I put in the amendment. I included them for discussion.
However, I do not understand her willingness to restrict the publication of these notices to 1881-style newspapers. Why? Surely the purpose of publishing these notices is that they get noticed. Therefore, the Government should say that they will create a website on which all such notices will be placed, and people will know to go there to find them. They could be sorted by locality or whatever. It would cost a few hundred thousand pounds a year, rather than the £50 million a year we are paying at the moment. They would all be available there, and people would know where to go. What they are currently doing is paying £50 million for people to have to pay even more to buy the newspaper, just to see the public notices page.
Local newspapers used to be vibrant, argumentative and full of interesting journalists. Now, you are lucky if they have one journalist. Mostly, they include just reprinted press announcements and syndicated competitions. If these notices are meant to get into the press where people will notice them randomly, they need to be much more widely distributed. Alternatively, if they should be publicly available, so that the people who know that they are of interest can find them, they should be on a government website. The Government are paying a lot of money for no value with the current system.
I would be interested to know—if not now then in writing—whether the Government’s intention is that notices are to be published so that interested people can find them, or whether it is more important that people can find the notices at random. If it is the former, I will bring back an amendment on Report to seek to create a government website instead of the newspaper requirement. If it is the latter, I will try to table a simplified version of this amendment. I would be happy to receive an answer in writing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Meston
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to mitigate the potentially harsh and punitive application of the proposed new section 32A of the 1973 Act when a dwelling is compulsorily acquired.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 209A concerns the scope of exceptions to home loss payments in Clause 103. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a serious step for which clear and proper justification should be required. The person displaced is usually compensated by a statutory home loss payment. In Clause 103, new Section 32A of the 1973 Act stipulates exceptions to the right to such a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair or there have been other failures. Under the Bill, people covered by those exceptions are to be denied any home loss payment. However, in reality, the price the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect any lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment would therefore be in addition to the reduced price, which reflects a poor state of repair.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the principle behind this amendment is an important one and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, deserve careful consideration. It is a sensitive matter, particularly where an individual’s poor health or other infirmities are concerned, and we will want to look at this area closely. More broadly, we are concerned about the extensive nature of this section of the Bill, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for bringing us this amendment on compulsory purchase compensation rules. The amendment would ensure that home owners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO.
Under the current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with an improvement notice, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments is excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. This Bill amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. However, where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be entitled to compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation or other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. The provision introduced by this Bill will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring sub-standard properties back into use as housing and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.
The amendment would ensure that, where an owner can show that they did not deliberately allow their property—subject to an improvement notice or order—to fall into disrepair or to remain derelict and that it was the result of ill health, other infirmity or a lack of financial resources, they can still make a claim for a home loss payment. We believe that it is for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the Land Compensation Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the property owner. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for both the supportive remarks from the Opposition Front Bench and the considered response from the Government. I would like to think about that—in particular, the wider implications of what is being proposed—more closely. On that basis, although I reserve the right to return on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this amendment relates to removing—or “disregarding”, to use the legislative term—hope value from recreational land that is to be purchased for public use.
The principle of hope value was debated at length and in detail during consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in your Lordships’ House. It was agreed by the Government of the time that hope value could be disregarded by acquiring authorities for a number of purposes—including for schools, for example. However, hope value for public recreational uses was not included in the list of categories where hope value could be disregarded.
So Amendments 209B and 209C in my name seek to add the disregarding of hope value by acquiring authorities into the legislation. The reason for that is fairly straightforward and obvious. On a previous day in Committee, we had a debate on the importance of recreational land. My noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a strong case for better planning and more openness to planning applications for sporting use. These two amendments seek to add to that.
The importance of the availability of public recreational land cannot be overstated. In days gone by, children could go out of their front door and play in the street without risk. Now that is not possible because of the obvious influx in terms of every household having a car. So, in order for them to play outside, children have to be taken somewhere. If there are not enough “somewheres” to go to—somewhere to kick a ball in a local recreation area; a park, somewhere to go and walk round a lake; or somewhere to play on playing equipment that is provided—it is a huge loss to the development of young people.
Sport, such as the World Athletics Championships—I am an athletics fan, although I could not get to Tokyo—is really important to this country, so it is important that all children have opportunities for play. If local authorities wish to extend the use of recreational areas, it is best if the cost of that land is not added to by hope value.
Those two simple amendments have the same purpose: to enable local authorities to buy land for recreational use without hope value attached to it. I look forward to hearing about the other amendments in this group, and will respond to them when I reply to the Minister. With those short but, I hope, strong messages showing that this is an important issue, I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 210 and 211 in my name and Amendment 227G in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, as I have previously disclosed on this Bill.
When we say that the Conservative Party is under new management, we mean it. We are rightly proud of much of the work that went into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, but we are also clear about areas where improvement is needed. I have tabled Amendment 210 to address one such issue, an issue that sits uncomfortably with our core principles of property rights and fair compensation. We believe deeply in the right of individuals to own property, and that such ownership should not be disturbed lightly. When it is, compensation must be fair and transparent and reflect the true value of what is being lost. That includes hope value.
Hope value is not a vague or abstract notion; it is a well-established component in the valuation of land and property, used not only in sales but in inheritance tax assessments and a wide range of commercial transactions. It reflects the possibility that land might in future obtain planning permission for a more valuable use. It is the very element that allows developers and others to bring forward land for development, persuading reluctant landowners to sell by recognising the future potential of their land.
To disregard hope value is to ignore how the market works. It risks undermining confidence in the land market and creating new barriers to development rather than removing them. The valuation methodologies underpinning hope value are well understood, professionally governed and economically rational. They are consistent with option valuations in financial markets, although I am not sure they go so far as to use the Black-Scholes option pricing model.
If a site has no realistic prospect of future development, its hope value will naturally be nil or negligible. However, where a site has a reasonable expectation of future change in use, reflected in prices agreed between buyers and sellers, we must ask why the Government or local authorities should be entitled to disregard that. In doing so, they risk ignoring market signals and distorting resource allocation. If the market values a piece of land as having the future potential for residential development but the authority wants to use it for a different, potentially less efficient use, that should prompt reflection, not concealment.
In a helpful Written Answer following Second Reading, the Minister set out the intended application of these provisions. That response included reference to land for educational and health purposes but also to housing, and not necessarily affordable housing. That gives little comfort. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has moved her Amendment 209B, which seeks to expand this to recreational facilities. Needless to say, we do not support that.
We are told that the powers will be used to support affordable housing schemes, but in practice the drafting is broad, the safeguards are weak, and I see no mechanism that protects landowners should the purpose of the CPO change after acquisition. Could the Minister clarify? Would these provisions still apply if the land were no longer used for the original purpose stated in the CPO? Clear guidance—or, better still, an amendment to the Bill—could help to avoid costly litigation in the years to come.
The Minister’s letter also cited examples where removing hope value might help to bring forward certain sites, such as brownfield land where viability is an issue, infill plots, and allocated sites that have not yet come forward, but that analysis does not hold. If viability truly is an issue, the hope value will already be low or nil, and on infill or allocated sites it is not the price that delays development but the length and complexity of the planning process and the delays caused by responses from statutory consultees and agencies.
I hope I have persuaded the Committee that removing hope value does not unlock land or accelerate housing delivery. On the contrary, it undermines property rights, weakens trust in the planning system and may ultimately deter landowners from bringing land forward.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 227G, which stands in my name. This amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 106 that would require the Secretary of State, within one month of the Bill being passed, to publish a report on whether the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities remains compatible with the rights and freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 1 of Protocol 1, “Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions”.
The issue relating to Clause 105 is that it allows acquiring authorities, when calculating compensation for compulsorily purchased land, to exclude hope value. That is so even where that hope value is genuine, long-established and grounded in realistic prospects of future development. This risks leaving landowners with compensation that does not reflect the true value of what they are losing. Indeed, it is not just a risk; it is more than that, and it will surely come to pass. There is also no statutory mechanism preventing acquired land later being disposed of at full value—potentially by a private entity—without redress to the original owner. This raises clear questions of fairness, proportionality and potential misuse of public power, and I look to the Minister for clarification on this.
Equally troubling is the absence of safeguards to ensure that land taken compulsorily is actually used for its intended purpose and not sold on later for profit, with no compensation or benefit to the original owner. This risks opening the door to misuse of state power; it diminishes public trust. This would be contrary to the principles of fair dealing that were established at least 70 years ago and have been acted on by Governments of all persuasions ever since.
In this, I refer to the Crichel Down affair, which should be etched on every Minister’s heart. This was a British Government scandal in the 1950s. It involved the compulsory purchase of agricultural land in Dorset for RAF bombing practice. The land was later transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. The ministry then significantly increased the land’s price, making it unaffordable for the original owner’s successors. The ensuing public inquiry, which criticised the ministry’s actions, led to the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture—note that; the resignation—and the establishment of the Crichel Down rules. This requires government departments to offer surplus land back to former owners or their successors.
Although this situation is not exactly the same as the one my amendment addresses, the mischief is similar. The principles underlying it should be no different. It is called “fair dealing”. I invite the Minister to say plainly that, where property is taken by compulsion, there must always be fair dealing.
The Crichel Down scandal established that principle. Public bodies making use of CPOs should not later, if they change their minds, make a financial gain at the expense of the original landowner—so much for the English common-law position. As I have explained, those principles apply to a different but comparable position to that which this amendment addresses.
I turn shortly to Article 6 of the convention. This requires access to an effective remedy, yet the opacity around how compensation is assessed in the absence of procedural safeguards in some cases may give rise to a challenge under that provision.
This amendment does not seek to obstruct regeneration; it seeks legal clarity, transparency and reassurance that the Government remain committed to fair dealing and to honouring their obligations under the convention. I urge the Minister to recognise the importance of these protections and accept the need for a report when the Bill becomes law.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 325 in this group but, first, I would like to support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst. I echo what has been said about compulsory purchase orders. We live in a country that is meant to have property rights. What can be worse than forcibly removing property that someone rightfully owns? Which one of us would like our property to be compulsorily removed?
Generally, in the past, this has been done only for huge infrastructure projects—not that that makes it better for those whose property it affects. It has been rarely done, although we have just heard of a very awful example from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. However, I am sure that many of your Lordships will have read about the property removed to make way for HS2: the family farms that were taken and the homes that people had to leave. Do the general public really think this is a good thing? Surely, it is a human rights abuse. The Bill incentivises this approach by allowing acquiring agencies to buy the land at agricultural prices and then sell it on for development. We are meant to be making life easier and better for people, not causing utter misery.
I thank noble Lords who have allowed me to insert Amendment 325 into the group. Amendment 325 would insert new subsection (2A) into Clause 83 to ensure that fields used by people to graze their animals and high-quality agricultural land that could be used for food production cannot be compulsorily purchased by Natural England as part of its environmental delivery plans.
I spoke earlier in the debate about how one of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have these property rights. In the Bill, there are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply, as I just said, where it is required for new development.
I spoke last week about how high-quality agricultural land should be used to produce food, which is in proposed new paragraph (b) of this amendment, so I will not repeat all that we talked about then. I would like to focus on proposed new paragraph (a), which concerns
“land … that is in personal use for the grazing of animals”.
People who have a few fields, for horses, donkeys or maybe llamas, goats, the odd pet sheep or anything else, need those fields to keep their livestock and pets. These fields are often on the outskirts of villages or towns. They therefore look rather attractive for development but, if this land were removed, what would happen to the animals and livestock?
A while ago, the Prime Minister himself purchased a field, so that his mother could care for neglected donkeys. Sadly, she has now died and the field has been sold, but what would have happened if this field had been taken while it was being used for the donkeys? In short, as I have said before, I believe that compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used by a Government in only the most extreme of circumstances, and that land that is being utilised for family animals should never be considered.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring that I have shares in a family company that owns a farm in the Midlands. To avoid giving a Second Reading speech, and to save us all quite a lot of time, I will jump over what I was going to say on Amendment 210 and just say that I agree thoroughly with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst, on those matters. After all, so-called hope value is just another term for what the market is prepared to pay—in other words, market value.
When we look at land, the owner may already have paid inheritance tax on it, invested in its maintenance and improvement, and spent substantial sums, time and effort seeking planning permission. For the state or local authority simply to swipe the increase in value that the owner has nurtured and invested in over the years is not only deeply unjust but a powerful disincentive to bring forward land for development, for EDPs or anything else.
There is a different perspective, at least in the case of land: the increase of value may be derived from societal need—for example, space for housing—rather than entirely from the efforts and investments of the owner of that land. As such, perhaps society should be entitled to at least a share of the uplift in value. But it already is. The state, without lifting a finger, receives at least 20% capital gains tax on the price achieved by all vendors and other very valuable benefits in exchange for granting planning permission—in the form of planning conditions, Section 106 agreements and so on.
We will be discussing the closely related matter of compulsory purchase shortly in subsequent amendments, but this is on hope value. In February 2025, the Compulsory Purchase Association, in its response to the consultation on the process and rules for compulsory purchase, had strong objections to the removal of hope value on the grounds that it would—I will try to list these briefly: make the development process slower and more complex; produce distortions in a two-tier market with some land taken from its owners subject to the removal of hope value via compulsory purchase and some land sold at true market price; discourage developers and owners from promoting land for allocation or development; encourage owners to fight attempts to compel them to part with their property; and have equalities impacts on the human rights of those affected—for example, through potential abuse by acquiring authorities and time pressure put on owners to accept terms. As one lawyer in a government department put it to me recently, compulsory purchase brings people to the table. I would argue that it brings them to their knees. Finally, it would damage the reputation of the compulsory purchase process as a fair and equal one.
There is a case for society to capture some of the value from development. As I have tried briefly to illustrate, society already does so in the form of significant tax and planning conditions. The real issue is not to confiscate hope value but to ensure that land, once given planning permission by the state, is actually developed. This requires, first, a review of how long a planning permission can run before being lost, and, secondly, an end to the practice of a planning permission being acquired with the expectation that, for example, affordable housing percentages will later be haggled downwards. Contractual obligations in this area need to be far tougher. Putting together the time limit and this contractual aspect with limited planning permissions would address issues such as land banking, which are the subject of other amendments. I support this amendment because such state confiscations would be an economic mistake and a deeply negative pressure on the possibility of land being brought forward voluntarily. I look forward, albeit with some scepticism, to hearing the Minister’s response to this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 211. I support what my noble friend Lord Roborough said on it, and indeed what my noble friend Lord Sandhurst said on his amendment.
I was a chartered surveyor back in 1976 when development land tax was introduced, and I recall the disastrous effect it had on the market for land becoming available for development. There is no doubt that clauses such as those we have in the Bill will have the same deleterious effect on the natural process of buying and selling land and encouraging landowners to provide land for development and therefore fulfil some of the housing needs of this country.
It seems to me quite wrong to get rid of hope value in the way that the Government are doing. It is not, in the words of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, a fair deal. It is unjust. I too remember the Crichel Down case, which my noble friend mentioned. In fact, I remember talking to Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Minister who resigned over the affair. That shows how old I am now, but it reinforces my dislike of the chances of the land not being returned to the original owner. That is the purport of Amendment 211. I wish my noble friend Lord Nugent was still alive and in his place, because he would be able to give an erudite summary of the difficult problems. I hope that the Government will think again on this issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. Amendments 209B and 209C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to amend Clause 105 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed with directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation where justified in the public interest. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments seek to introduce a change so that CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.
While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we had a very interesting debate on this subject twice in last week’s Committee—I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments. The non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and carefully justified in the public interest.
Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits to be facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the public benefits and the justification for lower compensation for landowners are likely to be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered are clearly less identifiable.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his Amendment 210. This seeks to repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest for certain types of schemes. The amendment also seeks to remove Clause 105 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing, and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient. The amendment would remove the power, which was introduced, as he rightly said, by the last Government under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by compulsory purchase, and to pay reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. To support the delivery of housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations of land values by landowners. This can result in the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, transport links and schools being more costly, and significant amounts of developable land remaining unused.
The Government are committed to improving land assembly, speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of communities. We also remain committed to ensuring that landowners are awarded fair compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
Amendment 211, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. I thank him for his amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, we will discuss the nature restoration fund and the role and powers granted to Natural England in more detail later this afternoon. To successfully deliver this new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to implement the conservation measures required. We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted, especially trying to acquire that land by agreement. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including authorisation by the Secretary of State. The landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach.
Requiring Natural England to return land in the circumstances set out in the amendment would undermine the rationale for allowing Natural England to have these powers in the first place. Some conservation measures will require Natural England to acquire land, whether by agreement or, where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, through compulsory purchase. Having this range of options provides certainty that conservation measures can be delivered. It is fundamental to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the overall improvement test will be met.
In line with the safeguards provided in the Bill, if land were required to be returned as envisaged by this amendment, this could lead to the environmental delivery plan needing to be amended because conservation measures would no longer be delivering as intended. That would reduce the amount of development that the EDP would cover; increase cost to developers; or trigger the need to revoke the EDP, requiring the Secretary of State to consider appropriate remedial action to ensure that the impact of development is addressed in line with the overall improvement test.
I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the hearts of many noble Lords. However, I trust that the Committee can recognise the need for these targeted powers, to ensure that the nature recovery fund delivers the much-needed win-win for nature and development. In a meeting with Natural England and a number of noble Lords who are here today, Natural England said that it had used the power only three times ever. I do not anticipate it doing this all the time.
Lord Roborough (Con)
In relation to Amendment 211, can the Minister indicate whether a CPO would happen only once a landowner or farmer had been offered a contract to carry out the EDP works themselves—after they had been offered the option of doing the work that Natural England was intending to do on that land under its CPO ownership?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord that reassurance this afternoon. I am sure that he will understand that that is not included in the Bill at the moment—he may want to consider something on that later—but I understand the reason that he is saying it. We have, however, said very clearly that there will be the possibility for the private sector to contribute to EDPs. We are encouraging our colleagues in Natural England to develop that further.
Amendment 325, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Hodgson, would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is in use for the grazing of animals or is high-quality agricultural land. As I have just set out, there is an extremely high bar for the compulsory purchase powers under the NRF, with the Secretary of State having to approve any use of these powers. As I said in my response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, there is a clear need to ensure that CPO is available, albeit with this very high bar. The use or future use of land will of course be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State, and I set out earlier this afternoon the consideration in both the land-use framework and the NPPF that land in other use must be considered before resorting to agricultural land. The Secretary of State will take that into consideration when considering whether to allow the CPO, and will ensure that sensible choices are made that align with the Government’s wider objectives, not least in respect of food security, which is a discussion we have had many times in your Lordships’ House. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Amendment 227G, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, relates to the use of compulsory purchase powers and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. It seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a report assessing whether the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights are adequately protected in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities.
The power to compulsorily acquire a person’s land is a draconian power which engages the ECHR and raises questions of common-law fairness; I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred to that himself. A fundamental principle of the compulsory purchase process is that the confirming authority should be sure that the purposes for which a compulsory purchase power is proposed justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. Acquiring authorities must demonstrate to the confirming authority that such an interference is so justified. When making their decision on whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for each individual CPO, the confirming authority must always give consideration to the provisions of Article 1 and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the ECHR and the impact of the proposed CPO on the individuals affected.
The compulsory purchase process also enables the exchange of written representations and the holding of inquiries and hearings into objections conducted by an independent inspector, reporting to the Secretary of State, whose decision is subject to legal challenge to uphold the rights enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR. When justifying their CPOs, the Government guidance on compulsory purchase is clear that acquiring authorities should address the potential harm to private rights and how the impacts on human rights from the respective order have been considered. The compulsory purchase process already provides protections to the rights of individuals affected by compulsory purchase and, for these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed response to this group of amendments, but I am rather disappointed that the Government did not feel able to add a public recreational use to land that is to be disregarded for hope value by acquiring authorities.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Building regulations: swift bricks(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.(3) For the purposes of this section—“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the common swift and other cavity nesting species;“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitat for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, I shall move Amendment 212, to which I have added my name. My noble friend sends his apologies to the Committee that he is detained elsewhere and cannot be here today. I am grateful, as is he, that my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Hintze have also added their names to the amendment.
At the beginning of our deliberations today, the Government Whip exhorted that we have swift debates, and I have moved a swift amendment. So, I am helping the Government yet again.
This is a subject we discussed in the levelling-up Bill and it was mentioned at Second Reading of this Bill. It is a simple amendment, which is probably why I am able to speak to it. It asks that a swift brick, which allows a swift potentially to breed in it, be added when a new build is made. This would apply only when appropriate. I point that out because some people have said that it may not always be appropriate.
I am sure that Members of this House know all about swifts, but here is a very brief résumé. They are migrants that come here quite late—normally at the end of April or in May—having flown all the way from sub-Saharan Africa or the Congo Basin. They do not stop flying. They mate on the wing. The only time they are not flying is when they are nesting.
These poor swifts have been declining in numbers. There may be a variety of reasons, such as a lack of insects and so forth, but one reason that has been identified is the success of insulation in houses. Cavity insulation means that the nesting areas that would normally be under eaves or wherever are not there. Imagine these poor swifts: they have flown all the way from the Congo, they are looking forward to going into the building that generations of swifts have been going to and they find that it is effectively blocked up.
The simple thing we are asking for is that the swift brick is placed in building regulations. I have a feeling that the Government might suggest that this could be planning policy, but I do not think that that is sufficient. I cannot understand why Governments—the previous Government were a little shy on this as well—will not accept this. I know that some people think it is perhaps overregulation or burdensome, and I heard it whispered, but I could not believe it is true, that there is lobbying from developers and builders. I cannot believe that that could in any way influence a Government, so I just ask the Government to reconsider.
This is in fact a great opportunity because, literally just a year ago, I think by a few days, campaigners, including my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, the swift campaigner the indefatigable Hannah Bourne-Taylor and others—I will not mention them all—met the then Secretary of State in Defra, the right honourable Steve Reed. He said that they were pushing at an open door because Defra has always been in favour—they are the friends of the environment—but sometimes other departments get in the way. This is therefore a great opportunity because we now have a convert to swift bricks in the ideal position to sanction this particular thing, so I am hoping that it can be done. It has been done successfully elsewhere, such as in Gibraltar. Some people might ask what happens if swifts do not come in. Other birds, including house sparrows, which are not as common as they used to be, can also utilise them, so it as a very good measure.
I say, finally, to the Government Benches that some of the measures in this Bill have not been quite to the flavour of environmental groups and members of the public who think that their language on bats and newts was a little bit extreme. So, in that same spirit of helping the Government regardless of the political party and in order to help them to get a win-win, this is the ideal time to allow this measure and put it into the Bill.
I support the other amendments in this group: Amendments 225—to which I have added my name—227GA and 338. I wanted to make sure that this is a swift debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I also support all the amendments in this group, which I think would support the Government’s stated aim to help nature in this Bill by making sure that the places that we build for humans at least minimise harm to wildlife and, in the case of swift bricks, actually help it.
I speak to Amendment 225 in my name and thank the noble Lords who have also put their names to it and support it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on bird-safe design of buildings and to ensure that new buildings and significant changes to existing but not exempted heritage buildings incorporate this guidance as far as is practicable. Incorporating this amendment would not only bring the United Kingdom into alignment with what is seen in other jurisdictions around the world but would make the UK the first to introduce national bird safety legislation, which is something that could provide a welcome positive message for the Government to project.
I know that there are broader environmental concerns with the Bill, which we shall come on to later tonight, but the potential positive effects of this single amendment are enormous. Remember that the number of birds thought to be killed by flying into glass in buildings in the UK is over 30 million per year. The problems are simple. First, birds cannot see glass. Clear glass or glass that is reflecting nearby trees or sky is a hazard. Secondly, at night, artificial lighting, particularly in tall buildings, can disorientate migrating birds, making them end up circling the lights until they are exhausted and crash into a building.
The solutions are also simple, well researched and legislated for in many places. I have been able to base the wording of this amendment on that in many other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, which has mandated bird-safe standards since 2011, Washington DC, New York, Portland in Oregon, Toronto, Calgary, Hesse and Zurich. There are also bird-safe design guides based on 40 years’ worth of research that can provide an easy reference from the United States, Canada and Singapore. We have experts in the UK too. They all agree on some simple features of buildings to avoid—essentially, ones that make it look as though a bird can fly through safely to reach sky or a perch in a tree, but where there is actually a sheet of lethal glass. These can be removed through thoughtful architectural design, or you can use bird-safe glass. That is simply glass that is made visible to birds, either through patterns that we can also see or through patterns that reflect ultraviolet, which are invisible to us but visible to birds.
Research has shown that specific patterns, such as lines no thinner than two millimetres, spaced no wider than 50 millimetres apart, can effectively stop a bird flying into glass—a more than 90% reduction in collisions in tests. These test centres can therefore certify bird-safe glass, and there are many designs available from different manufacturers, including the UK’s Pilkington glass, which has a certified variety.
Then there is night-time lighting. Many cities around the world now have lights-out times. Even New York’s Twin Towers memorial beams get switched off for periods during bird migrations to help birds escape their fatal attraction. In the UK, awareness of this problem and its simple solutions is surprisingly low compared to North America. Experts I have spoken to around the world were delighted to hear from me, because they think of Britain as being so far behind in bird-safe buildings despite a world-leading status in so much animal welfare research and legislation. This amendment could put us back as global leaders in having the first national bird safety legislation, it would help put the Bill in line with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, as the Animal Sentience Committee has already pointed out, and it could save tens of millions of birds every year.
As for the cost, producing guidelines is easy, as I say, given the plethora of sources already available. Bird-safe architectural design is also easy once you know the guidelines. In a double win, many of the coatings and shades that help make glass less dangerous to birds also help with thermal issues and energy efficiency in glass buildings. The regulations on night-time lighting could help energy efficiency too. The cost of glass varies depending on specifications, but manufacturers that I have spoken to estimate that, at the moment, the cost of bird-safe glass in commercial buildings is about 5% more than normal glass and about 10% more for a domestic glazing unit, but all have said that those costs would come down quickly with scale. Not only that, but bird-safe glass apparently used to be made here in the UK, with 90% of it exported to projects in China, Europe and North America, driven by their legislation. With the market mainly being overseas, manufacturers have now mostly moved from the UK to Germany to follow demand, but could return if we caught up with global bird-safe legislation.
Amendment 225 seems to me an example of the much sought after win-win. Putting it into this Bill, alongside others in this group, would help demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to helping nature and nature recovery, alongside helping British businesses and not slowing down any housebuilding. I very much hope that the Minister will agree.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Grender, I will speak to her Amendment 338. I am grateful, as I am sure she would be if she were here, for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. This is a debate where I think we are going to have unanimity around the House; we on these Benches agree with all the amendments in this group. I will make a few swift points about the specifics of the amendment from my noble friend, which is about homes for nature at the same time as homes for people; it would amend building regulations to protect biodiversity in all new developments.
If we are to have homes where nature can live, feed and breed, we will have to take specific measures. I absolutely support what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, articulated so well in moving the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I am not going to talk about swift bricks, which are included in the amendment from my noble friend Lady Grender, but I want to talk about some of the other very much endangered species which it also covers, including bird boxes, bat boxes and hedgehog highways.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I give the Green group’s strongest possible support for all the amendments in this group. I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is recovering well from her operation last week.
If there is one amendment that my noble friend will regret not being here for, it is Amendment 212 on swift bricks. She is very passionate about swifts, and is it any wonder? These amazing creatures, with their top speed of 110 kilometres per hour, travelling 5,500 kilometres each way for their migrations, are long-distance athletes. They are making that journey, and then finding nowhere to raise their young. That is the reality of what we, by our actions, have created. Of course, they are now red-listed.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has already set this out very clearly and carefully, and the other noble Baronesses have already said a lot. I just note that, when we debated a very similar amendment to what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, then on the Opposition Benches, said that she was “delighted” to see the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that it was
“justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits ”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; col. 541.]
and that it had the Labour Party’s full support. Can we get to there, please? This is such a small measure. Why not? It is such a tiny action and a small cost. Yet, if you are a swift, this is not a small thing. This is a matter of life or extinction.
The other amendments are on other things we need to do, but there is a lot of discussion that the situation of swifts is unique. I fully back the hedgehog highways, the gaps in fences and other simple things, but swift bricks are just so simple.
Amendment 225, which was clearly introduced by the noble Baroness, is on bird-safe buildings. The British Trust for Ornithology has done a great deal of work on this, estimating that 100 million birds crash into the windows of buildings in the UK each year. One-third die as a result. That is a huge toll that is almost invisible. Back in 2022, the BTO did some research looking at local planning rules and essentially, there is no protection in any of our major cities and communities.
I will take noble Lords back to a case study that illustrates what happens on a day-to-day basis. It happened in a single day, so it really made an impact. Back in 2023 in Chicago, as a result of citizen science efforts, all the sad carcasses of more than 1,000 birds that had flown into one building in the US were collected. You may recall the pictures; a huge array of bird bodies was laid out. As was set out then, some very simple measures would have stopped that happening—the measures this amendment calls for.
Amendment 227GA is in my name and has considerable similarities to the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but perhaps goes a little further. It says that, within 18 months of this Act coming into force—I am allowing more time because this is much broader than what we need for swifts—regulations under the Building Act should be brought in to protect, and to ensure
“opportunities for living and feeding space for nature, mammals, birds, reptiles and insects”.
I also talk about the need for resources for plants.
The inspiration for this is probably not unique, but fairly unusual. It comes from an exhibition now on—I urge noble Lords to go and see it—at the Design Museum. It is called “More than Human” and is the first major exhibition of a growing movement of more than human design: a new generation of designers who understand that humans can flourish only alongside other activities and systems. It is part of the future observatory, the Design Museum’s national research programme for the green transition.
Let me give one example. There is a piece of artwork by Andres Jaque, “Transspecies Rosette”. It is a piece of a façade of a building made of cork, which is ideal for mosses, grasses, bacteria and mould. Normally, the façade of a building is designed to be impermeable—to stop anything growing and to keep everything out. What if we turned that around, and started to think about what a different kind of society would look like? I will very briefly mention “Sculpture for Octopuses” by Shimabuku, who experimented to see what colours octopuses liked and made artwork as a result.
I will conclude with a recollection from my youth. In 1988 I was a young journalist, and some Australians were marking the bicentenary of the start of the genocide of the Aboriginal people and the massive destruction of the environment of Australia that followed. The Australian parliament building was opened, but it was bogong moth migration season, and almost immediately the building filled up with bogong moths. No one had thought about this. They had brought in British western design traditions, plonked them down in Australia, and that was the result. So many decades later, the bogong moth, which the Aboriginal communities had feasted on over centuries—they had eaten them but also protected them—is now on the IUCN red list. It is gravely endangered. Something that, only decades ago, existed in great numbers is now threatened with extinction. We have to stop making buildings that have that kind of impact.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will be even swifter than the noble Lord, Lord Randall. There are some good ideas in these amendments. If we can protect bats in the belfry and great crested newts in the pond, why can we not do the same for swifts? They are such wonderful birds.
I am also interested in Amendment 225, because I have witnessed, very distressingly, quite a few birds smashing into windows and glass on my small farm in mid-Wales. To see these beautiful creatures lying on the ground, either stunned or dead, is very upsetting. Any efforts we could make to protect our dwindling bird population from crashing into buildings is to be supported.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I speak from a building that is full of moths—but I have never tried eating them.
I approve of Amendment 227GA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle; it goes to the root of the fact that we must find ways of living with and closer to nature. It ought to be slightly more detailed, so that I am allowed to exclude mice, but the overall principle—that we provide for wildlife living alongside us—is right.
Although I have had provision for swifts for the past 15 years, it has never had a swift in it—principally, I think, because there are probably not enough insects for the swifts to live on. We therefore need to provide a full habitat and not just a nesting place. Swift bricks sound far too much like an easy exit for the Government that will allow them to say, “Tick. Don’t need to do anything more”. I very much hope they can be tempted in the direction that the noble Baroness has outlined for them.
I also hope that they will do something about birds crashing into glass. It is simple: there are technical solutions, and we can live with them. We ought not to do this to birds. Just change the rules and, over time, we will do much less damage.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment, but I ask the Government not to accept it. I do that for two reasons. First, swifts are not the only migratory birds to come back on migration. Secondly, I believe that if the Government conceded to swifts, they would be able to say, “We’ve done something, we’ve pleased the environmental lobby and now we need not do anything more”. That is a typical reaction of government. I am therefore more attracted to Amendments 225 and 227GA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, reminded us that 30 million birds in the UK get killed on migration. In America, the figure is up to 1 billion, and in Canada it is over 40 million. In this country, cats do not cause as many bird deaths, but they are responsible for a significant number. Therefore, we need to look at this subject much more holistically.
On the question of migration, a huge problem was identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she discussed the convention centre in Chicago. I would like to add a PS to her story about 1,000 birds in a single night. Since some people have done the simple remedial work of applying small white dots and a two-inch grid pattern to the surface of windows, there has been a 95% reduction in fatalities during the migration period. That is a bonus for the environment and biodiversity that we should aim for.
I will mention one thing that other noble Lords have not mentioned: the planting around buildings. It has been proven that birds get very confused by some types of hedging and trees. When that is reflected in the glass, it disorientates the birds. Although we are all pressing for more trees, shrubbery and greenery, we need to be very careful that we are not building in bird deaths in the process. I hope that the Government will take a holistic look at this and do something that benefits biodiversity and the birds.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on surviving the Defra ministerial massacre. I am absolutely delighted and hope she enjoins all her female colleagues in her attempts to improve the environment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 212, to which I was delighted to add my name. I am conscious that this may seem like a single-minded approach, but it matters in a particular way. I say that because it is widely known that swifts are now on the conservation red list. They moved from green to amber in 2009 and to red in 2015. Between 1995 and 2021 there was a 62% decline. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge set out eloquently that some of this is about habitat and food but also about places for the birds to rest.
When I was in the Commons, I tried to press the case with other Ministers, but also as a Member of Parliament. I used to represent the parts of the east coast of the country that have a very natural stopping point for many migratory birds. In fact, Felixstowe port, in the words of Coldplay, has lights to guide them home. It is a very prominent place for many migratory birds, leading to the excellent and well-known Landguard reserve, as well as the RSPB’s world-famous Minsmere reserve up the coast.
On the subject of light, I am conscious of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. I would not necessarily want us to turn everywhere into a dark space when such lights may well be needed for safety in other commercial activities. But that does not mean we have them just for the sake of it.
On swift bricks, councils can already put in their plan that buildings are supposed to have swift bricks. I know that East Suffolk council has that in its plan, but it does not enforce it. We come back to the age-old arguments, “It’s going to add cost to development”, “It’s not convenient” and all these other things. We need to take action to stop the decline not only of this species but of many others. I am conscious that there is another amendment in this group which refers to a wider element.
The estimated cost of this brick is between £20 and £35. I genuinely do not believe that puts it beyond profitability. Frankly, that would be hard to swallow in terms of consideration of the cost of a particular house. But, as has been said, the Minister, when in opposition, thought this would be a slam dunk. It has already been yet another easy decision for Steve Reed, the new Secretary of State at MHCLG, to make—in the past it was actually MHCLG and probably the Treasury that held these things up.
There is another bird which often nests and is often thought to be similar to a swift. It is the house martin, and all I will say is, give us a happy hour and make sure we can have the swifts going for the future for evermore.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulated the noble Baroness in Grand Committee last week and I am delighted to be able to repeat my congratulations today. It is lovely to see her in her place.
I have considerable sympathy for Amendment 212, moved by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I saw in the press last week that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park had been married, and I assume he is on honeymoon. My noble friend said he was being detained in another place, which makes it sound like a rather interesting honeymoon.
However, moving swiftly on, the swifts are magnificent birds, but swifts in the UK have experienced a severe population decline, with numbers falling by over 60% between 1995 and 2022. That has now placed them on the red list of birds of conservation concern. This alarming drop is primarily due to the loss of suitable nesting sites and buildings, as my noble friend said, and a reduction in their insect food supply. Modern buildings lack the crevices and cavities swifts need, while building renovations and demolitions destroy their existing nests. A widespread lack of insects further threatens their survival, impacting their ability to raise young.
I have the privilege of serving on the Council of Europe, and I go to Strasbourg four times a year. It is amazing the number of swifts one sees there. That is because, in the old part of Strasbourg, near the cathedral in Place Gutenberg, there are thousands of these old-fashioned buildings with cavities, crevices and little garrets, and what I consider to be holes all over the roof, which are perfect for swifts. Last year, for some reason, there were hardly any and we were infested with midges and mosquitoes. This year, one could sit outside with a little glass of wine and watch hundreds of them at dusk, swooping and diving, with no midges or mosquitoes. They had the right facilities for them to nest and they had them there.
The cost of swift bricks is roughly £30. One can get more expensive ones, of course, but they are not necessary. The Government might say that, if they make it compulsory for all buildings to have swift bricks, that will drive up the cost of housing. But not all housing is suitable for these bricks and buildings need to be higher than five metres above ground. Even if all the 300,000 houses were suitable, and if the ideal three boxes per house were installed, we are looking at £90 per house or £18 million for the whole 300,000 homes. The Government’s green levy for their fanatical drive for net zero will add 20% to all heating bills. Last year, it was an extra £30 per household. As from 1 April this year, the average household has had an increase of £9.25 to its monthly bill. That £111 is far in excess of the cost of swift bricks.
The Government are splashing out about £7,500 per household on subsidising heat pumps, and they have paid out more than £148 million for heat pump installations through the boiler upgrade scheme as of May 2024, with additional funding planned to bring the total up to £1.5 billion until March 2028. That is £1.5 billion for inadequate heat pumps, so do not tell us that a £30 brick would drive up housing costs to unacceptable levels. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to that.
As far as the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, is concerned, I am not fully up to speed on the cost of safety glass, but I can comment on the comments by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Up at our house in Penrith, we plant an awful lot of trees near the window. The trees are full of nesting birds, but we found that the reflection from the glass was causing bird strikes. The problem was quickly solved, because one can get packets of little decals at three for £5 to put on the windows. Since then, it has not been a 90% drop: it has been a 100% drop—no deaths. I am not sure that is a solution for commercial buildings or high-rise ones, but one can stop all these bird deaths in ordinary houses by simple, cheap decals that you can get from the RSPB, and the decals can say anything they like.
On Amendment 338, I can only make a personal comment. If colleagues wish to go to the new government building in Peterborough, a building which houses the Passport Office, Natural England, the Environment Agency, Defra and the JNCC, in the foyer they will find something called the Blencathra—a green wall. This came about when I served on the JNCC a few years ago. The new government building was designed, and late on in the day they shared the design with all the organisations that were to occupy it. They boasted that the windows were 100% net zero, the air conditioning was net zero, and everything else was net zero. I said, “But have you got any greenery in the place?” Ah, no, they had not thought of that. We could not put anything on the roof—it was full of air conditioning and other things—so after a considerable battle we got a green wall inside.
I appreciate that that might not be a full answer to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness. I do not suggest that we should have a compulsory law on this—that would drive up enormous costs—but, if organisations are willing to do it, the solution is quite simple.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate on the planning features around birds and other wildlife. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Blencathra, for their kind welcome of the fact I am still here in front of noble Lords today.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for tabling this amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for introducing it so swiftly and beautifully. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett, for their amendments; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her behalf. These amendments seek to use building regulations to mandate the use of swift bricks; seek to require buildings to include measures to prevent bird fatality; and seek to require developers to use a range of elements to support wildlife.
The protection of species is crucial to ensuring the health of our ecosystems and the growth of our natural capital. I fully support the objective of increasing biodiversity and ensuring that new development contributes positively to nature. The Government acknowledge the dramatic decline of swifts, which we have heard about during this debate, alongside much of our other most precious wildlife. We are committed to driving nature’s recovery while building the homes that we desperately need.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned being converted to swift bricks. I assure him that I have already been converted to them and other building materials that can be used to increase wildlife. What we are looking at here, though, is how we can go about achieving that, not whether we support it in principle; in principle, we do. We do not believe that building regulations are the best route to achieving the objective of protecting species and providing habitats alongside new homes.
This is because building regulations in the UK are focused primarily on safeguarding the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They have not, historically, been applied to the protection of wildlife or biodiversity. Expanding their scope to include measures aimed at conserving species would represent a significant shift in regulatory intent. Such an expansion would also place considerable additional pressure on a system that is already adapting to the enhanced requirements introduced by the Building Safety Act.
The planning system is, we believe, the more appropriate route to secure these outcomes. Existing protections in planning policy support the use of wildlife-friendly features in and around new buildings to improve biodiversity. The national design guidance also promotes biodiversity enhancement through site-specific measures to support biodiversity net gains at the neighbourhood, street and household levels, as well as encouraging the protection and improvement of existing areas of valuable biodiversity—including through wildlife-friendly features.
Many animals in England are already protected by law. How development proposals need to consider these animals varies from species to species. We expect local planning authorities to use the standing advice published by Natural England to assess whether a planning application would harm or disturb a protected species. In particular, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, it is an offence to kill, injure or disturb wild birds.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I was a bit remiss in not congratulating the Minister on remaining in post. Prime Ministers make, from time to time, crazy decisions—I have seen it happen—but nothing would have been crazier than to remove the noble Baroness from her position. That is why I did not even think about it.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. It is a subject that I care very passionately about. I agree with my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Lucas, but I am testing the Government to see whether they can get one tiny thing through. I think the answer is no—not yet anyway.
Bird-friendly buildings is a really important subject. It does not have to mean that you switch the lights off all the time, it is about reflections and so forth. We may return to this.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra might speculate about where my noble friend Lord Goldsmith is, but I could not possibly comment.
I say to the Minister: in the same way as the swifts return every year, albeit in smaller numbers, this too will return on Report, albeit with greater numbers and more vehemence. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review: rights of wayWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of the provisions in this Act on—(a) access to,(b) enjoyment of, and(c) preservation of,rights of way, especially unrecorded rights of way.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the effect of the Bill on rights of way, including unrecorded rights of way which are due to be extinguished on 31 December 2030.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken in Committee so far, but in my four-minute contribution at Second Reading I raised two issues, which are the subject of these next two amendments. The first may be described as being in the weeds and the other in the stratosphere.
Perhaps I should begin with the weeds. Amendment 213 is about footpaths. I have three asks to make of the Government. The footpath issue is one that a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House have been following—“chasing down” might be a better phrase—for many years. I am therefore grateful for the support of two of the group, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me to give an apology as she cannot be here this evening. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has left the Chamber because we had extensive debates on the footpath issue when she had her responsibilities as a shadow spokesman before the general election, and I wish her well in her new role.
However, one name is missing from the Government Benches, that of Lord Rosser. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I add a short personal note. Lord Rosser was a doughty supporter of the footpath cause over many years and, despite his increasing frailty and looking exceptionally unwell, he came, possibly to speak for the last time, in support of a regret Motion that I had tabled. It is of course quite right that when one of us leaves your Lordships’ House the water should close over us quietly and soundlessly, but I wanted on this occasion for one last time to record my thanks to Lord Rosser for his support over the years.
With that, to horse. First, I need to declare an interest, as I am a member of the Ramblers, which campaigns on behalf of footpaths and open access. I am currently making use of our footpaths by walking from Land’s End to John O’Groats—in stages, I hasten to add—and I am just reaching Inverness. In the 1,000 or so miles that I have so far covered, I have seen at first hand how our network of public rights of way provides physical and mental support. In effect, it lifts the soul, even if, after seven hours on the road, the feet and the muscles may be a little sore.
The background to this issue is as follows. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 required local authorities to provide and prepare official records of public rights of way, known as definitive maps. As a result, some 120,000 miles of rights of way were recorded in England. That leads me to my first ask of the Government: the reason for paragraph (c) in my amendment, “preservation”, is to get the Minister’s commitment that nothing in the Bill will be allowed to end the network of these paths in whole or in part. The key word here is “network” because, if a path can be brought to an end, even for a few hundred yards, the utility and value of the surrounding paths is greatly reduced. Can the Minister confirm that the provisions of the Bill will not put at risk this important national asset, which is the primary means by which the public can get outdoors?
There is a further challenge. While the recording of 120,000 miles of footpaths was a terrific achievement, research suggests that some 40,000 further miles were not recorded and therefore remain unprotected. There are over 3,000 miles in Cornwall and just under 3,000 miles in Herefordshire. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 attempted to bring this issue to a conclusion by setting a deadline for applications to be submitted to local highway authorities for adding these hitherto unrecorded rights of way to the official definitive maps. The deadline was set for 25 years later, 1 January 2026, three months from where we are now. After that date, applications for adding unrecorded public rights of way based on historic evidence will no longer be possible and any of those miles would be lost for ever.
Progress on recording those 20,000 miles was disappointingly slow: first, because local authorities had many other uses for funds and found it hard to justify putting additional resources into this activity, balanced against all those other pressures; secondly, because the actual process of recording is rather clunky and expensive, both financially as well as in management time and effort. I have first-hand experience of that because my family company owns a few acres of agricultural land in Shropshire, where we needed the diversion of a footpath; although it was not contested, it took over three years to achieve. I place on record my thanks to Shropshire County Council and Mr Rodenhurst, who is the county council footpath officer, but he too had to work to an existing system.
Some anecdotal evidence suggests that many councils can process only two or three applications every year. At one point, a working party of interested stakeholders was set up to streamline the system, but it seems to have gone nowhere. Therefore, my second ask of the Minister is whether that working party still exists and whether it has any role in the Government’s thinking on how to speed up this recording process.
Finally, as the deadline of 1 January 2026 became ever closer, I, together with a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House, began to campaign for a better, permanent solution. At first, it looked as though we had had success. In February 2022, the then Conservative Government announced that the deadline would be abolished entirely, but a year later, in March 2023—presumably after lobbying by landowners and farmers—that decision was reversed and, instead, the deadline was extended by regulation by five years, to 1 January 2031. In my view, this is an exercise in pushing the pea around the plate, if ever I saw one.
On Boxing Day 2024, the new Labour Government announced that they would fulfil the prior undertaking of the Conservative Government to repeal the deadline but that they could do so only when, in that hallowed phrase, parliamentary time allows. This Bill provides parliamentary time within which the Government could fulfil that commitment, so my third and final ask of the Minister is whether the Government are prepared to bring forward amendments to the Bill to fulfil the commitment they have given to remove the recording deadline for ever. If the Government cannot accept and answer my questions, perhaps they could accept Amendment 213, which provides for a review in six months. That at least enables your Lordships’ House to monitor progress on this important topic. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, having heard such eloquent advocacy for swifts and other birds, I will make a case for humans in Amendment 213. I will explain. First, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for tabling this amendment. I am very keen to support him.
My particular interest is actively to promote the case for the restoration of ancient rights of way—the unregistered ones that we have heard about already. I declare my interest as the owner of a property, a family farm, with a right of way laced right through the middle. I am also grateful to the Ramblers for its briefing.
In considering this, we should start from the premise that rights of way, whether registered or not, are a national asset. They belong to the nation—to citizens and individuals. No reasons were given except for the need for certainty as to whether these unregistered rights of way would be terminated or disallowed in future. The only certainty was that UK citizens would be stripped of their property rights because, in that rediscovered but unregistered place, these rights of way would have been disallowed. What possible benefit to the community arises from disallowing the registration of rights of way?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on Amendment 213 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which probes the potential impacts of the Bill on rights of way, including those currently unrecorded and due to be extinguished at the end of 2030. He raises an important and timely point. The matter of unrecorded rights of way has long been a subject of interest and concern, particularly among landowners, local authorities and the walking public. The 2026 cut-off date originally proposed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, later extended to 31 December 2030, was intended to provide certainty and finality. This amendment, while probing in nature, rightly encourages the Government to clarify how the provisions of the Bill will interact with that approaching deadline, particularly with the ongoing digitisation and modernisation of the definitive map process and how planning reforms may affect local authority resourcing for such work.
While there are undoubtedly historic rights of way that are not currently identified, mapped and protected, given the effort that has been put into doing so by various organisations perhaps one might assume that those long-unused rights of way are defunct. Rights of way were created through constant use establishing those rights. Surely if they are no longer used and are forgotten, their original purpose and right is gone. Rights of way were rarely established through leisure use, but were commonly the way that travel and commerce was conducted in this country. It is unhelpful to planning and infrastructure delivery, as well as to farmers and land managers, that claims can be brought at any time and can consume considerable time and resource to resist. I encourage the Government to stick to the existing deadline.
Amendment 213 prompts a worthwhile discussion. I think the idea of a review in six months is worth considering to ensure that our rights of way are properly protected. I thank my noble friend for raising the matter, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his amendment, which seeks to probe the effects of the Bill on rights of way, including unrecorded rights of way. I thank him for his kind comments about Lord Rosser; we still miss him very much, so I am grateful.
As we heard, the Government announced on Boxing Day 2024 their intention to repeal the cut-off date of 1 January 2031 for recording historic rights of way. This means that paths used by walkers, cyclists and equestrians can continue to be officially recorded after this date and will not be lost to the public. This is a significant step in preserving access to well-used but often unrecorded paths across England, many of which have been in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, for hundreds of years.
Local highway authorities have statutory duties to record and maintain public rights of way, allowing them to be accessed and enjoyed by the public. They must also have a rights of way improvement plan which explains how improvements will be made to public rights of way, preserving them and providing a better experience for users. Given the statutory duty placed on local authorities to maintain and protect public rights of way, an additional review is not necessary.
A thorough and meaningful review would also not be possible within six months of publication of the Act. Local authorities are already handling a significant volume of unrecorded rights of way registrations, and the requirement to conduct a review would result in further delays to this process. In addition, the repeal of the cut-off date means that historic public rights of way can still be officially recorded, so will not be lost but can continue to be enjoyed by the public.
I will pick up a couple of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I will check whether the working party is still in place; I do not know the answer to that. I hope it is, because working parties like that help us to shape government policy. On the question of why we should not use this Bill for the repeal, I suspect that a deal of consultation would have to be carried out, and that is probably why it is not in this Bill, but I will respond in writing to him on that point.
For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow; I say to my noble friend Lord Roborough that the reality is that unrecorded does not mean unused. I mentioned that over 3,000 miles of footpath in Cornwall and about 2,700 in Herefordshire are used but unrecorded, so he is not quite right to say that if they are unrecorded they are unused. There are certainly some that have not been recorded that are unused, and I understand the force of his point. But I do not think it gets to the nub of the matter to say that, because they have not been recorded, they must be unused.
I am also grateful to the Minister for her reaffirming the intention to bring forward legislation that will enable this cut-off debt to be removed for ever. I am sorry she cannot find a way to put it into the Bill, on the grounds that it will be gratifying to have a conclusion to this as soon as possible. But two-thirds of a loaf is better than no bread, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review: impact on food and water security(1) At the end of the period of 12 months, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing the total area, in hectares, of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act—(a) in the previous twelve months, and(b) cumulatively since the Act came into force.(2) The report must include the total area, in hectares, of any land taken out of food production and used for—(a) the construction of houses and associated infrastructure,(b) the construction of reservoirs or other water catchment devices,(c) the installation of solar panels, and(d) the production of maize and other crops grown to support the generation of electricity.(3) The report must provide an assessment of the increased risk, if any, to the food and water security of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provides annual updates on any agricultural land lost as a result of this Bill and any consequent risks to this country’s food and water security.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, we now move from the weeds to the stratosphere. I begin by expressing some sympathy for the Minister and her department, which is being asked to provide housing for a very large number of additional people without upsetting those people already here, whose communities and immediate environment will be radically reshaped for ever.
It is worth putting a couple of numbers on the record as background to this issue and indeed to my amendment. We are expecting the population of this country to increase by 6.6 million people by 2035—that is equivalent to two and a half cities the size of Greater Manchester. By the 2040s, this country will have overtaken Germany as the most populous country in Europe; by the way, Germany is one and a half times our size in geographical area. So, as regards population pressure, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Let me be clear that this is absolutely not a rant or an attack on refugees and asylum seekers. While there are clearly many knotty problems to be addressed, those unfortunate people make up less than 10% of the total increase in our population. The major reasons behind the growth are British industry’s insatiable desire to recruit overseas—the “default option”, as the Migration Advisory Committee has described it—and British higher education, which has built its business model on overseas recruitment, many of whom then morph into our permanent population during or at the end of their degrees. The consequences of these increases and decisions ricochet around Whitehall and impact on nearly every aspect of our national life. For the Minister’s department, the policy about housing can best be described as, “Please empty the bath, but you can’t touch the taps”. That is why the Minister and the Government find this such a difficult area to tackle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said at Second Reading, no one anywhere in the Government—this Government or the previous Government—is responsible for joining up the dots. Amendment 214 is an attempt, for once, to join two of the dots, because it is about the security of this nation’s food supplies. In February 1945, with the war in Europe nearly won and the U-boat menace history, the Cabinet was alarmed to receive a report that the country had food reserves for only about two months. Now, 80 years later, how long would our food reserves last? Essentially, they would last for three or four days. Modern supply chains are run to minimise the use of working capital. It is believed that they carry about three days’ supplies at any one time, a situation which some have described as being nine meals from anarchy.
We currently grow just over half the food that we need as a nation. This Bill, when enacted, will undoubtedly result in the loss of yet more land capable of producing food, as we cover it with houses and solar panels and we grow maize and similar crops not to feed people but to feed biodigesters to generate electricity in pursuit of net zero. All the while, our population is growing by half a million a year, and we are in a confused, uncertain and ever more dangerous world. Yet with the exception of our farmers, and groups such as the NFU, the discussion of food security, our ability to feed our population, is nowhere to be seen.
What is the reason for the silence on this critical issue? Essentially, it is because it falls between two stools of different government departments. Today we are discussing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is the child of the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has no knowledge of or responsibility for the provision of food. Food is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but Defra has no influence on planning decisions—which are likely to impact directly on its areas of responsibility. My amendment is an attempt to join up these two dots by seeking to require the Secretary of State for this department to provide annually an account of the land being taken out of food production.
I will say a brief word about why food security should be an issue of increasing concern. For the past couple of centuries, the economic theory of comparative advantage has dominated Treasury thinking and, in turn, has had major influence on government departments’ policies. The theory of comparative advantage argues that the country will be better off if it specialises in producing things that it is best at producing rather than trying to produce everything that it needs. If you accept this theory, it follows that we do not need to worry that we produce only half the food we eat; we can buy the remainder on the world market more cheaply than we can produce it ourselves.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, which my noble friend has proposed with a very powerful argument indeed. He is not asking for a stop to housing or these other developments; he is asking for an audit so we have the information to hand.
I want to make just three quick points. Quite often, when it comes to housing, there is not a choice as to where the housing goes for obvious reasons. Most new housing developments will be adjacent to existing settlements; they will be adjacent to towns, villages and often, inevitably, they will be put on really good, grade 1 agricultural land that will get gobbled up. To some extent, that is accepted.
On food security, my noble friend made a very good point about the historic context and raised briefly the Ukraine war. One of the lessons of the Ukraine war is the fact that we cannot take our food security for granted. He touched on solar arrays, and I suggest to the Minister that, in building out solar arrays, we indeed have choice. We do not have so much choice over housing, but surely we have choice over where we put these solar arrays.
I just wanted to tell the Minister what is going on in part of my old constituency of North West Norfolk. There is a large wave of planning applications for solar arrays along the A47 corridor between Swaffham and Dereham. Much of that is going to take in grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land. The serious worry I have is that we are not talking about willing seller, willing buyer—or willing farmer, willing buyer. We are talking about tenant farmers who are going to have their livelihoods taken away. We are talking also about some farmers who may have holdings adjacent to larger landowners who are putting their land forward for this development. The companies in question proposing the developments have come forward with a threat of compulsory purchase. We are moving away from the willing seller, willing buyer concept—at the same time putting at risk a huge amount of really good agricultural land.
The Minister should look at this amendment in the spirit in which it has been drafted. We are not trying to order the Government what to do. My noble friend is not trying to stop these developments. Of course, he wants some of them modified, but we need to have that information. We need to have a proper audit, so I support this clause wholeheartedly. I very much hope that the Minister will realise that the potential damage to our farming communities is huge—damage is being done already.
We have sites such as warehouses on industrial estates—go around any new industrial estate; you will not see a single solar panel. Look at a modern school or hospital; a new hospital is to be built in my old constituency, and there is no provision there for solar panels on what are to be flat roofs. Yet down the road, we are going to see the demise of really first-class agricultural land. The Minister needs to get a grip of this and, above all, have information to hand, so that we can be properly informed in future, so I support my noble friend.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support Amendment 214. My noble friend nearly said that we are no more than three meals away from societal breakdown, but we are—and, in the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one requirement. Land is the principal resource that provides bread, beer, biscuits, as well as broccoli, and they are not making land anymore.
I am concerned, because the land use framework that has been proposed by the Government contemplates that fully 9% of our farmland will be used for non-growing purposes. Your Lordships will have heard me say before, in respect of solar panels particularly, that it is beyond careless to allow the best land to be consumed for non-farmland purposes before the worst land is exhausted. Last year, the national wheat yield was down 20% on account of wet weather. This year, there is an impairment in many areas on account of the dry weather. The weather changes, but we cannot be careless about our food supply.
The better news is that we have recently heard encouraging noises from former Defra Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been. It is noteworthy that, while we no longer have a Minister for Agriculture, we have a Minister for Food Security, and I think we should all welcome that, provided that the title of food security flows through into recognising the importance to national security, ensuring that the greatest proportion of the food in this country can meet our needs.
I had a commercial meeting this morning with one of the UK’s largest participants in the agricultural supply chain in this country. Its agricultural director gave me what I felt was a stunning statistic, and I will relay it to noble Lords. He said that, over the last 30 years, the amount of arable farmland in this country has diminished by 30%. I questioned him: “You mean 1% per year, each year, for the last 30 years?”, and he said, “Yes, we used to count on a 15 million tonne a year wheat harvest, now we’re lucky to get 12”. These are big reductions with large consequences, so I enthusiastically endorse Amendment 214. If we are going to have a Minister for Food Security, doing this arithmetic is going to be an essential part of her task—how else can she benchmark her success? I think the amendment is fully in tune with the direction this Government are going in.
Had it been my amendment, I would have probably asked for the data to be embellished by an assessment of the underlying agricultural land quality—the ALC, or agricultural land classification—so that we could work out not just the number of hectares that are lost but how they apportioned between the best and most versatile land versus the lower ranks. I wonder whether the noble Lord might consider enhancing the amendment with agricultural land classification, if he sustains it on Report. Otherwise, I give it my full support in Committee.
Lord Deben (Con)
I very much want to support this amendment, because it is asking for information, and one of the problems we have in this country is that when we do not like the answers, we do not ask the question. That seems to me to be the fundamental issue here.
I am rather in favour of properly placed solar farms, but I use the wording “properly placed”. I also think that, in many ways, at least you can get rid of them. The problem with building houses is that you cannot, and I am very concerned about the way in which we constantly use greenfield sites instead of insisting on the development of already used land. I have to say that this Government have really not faced up to the reality, which is that the housebuilding industry does not like anything but a greenfield site and will take those long before it will try to develop inside our already used towns and the like.
This is not only bad for food security but bad for the environment, because it means that people, instead of living relatively hugger-mugger, able to live and move within the same area, have in fact to use transport to get anywhere. In Suffolk, where I come from, I see this all the time: more and more people are commuting from villages which have never had the jobs, and will not have the jobs, to towns increasingly far away. So, the issue of housebuilding is crucial, and we have not thought it through. Merely saying “1.5 million new homes over five years” does not actually face the real issue.
I declare an interest as a small organic farmer. I am very concerned about the failure of the Government to face food security. I am not sure that I myself would have chosen Angela Eagle for that job. The fact of the matter is that it is a very important job, but it is not one that is being faced up to. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I was interviewed by Peter Jay, the cleverest man in Europe, and he said to me, “I don’t know why we have a Minister of Agriculture, because we can always buy food elsewhere in the world”. That is the ignorant position, which I am afraid has been carried on either publicly or privately, and not only by this Government, but I fear by previous Governments too.
It is a serious matter that no member of this Cabinet has real agricultural connections of any kind. No member represents a fully agricultural seat, although I am pleased to see that the new Secretary of State for Defra—who is an extremely intelligent and useful addition to the Cabinet—has the most agricultural seat of any Cabinet Minister: Wycombe. Anyone who knows where Wycombe is knows that the agricultural bit is ancillary rather than central.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly remind the Committee, and also the Minister, that much of this could be avoided by implementing the land use framework approach to land use, which is a method and tool intended entirely at various scales—national, local, regional and on individual land holdings—to balance all these competing demands for land. I am very much looking forward to it coming out, hopefully before this Christmas, but noble Lords have heard my Christmas speech before.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made the point that we on these Benches would wish to make.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 214 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and thank him for bringing forward what is, I believe, a thoughtful and timely intervention. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provide annual updates on agricultural land lost as a result of the Bill, along with any consequent risks to the UK’s food and water security.
We have heard, both in and beyond this Chamber, growing concern about the pressures being placed on agricultural land—particularly the cumulative effect of development, including infrastructure and renewable energy projects, on land that has long supported our domestic food production. This is not an abstract concern. Recent debates around the siting of solar farms on high-grade best and most versatile agricultural land have brought this issue into sharp relief. Although renewable energy is vital for our long-term sustainability, it must not come at the cost of food security.
Food security is a strategic national interest. The experience of recent global shocks, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, has reminded us just how important it is to maintain a strong, resilient domestic food supply. Once high-quality agricultural land is lost to development, it is not recovered. We must therefore be careful stewards of this finite resource, particularly the best and most versatile land, as my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out.
My noble friend’s amendment rightly presses the Government to monitor and report on these risks with due seriousness. The principle of ensuring that we do not undermine our food and water security through planning reforms is one that I believe all sides of this House can support. If I may provide some reassurances to my noble friends, global food production has grown at 0.7% on average per annum for decades, in line with global population growth. That is on stable acres, with lost acres in some regions of the world balanced by other regions, such as Brazil. Acres of land that are lost in this country to development are most likely being replaced by the Cerrado, and possibly even rainforest, being cleared in Brazil. There is a serious leakage issue when we lose our agricultural land. On that, I highlight my register of interests, including as a shareholder of SLC Agrícola in Brazil.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment and to hearing how the Government intend to safeguard these critical national interests as the Bill progresses. I also support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the land use framework.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report
“detailing the total area … of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act”,
as well as an assessment of any increase in risk to the water and food security of the UK.
As noble Lords know, the measures in this Bill provide changes to the existing planning process to speed up housebuilding and infrastructure delivery. In other words, they are levers within an existing planning system. It is therefore impossible to measure whether any land use change from development is as a result of specific measures in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government already publish regular reports on land use change and food security. These include: statistics on land use change from agricultural land to residential use every three years; a report by Natural England on agricultural land take to development over the period 2013 to 2022, following previous reviews undertaken by Defra; annual analysis on agricultural land use change through the annual June survey of agriculture and horticulture; statutory annual analysis of agricultural statistics through Agriculture in the United Kingdom; and statutory analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK at least every three years. The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK.
To address the concern driving this amendment, I reassure noble Lords once again that the Government are clear that food security is national security. We absolutely understand that point, made powerfully by noble Lords during this debate. In July, Defra published the good food cycle as part of the UK food strategy. It outlined the development of work on sustainable, resilient domestic production of food. There are planning policy measures in place to ensure that non-agricultural land is encouraged over agricultural land.
As I have mentioned a couple of times already today, the National Planning Policy Framework also safeguards the best and most versatile land, which is land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.
Furthermore, on the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government consulted on land use in England from January to April this year. The responses are informing the preparation of the land use framework, which will be published later this year. It will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land.
The Government do not believe that new water resources infrastructure, such as new strategic reservoirs or local catchment solutions, will threaten food security. Of course, a successful agricultural sector depends on access to secure water supplies, and the National Farmers’ Union and farmers are working with the Environment Agency and water companies to help us develop water resources.
The Government also do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mount solar PV panels covered only around 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. The Solar Roadmap also sets out how much land we estimate could be taken up by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in the most ambitious—
Lord Deben (Con)
The Minister has said “the Government do not believe” three times now. Would it not be a good idea to check whether or not their belief was true? She also said something really frightening. She said, “Because this Act is in addition to other things, it is impossible to see what its effect would be”. What kind of legislation can it be to put before the House when the Government cannot tell what its effect is, nor are prepared to measure what its effect is when it takes place? I find this very difficult to understand.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I set out for the noble Lord all the measurements already taken, in respect of the take of agricultural land. That is an important part of the system. As regards solar generation, the Solar Roadmap sets out how much land we estimate could be taken by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in ambitious scenarios, we expect only up to 0.4% of total UK land to be occupied. Solar farms can operate alongside farming activities but, to answer noble Lords’ points about the provision of solar on non-domestic buildings, we will be setting that out shortly, as we have done already for domestic buildings. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Bellingham about the importance of audit, my noble friend Lord Fuller—I am sure that this amendment could be improved with a bit expertise and a sharp pencil—and my noble friend Lord Deben. Building on his question about water, Southern Water is making plans to introduce 40 billion litres in summer months from next year, because we do not have enough water. My noble friend’s points about water are absolutely on the button and, of course, he was right to say that the Minister’s speech—and I absolutely know that she means well—was aspirational; it was what we hope to do.
I say only that until we are able to get our arms around the whole of this issue, join the dots, look at it, think about it and explain it to the British people, we are going to have a very difficult time. It is not a party-political issue. It is an issue for our society. Earlier this summer, I published a booklet called Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. I got the help of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and his Common Good Foundation, a centre-left think tank, and I got nine experts without any political background. What they concluded, absolutely, was that the way we are handling this, in silos, is completely hopeless. Each silo may be reporting brilliantly about what is happening in its silo, but no one is joining the dots together, and this is beginning to seep into society.
Up until now, this has been a fringe effort on the extreme left and the extreme right, seeking to make trouble. If noble Lords have a moment, they should look at today’s Times and Trevor Phillips’ article. He says this about yesterday’s march:
“The usual suspects, left and right, who always show up at events like this, took the opportunity to throw bottles at police … But for the most part, the 150,000 people who showed up to march the mile or so from Waterloo, across Lambeth Bridge and past the Palace of Westminster to Whitehall, were unaware of any commotion. Only the hard core stayed to hear Robinson’s peroration. This was not an angry, activist crowd. And therein lies the danger to our democracy. When ordinary people are ready to brave the first cold weekend of the autumn at the behest of a serial convict and self-confessed fraudster, something is very rotten in the state of Britain. These are the people you meet at the country pub with their dogs, or in a queue for drinks at half-time”.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The Companion says that, whether or not a noble Lord wishes to push their amendment to a vote, they have to be brief. We are going here into areas that are not affected by the amendments, and the noble Lord has been speaking for three minutes.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I have been commenting on the comments made by various noble Lords. I just wanted to be clear about how this is part of a wider issue of which this Committee and the country need to be aware. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now but give notice that I may wish to bring it back on Report.
Lord Cromwell
“Compulsory purchase for planning and development: code of practice(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to be followed by all bodies or individuals exercising powers of compulsory purchase for the purposes of planning and development.(2) On publication of the code of practice, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) an enforcement mechanism for the code of practice, including establishing a responsible body or individual for monitoring compliance,(b) penalties for non-compliance with the code of practice, and(c) a system for appealing against findings of non-compliance with the code of practice.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to ensure that all acquiring authorities, and their agents, are bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice exercised by a willing seller to a willing buyer.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have added their names to my amendment; they both apologise for being unable to be present in the Committee today.
This amendment would introduce a code of practice for compulsory purchase. It is widely accepted that, provided it is carried out appropriately, the state should have the right to acquire people’s homes and businesses in the interests of the nation. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that this amendment will not reopen the whole debate around that issue—I hope that buys me a few extra minutes.
Compulsory purchase was established on three assumptions: that it would be a quicker way to acquire land in the public interest; that it would make it possible to do that at a cost below market rates; and, importantly, that it would be a last resort if a voluntary sale could not be agreed—or so the theory went. However, anyone who is familiar with the process and practical realities of compulsory purchase will know that it is not at all quick or cost effective, with timelines running into years and with the costs of public inquiries, surveyors, lawyers and other actors on both sides.
It is widely acknowledged by professional agents—regardless of which side they work for—that, contrary to the original theory of compulsory purchase, the costs are always considerably higher if the party is being forced to sell rather than doing so on a voluntary basis. A consensus is often achievable, but only if the acquirer’s agent works with the seller rather than acting, frankly, as a bully boy for the Government.
The related issue of hope value was addressed in an earlier group. I will not cover it again beyond saying that the ability to compel property to be given up—I will not use the word “sold”—at well below its market value is, of course, attractive to those with the compulsory power but brutally costly and disruptive to those on the receiving end.
So how does this work in practice? The actual exercise of compulsory purchase powers has been devolved by the Government to a growing number of agents. These powers enable the agents to force people to leave their homes, to give up their businesses and their land, and to do so below market prices. Agents receiving these aggressive powers are commercial entities governed by financial and time-related performance targets.
Perhaps inevitably, these incentives and the imbalance of power between government-backed agents and ordinary citizens have created a real, growing problem around the behaviour of agents acting for the acquiring government authorities. Agents’ ability to compel a sale means all too often that they ignore normal conveyancing practices and refuse to recognise the justifiable concerns and interests of those whom they are forcing to sell, who are all but powerless and cannot realistically afford to challenge them. Noble Lords should be under no illusion: the lack of proper constraints means that a culture has widely grown up of the strong-arming and intimidation of those who are forced to sell by government-appointed agents.
There is also the profiteering practice that agents and authorities are sometimes shy of talking about, some of which has been referred to by others, of the acquiring authority then selling on the land for commercial purposes as a whole or in parts at full market value and pocketing the profits—with the agents, of course, paid to arrange the disposals.
To make the situation more real to anyone struggling to believe what I am saying or who is not involved in compulsory purchase, here are three quick live cases that I am aware of and, for clarity, in which I have no interests to declare. In the first case, both sides of a transaction had already agreed voluntarily to sell one field and give a right of access over an adjacent one. But at exchange the agent for the acquirer presented out of the blue a plan that included further land that was not part of the agreement. When this was pointed out, the acquirer’s agent immediately cut off communication and went to use compulsory purchase on all the land.
In the second case, a farmer was approached by an infrastructure provider for initial surveys. As the land was designated ecologically sensitive, he instructed an agent to prepare a bespoke licence agreement to give access to the provider. The infrastructure provider abruptly cut communications partway through the drafting process with no reason given and served a compulsory notice for access. The notice, and the developer’s subsequent trespass, then went on the wrong property and was not subject to discussion. Legal proceedings followed, which were inevitably costly for both sides and created substantial delays.
Case 3 is a simple quote from one forced seller:
“The bypass went straight through the middle of our farm taking 36 acres and all the buildings. Eight years after the bulldozers went in, we are still owed £136,000. When that is eventually paid, we will have to pay capital gains tax (at the new increased rate) on that compensation. How can it be fair that the government can destroy our farm and pay us in return a fraction of what it’s worth? … capital projects need to be built for the benefit of the nation, but surely in a decent, fair country, those concerned should be compensated with 100% of the value of the asset taken and paid before the land is occupied”.
I remind noble Lords that they were still waiting eight years later. I underline that there are many similar stories across this country.
Finally, I cannot resist mentioning HS2. Even on the northern section, which was cancelled two years ago, farmers still have barren strips of land through the middle of their farms, commandeered by HS2 but still not yet handed back. Matters are made worse with HS2 by the splitting of responsibilities between the Treasury and Department for Transport, with neither taking responsibility for the poor behaviour of agents. There are cases where farmers are not being paid for years and householders, having been given three months’ notice to get out, then not being paid for up to nine months. As one affected party put it—this is a different case—
“7 years after they unilaterally took our land we are still waiting for payment at just 70% of the value of the land and the matter is now being dragged through the courts”.
So what rules are there? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published baseline standards that it considers should apply to people acting for the acquiring authorities and the claimants. While I urge the Minister to look at and publicly endorse these standards, RICS has jurisdiction over its members only—not, for instance, over a non-member profession or a project management team.
Furthermore, crucially, these and other existing guidance rules do not cover two things that loom large in practical compulsory purchase experience: defining and preventing bullying tactics, and failure by agents or the acquiring bodies themselves to make prompt payment when due. We cannot go on in denial of this problem. That is why this amendment proposes the introduction of a proper code of practice for compulsory purchase: to negotiate and agree values et cetera in good faith, with the possibility of compulsion genuinely as the last resort rather than the starting point, and to pay full value in advance of taking possession, as is systematically the case in the commercial world.
I pose two questions to the Minister. First, does she share my belief that no one should be expected to give up their house, land or business only to find themself with no money to buy another house due to non-payment by the acquirer, or to have part or all of their business forcibly removed from them before payment? Secondly, does she agree with me that the Government’s announcement that they will issue financial penalties to persistently late-paying businesses should include penalties on late-paying agents and other authorities when exercising the powers of compulsory purchase on behalf of the Government?
This amendment, by making the conduct of compulsory sequestration of land subject to an agreed code of practice, would provide a check on the current abuses and the practical problems that I have outlined. As noble Lords will know, I am always concerned not just about our making laws that make us feel happy but with enforcement, and it will therefore come as no surprise that part two of the amendment addresses this squarely.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my two questions, and I ask the Government to accept this simple but urgently needed and positive amendment, particularly before handing out additional compulsory purchase powers to Natural England. Finally, I should mention that this is very likely to come back on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, before I introduce my amendment in this group, I say that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has raised some very challenging aspects of compulsory purchase, particularly that of late payment. I will wait for the Minister to respond to that. There is no purpose in having this balancing act, which the noble Lord explained, between individuals and the state if the state does not play fairly by the rules.
Amendment 219 in my name and cosigned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is on the face of it quite radical. In fact, however, all it would do is put pressure on housebuilders to fulfil the planning permissions they have obtained. Planning consents already have a standard three-year period in which to begin construction. Where development is seen to be more challenging, a longer period of five years is sometimes available. Those time periods are not unreasonable. If a housebuilder is seeking to develop a plot of land, they have three years in which to implement or at least to start construction.
Members on all sides know that there is a desperate need for more housing. All political parties have made the case for more housing, in different numbers per annum, but this is not about the numbers game; it is the building of them that is important. The ONS has estimated that there are already 1.2 million outstanding permissions for housing units, as yet unbuilt. I will not use the term “land banking” because there are plenty of arguments out there, and investigations have been made by public lobby groups to point out that land banking is too broad a term for what is going on. Obviously, the reasons are quite varied. Some depend on national and local economic outlooks; nevertheless, 1.2 million units have not been built when we need new homes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendment 219. It would introduce a new clause so that where there is permission for a development of 100 homes or more and it is not used, it is use it or lose it, and within the applicable period there is a justifiable case for compulsory purchase of the land. I do not think anyone in your Lordships’ House is going to disagree that we have a housing crisis and a broken housing system. I point noble Lords to a recent “Big Read” in the Financial Times titled “Making British homes affordable again”, which focused on a number of issues, including the role of financial deregulation in the massive escalation of home prices.
Here, we are talking about the plan where the land is identified and everyone agrees this is the way forward, and then we run into the private housebuilders, where the legal obligation of the managers is to make money. They have no legal obligation to build homes: the law says to make as much money as you possibly can.
I would be very tempted to use the term land banking to describe managers who just sit on land and wait until they can make more money. That means that homes are not built, and they are needed in places where people want to live. The amendment does not force anything but allows the possibility of a CPO, to take this forward to get those homes built. Surely, that is what some communities are desperately aching for.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this important group of amendments about planning consents and compulsory purchase. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 217, so convincingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It seeks to ensure that acquiring authorities and those acting on their behalf adhere to the normal code of conveyancing practice—the same principles that would apply in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is a sensible and pragmatic proposal. Compulsory purchase is, by its nature, an intrusive power and must always be exercised with care, transparency and fairness. Ensuring that conveyancing practice aligns with what would be expected in an open market transaction will help to build trust and minimise disputes between landowners and acquiring authorities. It is essential that landowners do not continue to be disadvantaged and mistreated through the CPO process, as the noble Lord described.
Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, proposes a new clause that would make land subject to automatic consideration for compulsory purchase under the Housing Act 1985 where permission for a development of 100 homes or more has not been acted on within the relevant period. She touches on an interesting and widely debated issue: the problem of land banking—if I may use that term—and delays in delivering housing once planning permission has been granted. Her amendment raises the question of how we might create stronger incentives to build out permissions in a timely manner, particularly where housing need is acute.
Before considering supporting this amendment, we would need to understand how widespread this practice, as the noble Baroness describes, really is. The figure of 1.2 million homes consented but unbuilt is bandied around. However, how many of these developments are unviable due to the Section 106 costs, community infrastructure levies and biodiversity net gain costs that are put on them? How many of these homes are stalled in negotiations around the details of implementing those consents? How many are stalled due to other issues outside developer or landowner control? I am not convinced that land banking is necessarily such a widespread issue as she contends, but I am very willing to listen to evidence. I would be grateful to the Minister for any information she can share with us.
It is worth bearing in mind that housebuilders are businesses: they have obligations to their staff and their shareholders, and they need to have a build programme that ensures they know they can employ their staff over a multi-year period and develop profits which allow returns to shareholders. The shareholders are often pension funds and other such institutional investors in this country. The principle of housebuilders making profits is important. Where a developer does have more short-term supply ready to build on its balance sheet, in most cases it will be because it is building out sites in markets that can absorb only a certain number of units each year without undermining prices to the detriment of the local community. Housebuilders also generally have a 15% return on capital employment commitment to their shareholders. That means that if they are holding land off the market, they need to be very confident that they are making more than 15% per annum doing that, otherwise they are letting their shareholders down. The financial incentives for land banking are not clear.
I would be most interested to hear if the Minister can identify what land banking is really happening in this country, where developers or landowners are holding on to consented land that could be built on right now without impacting on local housing prices. I very much look forward to her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for putting his name to the amendment and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for ably moving it. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their participation in this interesting debate, which has raised some key issues.
Amendment 217 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a new statutory code of practice for all acquiring authorities when exercising compulsory purchase powers for planning and development purposes. The statutory code of practice would be enforceable by a mechanism set out in regulations required to be published by the Government, and there would be penalties for non-compliance.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government understand the concerns behind the amendment. We recognise that compulsory purchase proposals can lead to periods of uncertainty and anxiety for those involved, whether that is prior to, during or after the making of a CPO. However, the Government consider the proposed code of practice to be unnecessary. First, government guidance, last updated in January this year, states that acquiring authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners and identify what measures can be taken to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. Where this is not done, CPOs are at risk of failing.
Secondly, when making and confirming CPOs, both acquiring and confirming authorities should be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As we have already discussed, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention.
In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act. The Health and Safety Executive has also publicly stated that employers have a duty to protect the health not only of their staff but of other people—for example, stakeholders and those who they do business with or otherwise impact, such as landowners. This principle would apply to acquiring authorities undertaking CPOs.
Furthermore, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to, has published the professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. These standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected of RICS members.
I will comment on a couple of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He raised some issues and some terrible examples of things that can go wrong. On recourse, if it is a local authority that is the acquiring agency, the appellant can appeal to the monitoring officer. Landowners can challenge a CPO in court and can make referrals to the Upper Tribunal.
The noble Lord asked that they be paid promptly, and I agree with him on that point. As regards ensuring the prompt payment of compensation, a person who is entitled to compulsory purchase compensation may request an advance payment of that compensation. If an advance payment is requested, the acquiring authority is obliged to make the payment once it has begun implementing the CPO: either 90% of the agreed total compensation sum or 90% of the acquiring authority’s estimate of the total compensation payable. I hope that is some reassurance for him. This amendment would add duplication and complexity to the CPO process, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives of making the process more efficient to deliver benefits in the public interest more quickly.
Amendment 219 seeks to ensure that there is an automatic compelling public interest case for the compulsory purchase of land where permission has not begun within an applicable period for developments of 100 houses or more. I reassure the House, as I stated when debating the topic of land banking last week, that I fully agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. The Government are committed to making sure that planning permissions are translated into homes, and developers must do all they can to deliver.
However, I believe that the amendment would be disproportionate and might have a chilling effect on development, as developers and landowners might be unwilling to make planning applications if they risk losing their land if the planning permission is not implemented, for any reason. Instead, as I set out earlier this week, we published in May an important working paper on speeding up build-out, which sets out a more proportionate, effective and comprehensive approach. This includes better transparency of build-out rates; new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers who have built out slowly; a stronger emphasis on mixed-use tenures; and the exploration of a potential delayed-homes penalty. Of course, that would be a last resort, but it would be useful to have it in the toolbox.
I want to highlight in particular that the working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to acquire land through a power to conditionally confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this in the public interest. We are now analysing the responses to the working paper and we will set out our next steps in due course. However, I again emphasise that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the build-out of the housing development we all want to see. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their comments on and support for my amendment.
I am also very grateful to the Minister for her thoughts. However, given that the amendment’s intention is to assist the Bill’s effectiveness, I had hoped for a rather more supportive approach. The Minister’s reference to a “period of uncertainty” for those affected was an understatement. The reality of the behaviours of agents acting for authorities with the power of compulsory purchase behind them is a good deal more combative than that. Existing standards are simply not adequate and not sufficiently enforced. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I anticipate returning with it on Report.
“Party Wall etc. Act 1996: review(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 as it relates to planning and development.(2) The review must include—(a) a consideration of whether the Act is consistent with current planning and development practices,(b) a summary of all correspondence to date related to the implementation of the Act as it relates to planning and development which is held by the relevant government department and its predecessor departments,(c) consultation with industry bodies related to the construction and maintenance of, and negotiation and litigation in respect of, party walls, in relation to planning and development,(d) consultation with members of the public who have made use of provisions of the Act within the last five years in relation to planning and development, and (e) recommendations on how the Act could be amended to ensure that its provisions, as far as they relate to planning and development —(i) are consistent with human rights legislation,(ii) are consistent with current planning and development practices, and(iii) uphold the principle that no criminal damage, trespass or interference should occur in relation to a person’s property.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, clarifying whether the Act is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether that Act could be amended in order to update its position in planning and development processes.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 221 and 223, which are in my name. Before I do so, I should perhaps remind the Committee of the interest I declared at Second Reading: I have been the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years. That has brought to my attention the whole issue of the practicality of the party wall Act.
Both amendments deal with the issue of party walls, which is particularly pertinent in London and other cities where residential buildings either adjoin or are close to other housing. Amendment 221 calls for a review of the party wall Act. However, I will deal with Amendment 223 first. This amendment is applicable mainly to residential buildings and stops any developer interfering with the structural integrity of somebody else’s house without their permission. That simply means that no one should have their foundations affected by the work next door.
The oft-used quote, “An Englishman’s home is his castle”, comes to mind. We all presume that we have property rights and, if we own a home, that we should be able to live in it without interference. I am not a human rights expert, and I know that there are many noble and learned Lords in the House of Lords who are, so I tiptoe into this issue with nervousness. However, it is my understanding that human rights law protects against interference with property. That is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 1 protects the right to
“the peaceful enjoyment of … possessions”
and Article 8
“protects your right to respect for your … home”.
Someone else interfering with the foundations of a house causes stress and anxiety to the owner, because it has the ability to undermine and/or badly damage the property. In fact, there have been cases of houses becoming unstable and, in some rare cases, actually collapsing. I understand that at least one fatality has been caused.
This is not the first time this issue has been raised in the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put forward a Private Member’s Bill—the Planning (Subterranean Development) Bill—in 2015 to address this very issue. Most of the interference with other people’s foundations comes about because of basements being dug or floors lowered. Having personally been on the receiving end of this, I can attest to the huge distress, noise and interference that this causes, to which I and many others have been subjected. It is therefore time to stop others in the future being affected in this way. The development should not interfere physically with anyone else’s property without their permission.
This brings me to Amendment 221, which calls for a review of the Party Wall etc. Act. This Act was bought in as a Private Member’s Bill in 1996 by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I understand that it was meant to address circumstances where damage had occurred and to deal with this meant that the neighbouring house would also be affected. I understand that this was bought in with good intentions. However, it was in the days before the fashion for digging basements. The provisions in the Act are very one-sided and basically take away the rights from the adjoining owner so that damage—sometimes criminal damage—trespass and nuisance may occur.
Moreover, the party wall Act appears to take this work out of planning, so there is no mechanism to allow an adjoining owner to object. It robs the adjoining owner of any rights to stop the work, even where it may adversely affect their property. This unfairness is exacerbated by the way that surveyors have interpreted this Act. Although the adjoining owner is allowed to appoint a surveyor, unlike most professionals representing a client the surveyors choose to act neutrally, often refusing the adjoining owner any input or say about what happens to their property—while the surveyor to those doing the development is briefed by their client on what to do.
It is almost 30 years since the Act was passed. There has not been any post-legislative scrutiny and there has been no review. I tabled a number of Questions on this issue in October last year, asking whether the Government would conduct a review. In July 2021, Newcastle University’s School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape produced Bunkering Down, a report which cited that 7,328 basements had been improved in 32 London boroughs between 2008 and 2019, saying that these have now become
“as normal as loft conversions”.
The department has, by its own admission, received correspondence from parliamentarians and members of the public alike concerning the efficacy and application of the Act over the years. Any review or consultation must include this correspondence in its evidence.
I thank the Minister, who found time to see me about this. One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights. People need to be reassured that their home is safe and that all things are in line with the ECHR. I hope that, if the Minister does not feel that she can accept this amendment, she will commit to a consultation and a review forthwith. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling Amendments 221 and 223 regarding the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which is an important piece of legislation providing a legal framework to resolve disputes between property owners concerning shared walls.
Amendment 221 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the party wall Act and clarify whether it is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether it needs amending to update its position in planning and development processes. We should all recognise the importance in amending previous legislation so that it is consistent with current law and practice. I therefore hope that the Government take this amendment seriously.
Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that the structural integrity of homes is protected by requiring the permission of neighbouring property owners who may be affected by the development rights conferred by this Act. This amendment clearly aims to uphold people’s existing property rights and their structural integrity. This is an important principle which I look forward to the Government addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for her amendments relating to party walls and for meeting with me to help me understand the issues that she has faced relating to this.
Amendment 221 seeks to create a legal duty to review the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The party wall Act provides a framework for preventing or resolving disputes between neighbours relating to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near buildings. While I have no objection in principle to reviewing legislation, it has been the view of successive Governments since the late 1990s that the party wall Act does, indeed, deliver what it was intended to do. It creates a framework for communication and agreement between adjoining property owners when work needs to be carried out to a shared structure, while the Building Regulations establish the minimum legal standards and functional requirements in new building work.
The party wall Act already requires that the owner of a building carrying out work under the Act must serve any adjoining property owner a party structure notice stating: the name and address of the building owner proposing the work; the nature and particulars of the proposed work, including, in cases where the building owner proposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction of the special foundations together with reasonable particulars of the loads to be carried thereby; and the date on which the proposed work will begin.
Amendment 223 seeks to create a legal duty for building owners to gain permission from the adjoining property to carry out any works under the party wall Act. As I mentioned, the party wall Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, to protect neighbouring buildings from the impact of building works and hold those completing works accountable for any negative impact. Ensuring structural compliance when undertaking work is already regulated under Structure: Approved Document A of the Building Regulations. Any development work must comply with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. Amending the party wall Act will therefore have no regulatory effect on the structural safety of buildings beyond what is already regulated for. The party wall Act should therefore continue to provide a robust framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, party structures and excavations near neighbouring buildings.
I accept that there are occasions when things go wrong and I am very happy to continue the dialogue with the noble Baroness, but for all the reasons I have set out, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am slightly mystified by the phrase that the Act provides a robust framework for resolving disputes. As somebody who has had party wall notices served on me, I do not see any mechanism for resolving disputes except that the developer can actually just do the work—there is no mechanism for the adjoining owner to object and stop the work, so I do not think it actually does resolve disputes. I hear what she says about structural compliance. Often, people carrying out the development get a building inspector from outside the council, and there is no requirement for them to speak to the adjoining owner, even when they ask whether the work has been carried out correctly, because they say that they are not their client; it is the developer who is the client. So, I query some of those statements and I very much hope that there can be a review of this Act. I would be delighted to continue the conversation with the Minister, and on those grounds, I withdraw the amendment.
“Land purchasing: duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land(1) Any developer or company approaching a landowner to buy or lease land for the purpose of development must declare whether they are also approaching other owners of land in the vicinity to buy or lease land for the purpose of development.(2) The declaration required under subsection (1) must include whether the combined amount of land intended to be purchased or leased will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project as set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008.(3) In subsection (1), “in the vicinity” means any land immediately adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing or whether there are others being approached so that the total sum of the land obtained may result in application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 227C in my name would insert a new clause after Clause 106 creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land round about. As the explanatory statement highlights, this is
“to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing”,
or whether those making the approach are also reaching out to other owners of land in the vicinity for the purpose of the development. Subsection (2) states that the above statement
“must include whether the combined amount of land … will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project”.
Meanwhile, subsection (3) provides a definition of what is meant by “in the vicinity” in this context, namely anything
“adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased”.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 227E, tabled in my name, among others, would address the wide-reaching consequences of a recent Supreme Court decision in a case called Day for persons who acquire former open-space land from local authorities. The context for this is that open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to the land for the purpose of recreation. When a local authority wants to sell open-space land, typically because it is either surplus to requirements or part of a land swap to facilitate new, higher-quality open space elsewhere, its decision-making process is subject to various procedural and substantive safeguards, under both statute and common law.
One of the procedural requirements is Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972. This provides that the local authority may not dispose of any land consisting or forming part of an open space unless before doing so they advertise their intention to do so in a local newspaper for two weeks and consider any objections to the proposed disposal received in response to that advertisement. Under Section 123(2B) of the same Act, the sale of the land post-advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust. If a local resident or community group considers that any of the procedural substantive requirements regulating the disposal of land have been breached, they have a remedy: they can bring a claim for judicial review of the local authority’s decision.
In public law, the normal position is that if a public body’s decision is not challenged within the three-month time limit for bringing a judicial review claim, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision. However, in Day, the Supreme Court held that even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged at the time of disposal, and may be many years and even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertisement requirement means the statutory trust persists, thus frustrating the repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question. That is the case, the court reasoned, even if the land was sold to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements.
The effect of this is deeply unsatisfactory. It means that the land which has been sold on the basis of an unchallenged decision that it is in the public interest to dispose of it, which may have planning permission for beneficial redevelopment, is now bound by the statutory trust and cannot be put to its intended beneficial reuse. It sits uncomfortable with the public law principle that unchallenged public decisions should be treated as valid, and with the property law principle that a bona fide purchaser, without notice of equitable interests, takes land unencumbered by those interests. This is causing huge uncertainty in relation to land purchased many years ago—sometimes decades, as I mentioned. The evidence about whether land in question had been advertised prior to sale may no longer be readily available. This is holding up many developments across the country which already have planning permission.
A high-profile example of that is the current proposal to expand the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s internationally renowned facilities at Wimbledon to an adjacent former golf club site, the planning permission for which was recently upheld by the High Court. Claims that it is subject to a statutory trust in the light of the Day judgment are holding up the development and with it the substantial benefits to UK PLC that it would deliver.
Amendment 227E would deal with this issue by providing that bona fide purchasers of former open-space land and their successors in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. This would not remove the local authority’s duty to advertise before disposing of open-space land, nor would it remove any of the other legal safeguards on the decision-making process relating to such disposal. It would not interfere with the public’s right to challenge a decision to dispose of such land within the usual three-month window for bringing a JR claim.
What it would do, however, is ensure that, where there has been no such challenge and the transaction was made in good faith, the purchase is not subject to the deleterious uncertainty and burdens that I have outlined. This would be consistent with the Government’s stated desire to streamline the planning system and deliver the growth this country needs. I respectfully urge the Minister to give it serious thought.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and have added my name to his amendment.
Every so often, we get a court decision which produces an unsatisfactory outcome. If, as is the position in relation to this amendment, it is a decision of the Supreme Court, there is no further appeal process. In that event, it is possible to have recourse to Parliament for the resulting problem to be put right. This is such a case.
Quite often, because of the demands made on parliamentary time, it is not practical to get a speedy solution. Fortunately, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in progress and is, I believe, tailor-made for the resolution of this problem. The mischief addressed by the amendment was, as you would expect, identified by Lady Rose, delivering the unanimous judgment of the five-judge Supreme Court in the case of R (Day) v Shropshire Council that we are concerned with. In paragraph 116, at the end of her judgment, Lady Rose said:
“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.
This is one of those situations where Parliament can and should step in to perform some corrective surgery.
I will not weary your Lordships with a detailed analysis of some arcane trust law or a lengthy exegesis of Section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875, Sections 123 and 128 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the provisions of the Open Spaces Act 1906—the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has already done that. I do not mean he has bored your Lordships; I mean he has accurately, if I may respectfully say so, summarised the import of that mixture of ancient legislation.
Where a local authority is proposing to dispose of land, it is technically obliged to advertise that fact for two successive weeks in the relevant local press—that is by virtue of Section 123 of the 1972 Act. This enables residents to register their objections in advance of the disposition. It is a consultation process. I describe the advertising requirement as technical because the 1972 Act specifically provides that any failure to advertise—for example, by mistake or oversight—will not impede or undermine the transaction. The buyer is fully protected and gets title to the land purchased—that is Section 128, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, made reference to.
That provision says that the sale is not invalid for want of advertising and that the purchaser
“shall not be concerned to see or enquire”
whether the advertising requirement has been satisfied. Careful and complex historical investigation conducted by a potential purchaser may reveal that the land is subject to a public or statutory trust under the 1875 Act, entitling the public to go on to the land for recreational purposes. The effect of the Day case is far-reaching. It is accepted that the purchaser gets a good title, but the failure to advertise means that the public right to use the land remains in place. Moreover, that will continue to be the case for ever, because only the local authority has the power or duty to advertise under the 1972 Act, so it has a most profound and permanent effect.
Your Lordships will immediately appreciate the devastating impact of the Day decision. The land is blighted. The potential purchaser—for example, a developer—will walk away either because he does not know if the parcel of land, for historical reasons, is caught by the 1875 Act, or because he discovers it is caught, he can do nothing about it and his development plans would be frustrated. At a time when it is in the public interest to encourage housebuilding, it is important that unjustifiable impediments should not be allowed to undermine the furtherance of that crucial objective.
One can see that an objection to the amendment might be made along the lines that the public right to enjoy the land would be taken away. That is true, but there are two important countervailing arguments: first, there is an important public interest in doing whatever we can about the chronic housing shortage; secondly, it is obvious that, in the 1972 Act, Parliament was giving local authorities the power to sell the land and thereby to ensure that the public recreation rights would fall away for ever. The decision in Day makes it plain that if the advertising requirement had been satisfied, the public right would indeed have disappeared. When we take account of the fact that the purchaser gets a good title in any event, the intention of Parliament in 1972 is clear. That Act was designed to facilitate or ease the transfer of land.
The Day decision has produced an uncontemplated hurdle that can, and I respectfully suggest should, be set aside. I hope your Lordships, and indeed the Government in particular, agree with this analysis and will agree to the amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has just mentioned, the Supreme Court concluded its judgment by recognising that it would leave a “rather messy situation”. This amendment gives Parliament the opportunity to clear up that mess. The mischief that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, explained is impeding many developments up and down the country, not least the plans of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to expand its facilities at Wimbledon—a much-needed development that will enable the club to better perform its functions of national and, indeed, international importance. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Grabiner, in relation to this development; they are a formidable doubles team. I will just add a few points.
The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that, if the local authority complies with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, the purchaser takes the land free from the trust. See Section 123 of the Local Government Act and paragraph 102 of the Supreme Court judgment. There is no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I address Amendments 227C and 227E in the names of my noble friends Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lord Banner respectively. I thank both my noble friends for bringing these thoughtful and important proposals to the attention of the Committee.
Amendment 227C from my noble friend Lady Hodgson seeks to ensure greater transparency for landowners when they are approached for the sale or lease of the land. Specifically, it would require that the landowner is informed whether their land is being approached in isolation or as part of a wider acquisition, one that may ultimately support an application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project—NSIP.
This strikes me as a considered and sensible safeguard. Landowners should be able to make fully informed decisions, particularly where the accumulation of multiple parcels of land could lead to significant legal and planning implications under the NSIP regime. Transparency in the early stages of land negotiation can foster greater trust between parties and avoid unnecessary disputes or confusion further down the line.
Amendment 227E tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner responds to the recent Supreme Court judgment in Day v Shropshire, as we have heard from other noble Lords. The amendment seeks to clarify and reinforce the protections available to purchasers acquiring land from local authorities under the Local Government Act 1972. I can be reasonably brief, since it has been well set out by the three noble Lords.
Given the uncertainty created by that judgment, it is entirely appropriate that we consider how best to provide reassurance to bona fide purchasers acting in good faith. Legal certainty in these transactions is vital, not just for the public sector but for developers and communities which rely on these deals to proceed smoothly.
My noble friend Lord Banner made a strong case that Amendment 227E would deal with the issue by providing that bona fide purchasers of former open-space land and their successors in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. He also had the strong support of the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, made the very good point that this is the only vehicle in due sight in order to change it. I hope the Minister will address that point. Are the Government willing to use a small amendment to the Bill to address a problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said was a mess?
I have been in this House for a few years, and I think if any Conservative criticised the godlike qualities of the Supreme Court, we would end up in severe trouble. It was interesting to hear that some noble KCs have discovered that the Supreme Court sometimes may get things slightly wrong.
These are very thoughtful amendments. Again, I thank my noble friends for tabling them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on these points in due course, and particularly on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Banner and what the Government plan to do to sort out the mess, as the noble Lord has described it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister replies, I just intervene, not having spoken previously, to say there are always two sides to any argument. There were clearly two sides to the argument before the Supreme Court, the other side being Dr Day’s argument that those people who had the benefit of access to open space should have been consulted about the loss of that.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Banner that, clearly, the intention of the 1972 legislation was that local authorities could dispose of that land and that they would be able to do so notwithstanding the previous Open Spaces Act 1906. The point that was asserted on Dr Day’s behalf before the Supreme Court was that those people who benefit from access to open spaces should have been consulted. The opportunity should be taken just to establish that not only do we need to change the law, we need to examine how and under what circumstances local authorities that wish to dispose of land to which the public have access should consult those people who would be affected.
Lord Pannick (CB)
In answer to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it was not my noble friend Lord Grabiner and I who described the situation as a mess. Those were the words of Lady Rose herself in the Supreme Court. I would not presume to suggest that the Supreme Court judgment was a mess.
While I am on my feet, I am grateful for the opportunity to mention that my noble friend Lord O’Donnell is here but was not here at the beginning of the debate. He tells me that he very much supports this amendment and would wish to be included in any meeting, if the Minister will grant one. He is a main committee member at the Wimbledon club. He strongly supports the amendment but cannot speak because he was not here at the beginning of the debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for their amendments related to land purchasing, and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, who have contributed to the debate.
Amendment 227C seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land in connection with a proposed development, developers declare their interest in purchasing adjacent land and confirm whether purchasing that land is being done in connection with a nationally significant infrastructure project for development consent via the Planning Act 2008. While I appreciate the intent behind this amendment—to increase transparency and discourage speculative land banking, which none of us wants to see—I respectfully argue that it is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.
Purchasing land in relation to developments, particularly those that relate to nationally significant infrastructure projects, can often be sensitive in nature and thus require confidential discussions between parties to ensure that the most appropriate and proportionate outcome is achieved for all. Requiring developers to disclose whether they are in talks with other landowners could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on the development of projects.
Furthermore, within the Planning Act 2008 guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land, there is government guidance on where purchasing land is required in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects. This encourages developers to enter into early discissions with people who could be affected by land acquisition as a result of an NSIP. The Government stand by this guidance and seek to build on those principles without complicating negotiations with additional burdens on developers.
Lastly, where land is being purchased in connection with an NSIP, applicants are required to produce and keep up to date a book of reference, which is submitted with the application for development consent. This is a crucial document that is available for the public to view once an application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State and outlines all land and interests in the land associated with the application. This includes land and interests in land that may be affected by the development, including through compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or interests being suspended or extinguished. This document, therefore, provides a clear and transparent account of all land and interests in land proposed to be affected by an NSIP.
With that, I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful proposal. However, in the light of the sensitivities noted, the guidance published, and the existing requirements of the Planning Act 2008, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary.
I turn to Amendment 227E. I hesitate to take on the combined ranks of the eminent noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for raising this important matter related to the disposal of land by local authorities and extinguishing the trust under which the land is held for public enjoyment, whereby it is preserved for recreational use and cannot be repurposed without following statutory procedures. The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment.
Open and green spaces and public parks are an essential part of local social infrastructure. They are one of the main reasons why people feel proud of their local area. They provide places for social connection, support health and well-being, increase community engagement and volunteering and help people to connect with nature, and can be a strong foundation for social capital.
We acknowledge that not all open spaces continue to serve their original recreational purpose. In fact, when they become neglected, they can cease to be an asset and become a burden for local authorities and communities. That is why there is a long-established procedure under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to allow for the disposal of open land held in trust.
If the procedure is followed, the land can be disposed of free from the trust provisions. Local authorities must advertise the intention to dispose of the land for two weeks in a local newspaper and consider any objections to the proposed disposal. Purchasers of land from local authorities can already protect themselves from acquiring land that they cannot develop because of a statutory trust by considering with their legal advisers whether the correct procedures have been followed, or raising appropriate pre-contract inquiries with the local authority prior to acquisition.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The Minister is suggesting that the Government are going to change the law on this. Can she give us any indication of the timescale when we might see legislation—an amendment to some primary Act of Parliament?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I would be very loath to do that because, whenever you start looking into legal matters, in particular, it is always more complex than you anticipated. With the will to help make this make sense, I hope that we will be able to bring our combined forces together and get some resolution to the issue. But, for the reasons I set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered response. I am disappointed in her response to my amendment, because I think that, although I understand her point about confidentiality, there may be ways of communicating when landowners are approached, whether it is just an isolated approach or whether it is part of a larger project. I hope that there may be more thought about this.
I am sure that other noble Lords will have been heartened by the Minister’s response to Amendment 227E when she said that there will be further conversations to find a way to resolve this. I very much hope that further consideration will be given to the whole transparency issue, which might be brought back on Report. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 227H and address the proposition that Clauses 53 to 92 of Part 3 should not stand part of the Bill, as well as a number of other amendments, notably Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in my name, which are intended to provide an effective, simple and cost-effective way of addressing the issues that Part 3 professes to simplify.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I wish her a speedy recovery—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for their support to the clause stand part propositions. This is a broad church, and our reasons and solutions are likely to differ, and I look forward to their contributions. I am also grateful to the Minister for stepping in to help her colleagues with her deep Defra expertise, and for making time the other day to meet before this Committee sitting.
I have asked for the amendments to be grouped in this way to allow a debate on the limitations of Part 3 and on better ways of addressing the challenges it is seeking to tackle. I will endeavour not to repeat arguments that I have made previously, but a common thread of argument runs through all the amendments in this group, and it seems only reasonable that we should debate them together in this way.
At Second Reading I expressed deep scepticism about the approach to be taken to simplify environmental objections to planning processes in Part 3 of the Bill. I quoted environmental NGOs, rural lobbying groups and even development bodies that were united in their opposition to or concern about Part 3. I am most grateful to the Government for their amendments to strengthen environmental protections in this part. However, I am concerned that they are missing the point. The purpose of my amendments at this stage is to probe the necessity of such dramatic changes to environmental protection in the planning process. I would very much like to have a comprehensive answer from the Minister to the question of what exactly is wrong with the current environmental protections that cannot be addressed by tweaks to our current regime?
I do not wish to open up a complete Second Reading speech about everything that is wrong with Part 3 and why. I simply highlight that the effect of Part 3 is to create another process for dealing with environmental issues alongside existing processes. That will lead to confusion and muddle. The body tasked to implement this part is widely believed not to have the resources to do so effectively in a timely manner, and in fact often seems to be part of the problem. Existing protections for the environment through the planning process, such as the mitigation hierarchy and the use of private markets for biodiversity net gain, are functioning well and improving every day. The implementation of EDPs—environmental delivery plans—is likely to ride roughshod over the interests of farmers and land managers, be more costly than the current system, deliver uncertain outcomes and remove localism.
We know that up to 160,000 houses are being blocked by Natural England advice on nutrient neutrality. This House chose to defeat our amendments to what became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that would have removed this blockage. These regulations are not designed for or well suited to our country, and the sooner we make them fit for purpose, the better. Amendments 346DD and 346DE are a reformulation of the amendment we proposed to that Act. This means that those 160,000 houses could be unblocked by the Secretary of State from the commencement of this Bill, faster than any EDP can deliver. It would be simple and free.
Amendment 334 would require the JNCC to review the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and to publish a report on consolidating them. This would be with a view to the Government bringing forward legislation to replace them with domestic legislation that is fit for purpose in this country. This need not be a lengthy process and is a medium-term solution to the issues we have been left with in our planning system from adopting one-size-fits-all EU regulations. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the dynamic alignment with Europe that her Government appear to have adopted would pose problems for our legislating to protect our own environment.
We know that what appear to be poor decisions have been taken on a number of occasions: the £100 million bat tunnel for HS2 and the protection of the Ebbsfleet site as an SSSI. As we dig into these issues, we find that all too often it is questionable work that leads to these poor decisions, not the system itself. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising tabled Amendment 346DB, debated in an earlier group, which would remove protections for bat species that do not need them in our country. Had that been in effect, it would have meant no bat tunnel under HS2, as well as reducing the cost and increasing the speed of many if not all refurbishment and construction projects across our country. I know that my noble friend has taken on board the criticisms of some noble Lords and is working on a more nuanced amendment for Report.
I am not suggesting that these amendments are the only solutions to the planning issues being experienced in protecting the environment, and I know that they will not necessarily win everyone’s approval. I have also put my name to Amendments 242A, 185F and 185G in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, which provide a constructive alternative approach that could also offer a better solution than Part 3 of the Bill. I know that those will be debated later in Committee.
Amendments 302 and 303 may not fit particularly well in this group, but they are tidying amendments which would make it clear that, under the auspices of EDPs, only the direct actions of those EDPs to address those features allow those features to be disregarded. I am very grateful again to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her support on these amendments.
We on these Benches are trying to provide a constructive alternative to Part 3. These are, by their nature, probing amendments. We are not intending to destroy Part 3 but simply questioning whether it is the right answer and whether more direct and simple action within the existing system is not better. I hope I have made the case that judicious use of the scalpel, through these and other amendments, can revise current environmental protection without weakening it and immediately get Britain building, rather than relying on yet another team of government employees with an open-ended chequebook. I very much look forward to other contributions to this debate and the Minister’s response. We are trying to unblock the planning system and reduce cost and complexity. I will need to be convinced that Part 3 is necessary not to bring similar amendments back on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed all the clause stand part elements in this group, which essentially aim to delete Part 3. Unlike the noble Lord, we in the Green group think that Part 3 is not as bad as it was, but we would still be better off without it. That is the view of many NGOs, campaign groups and experts who have been in contact with me. Indeed, although there is a bit of competition at the moment, the mailbag I have had on this issue is one of the bigger mailbags that I have encountered.
My noble friend majored on this in her Second Reading speech and asked why the Government had it in for bats, newts and frogs. It appeared that perhaps some members of the Government were scared by some of them as small children and were bearing the scars. It is encouraging to see that we have seen some back-pedalling in their apparent attitude to harmless small mammals and amphibians, but none the less there are still grave concerns about Part 3. We have already debated this in a number of groups, and it is a pity that we are getting to this so late and in such an incoherent manner, given the importance in this hugely nature-depleted country of the issues covered by Part 3.
I will not run through all the amendments, but I want to highlight the response of the Office for Environmental Protection, which published an analysis of the Government’s amendments. It states that,
“even after the material amendments the government proposes, the Bill would, in some respects, lower environmental protections on the face of the law.”
I will raise four big issues and I hope that we might hear some reassurance from the Minister. We have had some reassurances in statements from the Government, but that is not the same as on the Floor of the House. The first issue is the safeguarding of the mitigation hierarchy, ensuring that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply it, including by seeking to avoid harm whenever possible to our most important biodiversity assets. We are still nowhere near where we need to be on that.
Secondly, there is the overall improvement test so that conservation measures must significantly and measurably outweigh the negative impacts. We are talking about biodiversity net gain, but we are also talking about the conservation status of identified features, given the absence of European protected species legal tests. Thirdly, this is all about environmental delivery plans, and there needs to be an implementation schedule to provide the guarantees that the conservation measures will deliver the benefits, prior to the damage being done. Once valuable biodiversity is lost, it is gone, and promises to fix something up later, I am afraid, just do not crack it.
Finally, something I feel very passionate about is the irreplaceable habitats. I have stood at the foot of oak trees that were many hundreds of years old and thought about all the species and biodiversity that are dependent on them. There is no way of replacing that once it is lost and we have lost so much that we cannot afford to lose more. I am afraid that the Green position remains that we are nowhere near where we should be, and we are still heading in the wrong direction. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate; I can see many noble Lords have stayed late with the intention of delivering a forceful message, I am confident. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the proposition that Part 3 not stand part of the Bill, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I have signed. It was unusual, but I feel that it was the right thing to do to bring this forward to indicate the strength of political feeling on these matters of nature protection. I am pleased to have added my name to them. Equally, I think it is right that they are not pursued at this stage.
I pay my respects to and thank the Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others, who have worked on and looked again at the concerns raised about the possible impacts of this Bill as it was initially drafted. Those have been voiced very strongly by the general public, by the NGO community and by Members of both Houses of this Parliament. It is not often that such a package of government amendments is tabled without a vote, but I must say it is a very welcome move. After Second Reading, I was not looking forward to the rest of the stages because I could see a showdown on basic nature protections coming down the line, so I am immensely grateful that this Bill has been substantially amended and improved. These amendments are not perfect, as others have said, but they do offer some substantial improvements.
I believe in the friendly hand of scrutiny, and I am convinced that Governments who listen and compromise make better laws than those who do not. Fundamentally, however, I feel that this Bill is still flawed. It carries a fundamental flaw through its heart in Part 3, because it identifies the wrong problems and then sets out to fix them in a not particularly great way. All the while, there are multiple other blockages to the planning system that do not really get the solutions that they need. They need to be unlocked so that we can get growth for housing, transition to clean power and do everything else that we really need to do.
I know the Government have made concessions and want this Bill passed. My hope is that, with shorter speeches from all, this Government will continue to listen, and we can continue the constructive dialogue in the time remaining to discuss the remaining important issues. In the interests of that time, I will not run through the changes but on these Benches we still have concerns about the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy as representing a really significant shift in approach—an approach that generally has worked fairly well.
This change of approach carries with it significant bureaucratic burdens and inherent risk for the businesses which will be undertaking this stuff and will face reputational damage. It creates an almost communist scale of new bureaucracy about moving nature as if it was Lego bricks from one place to another, but I am deeply concerned about the irreplaceable habitats. We will have opportunities to discuss this on the remaining clauses of this Bill.
We are also concerned about the mitigation hierarchy. Fundamentally, I still do not understand; I have looked at all the updated energy policies, such as EN-1 and those on nuclear power, the grid and renewables, and the mitigation hierarchy remains at the heart of those policies. I do not understand why, when that will continue to be the case after the Bill has passed, the mitigation hierarchy needs to be removed for housing. The Government might want to make arguments about the mitigation hierarchy in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects but, when we can deliver energy projects with the mitigation hierarchy, I do not see why that needs to be removed for housing.
I shall close on the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning, as quoted in the Times. While I deeply respect the Minister and everything that has been done here, I worry that another Bill will come down the line; that some aspects of this Government still perceive nature as a blockage to planning and development, even though the Government’s own impact assessment shows that this is not the case; and that commitments made here might be changed later on. Still, I thank the Minister; there is more to discuss, but I am grateful.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
There are three reactions coming to the fore about Part 3. A bunch of folk want to kill it because it is awful and unnecessary; a bunch of folk are predisposed to accept it, because although with the government amendments it is still not very good it is good enough, and we can probably get more amendments in the process of its passing through this House; and the third position is finding an alternative way of focusing on and resolving the issues that are stopping development happening. The last one is the way that I espouse.
Originally I had my name down to the mighty list of clause stand parts drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which would have completely kneecapped Part 3. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the problems with Part 3 that arouse such strong antipathy across the piece, regardless of which of the three reactions you espouse. However, I took my name down from the clause stand parts when I tabled my Amendments 185F, 185G and 242A. I presented those amendments with a heavy heart to the small but dedicated band who were still here, since it was the final group of Thursday night’s session. I had never experienced a death slot quite like that one before; it felt like a wet Tuesday night at the Aberdeen Empire.
I believe that EDPs are a risky and not very good way forward, for a number of reasons. One is that they are probably unnecessary because they are too sweeping, regarding EDPs as needing to cover a plethora of issues that have already been resolved or, in the eyes of developers, are not really the problems that are getting in the way. Another is that the habitats regulations have stood us in good stead over many years. We invented them as a bunch of Brits, and they represent the highest level of protection for that tiny, most important set of sites and species. Developers have got used to applying them over 30 years; they have developed an understanding and expertise within their operations. Many developers admit that the habs regs and nature are a long way down their list of blockages. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, are not in their places tonight, because they have developed a wonderful road map that shows how EDPs simply add another route to getting permissions rather than simplifying the existing routes.
My amendments would take the, I hope, constructive avenue of trying to find a middle way by restricting them to those issues for which they can be effective, which are strategic and landscape-level issues of nutrient neutrality, water quality, water quantity and air quality, and by adding amendments that I combined with them to give the heavy lifting on habitats regulation assessment to regional spatial strategies and local plans. By the time a developer came to put forward a planning application, not only would the majority of surveys and assessments have taken place but developers would be clearer where they should avoid sites with tricky protected species and instead aim for those sites rather less likely to have wrangles at stake. These already debated amendments have had a second opportunity to find their way to the light at a slightly more auspicious point in the timetable, and I hope that Ministers will consider them. They would be less dramatic than the clause stand part massacre of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.
I do not wholly support the solutions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to the nutrient neutrality issue, mainly because I do not actually understand what his amendments intend to achieve. I will swot up on that before Report.
However, I will briefly speak in support of Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have added our names. They confirm that only impacts addressed by an EDP should be disregarded for the habs regs. We must make sure that any disregarding of the habitats regulations is absolutely forensic and rapier-like, not broad, woolly and unformed. They are important building blocks for nature conservation and recovery in this country. They do not get in the way of development if they are properly administered. They are about process rather than substance, and we can streamline them in a whole load of ways without wrecking them.
This is the nub of the Bill. If the truth were known, Part 3 is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that I have seen, and my first conversation with Ministers in the Commons did not reassure me. When I said that I was worried about the environmental impacts of the Bill, they said, “Don’t you worry about it. This isn’t an environment Bill; it’s a planning Bill”.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I support a number of amendments in this group, but I will limit my remarks to the debate on whether Clause 83 should stand part of the Bill. I was beaten at the post by my noble friend Lord Roborough in signing the clause stand part notice, so I added my name and support it wholeheartedly. I am concerned about this for a number of reasons.
It was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister back to her seat after the reshuffle last week; it is good to see her in her place.
I understand that Natural England is looking to lose some members of staff in various parts of the country, which raises an additional question mark over the resources and staffing that it has at its disposal to do this sizeable task. My noble friend Lord Roborough, in introducing this group of amendments, asked why these powers are necessary. There is great concern among the farming community that these powers are before us in the Bill. The cost of buying land and then paying to deliver the mitigation is not the best use of the nature restoration levy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about the role of EDPs in achieving what the Government seek to achieve. The case is yet to be made as to why we need EDPs. Therefore, I would like to explore other solutions—perhaps private market solutions—to environmental mitigation in this regard. I support my noble friend Lord Roborough’s argument about the number of houses delayed from being built because of the policy that the Government are pursuing in this regard.
What the Government have achieved is probably something that they did not set out to achieve: both sides of the argument—the green lobby, or what have been called the environmental NGOs, and landowners and farming communities—are equally unhappy with how Part 3 has been drafted. I accept that the Government have tried to recover some of the ground through their own amendments, but I am particularly unhappy about the drafting of Clause 83. It begs the questions of what resources are available and why this role has been given to Natural England. This is happening against the background that Natural England, it appears, will be losing staff and resources at a time when the Government envisage such a major role as set out in Clause 83. I therefore lend my support to the amendments and stand part notices in this group, particularly that Clause 83 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak strongly for Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough. Two years after your Lordships’ House last considered nutrient neutrality, my noble friend’s amendments seek to break the nutrient neutrality deadlock, de-layer this cat’s cradle of conflicting regulations and allow us to focus on those things for best effort.
Three and a half years ago, in 2022, nutrient neutrality rules were created, and then, at a stroke, they hunky-bunkered over 200,000 planning applications in over 75 planning authorities—planning authorities which for the most part have the greatest housing potential, because they are the ones clustered around the conurbations and thus have the greatest capacity to deliver housing growth.
I was the council leader in one of these areas. At a stroke, together with our two neighbouring authorities, over 45,000 houses in a plan were made mute. We will never get roofs over people’s heads, including through affordable and social housing, while homes are not being built.
My noble friend’s amendment gets to the heart of this; it allows us to ask the fundamental question as to whether stopping housebuilding will clean up our rivers. At the outset, let us be clear: the statutory responsibility for ensuring a clean environment falls variously upon Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England—the statutory water undertakings for the effective running of sewage treatment works.
These bodies have the funding, the powers and the responsibility for cleaning up our rivers, but the nutrient neutrality rulings transfer those responsibilities to a completely different class of organisation with no obvious statutory or financial resources to do so: local councillors, the planning departments of local planning authorities, and the housebuilding industry more generally. It is a buck-passing from those who should be designing and implementing solutions, in favour of the LPAs and builders who do not have any control over the matter at all. Taking all the homes in the UK, the Home Builders Federation estimates that, of all the current planning applications that would be built, it would add just 0.92% to the overall housing stock of 25 million dwellings.
We have to consider materiality here. At this point, I feel I should declare that, when I was not leading a council in a previous life, my business was in the fertiliser industry. I have a degree in agriculture, I studied soil science, and I have built a career around advising on effective plant nutrition and the role of nutrients in soils. If I was on Mastermind, this would be my specialist subject.
As I reflect on my own experience, it is now widely understood that the nutrient effect of the impact of new homes, over and above the existing homes in rural places such as Norfolk or Herefordshire, might contribute just 0.2% of the total phosphate load in a catchment. Put another way, out of 500 potential mitigating strategies, 499 are more likely to reduce phosphate emissions in a catchment than prevent new homes being built. In essence, not building a handful of homes in Holverston connected to a Klargester will not clean-up Rockland Broad, to give a very local example.
It is important to restate why the restrictions have been imposed. The test in the habitats regulations and in law is to avoid “significant damage” to a special area of conservation—significant damage, not purely harm. I will never understand why we have stopped our second-largest economic sector, construction, and put tens of thousands of people out of work while serially sacrificing our housebuilding targets on the altar of nutrient neutrality—a marginal future gain of just 0.2%, when the problem exists here and now.
We are aiming at the wrong target by stopping housebuilding. Just ask the people of the Hereford catchment of the River Wye whether building a few less homes will clean up their river, or whether the wholesale processing and removing of animal waste from the catchment might be a better approach. There, it is generally accepted that 80% of the nutrient load in places like Herefordshire comes from poultry manures—not from industry, or even existing homes; still less from homes that have not yet been built.
Elsewhere in your Lordships’ House, the Environment and Climate Change Committee recently heard that over 20 million tonnes of sludges, slurries and digestates are applied to land from anaerobic digesters, and some of it on valley sides. I would venture to say that the Government would be better advised to focus on this issue, rather than stopping builders building. In essence, there is a dilemma. Do we focus on the 80%, or the 0.2%?
That is why I like the noble Lord’s amendment. It enables us to focus our minds on where the substantive problem is. It directs us at the big numbers, not the trivial numbers. It stops us worrying about the 0.2% that might come from the building of new homes and from the flushing of their loos, damaging a significant contributor to the local economies and supply chains. Instead, the amendment seeks to allow a regulatory focus on where the real problem lies, which is principally with organic manures and digestates applied to land on bare stubbles, with nutrients which become mobilised much later in the summer, after harvest, when the ground has warmed up. The summer rains produce the ideal conditions to break them down into mobile phosphates, but not when the growing crops are there to absorb them, so they run off.
If we focus on some of the bigger issues rather than the marginal ones, it might allow the Government to have a joined-up approach. We might even start to provide the grounds again for slurry schemes and storage, which were cancelled in the previous year; that is the key to handling the problem. The best chance of breaking this deadlock and getting new homes built quickly, as the noble Lord has said, is to take the rapier to Part 3 of the Bill and to work out how can we solve the problem, rather than misdirecting ourselves towards small harms. We need to address the big consequences that are harming our economy and our ability to grow, and to get roofs over the heads of the people who need those homes. These are not rich people. We need affordable housing, housing in villages, and housing on brownfield land. All this is hunky-bunker, and we must sweep it away and focus on the big target, not the little one.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, Part 3 of the Bill gives new wide-ranging powers to Natural England, which has been heavily involved in all aspects of Part 3, much of which has been made up on the hoof as the Bill progressed. Part 3 also contains a good dollop of empire building by Natural England. We should be very circumspect about agreeing this when the Office for Environmental Protection criticises it as environmental aggression and a leaked report suggests that the EU has similar concerns.
Like many of your Lordships, I have been concerned about NE for some time. There have been regular press comments about the mistakes that it makes. It is often criticised for being slow, bureaucratic and inefficient in decision-making. It seems too focused on prescriptive top-down solutions, ignoring the experience of the practitioner, and slow to embrace new technologies in environmental management. Farmers and land managers have lost trust in it, which is a disaster for nature. NE is not fit for purpose. I want to examine why.
Some key factors interlink and have a compounding effect. A major problem for NE is its structure. Where scientific expertise and sound judgment is a prerequisite, there is a lack of good in-house scientists and the consultants that it uses sometimes do not have the expertise needed. Over the last 20 years, due to budgetary constraints, the best scientific experts—and therefore the most expensive to employ—have left the organisation. It used to employ highly regarded scientists but now, with some notable exceptions, it is an organisation operated by low-grade civil servants with insufficient supervision or control by scientific specialists. Yet it is an organisation on whose judgments Ministers must rely, and legal regimes rest. Making those scientific judgments is even more challenging due to Section 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which sets out a requirement to prove a negative. This is a reversal of the usual burden of proof under the law, raising a fundamental problem which only good scientists can tackle competently.
The job is made much harder because the precautionary principle, which is not mentioned in the habitat regulations, has been established by case law and must be applied to habitat assessment. Here we have a problem. What is the precautionary principle? It has no constant legal definition. Regardless of that, it is cited by NE as justification for giving weight to hypothetical risks for which there is no credible evidence and without being questioned.
So the requirement to prove a negative must be very tightly regulated, as without proper oversight the system is open to abuse. Because of NE’s structure, that abuse is increasingly evident. It is much easier for the civil servant to say no, even though that decision is based on myth or prejudice rather than sound science. This then sets a precedent for future decisions and the downward spiral continues.
That “safe decision” attitude, which pervades NE, is now the ingrained cultural attitude and the reason why it makes so many perverse decisions. Such decisions lead to more costly and/or delayed development, with little or no benefit to the environment. As an example, NE’s assessments of general licence applications 43 and 45 have revealed inconsistencies, a lack of understanding that game management activities are intrinsic to releasing activity, an overprecautionary approach based on bird flu risks and a presumption of negative impact. GL43 and GL45 were brought in to address environmental and legal issues, not bird flu.
NE has become an increasingly powerful organisation that can do what it wants without challenge. Frighteningly, the Bill seeks to give it yet more power. It cannot be challenged from within. However good the executives or members of the board of trustees are, they are not ecologists and they are not equipped to challenge the scientific approach, even if based on myth adopted by the case officer.
It is hard to challenge from without. Developers know how powerful NE is and do not want to campaign publicly for fear of damaging their relationships and having greater difficulty with their schemes in the future. This leads to a conspiracy of silence. Those who wish to challenge NE from outside are faced with every obstruction. I will go into the case of Biocore Agri Ltd in more detail on later amendments. In summary, Biocore was given approval by NE for its scheme in the nutrient market, only for NE to say it would refuse a detailed application due to a change of mind. Not surprisingly, this inconsistency has upset Biocore and it has challenged NE. I am told that, in retaliation, NE has now threatened not to answer future correspondence from Biocore. Given that NE has obstructed the private sector on nutrients, what confidence can we have that NE will not behave in exactly the same way when it comes to EDPs?
I have had the temerity to question NE’s science and scientists. Luckily, I have no land and NE has no hold on me. On 22 April, I wrote in some detail to the CEO setting out my concerns about the science that NE uses regarding wildfires and asked for a meeting. After long delays and a refusal to be allowed to speak to her or her office, I received a reply from a member of her staff, which included the words: “We do not feel such a meeting to discuss our approach to evidence would be productive”. However, I have now heard from the CEO, who has offered a meeting. It will be in October, six months after I asked for it, but it would not be taking place had I not asked the Minister, to whom I am grateful, to look into the matter.
I ask your Lordships to contrast the arrogant, complacent and discourteous attitude of NE with that of the director of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which I emailed on 28 June with concerns about the problems fiprinol and imidacloprid are causing to the environment. I received a detailed response before the end of July. That reply gave rise to further questions and, on return from holiday, I asked for a meeting on 20 August. The response was immediate and the meeting took place before the end of the month.
Inadvertently, with NE an organisation more fearsome than the environmental arm of Rostekhnadzor in Russia has been created. This part of the Bill does nothing to rectify the deep-seated problems NE has. A wise Government would drop Part 3 and sort out NE for the benefit of the environment, development and the growth that this country so badly needs before giving it more powers which, unless reformed, it will only abuse.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is right that we are having such a comprehensive debate on whether Part 3 stand part of the Bill. The Whip will remind us that we are not here to do Second Reading speeches, and I agree with that, but he will remember that the advisory time limit at Second Reading was a mere five minutes to cover every single clause of the Bill. That is why we are having a debate, and trying to understand from the Minister what the effect of these clauses is supposed to be, especially as we know that, since the Bill came into this House, the Government have been forced to table amendments.
A test of this Bill—certainly of Part 3—would be whether the new Secretary of State at the ministry would stand by the assertion that Angela Rayner made when she said that there be no detriment on the basis of existing environment law compared to were this to go through. I appreciate that that is still sub judice but it would be helpful if the Minister might be able to articulate whether Steve Reed would stand by that assertion. It may be that that is part of what has led to the amendments, though, as we have already heard, perhaps the amendments do not go far enough. Certainly, the OEP was critical of the Bill—I do not need to go over its criticisms again—and some changes have been made.
My noble friend Lord Caithness talks in detail about Natural England. I intend to speak a bit more about that in the next group of amendments, but I want to give a bit of assurance to my noble friend. One of the reasons for having the environmental principles policy statement was specifically for the Government to set out how they intended these different things, such as the precautionary principle, to apply. I am conscious of what my noble friend says, but, specifically when it came to the precautionary principle—I know this because I wrote it—there is the issue of risk.
Traditionally, there has been a lot of back and forth about risk and hazard and what the right approach should be to the precautionary principle. By and large, Conservative or Labour Governments have taken a risk-based approach. I will give your Lordships a further example. If bleach was introduced today, almost certainly it would not be allowed, because the hazard would be too great. We do not do that; we do it on a risk-based approach. I am pleased to say that, in the government policy, which is still valid today, it says that
“in all cases, for the precautionary principle to apply, there must be sufficient evidence that the risk of serious or irreversible damage is plausible and real”.
I hope that reassures my noble friend.
There are various elements of Part 3 for which I want to understand and probe further what the Government intend to do. Clause 58 starts off by saying:
“When Natural England decides to prepare an EDP”.
But who is going to give that direction? Why is it up to Natural England to decide whether it is going to prepare an EDP? It would be helpful for the Minister to explain why the Government have come up with that phraseology. We will debate EDPs in a lot more detail, so I do not need to go into every intricacy of them now, but it would be helpful to get a sense of what the primary legislation is trying to get at. It feels a little like the designation of the expiration of SSSIs, where it is left entirely to Natural England to decide whether to look at an SSSI, whether to extend it and so on. That is not satisfactory either. It would be useful to understand the Government’s intentions in that clause.
It would be helpful to get some clarity on Clause 68(4) before I move on to Clause 86. Having accepted that a developer is going to pay the levy, Natural England can then
“rescind its acceptance … such that the developer ceases to be committed to pay the nature restoration levy”.
On the one hand, we are saying that the levy is mandatory; on the other, we are saying that it is not. In what circumstances has it been deemed that regulations might be needed to withdraw that? Perhaps the whole development comes to a grinding halt, but I think there will be several of us who are concerned that this is just another way to stop people paying towards the levy. I made this point in our debates last week that the chief executive of Natural England had come up with a series of assertions that it was not mandatory for developers to pay the levy and later that councils could assess the validity of the EDP being developed and the progress of it and make decisions on whether or not it was valid to grant planning consent. There are also other issues with Clause 59.
In Clause 86, Natural England is mentioned basically everywhere, and the Secretary of State is mentioned every now and again. The clause is saying that the Secretary of State can decide anyone has the power to exercise the functions. If that is the case, why have we gone into that level of detail about Natural England being granted all these compulsory purchase powers when really, at the stroke of a pen, they could be given to just one single person? That feels extraordinary.
So I am really concerned about Clause 86 in general. I am conscious that the Minister may want to elucidate on this clause in more detail, and I hope that she can explain what it is seeking to achieve. It may be that the Secretary of State wants Suffolk Wildlife Trust to develop the plan or some other body—it could be somewhere special in Cumbria. By the way, I congratulate the Minister on staying in her post given that she is the only person who has any connection to the countryside; I am sure even the Prime Minister realises that Defra needs somebody who actually lives and breathes the countryside.
However, the designated person will be defined in regulations, so it could be anyone. It is pretty stark to give such huge powers to just anybody. We have seen this in the Employment Rights Bill, where—as we finally discovered through debate in this House—a designated person or body, like the trade unions, could be given unlimited amounts of taxpayers’ money. We are seeing that here in this Bill too. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what, in seeking that the clause stand part, the Government are seeking to achieve.
I know people want to catch trains shortly after midnight so we should not extend this much further, but I want to mention aspects of the mitigation hierarchy and to get some clarity from the Minister. I recognise this has already been brought up a few times today. In the Commons, Matthew Pennycook was very clear that he did not believe the mitigation hierarchy was in any way fixed. Can the Minister clarify whether the principle of “do no harm” is being ripped up?
I will speak separately to my noble friends about parts of the reality of the River Wye. Some of it is just that the river is too hot because somebody has managed to cut down tons of trees, so there is no shade anymore, which has led to greater chemical reactions happening than perhaps Natural England would otherwise predict.
Finally, I will speak to some of the other amendments. My noble friends on the Front Bench have tabled Amendments 346DD and 346DE; they are familiar because they are very similar to amendments tabled by the last Government, of which I was a member. I would say gently to some of my noble friends that, when I was looking at some of these significant changes, I looked at a map and some of these parts of the country are tiny. Are there not some other parts of the country where we could consider building instead of going on such a controversial route as we took at the time? This Government have gone far further with Part 3 as it stands, but I look forward to some of the explanations on that.
I completely agree with Amendments 302 and 303, which my noble friends have been tabled.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the general thrust of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough.
The focus of Natural England is bureaucratic and precautionary, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Caithness. We need to find a way around the freezing of housing developments by Natural England under its nutrient neutrality rules. This is a real growth killer in those areas. My noble friend Lord Roborough has tried to find an immediate remedy in some of his amendments; I encourage the Minister to look at them and perhaps come forward with some further amendments to this important Bill. I remind the Committee that page 6 of the Explanatory Notes says that the Bill
“intends to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure”.
My worry is that Part 3 gives Natural England the power to bring about the opposite.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have had a number of conversations with developers over the course of the past month or two. Their universal conclusion is that Part 3 makes it much harder to build houses. It adds huge levels of risk and uncertainty. It tears up the arrangements that they were half way through making—in order to get things done and deal with the environmental impact of housebuilding—and substitutes them with a regime where they just will not know what is happening. It will be really difficult to make commitments because so much could change if an EDP is imposed and because of the timescale of imposing an EDP. What will the consequence of an EDP be? It will make the whole business anti-business.
I really hope that the Government will take the chance of a change in the Secretary of State to look at this aspect of the Bill and say, “Even if it’s a good idea, we need to take it slowly and carefully, and we need to make sure that people can rely on it”, because, if you are setting out to build houses on any scale, you are taking a long-term decision. You need to know how the landscape will be for years in advance.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has kindly organised meetings with Natural England. I have been to two of them, in fact; I was late to one but, for the first one, I was there almost the entire time. One rather excited official from Natural England described what is going to happen as the most exciting thing that had happened in his career. I am not surprised—I mean, all its Christmases are coming at once. It is getting to have a role at the heart of planning and development; to design schemes across the country; and to run the authoritative model to determine where, how and when EDPs will be implemented. I have noticed several references tonight to the Soviet Union, an area with which I have worked extensively. I had exactly the same thought when I read this Bill. This is real Gosplan in action. The idea of some apparatchik sitting at his computer in Westminster and saying, “Bang—we will do that over there”, is absolutely what went wrong with the Soviet Union.
A lot of rude words have been said about Natural England tonight, many of which it deserves. My only real encounter with it was when I tried to put a catchment scheme together up the river—noble Lords may remember the days when we had environmental programmes that were still open. I was looking at doing one of those. The Natural England person said to me, “You know, it sounds like a lot of work, and it’s awfully complex. Are you sure you really want to do it?” These are the people who will be designing EDPs across the country and inflicting them on us. In our debate on the next group of amendments, there will be this question: why is it written as though Natural England is the only solution for all time? Why can it not be more general? I will leave that for others to talk about in the next section.
Two things came out of my latter meeting with them. One was that—noble Lords may or may not be aware of this—if you are a developer, you have to do biodiversity net gain, BNG. That is additional to the levy that you are going to be paying. I just think that everybody should be aware of that.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned, over and above nutrient neutrality, the biodiversity net gain levy, but has he also considered the other levies, which will apply in addition in an astonishing layering effect? There is the GIRAMS, the green infrastructure recreation avoidance and mitigation strategy, and the SANGs, which is special areas of something—there are so many of these different levies, each of which layers over and above. The cumulative effect of all these is so great that what has to give is the affordable housing, the community infrastructure levy and all those other wider improvements. Has he made some sort of consideration of that in his research?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The noble Lord asked me to say something before I sat down. I will now sit down, but he has thoroughly ruined my evening. Thank you.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, please bear with me. I only have 20 minutes. It has been a very long debate and, because of the clause stand parts, I need to go through everything. I will do my best to cover everything off, but anything I do not, I will get back to the noble Lords in writing.
Our vision is for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. The reforms in the Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious housebuilding targets and fast-tracking the planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. But we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not and will not come at the cost of the environment. It is this ethos that sits at the centre of how we have designed the nature restoration fund.
The new system is not simply about streamlining how environmental obligations are discharged but about using funds more effectively to secure better outcomes for the environment. We know that the status quo has not been working, neither for development nor for nature. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned concerns that have been raised. We recognise the concerns about establishing an alternative approach. We have worked closely with stakeholders and have taken their views on board, which has culminated in the package of government amendments laid in Committee that noble Lords have mentioned. I would like to particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for recognising the improvements that they have brought to the Bill.
I want to set out how this new approach is going to work. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced a very helpful diagram at the recent drop-in session on the Bill. We are working on that to make it fully accurate and we will share further information in a letter that will help noble Lords to better understand our new approach and provide reassurance on what we are trying to achieve. I hope that that will clarify a number of questions that have been asked today, including around the mitigation hierarchy and other concerns that were raised regarding developers by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I apologise that they have not been ready for today’s session, but hopefully we will have them ahead of Wednesday.
It is important to highlight that the NRF establishes an alternative mechanism to discharge existing environmental obligations. It does not create any new obligations or repeal any existing environmental obligations. Where an EDP is put in place, it will remain open to developers either to use the EDP or to discharge the relevant environmental obligation under the existing system. This is baked into the design of EDPs, which will set out the capacity of development they can support but can scale the delivery of conservation measures according to the amount of development that comes forward.
This highlights another important feature of this new model in that Natural England and, ultimately, the Secretary of State would not prepare an EDP where it was not necessary to support development and the environment. These are targeted tools that will be used only where there is both a clear need from development and an ecological case that the EDP could materially outweigh the negative impact of development.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, raised concerns about the role of Natural England. I am pleased that the noble Earl now has a meeting arranged but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, the next debate will be an opportunity to get into more depth around Natural England’s role.
I want to clarify that, before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State, it will be subject to proper scrutiny through public consultation. Only then would the Secretary of State consider whether the EDP could be made in line with the overall improvement test. This consultation is vital, because it is the stage when people can test the approach being proposed, in terms of the design and efficacy of the conservation measures. This is also where Natural England will set out whether it is proposing to include planning conditions to drive action on the part of developers, as part of the EDP. In the limited circumstances where conservation measures benefit a site different from the one impacted by development, the EDP will set out the ecological justification for these measures and how they are more beneficial to the environmental feature in question than on-site measures.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Would the Minister clarify? I will be very brief. The EDP is designed on the basis of offsetting some environmental damage, but at what point do the developers choose whether or not to pay the levy into it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This is what we are trying to do with the diagram and the note; they will clarify all that.
If, after the consultation and consideration of the overall improvement test, an EDP is made, developers would be able to make a payment into the EDP which would, subject to any conditions, discharge the relevant environmental obligation. The responsibility for delivering conservation measures and the overall improvement would then move to Natural England, which would use the money received through the nature restoration levy to secure the necessary conservation measures. These would then be supported by a thorough regime of monitoring and reporting to ensure that the outcomes are delivered, with the government amendments clarifying the actions that must be taken were conservation measures not to perform as expected. Once in place, the EDPs will deliver a streamlined approach for developers while improving the conservation status of the environmental feature.
This is part of Clause 53, so I will address the first amendment in this group, because it is relevant to this clause. Amendment 227H, from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would change the name “environmental development plan” to “environmental harm mitigation plan”. I think that we have different ambitions for the nature restoration fund. We are clear, both in our aims and through the legislation, that EDPs will go beyond simply mitigating harm and will more materially outweigh the negative impact of a development. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw that amendment.
Clause 54 sets out the requirements for what an EDP must include in relation to area, type of development, volumes of development and duration of the EDP, providing clarity on the scope and setting clear expectations for Natural England on what needs to be included when preparing an EDP.
Clause 55 introduces the concept of conservation measures, which are the measures to be funded by an EDP. It also introduces the concept of the environmental feature, which is a protected feature of a protected site or species that is likely to be impacted by a development that the conservation measures seek to address. It establishes the framework of the rules.
While we are on Clause 55, Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Roborough, seek to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific nature and specific impacts identified in the EDP. This is important and I am pleased to be able to provide clarity and assurance on this point. As drafted, Clause 55(1) defines an environmental impact as
“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”,
as identified by the EDP. This means that the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. Of course, there could be circumstances where it may have multiple environmental impacts and, if only one of those was addressed by the EDP, the remaining environmental impacts would still need to be assessed through the existing system.
Clause 56 requires Natural England to produce charging schedules, which is critical as that will establish the rates that developers need to pay to rely on the EDP. The clause makes it clear that different rates can apply for different kinds of development covered by the EDP. Clause 57 sets up further detail around the information that Natural England has to include in an EDP; for example, an underlying environmental condition. That is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each environmental feature, so that we can set a baseline for improvements and how they are measured.
Looking at the procedures, Clause 58 sets out the requirements that Natural England must meet. The Government have tabled an amendment to replace Clause 58 with Clause 87A, which extends and broadens the duties it contains to other functions of Natural England and the Secretary of State in relation to this part. I will speak to this amendment in due course but, in the light of that, the Government are not seeking to support the inclusion of the current Clause 58.
In introducing the restoration fund, we have been clear that this new approach will be expert-led and ecologically sound. Clause 59 is therefore central. It secures the effective scrutiny and has a consultation process to lead to better EDPs informed by relevant experts and local communities, but also provides the Secretary of State with the assurance that he needs to approve an EDP. The nature restoration fund is, as I said, not just about streamlining but about using funds more effectively, which is why Clause 60 requires that the Secretary of State may approve an EDP only once satisfied that it passes the overall improvement test. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the importance of the overall improvement test. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that it will be delivered by the end date of the EDP. EDPs are therefore focused on the timely delivery of environmental outcomes.
I move on to the reporting, amendment, revocation and challenge requirements. Once an EDP is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures and progress made. It is vital that key information, such as performance of conservation measures and the remaining development capacity, are made available. It is important to have transparency so that proactive steps can be taken if an EDP is underperforming. It also allows the Secretary of State to amend an EDP if required.
Clause 62 has the reporting requirements and also looks at how the levy is being set and the transparency around that, so that developers, the local community and environmental groups can continue to engage during the EDP’s lifespan. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend EDPs in specific circumstances where it is necessary to do so; for example, to reflect new environmental information or to accommodate additional development. Crucially, the Secretary of State is bound by the same overall improvement test as when making an EDP.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who talked about the process for revoking; the circumstances on how that would be used are established in Clause 64. Of course, this is the option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach this point, including the ability to amend and to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance. Development that has relied on the EDP prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. The Secretary of State must then consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation are suitably addressed. Obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, so we recognise that it is important to provide a route to challenge EDPs. The route of challenge is in Clause 65 and enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published.
I turn to how the nature restoration levy operates. Clause 66 sets out the framework. If a request is accepted by Natural England, the developer is then committed to making the relevant payment, which will be set out in the charging schedule, which will be published. Once the developer has committed to paying the levy, the environmental obligations are altered in line with the EDP. Ensuring that Natural England can secure the funds to deliver the conservation measures through the nature restoration levy is central to this approach and provides certainty. The positive outcomes for nature that the EDP will deliver will be realised only if the developer chooses to make them. Therefore, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the cost of the levy does not make development unviable. The regulations will be able to deal with a range of technical matters relating to the ability to pay, such as cancellation or withdrawal of such liability, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and am very impressed by the depth and timing of the Minister’s response. It was clearly a lonely place to be defending Part 3 today. The concerns were well aired around the Committee about its impact, as well as questions about exactly what the problem is. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put it very well: where is the problem? The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I talked about surgical solutions to some of the issues that we consider to be the problems that are blocking planning.
Despite the impressive response from the Minister, I still have not heard a justification for why Part 3 is in the Bill. Clearly, I will not press these amendments now, but I would like the Committee to bear that in mind as we go through Part 3 and debate the amendments. I hear a commitment from the Minister to work with the Committee to improve Part 3, but I still question why it is there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have multiple amendments in this group. In essence, the whole thrust is that the Secretary of State should be in charge of this rather than it be passed to Natural England through primary legislation. I say that because of a number of factors. I am not going to do a big attack on Natural England, but I think it is worth exposing some of the challenges. I am slightly conscious that, according to the clock, I have already spoken for 15 minutes—time goes quickly when you are having fun.
One of the things the Prime Minister has set out is that decisions should not be palmed off to all these other bodies; Ministers should be accountable. That matters. A frustration that the wider public have is that too often it feels like Ministers have either lost control or given up control. For a variety of reasons, it has often been deemed that a third party would be better off doing this than the elected Government of the day. I do not think that is the right approach. Recognising the other piece of legislation we have had along the way in getting here, it is right that Ministers should be accountable. Natural England is an arm’s-length body, with a sponsoring department at Defra, but it has its own independent board. There are certain rules that it is not particularly accountable to because it is a regulator, and others that are delegated through a variety of ways. Importantly, Natural England is formally the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State for Defra.
As a consequence, with these amendments I am trying to say that, frankly, if the Secretary of State wants to delegate a lot of the creation of EDPs to Natural England or others, that should be in their capability to do so, but we do not need legislation to make that happen; it already exists. That is one of the fundamental reasons why I believe that, despite all the other minor protections that are in place, it is the Secretary of State who should be named, and we can get rid of quite a few clauses along the way.
I do not wish to steal the thunder of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering but, in answer to the question about Clause 86, it sounded like the Minister was ready to accept Amendment 333. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, will be thrilled at that as well, though perhaps my noble friend Lord Lucas might not be so keen.
On delivery, I worry about how much in this legislation has been concentrated. I may sound contradictory when I say thank God for that part of the Bill that allows for other people to do things that Natural England has been empowered to do. A lot of this might need changing, as I am concerned about the delivery capability of Natural England. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to this being like its dream come true. It felt like that under the Environment Act when, quite rightly, ambitious targets were set. I am pleased that the Minister wrote in her recent response to my QWA—I paraphrase, slightly—that this will definitely improve Natural England, but the question is about time. How can we get on with the pace? The Environment Act 2021, primary legislation, is specific about the species abundance target that must be achieved by 31 December 2030. I am afraid Natural England is not good at pace. I have met so many people who have been trying to plant trees, a whole series of them, yet it has taken over two years to get agreement—and not of the Forestry Commission, which is slow enough as it is, although definitely well-intentioned. Natural England is well intentioned too, but it is ridiculous that it is taking so long and we have heard complaints about housebuilding that was supposed to be updated.
Take what is perhaps not the simplest of tasks—although it feels like it should be. We started on the journey for the coastal path for England to be completed by 2020. There was a legal ruling, involving People Over Wind, which meant that Natural England had to do a bit of reassessment of its coastal path. Even then, the Senior Deputy Speaker said at the Dispatch Box that it would be done by the end of 2021. I put in the environmental improvement plan that it would be done by the end of 2024. The latest is that Ministers are saying 2025-26. The latest update is that, by August of this year, of the 2,700 miles, two-thirds had been done. There are still 900 miles to go. That is just one example of whether Natural England will actually do what it is being asked to do. That is my big fear.
A lot of developers will be trying to get away from these environmental obligations and all these different things. That is why I am concerned about outsourcing this in primary legislation to a completely different, although admittedly arm’s-length, party. I would not only prefer that we do not have this thing more broadly, but that we can hold the Secretary of State to account, day in, day out, on what progress they are making, and not only on the environmental targets. Ultimately, that is what this is all about: to hit targets and to save this planet. That is why we negotiated so hard in Montréal. It has all been done to make sure that we have a planet in the future. That is why I have tabled these amendments. I beg to move Amendment 228.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for moving her amendment and for giving the preface to my Amendment 333, to which I would like to speak. I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Lucas to explain why he has amended my Amendment 333. This is a probing amendment. I hope that the remarks of my noble friend Lady Coffey will bear fruit—that the Government really want to apply the contents of Amendment 333. I have done the Government a great favour in this regard.
The reason I have tabled Amendment 333 is that Clause 86, as currently drafted, permits the Secretary of State, by regulation, to designate another person to exercise the function of Natural England. Clause 86(2) says:
“for a designated person to replace Natural England, or … for Natural England or a designated person to exercise functions under this Part only in relation to an area or a kind of development specified in the regulations”.
My noble friend Lady Coffey has prepared the ground very well in this regard because, as she pointed out, Natural England acts as an adviser to the Secretary of State. My Amendment 333 would insist that a “designated person” must be a public body. That public body should act independently of the Secretary of State and the Government. That is why I believe it should not be Natural England; it should be a public body that can operate in that regard. I would like to understand the reasoning behind the Government drafting it in this way—so that the functions and the powers of compulsory purchase of Natural England could be passed to a third party.
I put on record that my concern is about the threat to the future use of farmland, as we currently know it, for purposes other than farming, and perhaps the ease with which a designated person could ensure that these powers to compulsorily purchase land were used in a way detrimental to farming.
I would just like to confirm that I have understood what the Minister said in summing up on the previous group. I think she said that the powers in Clause 83 would be used only where negotiations had failed. Is my understanding correct? I would like to place on record my fervent hope that the efforts under Clause 86 would come into effect only if the parties—that is, the Government and the landowner or farmer—failed to reach a voluntary agreement. That is what I understood the Minister to say, so I ask her to confirm that.
For the benefit of clarity, I would like to know that, where a body other than Natural England is designated in Clause 86, it will be a public body that can act independently of Government and, in that capacity, is more likely to gain the trust and understanding of those to whom the compulsory purchase order will apply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for cosigning Amendment 333.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
The noble Baroness might not thank me when she hears what I am about to say. I signed up in support of this amendment without realising that we were talking in exactly opposite directions about what the desired effect should be. I believe this is a probing amendment. I was very pleased when the Minister, in her response to the previous group, said that she believed that it should be another public body. For the avoidance of doubt, we should have that in the Bill.
I do not see this as something we would want to do frequently. It would be useful to know the Minister’s thinking about why this provision is in the Bill. If Part 3 is about taking a strategic approach to landscape-scale conservation and nature restoration, it is important that there is some controlling mind organising all this. I do not think it can be the Minister; it has to be Natural England. If there is any delegation from Natural England to another public body, it should be at the behest of Natural England, not the Minister. It would be extremely useful to know why this is in the Bill in the first place and to get at least a requirement that another public body is designated. Perhaps the Minister will outline the circumstances envisaged in this amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group are also of a probing nature, but I say first how much I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I had the privilege of being the Whip in this House for the Minister of Agriculture in the last years of John Major’s Government, at a time when BSE was rampant and the Countess of Mar was active on the Back Benches. I know which I was more frightened of.
MAFF in those days was a shell of a department because almost all the powers and money ran through Europe. One of the problems of BSE was that MAFF could do nothing because it did not have the direct control to do anything. As my noble friend said, this would all work better if there was first-line democratic control of what was happening here, not by statute to Natural England but by a decision of the Secretary of State to Natural England, so that the ultimate decisions and accountability stayed with the department. That would make for a much healthier, more effective department.
On this business of delegation, Amendment 328A asks whether, if we are to designate organisations, it could be a national park. That is my question here: is it the Government’s intention and is there scope within law to make a national park a designated person under this clause? If I understand the way this clause is intended to work, that would be a sensible arrangement, and I would like to know whether it is possible.
I turn to Amendment 333A. I entirely understand what my noble friend is saying in her Amendment 333, and it is merely a convenient place to put my question. Should not the EDP delivery include a role for land managers as trusted partners? Look at the difficulties that Natural England has in making sure that its SSSIs are in good order. As a resident of Eastbourne, I live in the middle of a collection of SSSIs that are in very bad order; they are supposed to be chalk grassland but are actually knee-high brambles. There is real difficulty for an organisation such as Natural England to make so much happen on the ground. If it could have long-term relationships with trusted partners who are embedded in a particular bit of the countryside, it would be in a much better position to get things done.
Farmers are generally, although I know not universally, keen to deliver on local environmental priorities and to allocate 10% or so of their land for nature recovery, as long as legislation and policy allow this to be delivered profitably. Private sector organisations such as the Environmental Farmers Group—I declare an interest that my brother is one of its directors—have already developed catchment-scale environmental transition plans that dovetail with the proposed EDPs. Such existing delivery structures, alongside farm clusters and catchment partnerships, should not be ignored. We already have this sort of partnership structure with national nature reserves—Elmley and Holkham are the ones I think of, being a southerner, but there are doubtless others—that are really well run by private estates.
Clause 76(3) will provide Natural England with the power to pay others to deliver EDPs, but it is sparse on detail. It would be helpful to know the criteria to qualify for acting on behalf of Natural England and what opportunity organisations could have in the process of preparing and delivering an EDP. Clause 59 will require a consultation on a draft EDP, but that is very late in the process. Consequently, Amendment 274, which is in the next group, would require Natural England, during the preparation of an EDP, to ask for expressions of interest from persons or organisations who can demonstrate their suitability for delivering the EDP. That would assist Natural England in meeting its obligation, under Clause 57(2), to explain why its measures are appropriate and what alternatives have been considered.
In addition, proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 311 to Clause 71, which is rather later in our groupings, aims to encourage consideration of delivery by landowners and managers in the local area, given that this would lead to better outcomes for nature and the local area. Clause 86, which allows the Secretary of State to designate a person to replace Natural England in using the Bill’s powers, seems very wide-ranging, without limitations or clarity as to the nature of the designated person. Given that Natural England is committed to working with trusted partners in its strategy, it seems relevant to extend this relationship into legislation and to define the criteria for the appointment of trusted partners, which is currently lacking. The Corry review recommended that:
“Criteria would need to be developed to ensure that a consistent approach is taken for how autonomy is earned and then recognised and retained”.
Amendment 333A seeks to embed the role of trusted partners in EDP formation and delivery and to define the criteria for appointment. I fully understand that there may be other ways of doing it, but it is important that such trusted partners should be a core part of the strategy.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, who made an excellent speech trying to persuade the Government to take out Natural England and put in the Secretary of State. As I said on the last group of amendments, Natural England has become unaccountable and unquestionable. It is also acting as judge and jury in its own right.
If you google Natural England, you come to the GOV.UK website. Under “What we do”, it says:
“We’re the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England”.
If it is the adviser, then it is the Secretary of State who should be totally accountable, as well as the Minister in this House, whom we can question. At the moment, we cannot question Natural England in the way that we can question Ministers. I think that is entirely wrong, and I hope the Government will agree.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Is this something the noble Earl would want extended to other government agencies? Is he envisaging that, with the Environment Agency, for example, all the powers should be held by Ministers and only delegated on sufferance? The Forestry Commission is in a slightly different position because it is a non-ministerial government department. I am just trying to understand whether this is something he thinks is a good point of principle for a Government’s relationship with all their agencies, or whether this is a witch hunt against Natural England.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
No, it is not a witch hunt against Natural England by itself, because I think a lot of the agencies suffer from exactly the same problem. However, this Bill is giving Natural England huge executive powers which it has not got at the moment. Those executive powers should be used by the Secretary of State so that they can be questioned in Parliament.
My noble friend Lady Coffey also spoke about Natural England’s capabilities. It is worth looking at some of its capabilities. It manages a national nature reserve at Moor House; it is the only one it manages directly. It was supposed to be a beacon of best practice and demonstration. After 70 years of quango management, of the 25 sites of special scientific interest, only five are in favourable condition—as assessed by Natural England itself—and the rest, 80%, are either unfavourable, declining or in one case destroyed. In Dartmoor, the trust between farmers, landowners and Natural England broke down so seriously two years ago that the Conservative Government had to commission a review chaired by David Fursdon. That reflects very badly on Natural England.
More recently, Natural England launched a new interactive peat map and invited the public to use it to inform responses to a live Defra consultation on heather burning. One would think that was fairly simple and straightforward; what could go wrong? Well, within minutes of the map becoming live, owners, farmers and tenants highlighted major inaccuracies in this new mapping tool, making any work based on it of spurious value. These were not minor glitches, but a basic failure of environmental cartography. Natural England’s track record is not very good. In fact, it is pretty useless. I therefore strongly urge the Government to change the wording of the Bill as proposed in the amendments from my noble friend Lady Coffey and myself.
I commend and support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. If we are going to go down this route with Natural England, it is hugely important that trusted partners take on the work of running the EDPs. If you look at some of the farming clusters already set up and ready to do this, it is much better that people who live on and work the land are the ones who take over and run the EDPs, rather than a quango based elsewhere, which is not there on a daily basis. I will be talking more about the trusted partner in later amendments, but the principle of what my noble friend Lord Lucas wants to do is absolutely right.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this group of amendments on the role of Natural England. It is a big group, so I will not respond to everyone at this late hour. It is clear that there are remaining concerns about the Bill in terms of not weakening nature protections and the complexity of the new systems that are being put in place. There are two problems here. There is the complexity of what needs to be done and there is the issue of whether Natural England is able to deliver on what it is required to do under the terms set out in this legislation, should it be passed.
Natural England is absolutely central to delivering the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. I want to return very briefly to the comments in the paper today, because I think this is important. The Government cannot both create more complicated systems that as a result of their actions require more people to do more things, to see that the duties made by their legislation get done, and at the same time say that the actual organisations that need to deliver those need to be slashed and cut. Actually, that tension between what are almost two different sides of government worries me. It worries me a lot in terms of what is being done overall. I will just park that there.
Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of course I fully understand the intention that it is about looking at responsibility, bringing in the Secretary of State and trying to hold the Secretary of State accountable for what is being done. There is an argument to say that Natural England may not be as accountable, and I understand that. My problem is that the Bill actually sets out a process where we have EDPs and the nature restoration fund and I do not think that just changing the wording of the Bill changes any of the complexities of the reality on the ground. There are other ways that we can do that, in terms of holding the Secretary to State to account in any case, and holding Natural England to account, so I do not particularly feel that that is a solution to the complexities that are created by the legislation.
I want to speak to Amendment 328A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 333 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was not certain whether Amendment 328A was a probing amendment, but the noble Lord has clarified that it is. As such, I welcome it and I look forward to the Minister’s response. My view is that the national park authority should be included, and I hope that is the case, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.
Amendment 333 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Young, seeks to clarify
“that the powers given to Natural England under Part 3 can only be delegated to a public body”.
I welcome this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I also note what the Minister said on the previous group, that the intention of the Government was that it would only be a public body. We definitely welcome that statement. I think there is still perhaps a need to have this amendment to the Bill and, with that, I will sit down.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, back in 2022, when the nutrient neutrality rules came in, it started a three and a half year hiatus that has prevented the building of new affordable homes, caused the bankruptcy of local architects, the closure of local builders’ merchants, the liquidation of many smaller builders and the folding of so many white van journeyman contractors—the plasterers, plumbers, groundworkers, roofers and tilers.
What was the basis of this catastrophe? As a council leader, I sought to find out. It did not take long to identify Natural England as the culprit. So I asked it for its reasoning. It advanced a theory that there was complete equivalence between the application of a single kilogram of phosphate anywhere in a catchment, regardless of the distance from a special area of conservation that needed protection under the regulations. It fundamentally refused to countenance the sort of risk-based approach that would be applied in any other walk of life or by any other regulator. Its approach was that the flushing of a lavatory directly into the protected Surlingham Broad was absolutely equivalent to going to the loo in Shipdham, over 30 miles away along a convoluted network of ditches, streams, tributaries and rivers before those rivers passed by the Surlingham Broad.
It is nonsense. I do not deny that there might be some infinitesimally small, theoretical riparian link between the lavatory in Surlingham and the toilet in Shipdham, but anyone who has studied for O-level or GCSE maths knows that the area around a point increases with the square of the distance, so the effect of the loo in Shipdham would be 30 times 30—900 times—less impactful; that is, if the water from that loo did not percolate into the aquifer, become assimilated into littoral plants, adsorbed on to soil particles or carried away in a farmer’s crops, in which case the impact would be significantly less, and it is.
When I asked, the designated person said that as there are no major processes for permanent phosphate losses within the aquatic environment, the nutrient neutrality approach is to assume that all the phosphorus will at some point reach the site, albeit this may take varying lengths of time and therefore there is the possibility of it contributing to the eutrophication impacts now or in the future. You do not have to be a scientist to realise that this “bathtub principle” is poppycock.
I asked Natural England to provide me with the scientific evidence. It sent me a slim paper repeating its assertions, with a long list of academic references. So I read them. The academic references that Natural England said supported its position argued the reverse. They made it clear that there were major processes for the permanent phosphate losses from the aquatic environment.
As I said in the previous group, this is my specialist subject. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I gave written evidence to the Built Environment Committee on this point. I will not list all the ways in which I said that the scientific papers contradicted the Natural England stance but, in summary, it disregarded a whole range of natural mitigation factors, including: confusing adsorption with absorption; denying percolation to the underlying aquifer; ignoring the precipitation of phosphates in the calcareous soils that are found in the Yare catchment and along the River Wensum; the related effects of high soil pH in locking up phosphates; the effect of dilution by rainwater and the flows out to sea; and the incorporation and deposition of organic manures in the crops and along the brooks and streams.
The ban on housebuilding has been advanced on a completely unscientific, false premise, and one cooked up by Natural England. In short, Natural England’s interpretation of the scientific literature was misleading and mendacious. Its justification used selective quotation to misrepresent the balance of evidence.
Under the regulations, the test is one of significant harm. Natural England has misdirected itself and advised Ministers to substitute “significant” with “any”. How can it be trusted if it acts in this way? Its misrepresentation of the risk of the flushing of toilets in new homes has allowed it to prosecute a war on the housebuilding industry without justification. It is the enemy of growth. I can hardly believe I am going to say it, but this is probably the once and only time I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because she has fingered Natural England in the article in the Times referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as the enemy of growth.
Further, I then scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator, which I found to be loaded with flaws and poor assumptions.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Which amendment is the noble Lord referring to?
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am talking to all of them—particularly those in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey but also Amendment 333.
There is more. I scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator. It used the wrong digital elevation model. It used the wrong areas of influence on sewage treatment works. No allowance was made for excess capacity in the sewage treatment works. I am going to come to a very important point in a moment. The incorrect number of residents per property was assumed, which is significant where there are holiday homes. It assumed much greater water consumption for each house than we knew to be the case. The numbers for manures coming from outdoor pig units were underestimated by somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times, by reference to Defra booklet RB209. Suffice it to say that the calculator is orders of magnitude adrift.
There was then a completely arbitrary 20% buffer applied over and above the calculated number for no justifiable reasons. It was all very shoddy. The dodgy statistics have resulted in an extra £5,000 to £15,000 extra tariff per home for every house built in what is essentially the entirety of the district in which I live and its two neighbours.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerning Part 3 has a particular focus on the role and powers of Natural England. Due to the constraints on time this evening, I will not address each amendment in detail. Many of them are rightly probing in nature. They seek clarification, reassurance and, in some cases, correction. Others go further by proposing the removal of references to Natural England entirely, placing the powers instead with the Secretary of State, who is ultimately accountable to this Parliament. The Secretary of State should in this instance be that of Defra rather than MCHLG, as is suggested in other amendments. I seek clarification from the Minister on this point when she replies. I understand that, as far as EDPs are concerned, Natural England might report to MCHLG rather than Defra. If that were the case I would be appalled because, while Natural England has a lot of scientists who are experts on flora and fauna and Defra has some who understand this, the good thing about Defra civil servants is that they know what they do not know and they go back to Natural England for answers. I would be very worried if EDPs were being driven by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, much of which cannot tell the difference between a bat and a butterfly. We must have a firm answer to that, because it would be very worrying.
I should say at the outset that, later in my speech, I will come on to some of the criticisms of Natural England in terms of this Bill and where its powers should be restricted. However, I will not join in the attacks on Natural England as an institution. I admire greatly my noble friend Lord Caithness’s expertise on biodiversity—he participates in every Bill and adds considerable knowledge to it—but I do not recognise some of the most trenchant criticisms of Natural England in his speeches, both on the previous group and on this one. I have come across its scientific expertise and technical contributions, and I believe that it is widely respected.
My noble friend made a point about staff losses in Natural England. The difficulty is that Natural England is required to recruit highly professional biodiversity students—people with expertise in flora and fauna, and there ain’t many of those about. When they are employed, it is on reasonably low pay; then, as soon as they have got their feet under the table and are highly qualified, they get snapped up by other organisations and Natural England cannot afford to pay at the level required to keep them. Nevertheless, I am confident that it still has sufficient expertise to do its job.
My noble friend Lord Caithness also said that Natural England manages only one national nature reserve. It manages two-thirds of 224 national nature reserves. Criticism was also made of how it runs SSSIs. I was on the board down at Dartmoor when the decision was made. The problem is that Natural England is not allowed to consider any socioeconomic matters, such as the effect on farming. The 2006 Act states simply that, if the scientific evidence is there—that the bugs, beasties, flora and fauna are special and need to be protected—we have no option but to make that decision on scientific grounds. I reject any suggestion that Natural England’s board or others were making perverse decisions on SSSIs and not taking the economy into account.
I say to my noble friend Lady Coffey that it was my understanding that nearly the whole of the coastal path had been signed off and submitted to Ministers for approval. I think that it has nearly all been approved; there may be 20 or 30 miles that have not been. Of course it is not all open yet, because there are construction problems. How do you put a footpath across a mud estuary? There are obstructions from some landowners. I hope that, if not tonight then at some other point, the Minister can answer the question by explaining just how much of the coastal path has been completed by Natural England and the Government.
Those things were slightly not in my brief, but I thought that I would try to deal with some of the points because I was personally involved.
Part 3 hands unprecedented CPO powers to Natural England. These powers will allow Natural England to take land away from owners, not because of public interest infrastructure but to fulfil EDPs. Landowners will be forced to apply for subsidy-style payments from Natural England, yet we are given no detail on how these payments will be set, distributed or enforced; nor are landowners granted the right to refuse. Such a model will fundamentally alter the relationship between the landowner and the state—and do so without adequate consultation, accountability or clear regulatory safeguards.
Under the proposed EDP system, developers will contribute to a centralised fund rather than meeting site-specific environmental obligations. That fund will then be spent by Natural England on generalised environmental improvements elsewhere. This raises serious concerns. We will be not only replacing local mitigation with a remote offsetting scheme but creating a system in which Natural England becomes the operational body, the financial manager and the regulator all in one; in that regard, I agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller. This is a recipe for conflict of interest, lack of oversight and delivery risk. Natural England will be responsible for monitoring and governing the very schemes that it has designed and funded. Worryingly, there is no separation of powers, no mechanism for appeal and no guarantee of delivery.
The consequences of that will be profound. Planning authorities, which bear the ultimate responsibility for approving development, will rightly be cautious about relying on untested, underfunded and centrally managed EDPs. The result may well be an increase in planning refusals, not fewer. We must look seriously at Natural England’s capacity to carry out this enormous new responsibility. So I ask the Minister: how many EDPs will Natural England be expected to prepare, over what timescale, and with what funding and staffing?
Despite huge increases in funding by the last Government, we know that Natural England is still underresourced and understaffed to do all the new work that it will have to do. As it stands, it does not have the capacity to deliver what Part 3 is asking of it. Beyond funding, it will have the problem of finding the skilled ecologists required to make this work—hundreds of them on top of the thousands of new planners, builders and tradespeople needed for our broader planning ambitions. As I said earlier, as Natural England is competing to get those experts, you can bet that outside bodies and developers will also be grabbing them so that they can have answers and challenge the EDP decisions. The issues of funding certainty and operational capacity are not theoretical; they are central. The funding pipeline through the nature restoration fund is inherently unpredictable. How can Natural England plan and deliver on this basis?
Lastly, I turn to the proportionality of the powers that we are considering. Under Part 3, Natural England will be granted forcible entry powers, compulsory purchase order powers and the ability to set its own fees, all without direct parliamentary accountability. These powers could extend even to gardens and allotments—a proposition that should give all noble Lords some pause.
I know the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns raised in this group and that we can engage constructively with her on this issue moving forward. I end as I began by saying, yes, these are the criticisms I have of the proposed powers in the Bill, but I do not accept some of the more trenchant criticisms of the success of Natural England to date. Yes, mistakes have been made and there are difficulties, but nevertheless there are a lot of good people trying to do a good job for biodiversity in this country, and I was one of them.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeking to amend Clauses 53 to 55, 57 to 59, 86 and 88 of the Bill. I will consider the amendments together as they relate to the role of Natural England and who can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP.
I turn to the amendments that seek to remove Natural England as the body that can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP named in the Bill, as well as adding Natural England to the list of consultees for an EDP. We believe that Natural England is the most suitable delivery body, given its expertise in relation to protected sites and species, existing statutory functions and powers and ability to work right across England. Removing Natural England as the body that can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP would also remove the intentional checks and balances between the role of Natural England and the Secretary of State. I confirm that, as it stands in the Bill, the Secretary of State referred to is that for MHCLG, but clearly Defra and MHCLG work very closely together during this process.
Natural England is responsible for developing an EDP for submission to the Secretary of State and the implementation of that EDP after it has been made. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the Secretary of State is accountable for determining that a draft EDP meets the overall improvement test, making the EDP and taking remedial action if delivery falls short.
Were the amendments to pass and all legal responsibilities passed to the Secretary of State, Natural England, as the Government’s adviser on the natural environment, would still need to support the Secretary of State in preparing and delivering conservation measures. However, without being named in the Bill, it would not have the necessary powers and functions to enable efficient delivery or to provide assurance of the rigour of an EDP independently of the Secretary of State.
The Bill contains many safeguards to ensure that the body, which is charged with developing and implementing an EDP, performs its role to enable development and deliver improved environmental outcomes. With these safeguards, and recognising the relevant expertise held in Natural England, we feel it is right to reflect in the Bill the central role that Natural England will play.
More broadly, I highlight that the Government are taking concerns about the efficacy of the regulatory landscape incredibly seriously and are already taking action off the back of the Corry review—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for recognising that—to ensure that the regulatory landscape and all the relevant actors in the system are performing as effectively as possible, because we need to give greater confidence. We are already expediting several of the recommendations made by Dan Corry, and I will mention a few of those.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today. I should have mentioned my noble friend Lord Caithness, who co-signed a lot—pretty much every single amendment—in that group. I am grateful to him. The Minister may have attracted a few more questions than she answered in certain areas, but I am sure that we will return to aspects of this on Report.
I assure noble Lords that I am not trying to carry out a big attack on Natural England. We want it to succeed at improving nature, but there are too many examples of it already having stuff to get on with, such as SSSIs. I will debate separately with my noble friend Lord Blencathra what I said about the coastal path being an example, because I am relying on data that was published just last month. There are other stories I could tell, but they could perhaps wait for another group or another debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Lord Roborough
“(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Natural England or a person designated under section 86 of this Act, about the making of an EDP and they must comply with any such guidance.(5) Guidance issued under subsection (4) above may include—(a) where and how draft EPDs should be published for public consultation,(b) guidance on minimum development thresholds for an EDP,(c) the types of measures that may be included as conservation measures, and(d) the use of its compulsory purchase powers, with a particular view to ensuring that—(i) the powers are not used in a manner which would threaten the viability of an existing agricultural business,(ii) the use of the powers takes account of the need to protect domestic food security, and (iii) to ensure that the impacts of the use of such powers on important social and cultural traditions, such as those that exist around common land, are protected.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that the Secretary of State has a power to issue guidance to Natural England or a designated person about the preparation of an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would clarify that the Secretary of State may issue statutory guidance to Natural England or any person preparing an EDP, with they must which comply. We have heard concerns during debates on Part 3 of the Bill about Natural England’s ability to manage EDPs. We also know that 160,000 houses are being held back by Natural England’s guidance on nutrient neutrality. This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has greater control over the process by which EDPs are made. This would give Ministers the tools they need to ensure that Part 3 is effective in delivering on their intentions.
Does the Minister agree that this discretionary power granted to Ministers would be helpful in a hypothetical circumstance where Natural England’s implementation of EDPs does not follow the Government’s intentions? I will be arguing in later groups, in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey, that Natural England should continue to report solely to the Secretary of State for Defra rather than to MHCLG as is planned in this Bill. I am deeply concerned that reporting to two separate departments is likely to lead to significant complications in management, direction and allocation of resources.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra are sensible. Amendment 270A would require Natural England to have regard to any local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP. The interaction between EDPs, the mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity net gain is complex for developers already, but the interaction between EDPs and other strategies for local nature recovery is also complex, especially where the conservation measures specified within an EDP interact with them. My noble friend is right that these should be taken into account by Natural England, and we are interested to hear whether the Government will accept this amendment.
Amendment 277A limits the number of EDPs that Natural England may make each year. This speaks to questions about Natural England’s suitability as the body for making EDPs. I know that several noble Lords have expressed their frustration with specific cases where Natural England has not got things right. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what assurances she has had from Natural England in respect of its plans to ensure that it has the appropriate staffing and skills in place to deliver its functions under Part 3 of the Bill efficiently and effectively. This part of the Bill is designed to unlock development, so any delays or mistakes that have to be resolved at Natural England will hinder the achievement of that overall objective.
The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Caithness are all sensible amendments that probe some of the crucial questions on EDPs. The reality is that we have still not got real clarity about how well EDPs will fit into the existing environmental protections regime. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has done some very good work on trying to understand, as the Minister described earlier, exactly how this new process for developers fits into the wider picture. I hope that the Minister can help clarify these issues further from the Dispatch Box today. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231, moved by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and will also speak to the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Currently, the Bill requires the EDP to set out the measures to be taken to address the identified impact on environmental features and to achieve overall improvement. However, no justification or explanation is required, and I believe that that is wrong.
Amendment 249 is needed to ensure that an EDP states that the scientific basis for the conservation measures is considered appropriate, as this will provide greater confidence in the ability of the EDP to contribute to an overall improvement and therefore improved outcomes for nature. Monitoring will also be key to achieving success, as required by Clause 57(7), so it is important that this and associated costs are set out in the EDP under Clause 55(6). In addition, this amendment seeks to link the EDP with local nature recovery strategies and other relevant policies, so that it is clear how it contributes to local nature, and to identify the time frame required, given that this would vary in accordance with the impact being addressed.
Amendment 274 requires Natural England to define at an early stage the proposed conservation measures and then seek expressions of interest from persons or organisations as to their suitability to deliver these. This is key, as it opens up the opportunity for private sector involvement and would also help NE to meet its obligation under Section 57(2). I pose the same question as I did earlier to the Minister: given how Natural England has treated BioCore, as I mentioned earlier, what confidence can she give the Committee that Natural England will treat the private sector in a proper and fair manner when it comes to EDPs? If it does not, it will only be doing EDPs itself, and it will become state-owned and a disaster.
I turn now to Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and myself. This amendment refers to the land use framework, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, when we were discussing Amendment 214. I am sorry that she is not in her place. This amendment is to ensure that the choice of land and the choice of land management practice to be used for an EDP are not directly contrary to the principles laid out in the coming land use framework. In the same way that some of us might balk at the idea of using first-class food-producing land for, say, solar panels, we might equally balk at such high-production land being set aside solely for biodiversity. I emphasise the word “solely”, because you can produce food and biodiversity from the best land if it is managed properly. I believe it would be sensible if this Bill pre-empted the production of the land use framework and made allowance for its appearance on the scene.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I attended the drop-in session last week with representatives of Natural England and listened carefully to what the Minister said in winding up the previous group. We are starting to get a feel for how the process by which we might even get to the start line under Clause 53 will work. There will be a process by which Natural England proposes some research, identification, some assessment of some proposals—whether it be for bats, bluebells or barnacles, it does not really matter. It will make recommendations to Ministers, and there will be some proposals and presumably some draft procurement, because with the proposal must come some sort of idea of how the EDP is to be done. There will be some consultation, selection, regulations, pricing, final procurement and legal work. I think the figure that came to mind when we had the drop-in was that it will take about three and a half years. There are less than four years of this Government remaining—three and three-quarters.
So, if the process contemplated by Clause 53 proceeds, it will not result in a single new home being delivered and occupied within this Parliament. What sort of timescale does the Minister have for the implementation and the first benefits? When will the first person be able to move into a home that has been unlocked by these EDP processes?
There is another point. Before we even get to that stage, there has to be an approach to what Natural England, if it acts as the operator, will be providing. Will it be offering to developers a permit or a licence? A permit tends to be a tradable asset, but the last thing that anybody in Defra who has a long memory will want is to go back to the days of milk quotas, whereas a licence can be surrendered at the point at which it is not needed. We need clarity on this before we even get to the consultation side on the EDP. Then there is the multiple layering: we have biodiversity net gain for 30 years and nutrient neutrality for 80 years, while the EDP is made to last for only 10 years. We need some clarity.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 253 in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give me some comfort as to the Government’s intention towards the private schemes—after all, the Minister and I were both involved in the Environment Bill when it was going through. We set up a system where people were making 30-year commitments to look after a piece of land properly, and now the whole system appears to have been turned on its head. No one knows what its future is, nor whether they should be going ahead with the schemes that they have put together to provide the biodiversity net gain where it cannot be provided on the site.
One farm owned by my local council is entirely suitable for restoration of the best quality chalk grassland, but the scheme is dead in the water. Nobody knows what the Government’s intentions are. Will this be viable? When we get EDPs, will everything be undermined by Natural England doing it itself? Will there be a role for the private sector in this area? Nothing is certain any more.
When you set out to get people involved for 30 years, there really ought to be an understanding on both sides of the House that the 30 years should be respected and that we should try to keep things stable for that length of time. Can the Government give me, and the people I find myself talking to, a real understanding of what their intentions are with respect to all that the private sector has done to date and might do in the future? What direction are we setting out in and what comfort can the Government give that it is worthwhile for the sector continuing to do what it has started to do? I should be very grateful to hear.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. We cannot think about EDPs in splendid isolation. It is important that we as a Committee look at the wider context, including biodiversity net gain, that the EDPs will slot into. In that regard, it is incredibly important that, before we get to Report, the Government make clear their response to the consultation that they launched on biodiversity net gain, which closed before recess. If the Government were to decide to significantly change biodiversity net gain for the smaller sites that are up for grabs, it would have hugely detrimental impacts for the environment. It is important for us to know that before Report, so that we can then think about other amendments we might wish to bring forward.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 261 is to be considered in this group. Specifically, it would require that an EDP must pay not just regard but due regard to the local nature recovery strategy that has been published by the appropriate public authorities for that area.
This matters. We have been on this journey, right across the country. I genuinely believe that, rather than the EDPs we are debating, the local nature recovery strategies will be the building blocks of how we rescue nature in this country. The reason for that is that local people know what is going on, and have a sense of the relationship between place and their community, and there are powers in local government to consider not only planning decisions but other aspects of infrastructure that come together towards it. By and large, across our country, the local nature recovery strategies are being made at county level, though that is not true in every geographic county. There are some unitary councils—such as Northamptonshire, though I cannot remember the reason now—where they are split in two, which is somewhat sad.
Nature knows no boundaries of administrative convenience of how councils are determined. Building on the Lawton principles, which will be absolutely vital in trying to ensure that we have nature recovery, it is important that public authorities at the higher level—key to this is that it is the upper tier, not the lower tier, that tends to do the planning—have due regard to the discussions about what has been put in place. That will have already gone through extensive consultation, as is happening right now, right around the country.
Earl Russell (LD)
I will speak briefly to this group of degrouped amendments, which all look at various aspects of the relationship between Natural England and the scope and framework of timetables for an EDP. I will speak to Amendments 231, 249, 253C and 274. Taken together, they are about strengthening the framework for environmental delivery plans and helping to provide further clarity, safeguards and accountability. I am reading all those amendments as having a probing nature, asking questions and seeking further clarification from the Minister.
Amendment 231, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks clarification that the Secretary of State should be able to issue guidance to Natural England or any designated authority on how an environmental delivery plan is prepared. I assume this is about ensuring consistency across the country, setting clear frameworks for public consultation and providing further protections.
Amendment 249, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is about adding detail and transparency. This amendment would require environmental delivery plans to be monitored and to show their scientific basis, alignment with local policies and the timeframes for addressing environmental impacts. Again, this is about making sure that plans stand up to scrutiny and deliver measurable results.
My noble friend has already spoken to Amendment 253C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so I will note the comments that have been made already.
Amendment 274, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord, Caithness, would require Natural England at the outset to define the measures it believes necessary and to invite expressions of interest for their delivery from persons or organisations.
Finally, Amendment 277A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would limit the number of EDPs Natural England is expected to prepare in the first two years to four in the first year and 12 in the second, and, if capacity permits, that that could be extended. I assume that this is a probing amendment. It would definitely be better if it was. I am interested in the Minister’s response to how many EDPs the Government think there is capacity for.
Taken together, as I said, these are probing amendments seeking further clarification from the Government.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments considers the preparation of EDPs and what they are required to contain. Many of the amendments seek to add various matters to which Natural England should have regard when preparing an EDP. These matters include the scientific evidence base for conservation measures, how the EDP relates to local policies, the local nature recovery strategy, the land use framework and the timeframe required to address environmental impacts. The Bill, as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments that we have already tabled, requires these matters to be taken into account. I can therefore assure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary, as these matters will already be adequately considered when developing an EDP.
Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would add three requirements to the preparation of an EDP: first, requiring the conservation measures to be used to address the environmental impact of development to be defined; secondly, creating a pre-consultation period for EDPs, during which expressions of interest to deliver the conservation measures must be sought from appropriate persons or bodies; and, thirdly, publishing the expressions of interest should the EDP proceed to be made. The first of these is already addressed in the existing provisions in Clause 55. The existing provisions also allow Natural England to delegate functions to other bodies, including those in the private sector. Specifying a particular procurement method and creating an additional pre-consultation period would be unnecessarily restrictive, given that EDPs will need to be tailored to the specific local and environmental circumstances. The land use framework and other strategies that we are developing in Defra, such as the food strategy, will obviously be part of any consideration. We all work together very closely. We talk to each other, which may surprise some noble Lords, because we want these to be delivered effectively.
Amendment 231 seeks to provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP, specifying various topics that this guidance may cover. It would then require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with this guidance. As noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance on key matters that Natural England must have regard to when carrying out functions under this part. Guidance should be used to guide Natural England, not to compel it. This would be more appropriate for a regulation-making power, which is subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will still be able to make guidance on any relevant matter and will be able to assess the extent to which it has been applied when making the EDP.
We believe that Amendment 277A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be unnecessary, as Natural England will operate only within its capacity when it is producing EDPs.
Turning to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 253C, regarding the interrelation of the NRF model and existing biodiversity net gain arrangements, I assure noble Lords that the NRF and biodiversity net gain are distinct but complementary policies. The NRF will focus on enabling development that encounters specific environmental obligations relating to impacts on protected sites and species, whereas BNG applies to all new developments, bar the limited exceptions.
I come to the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, regarding the consultation on BNG, when we would get its outcome and whether that would be before Report. It is a pertinent question, and I will take it back and look into it for noble Lords.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to give him reassurance, the NRF will not affect the existing requirement to deliver BNG. That is a free-standing obligation outside the NRF. I hope that, with this clarification, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
May I just ask whether the Minister would give some consideration to the question I posed: at what stage, following the pattern set out in Clause 53 and all the rounds of consultation, procurement and devising of schemes, does she think the first dwelling house will be completed and somebody occupies it? Will it be in this Parliament, or the next?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, I cannot give a precise date to the noble Lord, but we know that Natural England has indicated that the areas on which it has substantial evidence and information at the moment—for example, nutrient neutrality and on newts—are the ones that it will move ahead for. These are the areas that it already has the information on to produce an early EDP.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said. She confirmed that the EDP will state the scientific basis for the conservation measures proposed. What happens if one thinks that the scientific basis is wrong? Given Natural England’s track record so far, how does one get to challenge that when one thinks it is wrong? That is going to be very important.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I cannot remember whether it was in the previous debate or the one before that, but I clarified that a vehicle for challenge is available. It is there. I cannot remember if it was mentioned in the previous debate or the one before that.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply to this group. If Ministers choose to press ahead with Part 3 of the Bill, developers, local authorities and other interested parties need clarity on how EDPs will work in practice.
We are going to return to the question of private sector involvement in EDPs and the duration and timing of EDPs in later groups. I would just say that, on the guidance point, it is far from reassuring if that guidance is coming from the MHCLG on the environmental impact of these EDPs. It just seems completely wrong, and we will return to that later. In the meantime, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“(6A) When specifying the maximum amount of development in reference to the metrics in subsection (6), Natural England must consult qualified surveyors from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 233, I shall also speak to Amendment 283A in my name. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough, who has Amendments 281A to 282 in his name, all of which sit within this important group concerning consultation on environmental delivery plans.
As ever, the detail matters, and in this case the missing detail is the voice of those most directly affected—the landowners and farmers who will be expected not only to comply with, but often to deliver the outcomes envisaged in EDPs.
As my noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned at Second Reading, the Secretary of State in the other place remarked that,
“we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/25; col. 427.]
That is a generous sentiment. Nowhere in the Bill, however, do we see any requirement for Natural England to consult land managers and farmers or, indeed, to work with them at all in delivering environmental improvement within EDPs.
At a time when the Government impose the family death tax on farms, slash delinked payments and slam shut the door on SFI applications with minimal notice, I am surprised that Ministers have not seized this opportunity to allow farmers and landowners to be part of the solution, commercially and practically, by providing environmental services to developers or to Natural England itself.
That brings me to the amendments in my name. Amendment 233 ensures that when Natural England is specifying the maximum amount of development permissible under an EDP, it must consult qualified surveyors from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. This is not a bureaucratic embellishment. Instead, it is about ensuring that land value, local economic conditions and development viability are properly understood by professionals who work in this space every day. Without their input, we risk setting thresholds that are arbitrary, potentially unworkable and, in some cases, detrimental to both development and conservation goals. Let me take a moment to explain why this is not merely desirable but essential.
Clause 54(5) and (6) require Natural England to determine and
“specify the maximum amount of development”
that an EDP may apply to, and this may be defined, according to the Bill, by area, on floor space, the number of buildings or units, the values or expected values, or the scale, in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects. These are not ecological metrics, they are economic, planning and valuation judgments, yet quite simply, Natural England does not have, in my opinion, a single person who knows how to do these metrics.
Some of my noble friends may profoundly disagree with me on this, but when Natural England considers scientific criteria for SSSIs, it produces experts of the highest calibre, world-renowned specialists in species and habitat conservation. That is the strength of Natural England, but valuing property is not. We do not need to speculate on this. I am not revealing any board confidences here, because Natural England’s own 2023-24 annual accounts make this crystal clear. On heritage assets, it states:
“There is valuation uncertainty affecting Natural England’s heritage assets because there is limited market evidence of comparable assets being bought and sold”.
That line stems from a change in international accounting standards that required Natural England to revalue its national nature reserves from an historical rating to a current one. For three years, not one auditor, not one surveyor, not a single person in Natural England could arrive at an agreed valuation. Why? Because Natural England does not do this work; it was never designed to. So I ask: if Natural England cannot put a value on a nature reserve, which, depending on your view, is either absolutely priceless or worthless because you cannot build on it, how on earth can it make informed decisions on the scale or value of commercial development? How can biodiversity experts determine whether, say, five acres of housing is better or worse than five acres of an Amazon distribution shed or an AI data centre drawing on vast quantities of water?
These are not theoretical questions, they are real-world decisions with significant implications, and Natural England is asked to pronounce on them in Clause 54. How can Natural England assess the number of units within buildings or predict how those units might be used, particularly in commercial or mixed-use developments, when such usage can change frequently depending on the occupancy of the tenants? Lastly, how can Natural England pronounce on values or expected values, which lie firmly in the realm of chartered surveyors, when even they would preface their valuation with caveats or “depending on local markets”, planning conditions, service access, environmental strengths, and so on.
This clause as it stands is unworkable. At best, it asks Natural England to make judgments it is unqualified to make. At worst, it risks undermining both development viability and environmental outcomes through guesswork or error. Amendment 233, therefore, is not only a safeguard, it is an enabler. It would ensure that decisions are made with the right expertise at the table. Without it, we are, in effect, asking marine biologists to assess logistic parts and entomologists to forecast land values.
Amendment 283A is a practical one. It would change the consultation period on draft EDPs from 28 to 40 working days. For many, 28 days is simply not long enough to engage meaningfully with what can be highly technical and significant documents. Forty working days is not excessive. It aligns with best practice elsewhere in the planning system and gives consultees a fair chance to respond constructively.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough, I also commend his Amendments 281A and 281B, which would require Natural England to consult with both farmers and landowners after an EDP has been prepared. It is crucial that consultation is not limited to the early stages but continues throughout the process, particularly once the practical implications for those on the ground become clear. Successful environmental management depends on partnership.
These amendments are not hostile to the principle of EDPs. On the contrary, they would help to make them work. They would build trust. They would increase buy-in. They would make the outcomes more deliverable. If we treat farmers and landowners as partners, not passive recipients of policy handed down from above, we are far more likely to achieve the landscape restoration that we all want. Indeed, when I joined the Natural England board in 2018, it had just launched a policy called “working in partnership”, or something like that. I cannot remember the exact name, but it was moving the whole strategy from one of merely trying to enforce things into working in partnership with landowners.
To that end, we also support the sentiment of Amendment 280 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, which rightly seeks to ensure that neighbouring authorities with a local nature reserve strategy must be consulted.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is not in his place at the moment, but when we were talking about EDPs, he said that a senior Natural England official said it was the most exciting thing in his lifetime. Maybe that is the same senior official who told us three years ago when looking at the Environment Act 2021 of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, that local nature recovery strategies were the greatest step forward in nature recovery in British history and he was really excited about them. I presume he has now switched his loyalty to EDPs instead. Local nature recovery strategies are absolutely vital to delivering nature recovery in every inch of England. Amendment 285 makes it clear that all the bodies listed under Clause 59 should be consulted by Natural England. That is good governance.
We are asking for something very modest here: that those who will be most affected by EDPs have a seat at the table and the time to consider what has been asked of them. These are constructive, proportionate and necessary amendments, and I hope the Government will consider them carefully. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 280 is in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for explaining it so succinctly. It is exactly that; in this part of the Bill, there is a whole list of local authorities mentioned as being required to be consulted. I agree with that official from three years ago that local nature recovery strategies are going to be the thing that makes a lot of this happen. My amendment is self-explanatory, and I hope that Ministers will include it on Report.
Earl Russell (LD)
I rise very briefly to speak to this group of amendments, which are all on consultations on EDPs. Considering the time, I am going to be even more brief than I have been before. While I welcome and look forward to the Minister’s response to all the amendments in this group, I particularly support Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their amendments, which all address the consultation requirements for EDPs. Those noble Lords who have heard me speak in the House on many occasions will know that I love consultation. It is really important, but it is important that it is also done properly.
As I set out in my opening statement on the NRF model as a whole, we recognise the importance of allowing relevant authorities, businesses and individuals to have their say on the development of EDPs. It is for this reason we have included a requirement that all EDPs are subject to public consultation. We have also proposed government amendments to clarify the consultation requirements when amending an EDP.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked a number of questions about Natural England’s planning and evaluation expertise in bringing forward an EDP. Many of his questions related directly to the planning process and such decisions would be taken by the local planning authority or, of course, the Secretary of State if it was a nationally significant infrastructure project. Looking at what Natural England’s role is, discussion with the relevant experts would of course be an important part of any development of an EDP. Natural England would use surveys and consider the best available scientific evidence to assess how developments of any given type will impact on the relevant environmental feature. This process will then allow Natural England to set a maximum amount of development which can be covered by that EDP. The Bill also gives the opportunity for this to be included in guidance.
Local nature recovery strategies are an important tool protecting nature, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for highlighting the important role that these can play in informing EDPs. There is already a requirement in the Bill for Natural England to consider local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP and a further duty to consult local planning authorities for the relevant area, which should be expected to include consideration of their LNRS. We also understand that, depending on the content of an EDP, certain sectors may have particular interests in specific EDPs, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for raising their interests at this stage.
Through the existing public consultation requirements, any group, business or individual—this would of course include farmers and land managers—who is affected by an EDP will have the opportunity to respond to the proposed EDP and raise any concerns. For the purposes of each EDP, it would not be practical for Natural England to go to each business in a whole sector, such as the fishing sector, due to the large number that it would need to consult. Nor would the Government wish to impose any duty or obligation to respond to a consultation on private businesses.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I need to stress the importance of involving farmers and landowners as partners working with the Government on this if we are to be successful in restoring our environment and getting proper nature recovery.
The Minister has just said that 28 days is a minimum. The normal planning rule is 40, so why not put in the Bill that it should be 40 days, rather than the minimum, which the Secretary of State might extend? I would be sceptical that the Secretary of State would extend those dates—I suspect they will want the minimum possible for any consultation.
The points we have raised today reinforce that, without proper engagement, we risk implementing policies that may be impractical or detrimental both economically and environmentally. The Minister said that of course Natural England would consult various experts on the size of units and the cost evaluations. That is an awful lot of different people to consult. I am not convinced that the answer she gave will be practical. The idea of involving the chartered surveyors is probably the only way to go, but I will read again very carefully what she said.
The amendments before us are modest and crucial. They seek to embed meaningful consultation throughout the life cycle of environmental delivery plans, ensuring that those who must deliver these outcomes have a real voice at the table. This is not about opposition but collaboration. It is building trust and getting buy-in. If you have them sitting around the table and being consulted, they are more likely to buy in, deliver better and have more sustainable outcomes for the environment and rural communities alike. Having said that, and having listened to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Caithness
Member's explanatory statement
This seeks to ensure that there is no time drift from the granting of planning permission to the start of the delivery of the EDP.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 234, I will also speak to Amendments 235 and 236, in reverse order. Clause 54(7) relates to the start and end dates of an EDP. To ensure meaningful outcomes, the EDP timeframe should not be specified in legislation as it will clearly depend on the nature of the environmental impact and the conservation measures required.
I am sure we all agree that restoring and recreating some habitats can take considerable time to achieve full functionality. Given climate change and other environmental impacts, EDP measures will require adaptive management, hence the need for review and ongoing monitoring. What happens at the end of 10 years? How do we retain the overall improvement? How do we know that a developer will not change the new site? How do we know that a farmer will not return the site to food production in the wrong way? These are hugely important questions in order to fulfil an EDP and I do not believe it should be limited to 10 years.
Given that it is going to take a long time, I need now to look at the start date, because it is vital that, the moment planning permission is granted and thus the loss of a protected site or species is imminent, Natural England should get on with it. According to Clause 58, there is a lot of process and consultation to be carried out, and so not a moment is to be lost. We must bear in mind that the Government are legally committed to halting the decline in our biodiversity by 2030. The concern of the start date moved my noble friend Lord Cameron to poetry. He sends his apologies to Andrew Marvell, as he penned these words:
“Had we but world enough and time,
Delay my Lords would be no crime.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near.
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity
Where nature bids us all good-bye”.
We need to fire a starting gun to ensure that Natural England gets on with it, hence the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses concerns that EDPs, as drafted in this Bill and despite the welcome improvements offered by the Government, create considerable unease over their effectiveness and the timeliness with which they will be developed to address the harm being done elsewhere.
Amendment 235A in my name recognises that 10 years is a blink of an eye in environmental terms. It might take only days to destroy a natural environment, but it takes decades to restore it and centuries to return to a more natural state. In our environment, the fastest-maturing native trees take over 30 years to mature and the slowest take over a century. Likewise, it can take decades to restore a blanket bog or peatland.
My Amendment 235B suggests 30 years as the appropriate timeframe for an EDP. The advantage of 30 years, as opposed to 10, is simply that this is a proxy for our own generational timing; that in itself is appealing, but this is also consistent with biodiversity net gain units. I fail to understand why 10 years has been regarded as appropriate for EDPs, and I look forward to the Minister explaining why this should be so. In that regard, I prefer this to Amendment 236 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. However, his Amendment 234 is a sensible measure that would ensure there is a coincidence in the timing of the EDP and the commencement of the development.
One of the concerns expressed by developers is the reputational risk they carry if they are undertaking a development which has included the NRL as its environmental contribution, but there is no evidence of the EDP associated with that development occurring. I am sure the Minister can understand this concern and will be keen to ensure that developers do not carry that reputational risk to the actions or lack of action by Natural England.
I hope the Minister can reassure us in her reply to this short debate that these concerns are being addressed. However, there is a strong case that these issues should be dealt with in the Bill, rather than relying on guidance that can change over time. The obligations around timeliness and effectiveness of EDPs are simply too loose in the Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will speak to his Amendment 265, which has a notable similarity to Amendment 237 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. If the noble Lord were here, I am sure he would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for co-signing the amendment, as I did.
Amendment 265 deals with one of the fundamental concerns that we have with EDPs: the issue of timing. As it currently stands, if you have to engage with the habitats regulations or biodiversity net gain, remedial measures have to take effect before the developments are undertaken. In contrast, that is not the case for the EDPs. There is the fundamental question: what happens if the desired mitigation measures, as outlined in EDPs, do not happen? They might not happen for a number of reasons; for example, because some of the money may not come in from the developers—they have the right to appeal, as we have heard in earlier debates—or because not enough developers sign up for an EDP and therefore not all the measures can be delivered. In that case, you do not get enough of a quantitative biodiversity gain to deliver the mitigation measures for what may have already taken place in a site that has already been damaged.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, does two things. First, it calls for an implementation schedule for an EDP, and I believe that the Minister, in summing up, will say whether government Amendment 245A partly addresses that by promising an implementation schedule. However, I have not seen anything from the government amendments that deals with the more fundamental issue that the remedial measures for an EDP do not come until after the damage has been done. Secondly, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that, if Natural England believes that there will be irreversible damage, those measures have to be undertaken before the damage is caused. That is the issue on which we are seeking some reassurances from the Minister this morning, and if we do not get them, I am sure that we will return to it on Report.
Earl Russell (LD)
I will very briefly speak to my Amendment 237. I apologise to the Committee; I had not realised just how similar my amendment was to the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to which my noble friend has just spoken. My noble friend made all the arguments that I was going to make. I absolutely agree there is a risk here, and I think the Committee wants further reassurance. It is a real worry to lots of people that this damage can be done before mitigation measures are put in place. Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is probably better worded than my own, so I will likely not press my amendment between now and Report. These are important issues, and we seek further reassurance on these matters. Without that, I am sure that an amendment doing this will come up on Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments relate to conservation measures and their implementation. They seek to add provisions on a range of matters related to the design and implementation of conservation measures. The Bill as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments we have tabled in Committee, already require or enable these matters to be addressed in an EDP. I therefore trust that, in discussing these amendments, I can assure the Committee that the existing provisions, bolstered by the proposed government amendments, already require or enable consideration of the points raised.
Amendment 234, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to require that an EDP start date must be within six months of the date of any planning permission granted in reliance of that EDP. Development cannot rely on an EDP until the EDP is in place, and so planning permission could not be granted in reliance on an EDP without that EDP having been made by the Secretary of State. As the EDP will always be in place before planning consent can be granted in reliance on the EDP, I trust the noble Earl can be assured on this point.
As part of the package of government amendments, we will also now require EDPs to set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of conservation measures, with specific reference to the timing of development coming forward. This will provide additional assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development. This would include detail as to whether and which conservation measures must be in place in advance of development coming forward, ensuring that no irreversible harm could occur to an environmental feature. This would form part of the Secretary of State’s assessment of whether an EDP would pass the overall improvement test. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, proposes a requirement that the end date of an EDP must be appropriate to the conservation measures proposed, and that the EDP must include a review date. The end date of an EDP cannot be more than 10 years from the date it comes into force. This is to ensure that there is clarity that the overall improvement will be achieved no later than 10 years after the EDP is put in place. However, there is nothing to prevent an earlier end date being specified for an EDP where that would be appropriate either for the type of development or the environmental feature.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply; I will have to study it with some care, given the time of night, but a lot of it did not make much sense to me.
The Minister talked about clarity and how the overall improvement needs to be demonstrated by a certain date. She also said that we need to demonstrate an environmental benefit as soon as possible. Nature does not work like that. What if there is a flood? What happens if there is drought for two years? All sorts of things in nature can put down the best schemes. You can certainly demonstrate all this on paper from Marsham Street, York or Peterborough but, out in the real world—if only Natural England would get out there—it is a very different story. My noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned planting deciduous trees. By the time they are 10 years old, they are not very high; they still need a heck of a lot of work. Blanket bog takes years. Goodness, I have lived on blanket bog in Caithness; I know that you cannot re-wet it overnight.
This is environmental theory, not practice, but I will read what the Minister said. We will come back to this on Report but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Lansley to Clause 55, line 35 would secure that each of the environmental features which are likely to be negatively affected by a development are identified in the EDP and the ways in which that effect is caused is also identified.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was talking about the various views that were being taken on Part 3. The beauty of Committee is that we can ride all those horses. The particular horse with which I am concerned is trying to find for the Bill precise drafting language that achieves precisely what is intended and is as clear as possible about what we intend.
As we get into Clause 55, we are in one of the central provisions where the environmental features and the impact of development on such features must be identified, all in the environmental delivery plan, as must the conservation measures needed to secure the overall impact. We will come on to debate the overall improvement test. I note that Amendment 266 is in this group but I am not quite sure why; I think properly it should be in the group relating to the overall improvement test, which we will get to on Wednesday.
The most important amendment in this group is not mine but the Government’s Amendment 247A, the effect of which is to add specific language about the conservation measures that will have to be taken offsite and what is required in those to secure the overall improvement test: that they will
“make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than measures that address the environmental impact of development on the feature at the protected site itself”.
That is a helpful amendment as part of the package of amendments that have enabled the structure of the Bill and the objectives to be slightly better than they started out.
Amendment 238 comes at the beginning of Clause 55 and relates to the identification of the environmental features likely to be negatively affected by a development. We know what the protected features of a protected site or a protected species are because those are set out in Clause 92, on the interpretation of this part. I am interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has to say about her amendment and I will wait to hear that.
Amendment 238 would amend Clause 55(1), where the Bill says that an environmental delivery plan must identify
“one or more environmental features which are likely to be … affected”.
I want to check precisely what the Government are trying to achieve by the words “one or more”. If they are worried that an environmental delivery plan may be challenged because not all the environmental features are identified, I do not think this drafting is helpful. If an environmental development plan does not identify an environmental feature that is likely to be affected by development, it is potentially able to be challenged in any case, and I do not think the language “one or more” would escape from that risk. The environmental features are the starting point of an environmental delivery plan. If one does not correctly identify the environmental features likely to be affected, that plan seems to me by its nature to be flawed. So why the words “one or more”? There will not be none or there would not be an environmental delivery plan. If there is more than one, it would be wrong for the environmental delivery plan not to take account and identify those, and leaving them out would make it flawed.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to my amendments, I will talk to them briefly. First, I welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, which improve Part 3 processes in response to the pressures in the other place on the Bill and the OEP verdict of significant environmental regression.
My Amendment 240A is a bit nerdy at this time of night but noble Lords should pay attention because there will be an examination at the end. It replaces “may” with “must”, in that
“environmental features identified in an EDP must”—
not may—
“be either a protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species”.
I think the clause as drafted could result in unintended consequences. For example, Natural England might identify an assemblage of species rather than a single species as the environmental feature covered by the EDP, such as the entire bat assemblage of a particular area—I use the word “bat” advisedly.
If this were done, the overall improvement in that feature could be said to occur if, say, half the species in that assemblage were expected to benefit, even if one or two of the rarest and most important species in the assemblage were to be driven to local extinction. It would risk this trade-off within a sort of bulk buy of species, and would definitely risk that species that are more difficult to make alternative provision for would be sacrificed in exchange for benefits being delivered to the easier species. My amendment would require EDPs to address species and features individually, not as part of an EDP bulk purchase.
Amendment 251A in my name is a separate amendment, which raises an issue that I do not think has been raised elsewhere. It seeks to establish what happens with the ongoing protection of habitats that are created by way of compensation under an EDP. It cannot be right that compensation habitats are created under an EDP to replace species and habitat features that currently have the highest level of protection when the habitat that is there to compensate for them has no level of protection whatever. That cannot be the right outcome but, from the way I read the Bill, after the EDP’s end date, there is no clarity about their conservation status.
In the past, there have been pretty notorious examples of compensation habitat subsequently being trashed, often by successive development, neglect or land-use change. When the extension of the M4 across the Gwent Levels was being proposed, we had the distressing consequence that the habitat that was created to compensate for the road extension was promptly put back up for grabs when the next road extension took place. That was fought off, mercifully, but the further road extension was going to go through the very compensated habitat that was put in place for the first road extension.
I was involved in the creation of the new village of Cambourne, just outside Cambridge, which had compensatory habitat designed into the development. The developers worked very successfully with Natural England and the local wildlife trust. I declare an interest as a former president of that wildlife trust. The habitat that was created was very valuable for wildlife and it offset the development impacts. It is now much loved by residents but, lo and behold, 20 years later, East West Rail is going right through one of the major wildlife sites that was created. That cannot be right: we cannot be providing compensation for it then to be up for grabs for any use.
So my Amendment 251A seeks protection in perpetuity. I cannot think of any other length of time with any logic to it, because the reality is that the sites being destroyed or damaged have protection in perpetuity, so the sites that are created in compensation for them should have protection in perpetuity.
I thank the Minister for taking an interest in this at her drop-in session last week, when I think I heard her give an undertaking to look seriously into what needed to happen on this as yet unaddressed issue.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 250 is an important clarifying measure that would ensure that, when Natural England seeks to impose planning conditions as part of an EDP, they must be directly related to developments that fall within the scope of that EDP. This addresses an important point of legal and procedural clarity. Without such a safeguard, there is a risk that conditions could be sought or imposed on developments beyond the defined remit of the EDP, which could lead to regulatory uncertainty and potential challenge.
By linking conditions strictly to developments within the EDP’s scope, this amendment would protect against regulatory overreach and maintain the principle of proportionality, ensuring that developers are subject only to conditions that are relevant, necessary and reasonable. This is not about restricting environmental protections but about ensuring that they are applied fairly and transparently, thereby supporting the credibility of the planning system and maintaining public trust.
Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 238 to 240 would sharpen the focus of EDPs by requiring that all relevant environmental features are identified and that the nature of any direct impact is properly addressed. This is not simply a drafting improvement; it is about ensuring the robustness and accountability of the system that we are creating.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her Amendments 240A and 251A. These would be important improvements in the Bill.
This short debate has highlighted that further tightening and improvement is still needed in this clause, despite the Government’s welcome amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond encouragingly.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will introduce Amendment 266, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, is somewhat surprisingly in this grouping. It seeks to ensure that the EDP delivers a significant improvement in the ecology of a habitat, a species or an ecosystem.
I think that the Minister will say, with some justification, that government Amendment 247A in this group addresses this by making it clear that Natural England can do this EDP only if it can contribute to a significant environmental improvement. We welcome that, but I want to press the Minister a bit further on how Natural England will make the judgment that it will deliver a significant environmental improvement. How will it ensure that the information it uses is robust? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has been concerned in debates that I have heard her speak in about whether the modelling that it uses will be sufficient. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned earlier, nature does not always behave as modelling might suggest. How will Natural England make that judgment?
If the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was here, I am sure he would thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Whitty, for supporting this amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I begin by speaking to the government amendments in this group, Amendments 246A, 247A and 258B.
In providing flexibility through this new model, the Government have been careful to ensure that these flexibilities are used only where this supports the delivery of better environmental outcomes. That is at the heart of the new approach. Government amendments 246A, 247A and 258B relate to the use of network measures, making it explicit that Natural England can deliver network measures only where it considers that it would make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question than measures that address the impact of development locally. Crucially, network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat. This would inherently not pass the overall improvement test, because the very essence of irreplaceable habitat is that it cannot be replaced elsewhere.
I turn to the non-government amendments, and first to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Amendments 238, 239 and 240 seek to require an EDP to highlight all the environmental features which may be affected by development and state what the environmental impacts on the environmental feature would be. The Government have been clear that we wish to use EDPs to take a targeted approach to address the impacts of development on specific environmental features. Under this approach, an EDP could be brought forward that addresses the impact on one or more environmental feature, with conservation measures brought forward to address the impact on the identified feature. In response to the question of the noble Lord regarding the wording, this means that any features that are not identified which are covered by the EDP would then need to be considered and addressed under the existing system.
I understand the points that he is making, but the proposed amendment would then require EDPs to be comprehensive in identifying and addressing all the impacts of development on all environmental features. This was never the Government’s intention, as it would add considerable burden to the creation and delivery of EDPs. By taking a targeted approach, we can put EDPs in place to address the specific issues that benefit from the strategic approach. This will unlock development and secure better environmental outcomes. Expanding EDPs in the way proposed by these amendments would result in slowing down delivery and prevent EDPs being used in the targeted way that the Government have envisaged.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very helpful response to this short debate. I enjoyed many of the contributions, not least that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Cambourne was of course in my former constituency. I would say to her that we have not given up on trying to get East West Rail together on the A428 corridor. Perhaps we will talk about that off-site, as we might say in the context of this Bill.
We learn as we go, do we not? I have learned—it was not clear—that the intention regarding the environmental delivery plans is that, once they have identified a development, even though it might impact on an environmental feature, that feature may not necessarily form part of the environmental delivery plan; it may be dealt with under the existing habitat and other regulations.
That is very interesting. However, that being the case—I will not dwell on it, but we may have to come back to it—Amendments 239 and 240, on the ways in which that negative effect is likely to impact on that environmental feature, should all still be included, and if they directly relate to the development they should definitely be included. Those two amendments still have merit in respect of the drafting. We could maybe talk about that at some point. With the hope that we might revisit those points, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 238.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 17th September 2025
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Sep 2025)
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, we have a large number of groups to get through today to complete Committee. I remind noble Lords of some important points of guidance in the Companion that might help us with that aim. Paragraph 8.81 on speeches at amending stages on Bills states that:
“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.
While there have been many important contributions from all sides of the House, parts of our debates on previous days have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments being debated. To make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion and brief.
Paragraph 8.82 on custom when withdrawing an amendment states that:
“Members (other than the Minister) pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.
While many noble Lords have adhered to this, at times long speeches have been made when withdrawing amendments. I urge all noble Lords to keep remarks brief to keep us on track. The Ministers responding will continue to keep speeches as confined as possible while providing a proper response to questions raised in the debate.
Clause 55: Environmental features, environmental impacts and conservation measures
Amendment 242B
Lord Lucas
“(2A) In the five years following the coming into force of this section, EDPs may only apply to nutrient neutrality, and other matters which the Secretary of State determines are appropriately dealt with at the scale of an EDP. (2B) After the period of five years following the coming into force of this section, provisions may be made that concern wildlife and other more local concerns, but the Secretary of State may not make more than five such EDPs in any year.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the EDP process has time to bed in in uncontroversial areas, and that its further development is not rushed.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, responding to the noble Lord opposite, I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 4.31 of the Companion. Committee stage is a conversation; it is a free for all. Members may speak when they want and as often as they want. The point is to get to the root of the issues that we are discussing. We are here to do a job, not to stick to a timetable. If that takes us again past midnight, that is what we are here for. The point is to get through it, so that we conclude the arguments and can be much briefer and more formal on Report. This phrase “before the Minister sits down” is not a Committee phrase. We have the right to speak at any time. We must hold to that right, because that is the core of us doing our job well in this place.
The amendment proposes that we take the question of environmental delivery plans at a gentler pace, and that we start by applying them in circumstances where the concept obviously works. Things that operate on a large scale, nutrient neutrality, water problems and other such issues are landscape-scale problems that need landscape-scale solutions. However, as we heard on the last day of debate, matters such as species are much more difficult to deal with.
We have a huge amount of uncertainty at the moment. From talking to the developer community and listening to them, I know that they see the Bill as paralysing development for the next five years. The Bill is meant to accelerate development, but as we have it at the moment it does the exact opposite. It creates so much uncertainty on how Part 3 will work, what it will feel like and how it will develop. Natural England has huge powers, and there are lots of big sums of money going this way and the other, but no one knows how it will happen. No one really understands how Natural England has the capacity to manage something of this scale—or even of this type—and what sets of behaviours to expect from it. We are setting ourselves up for five years of stasis, five years of not getting anywhere, because it will take that long for the system to settle in.
There is a better way to do this: to pace things, pilot things and do the easy bits first, and to make an early announcement of where the pilot EDPs will be, so that people can get their heads around it, and have large and open discussions about this. The provision that we are looking at is supposed to last a long time. There is no point in this being done in a constricted and partisan way—it will just break open the next time we have a change in Government. Everybody who wants to be involved in this is being asked to commit over long timescales. We politicians must adjust ourselves to that; we must run this in a way that allows people to have confidence in the politics over a long time.
The Government’s behaviour on biodiversity net gain is not a good sign of where they are in this space. I urge them to have wide discussions and involve people who are of obvious quality and depth, and who are likely to be there and involved in the discussion in years to come. In particular, I urge them to involve people from opposition parties; it should not be the Conservatives’ choice of who to involve but the Government’s, rather like how my noble friend Lord Gove appointed the current chair of Natural England. They are not a natural Conservative supporter but someone who, because they were not a natural Conservative supporter, has lasted and commanded the respect of this Government. We want something that will run through—long-term thinking, long-term commitments and long-term relationships to build confidence. Amendment 242B says, “Let’s take it that way. Let’s take it slowly and carefully, let’s take people with us, rather than have some big and uncontrolled explosion.” I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 271 and 272. In response to the Minister, one way of quickening these procedures, and getting rid of the risk of a Member speaking for a long time while withdrawing an amendment, is actually for the Government to accept a few of the amendments. Altogether, I think we have probably tabled some 400 amendments, many of which seem to be common sense. However, we seem to have had ministerial resistance to absolutely everything so far, which I do not think is a particularly good sign. However, I shall give the Government a chance because my amendments should obviously be accepted.
Even more seriously, Clause 58(2) starts quite promisingly. It says:
“In preparing an EDP, Natural England must have regard to”,
and then lists
“the development plan for the development area … the current environmental improvement plan … any Environment Act strategies”—
which, I am pleased to say, would include local nature recovery strategies. However, at the end of the subsection, it says
“so far as Natural England considers them to be relevant”.
Lord Lansley (Con)
On the assumption that the Minister is not going to speak to her amendments in the group at this point, I would like to speak to my Amendment 344.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was talking about Clause 58 as it is in the Bill at present, but the effect of two amendments in this group—government Amendments 278A and 346E—is to delete the current Clause 58 and replace it with the new clause proposed in Amendment 346E, which will come before Clause 88. Just so that noble Lords are aware, that new clause more or less reproduces Clause 58, but extends it. The Minister will want to explain why that is the case. However, the point made by the noble Lord is exactly the same for the replacement text.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who tabled Amendment 275A in this group, is unable to be with us this morning. The purpose of the amendment is very straightforward and it will, I hope, be agreed on all sides of the House: when making an environmental delivery plan, regard should be had to small house- builders—indeed, so far as possible, account should be given and possibilities exercised to enable small housebuilders to conduct their business. The most important thing when the Government publish viability assessment guidance is that, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, the objective of the EDP is not to make development economically unviable. That being the case, this is an issue for smaller housebuilders, which find it most difficult to bear the burden of regulation and cost when preparing development. I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurance on the point about small housebuilders made in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that the viability assessment guidance will specifically mention them and make allowance for them.
My Amendment 344, which is also about making an environmental delivery plan, makes a very simple point: at some point, Natural England needs to know in which potential developments it needs to consider making an environmental delivery plan. I do not see that in the Bill at the moment. The purpose of my amendment is to say that when local planning authorities are ready to put sites forward in, for example, a submission to the Secretary of State for the adoption of a local plan—not when they call for sites or are considering sites; this can be in guidance—they should notify Natural England of sites which have protected features, with protected sites or protected species involved. We know those sites are going to be pretty evident, so they should identify those themselves and notify Natural England.
I hope the Minister will say that this is intended to happen anyway, but it would be a good idea if it were expressed in the Bill, so that local planning authorities, which, of course, operate in their plan-making processes according to statutory timetables and statutory provisions, have a statutory requirement to notify Natural England about the potential need to make an environmental delivery plan. That is all I wish to say about this.
I just want to note something so that noble Lords are not surprised: when we get to Clause 58, we are going to take it out. But it is now that we are discussing what is effectively the language of Clause 58, and it is worth being aware that this is the case.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 242B tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I strongly support the part of his amendment that inserts proposed new subsection (2A), but I am not so sure about proposed new subsection (2B)—(2B) or not (2B), that is the question he is proposing. Nevertheless, my suggestion to him is that I do not think anybody concerned about nature should then also try to limit growth; the two can be done hand in hand.
If Natural England or the Secretary of State for Housing need more resources or decide to subcontract to any designated person, that could be a private developer, which could come up with an EDP under the laws proposed by the Government. I am not saying that would be right, but people should be aware of the scope of where we are going. I would not support my noble friend if he re-tabled this amendment on Report to the full extent.
I think proposed new subsection (2A) is a very sensible approach on nutrient neutrality, the consideration of which is one of the issues that is particularly holding up aspects of development. This is the reason the Government have given more broadly. Of course, they have also latched on to a variety of things like jumping spiders and even ancient woodland, while still expressing concern for irreplaceable habitat. Nevertheless, we should have that very specific focus on what has been holding up the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised to deliver by the end of this Parliament. We should keep focused on where these potential EDPs need to be, and that will keep Natural England focused as well.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendment 346E in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 275A in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
I approached this group with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, ringing in my ears from yesterday’s Oral Questions. He boasted how the Government’s planning reforms would cut away the bureaucracy to get Britain building. Perhaps he was thinking about that other planning Bill announced by the Chancellor in August. He could not have been thinking about the one before us today, because given the combination of Part 3 of this Bill, the involvement of Natural England, and the astonishingly long preparation process for EDPs, starting in Clause 58 but going on as far as Clause 61, it is difficult to see how any mitigation proposal envisaged by Part 3 can be completed in the three and a half years from now —and that for a Government who have only three and three-quarter years to run.
Even if Part 3 stands part of the Bill at the point of assent, it will take until the next Parliament before someone gets the keys to a new home that has been subject to an EDP. Perhaps someone should tell the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, that Part 3 does not work, and it will not get Britain building or the economy growing. I should know, because I have been in this space for the last three and a half years as the instigator and a person of significant control in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, a company established and owned by all the planning authorities in Norfolk for the benefit of the local councils, taxpayers and economy. I know what I am talking about—this is another one of my specialist subjects.
I observe that government amendment 346E is a long one. I suppose we should be grateful that it recognises that the Bill as introduced was deficient, but it is incomplete. It articulates the problem and identifies the EDP participants, but it does not contemplate the earliest formative stages—the commercial, legal and contractual practicalities to put it into effect.
Let us think about the EDP processes that start in Clause 58. At the outset, it emerged on Monday that Natural England will report to the MHCLG Secretary of State, not Defra. That is quite a revelation. What technical knowledge exists in MHCLG to judge the veracity of the poor-science and unevidenced assertion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in today’s Telegraph, where he is reported to have said that “anti- growth” environment quangos are blocking developments on spurious grounds? How can MHCLG have the intellect and capacity to assess this spuriousness?
Our company in Norfolk aims to go beyond the desirability of cleaning up our rivers and devise commercial models that are legally robust and contractually certain, with a financial system that discounts the 80-year tail liabilities and makes the bridge between those who need to purchase mitigation and those who are prepared to provide it. I can tell noble Lords from personal practical experience how hard it is to devise a system to resuscitate the second-largest sector of our local economy—which has been placed in suspended animation for the past three and a half years—to provide the much-needed homes, affordable-homes infrastructure and mitigation in an area two-thirds of the size of our county.
My insight is that, before the provisions envisaged by this amendment are engaged, there are some fundamental principles to be established first. They should be set in statute, but they are not. It is envisaged that the EDPs will issue permits or licences. It is a critical point. A permit is something that is purchased and bought and has asset value. Noble Lords with long memories will remember the last time the state tried to introduce such permits to solve a problem: it created the madness of the milk quota system. By contrast, a local authority issuing licences provides for the point at which the mitigation is no longer required because, say, the local sewage treatment plant has been upgraded. Then the licence can be surrendered and issued again, with that second slice of revenue returned to the taxpayer.
At the drop-in session last week, Natural England’s representatives had blank faces when I asked them what they planned to sell to developers—permits or licences. They had not a clue. That illustrates the intellectual hole in that organisation. The risk of the permit approach is that, once issued to the builder of a new home, the nutrient neutrality permit is attached to that home and goes with the conveyance. That permit will have cost somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is a pretty powerful incentive for the home owner to sell it on to someone else, so we find ourselves, as with milk quotas, sleepwalking into creating markets for tradeable assets, secondary markets, derivatives and everything else that history tells us happens when the state gets into the permitting business. The taxpayer misses out: that is the lesson from the milk quota fiasco.
By contrast, a licence is never owned by the developer or the landowner; it does not exist as an asset; contractually, it is tied to the property; and it can only be surrendered back to that property. The perverse incentive to sell it on and create secondary markets falls away. That is what we should be doing, but none of this fundamental design principle or parameter is contemplated by either Amendment 346E or the Bill.
Let us move on and think about the longevity of an EDP. It is proposed that an EDP lasts for 10 years—an assertion restated in the letter to noble Lords this morning, for which I thank the Ministers. But the tail liabilities are 80 years for nutrient neutrality and 30 years for biodiversity net gain, so I question whether a local planning authority can issue a permission if they are not sure what will happen between year 11 and year 80. I do not believe they can legally issue the permission. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, as this is the first group, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, stood up to remind us that this is a conversation, not a 10-minute monologue. As the noble Lord who spoke before me is new to this House, I shall tell him that civil servants cannot defend themselves in this Chamber. He arrived late at that meeting last week, so he was not there to have benefit the rest of us had of the information that they in good faith provided. I ask him in future discussions in this House to refrain from criticising people who cannot reply for themselves, and from making unnecessary comments about the Minister, who has shown to all Members that she is acting in good faith and will listen to our conversations—and, we hope, will come back on Report and offer us some changes based on the evidence.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 264A. My noble friend Lord Swire cannot be here. He has a particular theme running through on issues regarding pylons and he would appreciate a response from the Minister in regard to what he submitted. There is a broader point on how we are unfortunately going back to prioritising climate over nature, when they should go hand in hand. We hear comments like that from Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for DESNZ, about how climate change is the number one threat to nature; I am afraid that that is not what the scientists say. It is in the top five, but is not number one. When we are considering changes in this Bill more broadly—my noble friend Lord Swire reminds us of aspects of energy infrastructure—we should have that fully in mind.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I would like to look forward to the Government’s Amendment 346E and in particular subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, which says:
“Natural England or the Secretary of State must take account of the best available scientific evidence”.
I ask the Minister whether that is going to comprise part of the EDP.
In explaining the reason I ask that, I will refer to some of the conversations I had with the Minister on Monday’s debate and, in particular, to the email that I wrote this morning asking for a more detailed reply. In reply to my contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that she had already spoken about getting scrutiny of the EDP. She said:
“I want to clarify that, before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State, it will be subject to proper scrutiny through public consultation”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 2003.]
It is helpful to have that, but could today’s Minister please enlighten the House about how that consultation will take place? Unless the information is cited in the EDP, it is going to be very hard to challenge. One of the complaints that I have about Natural England is how hard it is to challenge it when it comes to scientific evidence, because it hides behind the legal situation and says it is a precautionary principle: “Lump it, all of you”.
On my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment, I wonder if the Minister is satisfied about the present position with regard to Natural England and nutrients. My noble friend wants to limit the EDP to nutrient mitigation, and I think that is sensible and that the current situation is working well. Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme was set up in 2022 using £33.5 million of public money. This was based on its proposals to the Secretary of State. Since then, Natural England has spent £17.54 million setting up its off-setting scheme to generate 10,097 nutrient credits by removing 704 hectares of farmland from food production. When a new company in the private sector put forward a proposal to provide nutrient credits without taking farmland out of production, Natural England initially said yes; it then reversed its decision, as I explained on Monday.
Natural England claims that it does not make a profit from the sale of nutrient credits as they are priced at cost recovery. However, if one examines the figures, one can contradict this, because its internal costings show that a credit in Dorset costs £1,685 and that, when administration fees are accounted for, it would cost £1,938. However, it has been selling nutrient credits on the market at a significant mark-up of £3,250, plus a 10% administration fee. This suggests to me that Natural England is making a profit of up to £1,637 per nutrient credit, representing a profit margin of 45.8%.
In the letter that I received from the Ministers this morning, to which reference has already been made— I must say I am grateful for it; I wish we had had it before we began our proceedings on Monday—the last sentence of the third-from-last paragraph says:
“Once EDPs are made, we expect them to be delivered on a cost-recovery basis, while ensuring good value for money for developers by ensuring competition and innovation in the procurement of conservation measures”.
I have just shown that the nutrient market is not being operated at cost recovery by Natural England and that it is excluding the competition. How, when you have that existing situation, does the Minister really expect the EDPs to be offered on a different basis?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to several amendments in this group concerning environmental delivery plans.
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Lucas, both for introducing this group and for tabling Amendment 242B. This amendment seeks to ensure that the EDP process has time to bed in within uncontroversial areas, and that its further development is not rushed. As we have learned, EDPs are themselves controversial, so we are of course sympathetic to this amendment and to other noble Lords’ words on nutrient neutrality. Elsewhere, we have offered amendments that could immediately release 160,000 units of housing stock from Natural England advice, which is blocking those developments. Can EDPs deliver that? Can they release 160,000 units from this Natural England advice once the Act commences?
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling Amendments 271 and 272. These seek to ensure that, when preparing an EDP, Natural England must have regard to all the plans listed in Clause 58(2)(a) to (c) rather than only those it considers to be relevant. These are serious points, and I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on them in response. In light of these amendments, are the Government minded to clarify how Natural England is to weigh these existing plans?
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 344, which would require plan-making authorities to notify Natural England when they allocate potential sites for development where an EDP would be needed. This strikes me as a completely sound and practical amendment which would help to ensure co-ordination between local planning and Natural England’s role.
I turn briefly on my noble friend Lord Swire’s amendment, kindly introduced by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I have to say that I am impressed by my noble friend’s ingenuity in returning to one of his favourite topics. I am not convinced that Natural England has the bandwidth for the existing initiatives in the Bill without adding further burdens to them.
To conclude, we look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s own amendments in this group. They appear to be minor and technical, and we are grateful for the drafting corrections, particularly Amendment 346E. Clause 58 already sets out matters to which Natural England must have regard when preparing an EDP. This amendment would extend that duty to the amendment and revocation of EDPs by both Natural England and the Secretary of State. It would also add further matters to which they must have regard. It would be helpful to understand how these additional considerations are expected to operate in practice. We would welcome this clarification, and I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the Government’s approach will match the scale of the responsibilities being placed on Natural England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the debate, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her comments. I also remind noble Lords that our civil servants across all departments work extremely hard. They bring valuable support to Ministers, and it really is not appropriate to question their intellectual ability during a debate.
As we set out in Committee on Monday, the Government remain firmly of the view that, when it comes to development in the environment, we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both sustainable housebuilding and nature recovery stall. Instead of environmental protections being seen as barriers to growth, we are determined to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature, and that is why Part 3 is important.
Following the introduction of this Bill, we have taken seriously the concerns expressed by those who were not yet convinced that the provisions in Part 3 provided the necessary certainty that the nature restoration fund will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits that it offers. So, with a view to ensuring that everyone has confidence that the nature restoration fund delivers those improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model, we have continued to engage with expert stakeholders. Having done so, the Government have developed a comprehensive set of amendments for consideration. Taken together, we are confident that the package will provide reassurance that the nature restoration fund will restore, not harm, nature, while at the same time ensuring that housebuilders benefit from the same streamlined process to discharge their environmental obligations and get Britain building.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the offer that the Minister made to join the meeting that I am going to have with Natural England. It was to be a rather focused meeting, but I am happy to widen it. I am delighted that the noble Baroness would come. That would be extremely helpful. I hope that Natural England will give us time to have a proper meeting on heather burning and fuel load, as well as EDPs and the scientific advice, and make it a broader meeting. I am extremely grateful to her and I thank her very much.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply to my amendment. Would she be prepared for me to open a discussion with her officials on the subject of my amendment? We need to do something to increase developers’ understanding of what it will be like under the new regime. If we are to get development going, we need to have the confidence generated.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Of course. To all noble Lords, I say that, between Committee and Report, my noble friend and I are very happy to sit down and discuss amendments or any concerns further with officials.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful for that, but I am not surprised; that has been the way the noble Baroness has conducted herself through all her time as a Minister.
I wanted to go back to one of my earlier amendments on biodiversity data. Since she has her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, sitting next to her, might she have a conversation about unblocking the flow of biodiversity data generated in the course of planning permissions and getting that through to the local environment record centres, so that it is available to become part of the scientific information, which Natural England can draw on in making an EDP? Her department, or parts of it, and Natural England are active in this area. I would really like to know that this is an area where the Government are determined to make progress.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s nodding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 244 and 287. These proposals have a clear and focused aim: to secure stronger and more reliable protections for our natural environment through the planning system. I wish to lay out why these changes are not just desirable, but necessary, in light of both recent evidence and practical experience.
Amendment 244 addresses the language on improvements to conservation status, requiring that any improvement to an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans be significant. At present, the Bill allows for any improvement to be considered a success, but the reality in England suggests otherwise. By introducing the word “significant”, the amendment raises the test and prevents superficial or minimal gains being counted as genuine progress. It recognises that piecemeal gestures will not restore all-important lost habitats or endangered species. Instead, substantial positive action must become the norm.
This approach also brings better alignment with recommendations that already exist from Defra and findings from ongoing reviews of environmental policy. According to the State of Nature report, wildlife abundance has dropped by 32% since 1970, and 13% of species are now under genuine threat.
On these Benches, we believe that existing standards are simply not sufficient to reverse these declines. The amendment provides clarity for both developers and planning authorities. It ensures that when environmental delivery plans are prepared, their targets must be meaningful and that stakeholders will know that marginal improvements are insufficient.
As a result, both local communities and our wider natural environment will benefit from projects that contribute to measurable ecological recovery. The purpose is not to block development, but rather to set a standard that matches the gravity of the challenge England faces. The amendment also provides transparency and accountability, making it clear to all involved parties exactly what is required for a project to meet its conservation obligations.
Turning to Amendment 287, the rationale is similarly rooted in evidence and practical experience. At present, the Bill requires that developments are likely to improve the environment. In practice, the term “likely” is too vague and too weak.
A University of Sheffield study revealed that 75% of bird and bat boxes, required already in planning conditions, were never actually installed. Such figures clearly highlight how easily requirements can fall through the cracks when they are based only on probability. The public and environmental groups have repeatedly raised concerns about such non-delivery. This amendment replaces “are likely to” with “will”. Its objective is very simple: to ensure that the promised improvements are delivered.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that the chances of the Government agreeing to an amendment are very slim. I remember being in opposition in the other place in Committee on the Bill setting up the Greater London Authority, and we discovered that there was a comma missing. We moved an amendment to that effect, which was rejected by the Government and brought back on Report—so we get the mentality of these things.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I am sorry, I will not take up the time of the House, but there is a precedent in this House, in that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, during the passage of the climate change Act in 2006, at one point threw his papers away and said not quite “Damn it”, but that he was going to agree to this one, despite what the department says, and it went through. However, I have never had another instance of that happening.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
The amendments I have put down are all about making sure we had scientific evidence and consultation. I am a bear of little brain—
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
There is no need to agree—it was meant sarcastically.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
It seems to me that the Minister and the department have shot my fox, except I know the Minister is not really keen on shooting foxes at all. In fact, although they have not agreed to my amendments, the very thing that I wanted is in government Amendment 346E. I think that is right. I will blame the fact that I have new glasses and cannot read things very well, but I assume that this is the case, and that is probably enough for me to say.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend who has just spoken, my amendments in this group are about challenging the EDP. We spoke about that on the last amendment; I do not think there is any need for me to repeat myself. I express my thanks to the Minister, who will probably go into this in quite some detail.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 285AA is about the way in which the Secretary of State approves EDPs. As currently drafted, the Bill says:
“The Secretary of State may make the EDP”—
that is, approve it—
“only if the Secretary of State considers that the EDP passes the overall improvement test”.
The “overall improvement test” is the key test of whether an EDP is sufficient and should go ahead but the Bill does not make it clear on what basis the Secretary of State will make his consideration. If I understand it correctly, the Secretary of State who will do this part of the process is the Secretary of State at MHCLG and not Defra, unless I have misunderstood what the Minister has just said.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I apologise. The noble Baroness had not misunderstood, but we have had further discussions and I clarified in the previous group that the Secretary of State referred to is the Secretary of State for Defra, unless there are good reasons for it to be otherwise.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her clarification. That is a bit of a relief, to be frank, because most MHCLG Secretaries of State are not appointed for their depth of ecological knowledge, nor indeed are the civil servants in that department.
However, that does not overcome the principal problem that the way it is drafted rather implies that it is based on the Secretary of State’s judgment and consideration, rather than the evidence. Existing environmental law is effective because it requires that, if an adverse effect on the integrity of an internationally important site cannot be avoided, then changes that would impact it would be consented to only where there are imperative reasons of “overriding public interest”. That is a technical term which is well-based in case law, and there is long-standing case law as to the evidence base required to demonstrate overriding public interest.
Clause 63 seems to make the new overall improvement test a much more subjective decision of the Secretary of State for Defra, in that it is about his or her consideration, and the test is passed solely on the basis of whether or not the Secretary of State considers that it is passed. Therefore, it is not a requirement in the Bill for the opinion to be underpinned by evidence. We understand that, frankly, it would be crazy for the Secretary of State to make some wild, unevidenced decision, but the way the Bill is currently framed means that the decision is unlikely to be legally challengeable if they did.
My amendment proposes deleting
“the Secretary of State considers that”,
which would remove the subjective element and, I hope, establish that the Secretary of State’s decision on the overall improvement test would be more about objectivity and evidence. It would give scope for the Secretary of State’s decision to be challenged in court if it is clearly flawed or runs contrary to the scientific evidence, whereas, at present, the drafting of the Bill places the Secretary of State’s judgment in primacy over the evidence.
I repeat that this is, thank goodness, going to be done by a Secretary of State who may have a sporting chance of knowing what they are talking about, but it would be good to hear reassurance from the Minister as to the basis of the evidence on which the Secretary of State will make the decision about the overall improvement test in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 60.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 286 and 300, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who, alas, gives her apologies that she is unable to speak today. I have signed the amendments, alongside other noble Lords, and hope I do them some justice.
As noble Lords will see, these two amendments—and pretty much this whole group—seek to improve the overall improvement test and ensure that EDPs deliver significant improvements. I echo the opening the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and welcome the letter this morning and the amendments put forward previously. That demonstrates movement.
I am afraid I will deviate a little. I do not think it has been incredible or extraordinary. I am glad that the Ministers—as I always say, my two favourite Ministers —have their doors open for us, though they may regret making that promise, as I have some concerns still with this. It is not just what has been expressed in this Chamber; it goes beyond this Chamber, on all sides of the debate, from ecologists and conservationists to developers, lawyers and so-called yimbys.
To turn to the specific amendments, Amendment 286 intends to strengthen the overall improvement test, and I welcome Amendment 286A from the Government, which seeks to do this. However, there are still questions. We hear that it is up to the Secretary of State for Defra and their judgment, ahead of any evidence to the contrary. Amendment 300 is related, and seeks to ensure that significant, measurable improvements to nature are achieved by the EDP. While I recognise and welcome what the Government have sought to do by putting in place back-up measures, what is the baseline evidence that the Secretary of State for Defra is looking at when making that judgment? It sounds like this is a recent development, but what are the so-called good reasons that it may fall outside the remit of the Secretary of State for Defra? If, hypothetically, it is just the Secretary of State for Defra—to park the “good reasons” wording—is it envisaged that that would be done in consultation with other departments, such as MHCLG or even HMT?
Overall, it is important that we put in checks and balances, and these amendments seek to do that. They would not wreck the Bill but seek to ensure the improvements that we all, including the Government, want. They would, I hope, ensure that development continues.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 289. Before I do so, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, as he came to what I think is the nub of this group and what the question really is. In my mind, it is this: are we content with the Government’s amendment, which changes the overall improvement test so that the wording is “materially outweigh”, or do we want it to be, as in the amendment from my noble friend and others, significant and measurable? As it happens, I agree with my noble friend and others that “measurably” and “materially” probably have meanings that are alike, but “significantly” should tell us something about the nature of the guidance.
However, we need to think very carefully about putting in “significantly”, because there will be material improvements that are not regarded as significant. Would that mean that there would be environmental delivery plans that could not be made because they would not pass the overall improvement test, even where they would lead to a material improvement? We need to think about this carefully. There is no simple way to use particular words in legislation. They have their plain meaning, and if we were to say “significantly and measurably”, we mean that there is something beyond measurable that is significant. The guidance would need to say that. I raise this point because, if I were looking for the plain meaning, “materially” helps us a lot because it shows that there must be something where you can literally distinguish between the present situation and the future situation.
On Secretaries of State, I am confused. I always thought that, conventionally, we just put “the Secretary of State” into legislation. As a former civil servant, I remember people who sat in the same office, behind the same desk, working for Secretaries of State whose titles and departmental boundaries regularly changed. Therefore, trying to specify the Secretary of State for anything in legislation is a mistake—you just put in “the Secretary of State” and work out which one it is subsequently.
My Amendment 289 is about the conservation measures that are identified but not expected to be needed. This is quite interesting because, if they have been identified but are not needed to secure the overall improvement test, they wait there, as it were, until we reach the point at which the Secretary of State is making the decision.
If the Secretary of State determines that the overall improvement test has been met but in doing so has had to take into account conservation measures that were not expected to be needed, as referred to in Clause 55(5), my amendment would require that determination to make it clear that those conservation measures have been added, just so there is transparency and clarity. Of course, that flows into what is required in terms of the levy and the obligations that have to be met out of the nature restoration fund.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to my Amendment 246 in this group on strengthening the NRF model and, most importantly, on the overall improvement test for environmental delivery plans under Clause 55.
This is a really interesting amendment, and I welcome the speech the noble Lord has just made. We recognise the amendments that the Government have made, but judging by the size and the number of them, and the uniformity of purpose across the amendments and across political parties, I think it is fair to say that concerns remain and that many Members are still looking for further reassurance and guidance from the Government on these matters.
My amendment makes it clear that the conservation measures must not merely mitigate or offset environmental harm but significantly and measurably outweigh it. That is important, because that is about delivering a genuine net gain on the conservation status of our natural heritage. Against that there are two things. First, we have the new policies and plans the Government have put forward. There is a background worry about the disregard for nature and the dangers inherent in some of the Government’s plans, but there is also a worry that the bar is too low and that too often in the past we have seen, with the best will, government intentions and legislation ultimately failing to deliver what they promise, particularly for nature.
It is therefore important to put in those measures, and other Members have picked up on them as well. It gives clarity to developers and those involved that they need to do something more than merely replace. The amendment would enshrine in law a clear principle that any harm caused by development must be more than compensated by concrete improvements. As my noble friend Lady Grender said, that aligns with the Government’s own biodiversity and net gain targets and sets robust, measurable standards.
We are all aware that we are already, famously, one of the most nature-deprived countries in the world and the few precious sites we have left are often not properly looked after and maintained. They are very disparate and very precious. Organisations and Members across the House have raised these issues, so while I welcome “materially outweigh” that the Government have put forward, there is a need to go further. I hope we can have further conversations on this area. These matters are important.
I support most of the amendments in this group. Again, what is important is the sense in this House that on these matters we seek reassurance.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, this is my first intervention today and, of course, I am speaking personally. I wholeheartedly support what the Government Whip said about this being Committee stage and how it should be conducted, but this is a big Bill and it needs proper scrutiny. As the Minister has told us today, there are lots of things still to clarify and many questions still to be answered. Some speakers may need reining in, and I am sure the House will support the Whips when they attempt to do that, but I put it on record that I thought the crude attack yesterday in Oral Questions was inappropriate and unhelpful.
I support most of the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 286 and 300 and others that have been raised such as those by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, a few moments ago. These all seek to introduce some quantification, comparison and accountability into the EDP process. There will always be a temptation for implementing bodies, be it Natural England or those that it subcontracts, to introduce subjectivity—or, shall we say, optimism—into their results and reporting. Openness with data and debate will be essential to enable candour, challenge and particularly third-party professional scrutiny. EDPs are a new adventure, and lessons will need to be learned early and fully. I therefore support, as Amendment 300 puts it,
“a high degree of certainty based on an objective assessment”.
I also support Amendment 264 in this group from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and, to save time, Amendment 275 in the next group from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Both seek to introduce some discipline and accountability via mitigation hierarchy and a stepped approach.
Finally, I have two related questions for the Minister. Will there be an independent audit process of Natural England and EDPs—not just of their finances but of the outcomes and results? If so, who will select these auditors and evaluators?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 290 in my name, which was tabled as Amendment 119 in the other place by my honourable friend Ellie Chowns. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has clearly identified where this group has taken us, and we have heard powerful expositions from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne.
This amendment specifically addresses European sites, European marine sites, European offshore marine sites and Ramsar sites, so we are talking about the overall improvement test, but in a limited subset. Again, we are talking about the nature of the overall improvement test.
These sites are, of course, hugely precious and terribly important, and Ramsar sites are described as internationally important places. Amendment 290 says that the Secretary of State has to be
“satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant site”.
That is part 1 of the test. Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) state some offsetting allowances if there is no alternative and if appropriate measures are taken, but the amendment sets a very high standard for these terribly important places, which is crucial for them.
I note that in Monday’s debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about how, under Clause 89, Ramsar sites were previously protected by guidance rather than legislation. This is indeed legislation, but if the test is not sufficiently strong then it is not any kind of protection at all. Also on Monday, the noble Baroness said that SSSIs have protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I have not had time to really absorb what this morning’s letter says. It refers to that protection, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister on how that interacts with the changes that the Government have made and how Clause 55 works.
It is worth focusing for a second on what we are talking about. When I think of Ramsar, I always think of Rutland Water. I am sure that many noble Lords have visited it and seen the amazing birds at that site—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I also think of the Inner Thames Marshes SSSI, which is part of the Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve. I think of that because I was there in 2018 on Hen Harrier Day, when we had the wonderful and amazing pleasure of a marsh harrier swooping over to inspect our event for defending their cousins. I can remember the sense of wonder and amazement in the crowd, many of whom were local people. It is important to stress how important those SSSIs are to nature but also to local communities. We might think, “That will always be all right. That will always be protected”, but in the 1990s, the site was a candidate location for a Universal theme park, which, happily, was not built.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, while the top twitcher in the House of Lords is undoubtedly my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge—although there may be other candidates, I am prepared to admit —I live near the Minsmere Nature Reserve, so what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred to about marsh harriers is truly extraordinary. I tend to see them in close proximity to Sizewell, which shows that there is an element of how we can all try to live together in that regard.
Amendment 244 gets to the kernel of the issue that we are addressing with the overall significant improvement test; I strongly support the noble Baroness’s amendment. Other noble Lords have made important points, including those made by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne.
The Government’s amendment is very cleverly written. There was a legal case with the last Administration, where ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth and the Good Law Project managed to find that the then Government had an unlawful climate change action plan, and they had to be pushed back on that. That is the element of hope value—not in terms of land, but in hoping that the EDP is, in effect, good enough. Assuming that everything will work was not good enough in that case.
If this provision goes into primary legislation in the way it is now, without further consideration of some of the other amendments that have been tabled by noble Lords, that will give the Government, frankly, a very good “get out of jail” card, because it is primary legislation and the courts will not be able to override it on the basis of the criteria being set out today. On Report, we should come back and consider with all noble Lords who have looked at this carefully how we try to make watertight what we want to do with the significant improvement test.
I will come back to the whole debate about what a Secretary of State is in the Bill, because I have tabled an appropriate amendment, which will be considered in a later group—I think in group 19 or 20—that will be started by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. There is something around this whole area that we are getting into—I am not going to stray into the mitigation hierarchy—that is about the environmental principles public duty that applies to Ministers. It does not apply to arm’s-length bodies; it applies to any policy considering legislation. It applies to any strategies and to any framework. But, critically, it does not apply in itself to any planning application consideration. So that is why we need to make sure that we get this bit of the Bill right.
As far as I am aware, although on GOV.UK it says that the environmental principles policy statement was under the last Administration, it should still be in force. I would like confirmation from the Minister that that is still the case. I point out to her that if it is not in force, the Government would be acting in an unlawful way. So in consideration of this, there may be further questions coming, whether through this or other legal routes, specifically about how, in constructing Part 3 of the Bill, the environmental principles policy has been applied to achieve the particular outcome that is desired and, potentially, about other aspects of how it is complying with the Environment Act in its own right.
It is worth us having some careful consideration before the next stage on what we all want the outcome to be. I am confident that the Government want, despite a lot of the speeches and rhetoric, to make sure that we have nature thriving.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments is aimed at strengthening the natural recovery framework model and addressing the overall improvement test. I do not intend to take up more time than is necessary, so I will not address each amendment in this group individually. However, I will speak to my Amendment 291, which stands also in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra.
Amendment 291 seeks to provide a power for the Secretary of State to reject an environmental delivery plan where they consider it is not in the public interest. We believe that this is a crucial safeguard. While we recognise the need for local responsibility and innovation within the NRF model, it is important that national priorities and the wider public good remain central. This amendment seeks to ensure that where an EDP does not sufficiently deliver the environmental improvements that are expected, or where it conflicts with other essential national interests, the Secretary of State can act decisively. It seeks to provide a necessary balance between local ambition and national accountability. While we are opposed to the entire EDP bureaucratic scheme, if the Government insist on pursuing it, it must be meaningful and measurable. The framework must be rooted in real outcomes, not vague intentions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this group includes government amendments to the overall improvement test that are part of our comprehensive package of amendments to ensure that everyone can have confidence that the nature restoration fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the heart of this model and which I know that many noble Lords fully support. The Government have always been clear that the overall improvement test is one of the key environmental safeguards in the new system. As such, it is vital that there is confidence in its operation.
Our amendments remove any risk of ambiguity about the test’s operation by making it clear that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This provides further assurance for communities and developers that measures will not only be delivered but that they will lead to a material improvement for the relevant environmental feature. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the government amendments as being “cleverly written”. I thank her for those comments on behalf of our civil servants. I am very grateful for the intellectual capacity of our civil servants.
To further support communities and to assist the Secretary of State when deciding whether to approve an EDP, government Amendment 256B adds a requirement for Natural England to set out its view on how the conservation measures will enable the EDP to pass the overall improvement test. The amendments also make a series of minor legislative fixes that are necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following the substantive government amendments. These are important clarifications that put beyond doubt how the overall improvement test will operate.
Turning to the non-government amendments, I welcome the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about the importance of providing clarity in the planning system. That benefits not only developers but the communities and planners who have to operate the system. Many of the non-government amendments relate to the overall improvement test; for example, seeking to insert words such as “significant” to increase the amount by which the positive impacts of conservation measures must outweigh the negative impacts of development.
I suggest to noble Lords that a material improvement, as required by the government amendment, is more appropriate. It captures the need to secure improvement without putting an undue burden on the developer to contribute significantly more than their fair share to address the impact of development. Similarly, replacing the word “outweigh” with “demonstrate a net gain”, as proposed by Amendment 288, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, risks drawing comparisons to a different and unrelated planning policy, the biodiversity net gain policy.
Amendment 289, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to specify whether an EDP relies on back-up conservation measures that are not expected to be used to pass the overall improvement test. I seek to assure the noble Lord that EDPs will always need to be capable of passing the test without relying on back-up measures, as back-up measures are, by definition, those that are not expected to be needed. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord agrees that these amendments demonstrate the Government’s commitment to getting this right. We hope that, with these amendments, stakeholders and parliamentarians will work with the Government as we shift our focus to on-the-ground delivery—driving nature recovery, while supporting the delivery of the homes and infra- structure that we need.
Amendment 285AA, tabled by noble friend Lady Young, would amend the overall improvement test and remove the consideration of the Secretary of State from the test. The overall improvement test is inherently forward-looking, given that an EDP may be in place for up to 10 years in order to deliver the necessary conservation measures to secure the required improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature. When deciding on whether to make an EDP, the Secretary of State will have before them: the EDP itself, for which the best available scientific evidence is used; the view of Natural England as to whether the conservation measures are sufficient to meet the overall improvement test; and the responses from the public consultation. Armed with this information and with the power to request further information, the Secretary of State will be able to make a reasoned decision as to whether to make an EDP. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, that that process already includes consultation. Consultation is part of the EDP process.
We note that none of us has a crystal ball—it would be lovely if we did, as then we could probably go 80 years ahead. That is why the Bill includes a number of safeguards to ensure that the overall improvement test will be met. I know that this will have been touched on previously, but it is worth restating the important role that ongoing monitoring will play in ensuring conservation measures perform as expected and, if they do not, the Government’s amendment requires that back-up conservation measures will be deployed. If, despite all these safeguards, the EDP falls short of the expected outcome, it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to take forward any remedial action to make sure that the overall improvement is delivered.
It is also worth highlighting the government amendments requiring Natural England to set out the proposed sequencing of measures against the scale of development under the EDP. As well as the clarification brought, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will deploy the best available scientific evidence throughout the EDP process. Removing the consideration of the Secretary of State from the overall improvement test, as proposed by this amendment, would require EDPs to replicate the site-by-site approach, which simply is not appropriate or necessary under this new strategic model with the aforementioned safeguards in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to the comments about the Secretary of State this morning. He is quite right to say that it is not specified in the Bill. I do not believe that any Bill ever specifies which Secretary of State, because—as we all know—things can change. We hope that, by providing some clarity to the Committee this morning, this will help Members’ understanding of where we are. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend feels able not to press her amendment.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to which he spoke with incredible clarity and briefness, for which I thank him. The amendments propose to replace the overall improvement test with an evidence-based improvement test, as well as introducing further requirements connected to this revised test. The Government are in complete agreement with the noble Lord, but the quality of evidence is paramount when the Secretary of State is considering whether an EDP should be made. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord welcomes the government amendments, as I think that they speak to what is at the heart of his amendments.
As I have set out, the government amendments to the overall improvement test remove any risk of ambiguity by making it clear that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. The Secretary of State would be required to take into account that best scientific evidence when undertaking all activities related to Part 3, including when considering the overall improvement test.
However, it must be recognised that the Secretary of State will make their determination before any EDP is in effect and conservation measures are in place. While EDPs will be based on the best available scientific evidence, there is an acknowledged need to consider the as yet unknown impact of these measures. This is inherent in taking the strategic, longer-term approach and it is why we have included provision for back-up measures to be deployed if monitoring shows that the primary conservation measures are failing to deliver as expected. This provision provides assurance that, were the primary conservation measures not to perform as expected, further measures would be deployed to ensure that the EDP met the overall improvement test.
With these amendments, we are confident that the overall improvement test is fit for purpose, so would not want to amend the test in the way proposed by these amendments. In addition, the associated amendment requiring the Secretary of State to carry out further consultation risks adding further process because, as I said, those bodies will already have had an opportunity to express their views. Moreover, Natural England is required to include in the EDP its views as to how the measures proposed enable the EDP to meet the overall improvement test. With these explanations, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Amendment 290, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would amend the overall improvement test and reintroduce much of the existing habitats regulations. It might be helpful to quote from the letter. I know that it only went out this morning. My noble friend Lady Hayman and I tried to get it out earlier, but your Lordships know how these things work. I repeat these paragraphs from the letter:
“We recognise that many Noble Lords have expressed concerns related to the application of the NRF model to irreplaceable habitats and rare species. We wish to be absolutely clear that both the intent and legal effect of the overall improvement test, and associated safeguards, is to prevent the inappropriate use of EDPs where an environmental feature would suffer irreversible harm or harm that could not be outweighed by the EDP end date. This means that an EDP could not allow action to be taken that resulted in loss or irreparable harm to an irreplaceable habitat, as this would by definition be incapable of passing the overall improvement test.
We also note that the National Planning Policy Framework … includes a strong presumption against permitting development which would harm irreplaceable habitats. These protections in the NPPF are not changing.”
Before turning to the individual elements of the amendment, I remind noble Lords that the current system is, at best, maintaining an unacceptable environmental status quo. That is why we are proposing the NRF, which provides an alternative way to discharge environmental obligations that moves us from simply offsetting impact to actually improving the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature. In providing an alternative, the NRF must establish a new framework for decision-making that aligns with this strategic, outcomes-focused approach. This framework has been the subject of much debate, but we are confident that, with the proposed government amendments, this will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we all so desperately need. Reintroducing elements of the existing system to this new model fails to recognise the necessary shift in approach to secure better outcomes. We will, of course, discuss the mitigation hierarchy at length in subsequent groupings, so I hope that, with those explanations and the discussion still to come, the noble Baroness is content not to press her amendment.
Amendment 291, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, would allow the Secretary of State to withhold approval from an EDP for reasons of public interest. I am happy to be able to reassure the noble Lords that there is nothing to compel the Secretary of State to approve an EDP and it will therefore be within their power to reject an EDP for any reason, including for reasons of public interest, as expressed in this amendment. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lords feel able not to press their amendment.
I move to Amendment 264, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which would introduce three tests that an EDP must specify and meet to avoid legal challenge. The first test relates to appropriate consultation; the Bill already contains specific measures governing consultation, so the amendment would apply to the pre-consultation period required by the noble Lord’s previous amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
All the amendments in this group are basically trying to answer the question: what would success look like, and how do we measure it? I guess it is the old consultants’ cliché, I guess. The point I was concerned about was not just a financial audit but measuring the performance of EDPs. Environmental change is fantastically difficult and subjective to measure, so is there a commitment to use external third-party expertise to evaluate their success, or will Natural England mark its own homework?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As if by magic, I have the answer for who audits Natural England, so I can answer the noble Lord’s question. The accounts of Natural England are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. It is the National Audit Office, so I hope that is helpful.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
That is helpful, and I am sure that it will look deeply into the financial performance, but I am worried about how the actual performance of the EDP will be measured.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was just coming to that. The performance of EDPs will be monitored in the ways that have been set out. There will be oversight from the department and a process for monitoring the EDPs. It might be helpful if, between Committee and Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I can set out exactly how that process will work, and we will aim to do that.
The noble Baroness Coffey talked about the environmental principles policy statement, and I can confirm that the Bill must have regard to that statement, in line with the Environment Act 2021. With all those comments, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I wonder if I might just ask the Minister, after her helpful and interesting points, about the back-up conservation measures that are included in the EDP but are not expected to be needed. That being the case, can we have conversations about the calculation of the cost of the EDP, the amount of the levy, how the levy and the liabilities for the levy are to be determined and when they are to be paid? Can we talk about how that applies to back-up conservation measures? Clearly, developers do not want to be in a position of paying them, or expecting that they have to, then finding that they do not have to pay them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. When a developer opts for an EDP, there will be a clear statement of the costs. But I think it would be useful to have a conversation between now and Report, so I am very happy to do that.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the full reply that the noble Baroness has given. Can I ask her just to lift the lid a little bit on the timing of the public consultation? How long a time are the Government thinking of between the Secretary of State receiving an EDP and confirming or denying the EDP? How long is that public consultation going to be?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Earl will be aware, there are standard timings for government consultations, so we would employ those principles as set out in the government regulations for all consultations. If the noble Earl is not familiar with those, I can certainly send him the details.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their responses on this. I thank them also for continuing to have an open door. I think that the whole Committee is conveying a huge ambition to work with the Government to get this over the line. I still have concerns that “material improvement” will be interpreted by some as a low common denominator, but we will go away, study the letter received this morning and the words used today, and I hope continue to meet between now and Report. I think that what a lot of Members who have spoken just now are trying to get towards is practical measures that can provide a level of specificity so there is clarity, so that examples that I raised in my opening speech—of much-promised and not-delivered measures—do not occur again. That is what we are striving to achieve here. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gascoigne
“(c) comply with the principles of the mitigation hierarchy.”
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to kick-start this group, not least after the great discussion we just had on the previous group. Equally, I am delighted and honoured to have the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, for my amendment.
Amendment 245, which is in my name, seeks to specifically set out the importance of the mitigation hierarchy, which has reared its head on various occasions throughout the entire passage of the Bill. Most should already know what that means but, in short, it is the well-established common principle in development that there are a series of steps to go through on a site when it comes to the environment. These are: first, to avoid, then to minimise, then to restore, and then to offset.
As we just touched on, the problem with EDPs in this Bill is that we simply fast-track to compensation. In effect, developers can ignore the first three stages and pay into some pot to offset whatever it is they are doing. Here, the only obligation is the payment; your role is then done. I am not normally like this, but that is a pretty dystopian view. I know that, with many, that will not happen, and some will seek to follow those steps when working on development, even if the law does not stipulate it, but that would not be enforced and would be down to good will.
Amendment 245 would fix that and insert the mitigation hierarchy as part of the EDP’s conservation measures. Indeed, my amendment would be inserted into the subsection that explicitly states:
“An EDP must set out the measures (‘conservation measures’) that are to be taken by, or on behalf of, Natural England, under the EDP”.
It may be argued that it is not needed because of the mitigation hierarchy. The Minister is not in her place, but she was just saying at the Dispatch Box that the mitigation hierarchy is already implicit and that it is common practice. I have the highest regard for the Minister, who I assume will be responding, and I am sure she will say at the end of this debate that, while the Government support the principle and the arguments behind what I am seeking to do, it is not needed because it is in the NPPF. However, if it is not explicit in the Bill, it leaves the door open to regression legally.
I know that some see the NPPF more as planning guidance than law, and that the NPPF is general rather than specific. An EDP is entirely novel, hence why we are rightly having this huge debate; it creates a new regime and, as a result, it is not in the NPPF yet. Despite what the Minister just said, as it is new, it is right that it should feature in the Bill because it is creating a whole new aspect of planning law. It would ensure that the Bill and the NPPF align coherently. That should be explicit in the Bill.
It is not just me who thinks that the mitigation hierarchy should feature; in the previous group, the Government set out some amendments themselves. If you look at the guidance when these amendments were set out, the Government said:
“These changes underline the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs, ensuring that local conservation measures are preferred unless there is a clearly articulated environmental basis to look further afield”.
I think that is pretty much what the Minister said in concluding the previous group so, when those amendments came down, I was relieved. As I said on the previous group, I am grateful that the Government have put some amendments down. When I kept hearing that the mitigation hierarchy is going to be maintained, I thought that that was great; it is a good step. However, when I look at the list of amendments that we are debating in this group, I am afraid that I cannot find exactly where the Government say that the mitigation hierarchy will take place. This amendment seeks to fix that and to put in what the Government say they support.
It feels like we were debating this only yesterday. It was literally yesterday, at 1 am, when we were talking specifically about species. It may well be that, even if there are no species to be protected on a site, we can all agree that it is right that any development seeks to minimise and avoid as much damage as possible. That in itself is conservation.
There are a number of similar amendments in this group from other noble Lords, all of which seek to address the same issue of putting specific references in, and I support them, especially Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, to which I have added my name. It seeks to ensure that the mitigation hierarchy applies, while allowing flexibility for Natural England. If we take the group as a whole, these amendments do not stop the EDP process and they are not political games, certainly not from me. It does what the Government say they support. I hope that it will feature at some stage as the result of these conversations, because it is not in the Bill at the minute. I hope that the Minister recognises that this improves what the Government seek and makes the EDP a win-win for nature and development. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, for supporting Amendment 256ZA which I have tabled. I support Amendment 245 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. His eloquent promotion of it means that I do not need to explain what the mitigation hierarchy is all about. However, it is an important principle in conservation, and it has come to the fore in the biodiversity net gain policy. In the case of this Bill, it would require a developer or Natural England preparing an EDP to look first at how to avoid damage to natural features, or, if avoidance of damage is not possible, to mitigate—that is, reduce—the impact, or, as a last resort only, to provide compensation habitat for the damage.
Under the draft Bill, Natural England could be, subtly or otherwise, pressurised into writing an EDP that jumps straight to damage and compensation. That might be the lowest-cost option and therefore to be desired by developers and also perhaps by the Government in pursuit of growth, even where it would have been feasible for Natural England or a developer to implement measures to safeguard the original protected habitat. I know that the Minister does not like the Bill’s nickname of “cash to trash” but, if it is not to be portrayed in that way, I believe that it will need to be amended to encourage developers and Natural England to comply with the mitigation hierarchy.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my two amendments in this group on the mitigation hierarchy—Amendments 251 and 275. I do not want to speak too long on this, in the interests of the Committee, but I think that this and the last group are the two key issues remaining in the Bill. To my mind, the Government have not made enough of a solid argument for removing the mitigation hierarchy system—a tried and tested system that works and can be relied upon. No doubt there are inherent risks with changing this new system, even with the best will in the world. Similar to the last group, I generally support all of the amendments in this group and I welcome them. However, despite the reassurances given by Ministers, there is still an air of concern around these issues across the Committee.
To my mind, the Government have not made the required level of argument as to why they need to remove the mitigation hierarchy. I want to look at that specifically in relation to housing, because—and I raised this in relation to the stand part group we had the other night—all the energy policy statements have recently been updated. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy—EN-1—has been updated and we have had new policies on renewables, new policies on the grid and new policies on nuclear under this Government. They all have the mitigation hierarchy at their core, and they are actually really good, solid documents. So, if this Government are able to deliver the energy transition with the mitigation hierarchy in place, why can the same Government not deliver new housing with it? It just does not make sense to me. That is something I will leave to be discussed.
My Amendment 251 seeks to ensure that Natural England accepts requests only when developers have properly applied the mitigation hierarchy and justifies projects due to there being no alternative solutions and no incorporated public interest grounds, especially for sensitive habitats. We believe that this basic safeguard is needed to embed our core principles of environmental protection in planning into the Bill.
My Amendment 275 seeks to intervene in Clause 58 of the Bill and is designed to inject rigour, accountability and genuine environmental protection into the heart of the new planning system. I am pleased that this amendment has the backing of the Wildlife Trusts. It mandates that Natural England, as a delivery body, must not only adhere to the mitigation hierarchy but demonstrate that any EDP will result in significant environmental improvement
“at an ecologically appropriate scale”.
Those words are important. Other Members have raised issues about the mitigation hierarchy. I recognise the commitments the Government have made, but I think there is still a need for reassurance on these matters.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have been pleased to sign a number of amendments in this group, because the issue of the mitigation hierarchy is a big outstanding area of concern for those of us who want EDPs to be part of packages in the future but are concerned about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, have made the case, as has my noble friend Lord Russell, for our concern that the mitigation hierarchy does not remain for EDPs but does for other planning obligations.
I have one question for the Minister. Both Ministers provided a letter today that said that,
“an EDP can include planning conditions to avoid or reduce impacts on the site … before they can access the benefits of an EDP”.
I can see that that is an attempt to soften concerns that the mitigation hierarchy does not apply for an EDP, but I think the Committee needs quite a bit more information in the Minister’s summing up, and certainly before Report, about what exactly that means. I note that the letter says that an EDP “can”, not that an EDP “must”. I do not see how it is going to work.
The helpful chart drawn up by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, makes it clear that, for an EDP, there is absolutely no compulsion for an assessment of the environmental impacts by a developer of the site that they are going to develop before they can go straight to an EDP. How can you have planning conditions for a site where you do not even have an obligation to identify what the environmental impacts are?
We have heard from meetings with civil servants that they have been drawing up plans for two EDPs on nutrient neutrality and newts, so they must have some idea of what the type of planning conditions might be. I would like a bit more information about how the planning condition process might work and what it might be in order to give noble Lords more information before we get to Report. I have to say that I feel that being able to move straight to pass “Go” and avoid the mitigation hierarchy is a massive hole in this new system. As my noble friend Lord Russell has said, other parts of government have managed to find ways to incorporate it in equally important areas of infra- structure development.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming earlier that the environmental principles policy is still in place. That matters in this particular group in terms of the mitigation hierarchy. When the Bill came through, the OEP expressed significant concern about the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy. I am not aware of its opinion on subsequent government amendments in that regard, but, of the five principles set out in the Government’s policy statement, “prevention” is a key element and “Rectification at source” is another one of the five principles.
We are trying to make sure this is crystal clear in the Bill and locked in because of comments made by the Minister in the Commons about flexibility. It is fair to say that, frankly, Clause 66(3) completely sets aside the mitigation hierarchy; to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, it is cash for trash —basically, you can do what you like if you are prepared to pay for it. In that regard, it matters that the Government think again and put this in place in primary legislation. Despite that, Amendment 256ZA in particular is very useful where it talks about “reasonably practicable”. That is an element that, if necessary, can be tested in the courts in due course. But we need to correct this in this House, putting it very firmly instead of saying, as in the words of the Minister, “Our flexibility is fine”.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 340 proposes a new clause after Clause 87. This amendment would enshrine clear duties on both the Secretary of State and Natural England to take all reasonable steps to avoid, prevent and reduce significant adverse environmental effects when exercising their functions under Part 3. It would require them to enhance biodiversity to safeguard designated sites—such as the European and Ramsar sites that we have heard mentioned in the previous group—except in exceptional cases, and to protect irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and veteran trees.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, who has signed the amendment. She sends her apologies and says:
“This amendment provides a great opportunity for the Government to clarify the core commitments to existing nature protection that they have stated should remain in the Bill. This amendment is an essential clarification and strengthening of legal duties that already underpin environmental protections but risk being diluted under the new framework established by Part 3. While the Bill aims to streamline development and introduce strategic fund-based mechanisms for environmental management through both EDPs and the NRF, there have been legitimate concerns that existing protections might be weakened or circumvented”.
So this amendment does not obstruct development. It ensures that decision-makers uphold critical environmental principles consistently and transparently. It explicitly requires the Secretary of State and Natural England to take all reasonable steps to avoid causing significant harm, applying the fundamental mitigation hierarchy that we have already talked about and which prioritises avoidance first, minimisation second and compensation only as a last resort.
The amendment’s emphasis on enhancing biodiversity aligns directly with the Government’s own Environmental Principles Policy Statement, which guides all departments to embed environmental protection in their decision-making, and it places biodiversity improvement alongside harm avoidance as a clear statutory duty. Of particular importance is the protection afforded to irreplaceable habitats, as I have mentioned already. These are a unique and fragile ecosystem systems comprising just 2.5% of UK land yet supporting disproportionately rich biodiversity, and the NPPF rightly sets the loss of such habitats as a matter to be refused unless wholly exceptional reasons apply and compensatory measures are in place. Embedding this principle therefore in primary legislation strengthens the hand of conservation and local communities.
The amendment also correctly restricts where significant adverse effects on European and Ramsar sites may be permitted—only where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public importance—and where compensation will occur. This follows long-established environmental law and international obligations, and provides clarity. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall start by introducing my Amendment 346DF and, in the interests of brevity, will avoid detailed comments on the other amendments in the group.
My amendment is, by its nature, probing. It would require the Secretary of State to report on the potential benefits of removing distance from the biodiversity metric when measuring the biodiversity value of registered off-site biodiversity gain under paragraph 4 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This is important because the current system rightly places a heavy weighting on proximity. My amendment does not necessarily fit so well in this group, but there was no sense in having a separate group for just one focused amendment with a specific request. It simply poses the question to the Government: if proximity carries limited weight in designing EDPs, why should it continue to carry so much weight in the BNG market? This risks handicapping the private market for these services versus EDPs.
Currently, developers pay far less for BNG and nutrient neutrality units when further afield than when local, which translates to lower prices per unit and lower incentives for landowners to develop BNG units. We on these Benches remain convinced that the proximity of the offsetting actions’ location to where the damage is being done remains an important principle, which we will defend. However, if the Government were to insist that this is not the case in the EDPs, this amendment would seek to protect the ability of private developers of BNG units to compete. There is an argument, which holds weight, that if mitigation actions cannot be done locally, further afield may be acceptable. But in that case, it holds that the choice should be made based on guidance and availability, not price.
I turn to the arguments raised in this group of amendments, which we support. We are proud of the work done in the Environment Act 2021 to enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in law through biodiversity net gain. It has taken some time to implement but now works better every day. Developers are increasingly comfortable with it. Supply of BNG units is increasing, providing valuable income to landowners and funding for environmental NGOs. Given that, it is hard to understand where the problem is in planning that Part 3 is trying to fix. Perhaps most importantly, nature restoration is already happening at increasing scale around the country through the current system. Why undermine it? By not protecting the mitigation hierarchy within the application to the nature restoration fund and the design of EDPs, the Bill continues to represent a regression in environmental law in this country. It also undermines the competitiveness of BNG developers in providing solutions for housing and infrastructure developers.
In conclusion, the amendments we have discussed today reflect a common desire to protect the mitigation hierarchy and ensure it is embedded into all aspects of the NRF and EDPs. I hope the Minister will support this and offer encouragement.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate on the mitigation hierarchy. I have listened carefully and very much recognise the concerns that are being raised. These amendments seek to add provisions that require Natural England and the Secretary of State to apply the mitigation hierarchy when considering whether to produce an EDP, and in its production and implementation. By introducing a more strategic approach to addressing the impact of development, the Bill deliberately provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to Natural England to design conservation measures to deliver improved outcomes for the environmental features that are subject to an EDP. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when he introduced his amendment, noted that the NPPF includes consideration of the mitigation hierarchy in respect of individual planning applications. I was not going to mention it, but because he did, I thought I had to.
As we have set out, the NRF is a strategic model. While I want to reassure noble Lords that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model and is integral to the model we are trying to get across, it cannot be considered in the same way as an individual planning application. Again, I stress that the NPPF is a statutory model. You cannot just ignore it. It is part of the application process. So, we would expect Natural England to consider this throughout the process and use tools such as the ability to request planning conditions to avoid and reduce impact as key elements of an EDP. In preparing an EDP, Natural England will always be mindful of the benefits of avoiding impacts before they occur. Taking action locally which benefits the same protected feature that is being impacted by development will be the default under an EDP. This places a kind of ecological lock on the use of network measures, which can be used only in cases where it is clear that taking action elsewhere would be more beneficial to the environmental feature.
In addition, when making the EDP, the Secretary of State will have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, in line with the Environment Act 2021. This will ensure that important principles, such as the precautionary principle and the rectification at source principle, are considered. Ultimately, the overall improvement test will require that each EDP demonstrates how the conservation measures will secure an environmental uplift that goes beyond the offsetting that is achieved under the current system.
Returning to Amendment 245, as I said, the principles are already incorporated into the existing provisions and further reinforced by the amendments we have tabled. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Natural England can request that planning conditions be imposed on development, ensuring that impacts are minimised. As I have explained, network measures can be implemented only when doing so would lead to greater improvement. The noble Baroness asked for future information. Let us get together before Report; I will get that information for her and share it with noble Lords.
Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP, and the Secretary of State may make one only if it meets the overall improvement test. Therefore, the additional flexibility provided for by the nature restoration fund can be used only to deliver better outcomes for the environment.
I turn to Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who is not in her place. These amendments would require a developer to demonstrate that they have applied the mitigation hierarchy before Natural England can accept their request to use an EDP. The clear aim of the nature restoration fund is to deliver a win-win for both development and the environment. A fundamental element of delivering this is to reduce the amount of time and money spent on individual environmental assessments and refocus these efforts on strategic action to improve environmental outcomes at scale.
The EDP itself is required to consider the impact of relevant development on the environmental feature and propose appropriate measures to address and materially outweigh this impact. The plans will be underpinned by the best scientific evidence and will include actions to avoid impact, as well conservation measures to address and outweigh impact. As such, requiring developers to undertake individual assessments risks eroding the value of the EDP, adding costs to individual development, which we think would reduce the utility of relying on EDPs. Where an EDP is in place, the overall improvement test ensures that outcomes for the environment will be better than the existing system, so it is vital that we embrace the opportunity to streamline the process in order to deliver this win-win.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, tabled Amendment 275, which seeks to require that Natural England may decide to prepare an EDP for a protected feature only if two conditions are met: first, that Natural England has followed the mitigation hierarchy; and secondly, that the EDP would contribute to a significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature at an ecologically appropriate scale. I have just addressed the first condition, so I will focus on the second.
The existing provisions in the Bill already require the Secretary of State to consider whether the overall improvement test is met once a draft EDP has been prepared and presented. Requiring Natural England to consider that same test at an earlier stage would not be possible because neither the detail of the proposed conservation measures nor the environmental impact of the development it is intended to address would be known at that stage. We think that the correct point to apply the overall improvement test will be after the EDP is drafted, not before.
The amendment also proposes a modification to the overall improvement test to require that conservation measures significantly and measurably outweigh the environmental impact of development. This was addressed previously, so I will not repeat it here, except to say that the Bill requires that conservation measures must address the environmental impact of development and, additionally, contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status. We have clarified that with the amendments we have tabled.
Turning to Amendment 256ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government’s amendments to Part 3 make it clear that network measures may be taken forward only when Natural England can set out how the approach will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than an on-site measure. We are clear that the flexibilities will not come at the expense of action to avoid impact, and the Bill provides powers to address such actions and secure that they are taken through the use of planning conditions. There is also the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed conservation measures, including actions proposed to avoid impact, during the consultation on each EDP. The Secretary of State will also have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, and see that other important principles are considered.
Turning to Amendment 340, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the overall improvement test is central to the nature restoration fund. I have gone into some detail about how that is supposed to work, but the proposed requirement to apply the mitigation hierarchy rigidly would restrict an EDP’s ability to meet the overall improvement test strategically. As I said, an EDP cannot be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it will meet this test. Any flexibility in applying the mitigation hierarchy should be seen through this lens. The nature restoration fund does in limited circumstances allow Natural England to propose conservation measures which benefit the environmental feature in a different location.
Turning to irreplaceable habitats, the Bill does not amend or disapply the NPPF. Therefore, the existing policies remain unchanged. An EDP could be applied to an irreplaceable habitat only where it was also a feature of a protected site. Even then, an EDP could not allow for the loss of irreplaceable habitats, as it would simply not be possible to satisfy the overall improvements test in these circumstances. Finally, it is not clear what the proposed requirement to consider enhancing biodiversity would add, as the Bill is clear that an overall improvement must be achieved in relation to the protected feature to which the EDP relates.
Finally, on Amendment 346DF, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we have recently concluded a consultation on improving the implementation of BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development. Among the options is a proposal to streamline the BNG metric process. We might be interested to pick this up and discuss it further, because the Government are currently considering their response, and we will be publishing our outcomes in due course. New legislation requiring government to lay a report on this matter is therefore not necessary at this stage, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
This has been a really important debate. It has raised a number of issues which I am aware that noble Lords would like to discuss further, and this is something we should specifically pick up in discussions ahead of Report. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to that group, not least the Minister. I apologise for incorrectly prejudging what I thought she would say—I obviously got it completely wrong, and I apologise.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, got it right when he said that this group and the previous one are the nub of the problems with the EDP Part 3. I am not saying there are other things, but this goes to the heart of how we try and make the Bill a win-win for both development and nature. I do not want to dwell too long. I am grateful that the Minister said that we will come back to that. It is worth our coalescing and having another shot at it, if we may, but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(3A) An EDP must set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of the conservation measures by reference to the development to which the EDP applies.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to include in an EDP an indication of the sequencing of the conservation measures vis-a-vis the development.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this group has government and non-government amendments, so I will introduce the government amendments at this stage and then respond to further amendments at the end of the debate, once I have heard what people have to say.
The further government amendments speak directly to the matters raised by environmental groups and the Office for Environmental Protection, which, along with those in other groups, present a comprehensive package that addresses these issues, as well as picking up wider matters raised during parliamentary debates on how the nature restoration fund will operate.
Government Amendment 245A will require Natural England to set out the anticipated sequencing of conservation measures set against the development expected to come forward under the EDP. This amendment provides transparency as to when conservation measures are proposed to come forward, to address the impact of development. By including the proposed sequencing of conservation measures in the EDP, this will provide further assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development and will allow communities and developers to see how environmental benefits will be delivered over the EDP period.
Although back-up measures provide greater certainty of outcome, we also propose to reframe the duty on the Secretary of State to deliver remedial action in the unlikely event that the conservation measures and back-up conservation measures do not deliver as originally foreseen. Government Amendment 295A creates an explicit requirement for midpoint, endpoint and revocation reports to set out whether the EDP is still likely to pass, or has passed, the overall improvement test.
Should the endpoint report contain an assessment that the conservation measures are not likely to pass or have not passed the overall improvement test, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to take proportionate action to address any shortfall in environmental outcomes. These measures will need to be set out in a report containing a clear assessment of the effect the Secretary of State expects those actions to have. The Secretary of State will then also need to review the effect of these measures two years later.
These new reporting requirements will remove the need for Natural England to conduct an annual assessment of the effectiveness of all EDPs in force. That is further addressed by government Amendment 325 C. I hope that is informative for noble Lords and I look forward to responding to the rest of the debate.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 258C, which seeks to ensure that EDPs are grounded in scientific evidence and on clear ecological baselines, so that they can be judged as genuinely delivering measurable environmental improvements. The Government’s proposed amendments are welcome as going some way, requiring Natural England to have regard to existing scientific evidence, but they are silent on what happens if there is not sufficient data or evidence. Perhaps the noble Baroness could say whether Natural England would at that point be required to collect new evidence to establish a baseline from which measures and outcomes would be judged.
This amendment would ensure that every EDP has a strong evidential foundation, so that the interventions can be judged on whether they are credible to make them defensible. I remind noble Lords that we are dealing in this circumstance with the most important and threatened environmental features in this country, which until now have been regarded as requiring the highest level of legal protection, so it is important that we get the scientific and evidential bases right.
To assess whether development has a negative or a positive impact, it is essential to know what the starting ecological conditions were. Without a sufficient baseline, it is not possible to evaluate whether an EDP is achieving the environmental improvements it is supposed to. Requiring a proper baseline and evidential base builds in transparency, increases trust in the whole system, and allows proper monitoring over time, and I welcome the noble Baroness’s explanation of the additional amendments on monitoring.
This amendment also requires Natural England to take account of the environmental principles in preparing the EDP and to publish a statement of how it has done so. The noble Baroness has already talked about the importance of the environmental principles, but it would be useful to get some clarification of how they would refer to Natural England’s role as opposed to ministerial roles, to which it is clear through legislation that they already apply. Requiring Natural England to consider them explicitly and to put that in the Bill would give clarity for developers, regulators and the public.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 285A commits to a new clause, which would require Natural England to undertake a baseline biodiversity survey for an EDP, very much along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has just said, and would require the Secretary of State to consider this when determining whether an EDP passes the overall improvement test. I am very keen on biodiversity. My noble friend Lady Coffey referred to me as a twitcher. I take that not entirely well, because “twitcher” is slightly derogatory. I would like to be called a birder, and that is reflected in my coat of arms where there are four examples of a particular species which she will probably know from her reed beds at Minsmere: the bearded reedling, which of course is more commonly known as a bearded tit.
The reason for this biodiversity baseline is so that, as the noble Baroness said, you can find out what is happening now. The previous information may be out of date. It is important for the future condition of the area and to see whether the EDP is working, and it would highlight risks. In the interests of time, I will leave it there to hear what the Minister says on this.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Randall. First, turning to baseline data and coming back to earlier discussions in Committee, I know that work is going on to improve what we have by way of baseline data, and I have been involved in extensive discussions with the local environment record centres and others. I would really appreciate being given an understanding, either now or by letter, of what the Government’s intentions are by way of giving momentum and a sense of determination to taking our current system and moving it on to the point where we gather all the environmental information, which we collect into one place, both that generated by the planning system and the extensive environmental data generated through high-quality amateur systems, and use for the benefit of understanding what is going on in local ecology.
It is all very well to do a baseline survey—it is traditional around us to do them in February—but doing proper baseline to really understand what is going on in an area requires presence throughout the year over a period of years. We have that data. We are collecting it. The world is full of seriously good amateur natural historians putting in a lot of work for free, and we are not taking advantage of that. We do not even use it to monitor the condition of SSSIs. Where the Government intend to go on this and how they will pick up on the discussions currently taking place and take them forward are important to understand before we get to Report. I will write to the Minister on that subject.
Secondly, when it comes to such things as water quality and nutrient neutrality, I am afraid that the monitoring system run by the Environment Agency has been run down to such an extent that we really do not have a good picture of what is going on in the average river catchment. As I have said before in Committee, my brother, Tim Palmer, is involved in the efforts that the Wylye Valley farmers are making. They have created their own laboratory. They are doing their own measurements, working with the Environment Agency, producing a much better quality of baseline data, and understanding where the problems come from and what can be done to deal with them.
High-resolution data makes it possible to resolve problems. The sort of stuff we have as the general flow from the Environment Agency just leaves us puzzling. Again, I very much hope that the Government will find themselves able to work with all the resources, interest and determination that are out there in the farming and other communities to get the data better and not just think that they have to pay huge amounts to environmental consultants to do it through the usual methods. There are better ways of doing these things by opening up. I hope that is the direction the Government will take.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, on the face of it, I welcome government Amendment 245A and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because it is clearly right that the public should understand what the sequence proposed might be.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has stolen some of my thunder in identifying that some of the research can take place only at certain times of year which, if it is a particular time window, may be, say, 11 months away, and there is this temporal longevity which may happen over many seasons. It is really important that, as part of that requirement for laying out the sequencing, we get an understanding of what timescales may be needed, because my concern is what happens at the point at which an EDP is first mooted and that sequencing process starts. What assurances can the Minister give that, because the process may take several years, it will not, in effect, impose a moratorium on any development while we wait for the sequences and processes to go through? These were laid out in the helpful diagram from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the bits before.
It is important that government Amendment 245A which, as I say, I welcome, should be coupled with the anticipated timescales. It might be implicit in the amendment, but it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could make it explicit that sequences and timescales are in there and whether that applies to a moratorium in the meantime.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to my two amendments in this group. Amendment 293 would require Natural England to report on environmental delivery plans more regularly than simply at the halfway and completion points of the plan. This is important, because without frequent reporting, Parliament, local authorities and indeed the public are left in the dark for too long about whether the plans are on track. More frequent updates would allow for earlier course correction where plans are falling short, helping to build public confidence through transparency and ensure that delivery does not drift between the start and the finish. Can the Minister set out why the Government are confident that the current reporting framework is sufficient when many stakeholders believe more timely scrutiny is essential?
My Amendment 295 would require environmental delivery plan reports to include assessments of their impact on local communities and the local economy, rather than focusing solely on environmental consequences. This matters because environmental improvement is not achieved in isolation. Communities are directly affected, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, by the choices made in land use, development restrictions or habitat restoration. Understanding the economic and social consequences alongside the environmental ones is the only way to ensure that these plans are fair, balanced and capable of commanding long-term public support.
My noble friends Lord Jamieson and Lady Scott of Bybrook have repeatedly argued that local community voices matter in planning and this is no different. On these Benches, we continue to stand up for local engagement and meaningful consultation so that communities are partners and not bystanders in shaping outcomes.
Briefly, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her Amendment 258C and my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for his Amendment 285A. These are both vital because they strengthen the foundations on which environmental delivery plans are built. I have direct experience of this with my own farming activities and new forest development. Without accurate data on the baseline condition of the soil, flora and fauna, and water quality, it is simply impossible to be confident on progress. I would go further and suggest that this data should be published so that all stakeholders can hold Natural England to account. It is essential if plans are to be scientifically robust, deliver measurable benefits for nature and remain aligned with the environmental principles that your Lordships’ House has consistently supported. In that context, I should refer the Committee to my register of interests, which I have not done before in this respect, as a shareholder in Agricarbon.
These are constructive and necessary amendments. Taken together, they provide the checks, the evidence base and the community voice that will make environmental delivery plans more effective, more trusted and, ultimately, more deliverable.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 293 on the annual report. Put simply, if the department is not required to produce an annual report, will it do so and, if not, how is Parliament to be made aware of progress or difficulties, unless, perhaps by chance, a Select Committee calls in Natural England to tell it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for introducing their amendments and for the wider debate. I will speak first to Amendment 293, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. That requires Natural England to produce annual reports on EDPs rather than just at the mid- and endpoint of an EDP’s lifespan. We think that our Amendment 325C, on the new reporting requirements, partly speaks to this issue. Our concern is that Amendment 293 would bring a disproportionate burden, given the strengthened reporting requirements that we have introduced in government Amendment 295A.
The noble Lord asked whether we were happy with these levels of reporting. It is important that the frequency of reporting strikes the right balance. Natural England will still be carrying out appropriate monitoring throughout the EDP’s life cycle and will retain the power to publish a report at any time. Similarly, requiring EDPs to include an assessment of their impact on the local economy and community in the relevant area, as is proposed by the noble Lord’s Amendment 295, would add a significant burden to the reporting requirements for EDPs. Of course, communities will be involved during the consultation process; I wonder whether it might be an idea to circulate the consultation guidelines to noble Lords, because obviously the consultation process is an important part of what we are proposing.
On Amendment 285A, I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that requiring a biodiversity survey of an EDP area is already accommodated in the existing drafting to an extent that such a survey is not necessary. I was pleased to hear about his love of birds. He may be interested to know that I am a member of the RSPB, so perhaps I could be described as a minor “birdo” alongside him. Clause 57 already requires an EDP to describe the conservation status of each identified environmental feature at the EDP start date, setting out the relevant baseline. In doing so, as is the case for all duties carried out in relation to Part 3, Natural England will be required to take account of the best available scientific evidence. It is also important to remember that these are targeted plans to address the impact of development on a specific environmental feature. Requiring a full survey of all the biodiversity in an EDP area risks adding cost and burden that go far beyond what is required to consider the impact of development on the environmental feature.
Amendment 258C, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, would add a series of additional requirements for Natural England when preparing an EDP. I know from discussions with my noble friend that she wishes to ensure that the NRF is as rigorous as possible while ensuring that it is an effective tool to support development to come forward. Specifically in respect of the supporting evidence base for EDPs and the consideration of the environmental principles, I assure my noble friend that these matters are already captured through the drafting and amplified by the Government’s amendments to Part 3.
My noble friend also asked about further evidence collection. Where it is necessary to gather additional ecological evidence to prepare and monitor an EDP, the associated costs may be recovered through developer contributions. Clause 57 already requires an EDP to set out why conservation measures are considered appropriate, and new Clause 87A(2) requires the Secretary of State and Natural England to take account of the best available scientific evidence when exercising functions in relation to EDPs. Clause 57 also requires an EDP to describe the conservation status of each identified environmental feature, again with regard to the best available scientific evidence. This means that there is already a requirement for Natural England to ensure that there is a solid base of scientific evidence, including adequate baseline data, to inform the preparation of the EDP. My noble friend asked why Natural England is required to have regard to environmental principles as it refers to Ministers. I reiterate that the Environment Act requires the Secretary of State to take them into account when making their decision to approve or make an EDP.
I recognise the desire to ensure that EDPs deliver as much for the environment as possible, but we must also ensure that we are not asking developers to address more than is reasonable or that we are allowing EDPs to replace the important wider programme of work which is under way to protect important sites and species as part of our ambitions in the overall environmental improvement plan. We have to get that balance right. We have to make sure that the environment supports development and at the same time does not stop important development where we need it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked quite a lot of questions about the baseline and other things. It is probably helpful if I put my answers in writing to the noble Lord. I hope that with these explanations and assurances, noble Lords will not press their amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 55 inserting a new subsection (4A).
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(4A) But an EDP may include conservation measures of the type mentioned in subsection (4) only if Natural England considers that such measures would make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than measures that address the environmental impact of development on the feature at the protected site itself.”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be that network conservation measures can only be included in an EDP if Natural England considers that they will be more effective, in contributing to the improvement of the conservation status of the affected feature, than onsite measures.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 17th September 2025
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Sep 2025)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(5) An EDP must include conservation measures that are not, at the time the EDP is made, expected to be needed but which must be implemented in the circumstances set out in the EDP.(5A) Those circumstances must relate to the effectiveness of the conservation measures that have already been implemented, as revealed by the monitoring of the EDP (see section 76(4)(a)).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to include backup conservation measures in an EDP, in case the primary ones prove to be ineffective, and to specify the circumstances in which the backup measures will be implemented. (See also my amendment to clause 76 inserting a new subsection (4) about monitoring.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this group covers further government amendments to bring confidence that the nature restoration fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. At its introduction, the Bill provided the ability for Natural England to include back-up conservation measures within an EDP which could be used if the initial conservation measures were not delivering the desired outcome.
Reflecting the original intent that these back-up measures would be used where necessary, Amendment 248A makes it mandatory for an EDP to include back-up measures as well as explicitly requiring Natural England to monitor the effectiveness of conservation measures so that it knows when it is necessary for these to be deployed. In addition, government Amendment 298ZA bolsters the duty of the Secretary of State to carry out remedial measures. Should the end-point report or the report following revocation contain an assessment that conservation measures are not likely to or have not passed the overall improvement test, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to take proportionate action to address any shortfall in environmental outcomes, whether the EDP is revoked or it reaches the end date.
Finally, the amendments make a series of minor legislative fixes and consequential amendments necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following these substantive government amendments. I hope that the Committee will support these amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords these amendments brought forward by the Minister draw attention to a crucial point: environmental delivery plans, if they are to carry weight and deliver real outcomes, must be more than static documents. Amendment 248A rightly calls for contingency measures, back-up conservation actions that can be triggered if the initial interventions fall short. That is not only prudent but essential if we are to treat the environmental promises made in an EDP with the seriousness they deserve. Likewise, the amendments proposing a clear duty on the Secretary of State to act where an EDP fails the overall improvement test, together with publication requirements, are in my view sensible and measured. If the regime is to maintain public confidence, there must be accountability when delivery falters.
The environmental delivery plan must not be a one-shot deal; it must be an adaptive instrument capable of responding to what monitoring reveals and supported by a credible remedial pathway if things go wrong. These proposals help to strengthen that architecture, and I hope that the Government will give them serious and constructive consideration.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his supportive comments. I do believe these amendments show we have been listening to concerns. I beg to move.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I am unable to call Amendment 248B by reason of pre-emption.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be a drafting correction so that subsection (6) refers to “the environmental impact of development” which is the defined term in subsection (8).
Lord Roborough
“(9) Where an EDP identifies environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected by any invasive non-native species that is present at the site of the development, Natural England, or a body acting on behalf of Natural England, must take all reasonable steps to eradicate the invasive non-native species that has been identified at the site.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect all environmental features identified as at risk by invasive non-native species.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 253, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group. It is an embarrassment that in our small, wealthy island nation, there are, according to APHA, over 2,000 non-native species, of which 10% to 15% become invasive and pose a serious threat to our biodiversity and environment. We must make intensive efforts to control and eliminate those species to protect our own besieged biodiversity.
The grey squirrel has pushed the red squirrel out of much of our woodlands and now destroys countless young trees every year, making it almost futile to plant native broadleaves in my home county of Devon and many other parts of the UK. What progress is being made with the research into the sterilisation of grey squirrels, and when will that treatment be expected to be made generally available?
Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed have invaded our river systems, displacing our native flora and upsetting the ecology for animals and fish living in those waterways. I commend the Tamar invasives group for the work it has done in controlling these invasive plants under the auspices of the Tamar Valley National Landscape in that area. What similar work is being done elsewhere in the country to eradicate these species?
Signal crayfish are present in many waterways and reservoirs, spreading disease that kills our native crayfish and predating on our migratory and freshwater fish species. Muntjac deer are spreading rapidly across our country, feeding on our crops, damaging fences and stripping the bark off young trees. Numbers are out of control.
The purpose of these amendments is twofold. The first is to raise awareness of the damage that these and other species are doing to our environment. The Government need to change attitudes to these animals, birds and plants so that everyone in this country takes steps to eliminate them from their gardens, farms and land.
The second purpose is equally serious. I cannot see how any environmental delivery project funded by this new nature restoration fund can be judged to be successful if non-native invasive species are still present on the land within the project after five years. It simply does not make sense that the EDP can have done an acceptable job on the site if those species remain in place, attacking our much-loved trees, brown squirrels and aquatic species.
Should the Committee support this amendment, I fear there is a risk that Natural England could then choose sites that are not infected with those species. Can the Minister assure the Committee that would not be the case? I think that all who know and love our beautiful countryside appreciate how difficult a task it would be to achieve this even in these limited areas, but it is not impossible, and it is crucial. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, introducing his own amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I start by confirming my support for all three of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Amendments 253, 296 and 297. However, I caution the use of “non-native”; it is the invasive aspect that is the problem. What could be more English than a rose? What could be a more typical English fruit than an apple? Both of them originate from central Asia—they are not natives. However, I entirely take the point about invasive species.
Amendment 60, already debated, referred to guidance on planting along highways. There was much discussion about trees and wildflowers. I enjoyed reading what type of tree the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, might represent, which might repay people who want to look it up in Hansard. One plant that grows along our highways which was not mentioned in the earlier debate is ragwort, the bright yellow flowering plant seen everywhere alongside our highway network. Through lack of enforcement of existing legislation, this invasive plant has become a menace to the environment, animals and agriculture, and action to control it is long overdue. Once it has flowered, ragwort produces seeds that, like dandelions which people may be more familiar with, come with a downy parachute which means they float far and wide on the breeze across the countryside and into farmland, where they take root, produce more seed, and so on.
Ragwort is poisonous to livestock, and it is not advisable for people to touch it with their bare hands, although I spend many unhappy hours pulling it up myself with my own bare hands, as I am sure many other Members do. Grazing animals leave it alone while it is growing, but where a field is cut for hay or silage, as is the case on many grassland farms, it gets incorporated into the bales, animals cannot detect it, and they are poisoned by it. Finally, areas set aside for environmental benefits, such as margins for wildflowers, quickly become choked with ever-expanding stands of ragwort.
So much for the biology; what about the law? Ragwort is what is called a notifiable weed, and landowners and occupiers have a legal obligation to control and remove it, particularly if it is spreading, causing a nuisance, or posing a risk to livestock. The Weeds Act 1959 and the subsequent code of practice on how to prevent the spread of ragwort outline these responsibilities. Failure to comply can lead to legal action, and/or the relevant authorities can issue a clearance notice requiring action to be taken to remove it. Unfortunately, this has not been enforced for many years.
As part of my research in tabling this amendment, I asked a Written Question about notices or prosecutions in the last 12 months. I was informed:
“In the past 12 months, no notices in relation to ragwort control have been served to National Highways, and there have been no prosecutions under the Weeds Act 1959 or the Code of Practice”.
I would bet that we could go back a lot more years than the last 12 months and the result would be exactly the same.
That is not good enough. Defra and the Environment Agency need to enforce the existing law and regulations. The Bill will create new areas of land controlled by a quango. This amendment specifically identifies this problem plant and requires that at least in the development of new infrastructure, proper controls are carried out, and—my favourite theme—enforced where necessary. That would be a start.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak on behalf of the Cinnabar moth, a very handsome creature which is nourished on ragwort. Ragwort is an ordinary part of the downland scene. It is an entirely natural, native plant in its right place. I agree that it can become a pest in some other places, but our downland is grazed by horses. They have the sense not to eat the thing, and we do not make hay out of it.
It is a plant that, in its ordinary place, you can work your way around. It is where someone leaves a field derelict, and it becomes a sea of yellow and the seeds are drifting everywhere, that something needs to be done about it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that we should be better, but we should not be too frightened of ragwort. It is not hugely disastrous for agriculture or livestock, in my experience of it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I invite the noble Lord to spend a series of weekends with me and my family pulling up ragwort across the organic grassland, which we bale for organic dairy farmers. After that, he may consider that ragwort is fine in his backyard but that, for those who are trying to feed the nation, it is a serious problem. Our livestock do leave it alone—he is quite right that they have the good sense to eat around it—but once it is baled and dead, they eat it.
Lord Lucas (Con)
The prospect of spending weekends with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seems well worth some ragwort pulling.
I also sound a note of caution in respect of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough, as they are drafted, particularly Amendment 296. Animals such as the grey squirrel and the muntjac come and go as they please; you cannot eradicate them from an area. You can try pushing them back, but we are stuck with them until we develop a national solution. You should not penalise an EDP because it happens to be infected by them.
Also, are we referring to the list that is generated by retained EU regulation 1143/2014 when we are referring to invasive non-native species? This list consists mostly of things that are troublesome in much warmer climates. A lot of things that cause problems for us, such as sycamore, would not be included at all.
I am cautious. It is hard to eliminate invasive species from waterways. Unless you control the whole waterway and have a really integrated, careful and expensive campaign over several years, it is very difficult to do more than just reduce. By and large, we should learn to live with these invaders. I say this as a lifelong botanist. We have; we enjoy and celebrate the thousands of plants which have come to live here, mostly courtesy of gardeners, and which play a small part in the native flora.
There are very few plants that cause a huge problem in terms of invasiveness. Animals can be difficult. Insects are difficult but really hard to control. Anyway, when it comes to the flora of this country, we should recognise what we mean by “native”. If we go back to the ice ages, you are talking just about birch and a bit of Scots pine. The ice ages crushed the European temperate flora against the Alps. As a result, we have a really depleted flora in Europe compared with China or North America, which both had southern refuges that their flora could get to. You really see that in the case of forestry; we have 30 woody species in this country. Every year or two, a disease threatens another of them. I am starting to lose my mature oak trees to acute oak decline, having lost a lot of ash and all the elm.
A healthy temperate woodland has hundreds of species in it. That a few are finding their way back from gardens, diversifying and getting us back to a level of diversity that we ought to have is to be celebrated. Instead of this fuss about what is non-native, let us celebrate the immigrants. Surely the party opposite agrees with that.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Without referring back as far as the ice age or taking as long as that to talk about it, my amendment relates specifically to one plant. Is the noble Lord suggesting that we do not apply the existing legislation? That is what my amendment seeks—merely to apply the law as it stands now through enforcement, not to create new law.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, where it is troubling serious agriculture, yes, we should enforce.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, on the grounds of “it takes one to know one”, it is worth noting that this is a debate that we are unlikely to have in the next Session of Parliament—old-style hereditary Peers’ contribution to the governance of this country.
I will talk briefly about invasive species. I declare an interest as a landowner in Cumbria. It has always seemed to me that the real problem in dealing with the ones that are pests, of which we can all think of a number—Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed and so on—is that those of us who want to see them rolled back have never managed to capture the hearts and minds of the country. It is no good just doing it yourself, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. I suggest to the Government that they should think in terms of trying to enrol the nation on this particular crusade.
I say this because my contributions towards our local red squirrel group may be endangered, although I hope they will not be, by reduction in support for my agricultural enterprises, because there is less money going round. There might be ways of incentivising those involved in land management, possibly with a little financial contribution as part of a wider package, to make some of these things happen. I will leave it at that, other than to say that if anybody wants to see an extreme example of a reservoir with a whole group of invasive species in one place, they should travel by train from Preston to Manchester and look out the window. They all seem to be there on the verge of the railway line.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
On a lighter note, the noble Lord introduced the issue of hereditaries; many of us are indeed invasive species as we came over with the Normans.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: does he want to accept these invasive plants? What about Japanese knotweed, which is in the schedule of wildflowers and illegal to perpetuate? Once it takes root, it is very difficult to get rid of. If it is cut, tiny things will spread. Is he still in favour of Japanese knotweed?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have managed to eliminate Japanese knotweed successfully several times. It requires a bit of time and a bit of glyphosate.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have also got rid of Japanese knotweed—I have not had much success with Himalayan balsam, though.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for Amendments 253, 296 and 297, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for Amendment 253B. I will consider these together because they all relate to invasive non-native species and the nature restoration fund. The Government recognise the impacts of invasive non-native species on our native species and ecosystems. As the Minister for invasive non-native species, I appreciate the noble Lords’ intentions in tabling these amendments, but they do not align with the targeted nature of the nature restoration fund.
However, I reassure noble Lords that I have a particular bee in my bonnet about how we best tackle invasive non-native species, because they can have a devastating impact on our native biodiversity. Himalayan balsam means that nothing grows at all, and it wrecks riverbanks. However, it is about not only what is here at the moment and how we manage it but how we stop more invasive species coming in. That is a huge challenge. While I am on that subject, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about the list—it is retained EU law, but we have been reviewing and amending it in order to tailor it to UK circumstances.
Amendment 253 would require Natural England to take action to eradicate the invasive non-native species that could negatively impact an EDP’s environmental features. The legislation already allows invasive non-native species control to act as a conservation measure, where this would support the action of Natural England to materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature. However, we should recognise that it might not always be the best option in terms of environmental impact, value for money and delivery considerations, such as the need to secure the overall improvement by the EDP end date.
Requiring action to eradicate invasive non-native species, regardless of these considerations, could delay EDPs, increase costs, and limit the ability to secure positive environmental outcomes. With these amendments, the Secretary of State would be required to revoke an EDP—even one delivering effectively for nature—because of the presence of a single grey squirrel, which does not make sense in the bigger picture. Making EDPs contingent on mandatory eradication in this way could also make them unviable. On the grey squirrel question, the noble Lord asked about the sterilisation programme. To confirm, the programme is ongoing, and is being supported by Defra.
Amendment 253B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to require bodies exercising powers relating to an EDP to ensure that legal obligations under the Weeds Act 1959 are “publicised, observed and enforced”. The Weeds Act grants powers for the Defra Secretary of State to serve landowners with a requirement to remove the weeds specified within the Act, and ensures that landowners retain responsibility for their own land, instead of public bodies needing to act.
EDPs are a targeted tool to address the impact of development on specific environmental features. Introducing a broad obligation for Natural England, and others exercising responsibilities relating to EDPs, would expand the scope of EDPs, and risk diverting focus from their core purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and others discussed ragwort. I assure the noble Lord that there is nothing in this legislation that would preclude Natural England or others from taking action in line with the Weeds Act, such as reporting the presence of ragwort where this is encountered, or from appropriately removing such weeds where Natural England, or delivery partners, are delivering conservation measures on the ground. With these explanations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I was interested in that debate, and would like to pick up what the Minister said. Given her responsibilities, could she update us on the point my noble friend Lord Roborough made about the grey squirrel? Could she be a little more specific about the up-to-date situation on that, but also on deer in general, which are causing havoc to young plantations and farmland? Those might not include non-native or invasive species, but there are far too many deer in the countryside.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the main deer that cause a problem is non-native, but we will not go into that. The department is currently producing the revised deer strategy, which I am sure we can share with the noble Earl when it is produced. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is working closely with the group working on the grey squirrel sterilisation programme. I have had meetings with him and his colleagues, but I cannot provide the details of that, as it is something that they are driving forward themselves. It may be worth the noble Earl having a conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and we are supporting the work that he and his group are doing.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate, and particularly to the Minister for her knowledgeable answer. I add my thanks to the Minister for a meeting which she organised a couple of weeks ago with her officials. The depth of knowledge of those officials on this subject was phenomenal.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made a good point about public education. These are not adorable, furry animals, these are pests. They are causing damage to our wildlife, our trees, and to everything in our country, and people need to be aware of that. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, about ragwort. My experience is that responsible farmers remove this as soon as they see it, and it is disappointing to see public bodies not taking that responsibility seriously.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his points. He slightly contradicted himself; of course, it is very difficult to remove these invasive non-native species, but the point is that it is not impossible. I had the same experience with Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam; you can eradicate them, but you have to work at it.
I will take away the comments made in the debate, and perhaps see whether there is something we can do, in this Bill or elsewhere, to try to strengthen the defences against these. I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cromwell
“(9) In designing, creating, implementing, monitoring or enforcing any EDP, Natural England, or any other body undertaking some or all of these functions, must ensure that legal obligations concerning notifiable weeds under the Weeds Act 1959 and the associated Code of Practice, including ragwort, are publicised, observed and enforced, including ensuring that all reasonable steps are taken to remove and destroy such plants.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the legal obligation on landowners and occupiers to report, control and remove notifiable weeds on land acquired for an EDP. The amendment specifically refers to ragwort, which is poisonous to livestock and has spread rapidly in recent years.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I hope that Defra will take into account the need to enforce the existing legislation when public bodies are running EDPs, because many public bodies are not doing so at the moment. On that basis, I do not move my amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents Natural England from including Compulsory Purchase Order costs within their budgeting for an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 256 I will speak also to my Amendments 313, 315 and 317 in this group. These concern the use and governance of the nature restoration fund levy. This is a large group of amendments, so I will use what time I have available at the end to address other amendments. My amendments aim to reinforce the principles of fairness, transparency and proper fiscal stewardship in the deployment of levy funds, ensuring that the mechanisms intended to restore nature do so in a way that commands public trust and delivers tangible environmental outcomes.
Amendment 256 seeks to prevent Natural England from including the costs associated with compulsory purchase orders in its budgeting for environmental delivery plans. The use of CPOs should be the absolute last resort, not a built-in assumption or a line item in standard budget planning. Including such costs up front risks normalising compulsory acquisition, an approach which is both confrontational and potentially costly to the public purse. It also discourages collaboration with landowners, many of whom are keen to play a voluntary role in restoring our natural environment. This amendment therefore promotes a partnership-led model of land restoration rather than a heavy-handed and bureaucratic one.
Amendment 313 builds on this principle by explicitly prohibiting the use of levy funds for land acquisition via compulsory purchase. The nature restoration levy is paid by developers—and ultimately by the public—with the promise that it will support direct and measurable environmental benefits. Using those funds to acquire land through force undermines the voluntary market-based ethos behind the levy and risks reputational damage to the scheme. We must be clear that the levy should support restoration, not legal battles over land.
Amendment 315 would ensure that funds raised through the NRF levy are not squirreled away for indefinite or speculative future use. Money raised should be deployed promptly and transparently to deliver nature recovery now, not be locked up for uncertain projects that may or may not materialise in years to come. The public and contributors deserve to see timely, tangible benefits from these contributions, especially in an era of growing scrutiny over the effectiveness of environmental spending.
Finally, Amendment 317 provides the Secretary of State with the necessary regulation-making power to return surplus or unused funds to contributors. This is a basic fairness measure. Where funds have been raised in excess of what is needed, or where they cannot be spent appropriately, it is right and proper that they be returned. Without such a mechanism, we risk creating a one-way system of financial extraction without accountability. I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these amendments strengthen the integrity of the nature restoration levy by ensuring that it remains targeted, proportionate and fair. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Roborough’s Amendment 313 and will speak to that and to my Amendments 311, 316 and 318. I hope my noble friend’s Amendment 313 is an easy one for the Minister to accept or at least confirm that the situation will not take place at all when it comes to compulsory purchase orders.
On Amendment 311, I have three items I would like to see included in the regulations. Two refer to the mitigation hierarchy. We discussed that at some length on Amendment 245, so I will not say anything more about that. One of the items I would like to add to the regulations is that they should require Natural England to consider a delivery hierarchy, such that preference is given to those bodies and persons implementing the EDP. I believe that will encourage the private sector to take its appropriate share of the work of EDPs and keep the money with the people who actually manage the land, tend it and care for it, not just for 10 years of an EDP but for the future generations as well.
Amendment 316 seeks to clarify the legal obligations or liabilities of other parties, such as landowners and farmers, in accepting NRF funds delivered to the EDP. Amendment 318 seeks to provide further clarity on the involvement of an appropriate body, not just a public authority. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm exactly what is meant in the Bill on that point.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak to a whole raft of amendments in my name in this Marshalled List: Amendments 307, 308A, 309, 310, 312 and 314. All are designed to ensure that the money raised through Part 3 for the nature restoration fund is actually spent on nature recovery rather than bureaucracy and process. This should concern us all because, as we have discussed repeatedly, Part 3 establishes what I see as an elaborate and quite ambiguous mechanism which does, in effect, carve out some developers from certain responsibilities.
Overall, my general approach to legislation is that it needs to be as comprehensive, clear and coherent as possible. We should not seek to keep things vague on purpose, because all that does is create problems, issues and delays down the line. Yet, as drafted, I fear that the Bill leaves a huge amount open to legal interpretation and case law. I am not speaking to any agency, body or department—perhaps it is more a reflection of human nature itself—but my experience is that where there is an ambiguous process, there is a tendency for government and others not to feel as much pressure on the need to deliver cost-effectiveness. On something as bold as this scheme, I fear that there is a likelihood of going through copious administrative procedure to mitigate litigation risk. Obviously, these copious administration procedures cost, and I suppose the ultimate question is: is it fair that nature pays that cost?
These amendments seek to limit the power of Natural England to take a cut from the fund at the expense of nature. I am sure that some will balk at this concept and ask where the money comes from, but that is not the debate here. I am seeking to ensure that the funds raised from developers are spent on their proper purpose. We should recognise that Natural England already has generous provisions allowing for it to charge fees for licenses and other work through Section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
Amendment 307 seeks to limit the amount that Natural England can charge in accordance with those existing provisions. Could the Minister explain whether they no longer see those existing provisions as sufficient to recover legitimate costs for Natural England?
Amendment 309 seeks to ensure that any charges taken are used to work within the same local authority boundary. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who, sadly, is not in his place, for adding his name to the amendment. The amendment makes it clear that the levy raised must be spent within the same planning authority from where the levy originated. I am happy to discuss my reason for tabling the amendment, and there can be debate about whether it is too narrow in its definition. As currently drafted, however, the money raised from one site can be spent anywhere. I am blessed, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will agree, to have been born in God’s own county of Lancashire. More recently, I confess, I have moved somewhere else. Hypothetically speaking, there is nothing in the Bill, as drafted, for a site to be taken out of where I live in Surrey now—
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I know. There is nothing to prevent the EDP deeming that the money raised should not go to replace or improve something near what I have lost, but rather could be spent in beautiful Lancashire. As a result, while my family up there may gain from that benefit, people in Surrey would lose the benefit twice. They lose the site within scope of the development, and they lose the money that should be there to rectify that loss.
Finally, I will speak to Amendment 308A, which seeks to prevent other departments, but mainly the Treasury, effectively siphoning off money for non-related uses. Clause 71(5)(d) allows for Natural England to pass moneys collected under the levy to another public body. Indeed, it goes so far as to say that it would require Natural England to pass it to another public authority. A little later, the rather gloomy entry of Clause 72(7) says:
“The regulations may permit or require a public authority to collect any nature restoration levy charged by Natural England”,
the implication of which is worthy of debate in itself. Which public body do the Government foresee taking on this role if not Natural England? I will leave that to others if they wish to go down that route.
This amendment protects the funds to wherever these moneys may go. It means, ultimately, that their original purpose shall remain. I think everyone can unite around this, from sceptics of the Bill to those supporting it, because it means that money for nature should remain for nature and not be subsumed into a general pot. I am afraid I have the scars from working in government and know all too well what happens if things are not ring-fenced clearly.
As an aside, there is a precedent here. The other day—I cannot remember when—we discussed the community infrastructure levy, and the 2010 regulations include a ring fence to ensure that the income spent is on infrastructure, no matter who is doing the spending. That is in Regulation 59, if noble Lords wish to check. Ultimately, the nature restoration fund needs to be protected and clearly defined in the Bill, and not allowed to be open to interpretation or postponed to secondary legislation.
The remaining amendments in this group in my name, namely Amendments 310, 312 and 314, all seek to tighten further the accountability and transparency around any decision by Natural England to fund its own administrative activities from the nature restoration fund.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
It was a pleasure to follow the last two speakers, as they adroitly picked their way through the thickets of these various amendments. I will briefly touch on theirs before getting to mine. As regards Amendments 256 and 313, where land is CPO’d from its owner, it is manifestly unfair to include in the levy the cost of acquisition. It is reminiscent of the victim of an execution being made to pay for the bullet. As regards Amendments 307, 312 and 314, I support clear limits being set on the ability of quangos—particularly quangos in a monopoly situation—being able to overegg their charges.
Amendment 307A in my name requires Natural England to provide a proper budget breakdown for the use of levy funds requested from a developer. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a required levy could be quantified in any other way. In the event that there is an underspend of the developer’s levy, then the amount not spent to meet the purpose of the levy should be promptly returned to the developer. It has always been my understanding that the specific purpose of the levy is to enable the offsetting of environmental degradation caused by specific developments. Such environmental degradation is to be defined, calculated and quantified by Natural England or its appointees to arrive at a numerical amount of the levy sum payable by the developer. Natural England has confirmed to me that that sum will in each case include an amount for contingency. That is a normal part of any budgeting process for what could be a complex project.
Where the system departs from normal practice is: what happens to any unspent funds once the quantum of environmental benefit that the developer has paid for is achieved? When I asked Natural England executives about this, they told me to my great surprise that any unused funds would simply be kept by Natural England and spent on unspecified further work. The levy amounts are likely to be substantial. It is not unreasonable to anticipate millions of pounds in some cases. To allow Natural England to retain any unspent funds for its own purposes flies in the face of standard contractual practice. It is also an open invitation to overprice the levy for any project as a means of generating revenue for Natural England above and beyond what is reasonably required for the agreed environmental benefits.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who had to go back to Cornwall this afternoon, I speak to his Amendment 301A, which is very simple and straightforward. It basically makes the point that the money that the developers pay should go to the schemes that they are expecting to come to fruition and should not be used by the Government, as too often happened in the past, to reduce the core funding of the department or, in particular, that of Natural England.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was hoping that the Minister might be able to give from the Dispatch Box some reassurances that that would not be the case, and equally—although I know the Government cannot ring-fence—that the Treasury will not try to claw back any of the additional money that has gone to Natural England for funding of the delivery of the EDP, when developers had given it in good faith.
The noble Lord very much wanted to support Amendment 309, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I do so too—and not just because I am a resident of Surrey.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, we are really getting under the bonnet here, looking at the minutiae of the EDP, and we are missing the bigger picture.
I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on Amendment 307A, and Amendment 256, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. We find ourselves in this situation because the organisations with the statutory duties, powers, staff, income and systems to clean up our rivers, in so far as nutrient neutrality is concerned, have not been doing so. Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the water companies in particular and the drainage boards are all in scope. They have got their job, but they have not been doing it.
I am concerned about the levy. We are talking about how we are going to charge this levy, but we are not really talking about where the money is coming from to deliver the EDPs. In effect, Part 3 lets these statutory undertakings off the hook. Instead, it falls to those people who do not have the powers or responsibilities, such as councils and local developers. If my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was in her place, I am sure she would intervene and tell us that it will also fall to the small builders and small companies that spend money in local supply chains and so on. Here, we have the ultimate moral hazard; it is the reward for failure.
I do not deny that the costs of these EDPs could be apportioned appropriately across the canvas that is required for the purposes of the EDP and in proportion to the number of units it is going to sell. However, I am disappointed that the Bill does not require those with the responsibilities—Defra, the Environment Agency and so forth—to have the first pull. It is an omission, and one we should place on the record and return to later on Report.
I want to question the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He talks about the surplus. In a previous group, I explained how I have been involved in this for some time. There will be no surplus, because we are talking about 80-year tail liabilities. The money that is ponied up front to deliver an environmental improvement is going to have to be jam-spread over 80 years, in the case of nutrient neutrality, or 30 years, in the case of biodiversity net gain, and whatever other regulations come along. We are not going to know whether there is enough money in the kitty until year 79. I do not think this is fully understood.
Other noble Lords in previous groups have given numbers. Earlier, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke about £1,900 versus £2,300, and he was concerned—on the current account, if you like, or this year’s P&L—what the extra margin might be. But there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of how the accountancy works. That is why I wanted to explain it in an earlier group, and why I will talk about it in a later group when we get to private involvement. We need to have proper accounting standards for how we will approach accounting for these 80-year tail liabilities.
Nevertheless, until we do, when we are setting this levy it should be on the basis that those who are required to and paid to do this work should carry the first burden. Otherwise, small family building businesses will be cross-subsidising the large water companies which raise business water rates and should be upgrading their own sewage plants. Instead, the owners and purchasers of new homes—young families trying to get their foot on the ladder—are, in effect, going to be cross-subsidising. EDPs should be explicit in asking those who are paid and have the duty to do this work to do it first, and then, if there is any requirement left over thereafter, that has to be apportioned to the developers and, in due course, passed on to the purchasers of new homes.
In this group we have really only scratched the surface as regards the costs, accountancies and financial models. We need to do a lot more work on this, otherwise the money will run out in year 42 or 52. It does not really matter when, because we are not going to get to year 80, and, in the meantime, the costs of EDP and annual inspections, renewals and accountancy and everything else have not been factored in at all. This is not at all straightforward. As we get to Report, we will have to dig much more deeply into who pays, who should pay, and how we are going to value these tail liabilities. It is almost an actuarial problem. Until we do that, there will be no money to go back to anybody.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Very briefly, I found that a fascinating exposition and would happily discuss it further outside the Chamber with the noble Lord. The logical corollary of it is that it is therefore almost impossible to calculate what the levy should be, because you are dealing with unknowns into an 80-year period. But let us not discuss it now—let us move on.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I agree—let us not discuss it now.
Amendment 309A in my name may not be required, but I would like some reassurance from the Minister. As currently drafted, the Bill outlines Natural England’s role under the nature restoration levy in spending funds and in monitoring the implementation of the EDPs—monitoring, as it were, the inputs and actions that are needed under the EDPs. There is no explicit duty as far as I understand—but I would like clarification —to ensure that the plans result in real ecological improvements and outcomes on the ground. By that I mean not just whether the EDP has done was it said it would but whether it has delivered the goods as a result of those actions. My amendment would make sure that Natural England had to demonstrate that the outcomes planned were being delivered and the plan was working.
The only requirement I can find—I am sure the Minister will say that this is sufficient—is that the EDP reporting requirements that are laid on Natural England in Clause 62 already ensure that it will report on whether the conservation measures are having or have had their intended effect. It would be good to have confirmation that she believes this means that it has to report on outcomes.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am supportive of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendments, and will speak also to those from my Front Bench.
There are a couple of factors in this. The Treasury hates ring-fencing, because, right now, it pretty much controls every penny that leaves the Government’s hands, whether it goes off to local government or similar. Other departments then want to try to control money that is coming out of existing government departments and how that should or should not be done, and so conventions start to happen within government. That frustrates, at times, the very purpose the levy is there for in the first place. There is precedence, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, in CIL and the Act that brought that in.
There are other aspects. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would make sure that this is additional money. It basically says that Natural England should not become self-financing and that every single penny raised should go to nature restoration.
Like my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, I was born in the county of Lancashire and I am very proud of that—don’t worry, I will not start singing the cricket song. There is something to be said, building on the principle of rectification at source, for trying to have that biodiversity as near as possible. Very occasionally, there have been infrastructure projects, such as the Channel Tunnel, for which it has simply not been possible to re-create the relevant habitat for certain displaced species, and it has had to go further away. It is a bit like what HS2 found: there is no point in planting trees at the wrong time of year, not watering them and then finding that—what a surprise—70% of them are dead. More money is spent on fixing the problem, instead of sorting it out in the first place. There is an element of co-ordination involved here, which I think Natural England is reasonably well-placed to do.
When we were setting up the BNG pilots, local developers sometimes could not do it, and there was then an opportunity to buy national credits. The department and Natural England were very keen for Natural England to be the only body to have this national pot, but I ensured that a few more bodies were available. It is important to have not necessarily competition but a variety of people who can provide this, as opposed to resource constraints becoming the great determining step or not helping progress. I come back to the Environment Act 2021 and its species abundance target for 2030.
There are other examples. It might be surprising to hear that the Treasury regularly holds back over a billion pounds from the collection of the apprenticeship levy, which it will often use to pay for various training here and there. Nature is too important. I thought it was no longer the Cinderella of the climate and nature environment, but I am afraid that it is back in that sad era. We need to ensure that it receives its fair dues, which is why I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to make a brief intervention. In terms of infrastructure, nothing has had a more devastating effect on the countryside and nature than HS2—for no purpose at all, which is very sad. The point I wish to put to the Minister relates to compulsory purchase orders. I do not know whether she is aware that the farmers have been paid only 90% of the value of the farmland taken for HS2, which seems grotesquely unfair. I wonder whether she would take that on board and perhaps comment on it or think about it.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support those who have argued that the levy must be spent exclusively on nature. That is what it is collected for. The Government, who administer these things more generally, have enormous resources at their disposal and they are ordaining that this is the way things will be done. As part of that, they should foot the bill for their own activities.
If I may, I will also turn briefly to Amendment 309, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I have great sympathy with it, but it might be better to include a spatial measure, rather than a local authority boundary measure, behind the approach we adopt. If we have a development very close to a local authority boundary, it may be that the right place to spend the money is just over the boundary. Equally, I have suddenly discovered that I live in the county of Westmorland, when previously I had always lived in Cumberland. The distance from Alston to Barrow-in-Furness, which are in the same county, is over 100 miles, and I think that would throw up problems.
There is also a deeper, fundamental problem, to which I do not know the answer. Part of the emotional element of the levy is that the money is to be spent on nature and environmental improvements quite close by—that is the psychology of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, in cases such as the Channel Tunnel, that is not really possible. Speaking as someone from the north of England, where we have plenty of projects which could benefit from money of this kind, if all the money raised is in the south of England and cannot be spent in the north, you would find a very considerable feeling of discontent. A lot of the problems, once you get away from the immediate locality of any particular project, may well be, at the most extreme, quite a long way away.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the regulation-making powers governing the nature of the restoration levy. The powers provide the framework for how the levy will operate and how it will be used to unlock development and deliver nature restoration. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that we have a whole group on CPO powers, group 9, so I am sure we will have further discussions about that then. The substance of the levy will be governed by secondary legislation, which will be laid under the affirmative procedure following Royal Assent. It is worth highlighting that, as well as receiving scrutiny from Parliament, the relevant charging schedule will form part of the consultation on each EDP, and, to reiterate, the use of an EDP will be a choice for developers.
Turning to Amendments 256 and 313, tabled by the noble Lord, Blencathra, the Government have designed the nature restoration fund to work on a cost-recovery basis, with actions required to deliver EDPs funded by the developers who use the EDP. The framework of powers ensures that the levy can be designed to achieve this aim, and that all appropriate costs can be met through the levy. This follows the polluter pays principle, as the EDP will address the negative impact from development, so it is right that these costs be met through the levy. Given the range of matters that may need to be addressed through an EDP, there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land is required. Where this is the case, it is only right that this cost be recovered through the levy, rather than through public funds, whether the land is acquired by agreement or through compulsory purchase.
While I recognise the concern around the use of compulsory purchase, these are important powers to ensure sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, land can be acquired for delivering conservation measures. This again highlights the importance of consultation on each EDP to ensure proper scrutiny before the EDP is considered by the Secretary of State.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt again, and I appreciate that other amendments deal with this, but the very simple principle is that if you are buying somebody’s land, you should pay a fair market price for it, surely.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct, and there are provisions for that in the process.
Turning to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, I note that he is a non-native species of Surrey; I hope he is not an invasive species of Surrey. His amendment would limit what administrative expenses could be included within a charging schedule to those included in Section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. These powers were drafted long before the NRF and extend solely to charging for providing a service and for licences. Natural England’s role in the NRF is wider than simply providing a service. It will be drafting EDPs, conducting surveys and analysis to work out the most appropriate conservation measures, and consulting on them and presenting them to the Secretary of State. It will subsequently have administration costs as part of implementation, such as contracts with service providers and administration of levy collection. Many noble Lords have also referred to the need for a proper scientific basis, and it will be important that it be able to deliver that scientific evidence.
As mentioned previously the Government’s objective is for the NRF and Natural England’s role in delivering it to operate on a cost-recovery basis, which would not be possible if we were to accept this amendment. To ensure value for money for the taxpayer, it is important that Natural England can recover all appropriate costs as part of the levy.
I turn to Amendment 308A from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. We agree with the noble Lord. The Government are clear that money from nature restoration levies will be used to deliver the EDP and secure the necessary conservation measures. While Natural England will be the organisation drafting EDPs on behalf of the Secretary of State, it will not always be best placed to deliver the conservation measures, so we will work with other bodies when securing those measures. We will set out a procurement strategy in due course that will speak to the issues the noble Lord is driving at through his amendment.
When Natural England works with or through partners it will remain bound by the provision in Clause 71 to
“spend money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy on conservation measures that relate to the environmental feature in relation to which the levy is charged”.
Money used in this way cannot simply be used for other purposes. For that reason, Clause 71 still requires that this money be monitored and accounted for. On the basis that there is always a link between the levy and the delivery of conservation measures, regardless of whether Natural England is the body delivering them, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 309, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government have tabled an amendment making it explicit that Natural England can only deliver network measures—measures that do not directly address the impact on a protected site but improve the same feature elsewhere—where it considers that they will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question than measures that address the impact of development locally.
Under these proposals, Natural England will be required to state how it reached this conclusion with reference to the best available scientific evidence. Crucially, network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat, as this would inherently not pass the overall improvement test. More generally, the amendment would limit actions within the boundary of a local planning authority that may not align with the ecological boundary of, or environmental impact on, a protected site. I trust that this speaks to the substance of Amendment 309, given that the Government’s amendment provides an ecological lock on the use of these measures by requiring Natural England to pay regard to the need to protect the overall coherence of the relevant site network.
Amendment 310, also from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations covering all the matters listed within Clause 71(3). There are many indispensable elements to the levy regulations that will be brought forward to ensure that this legislation can operate effectively. However, framing the power as a “may” rather than a “must” provides the Secretary of State with discretion when deciding whether it is necessary to bring forward specific requirements in regulations.
I turn to Amendment 312 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The Government agree that transparency is vital throughout the EDP process. That is why the Bill already includes reporting requirements at the midpoint and endpoint of an EDP that will include information about the cost of conservation measures. In addition, Natural England will be required to publish annual reports across the NRF that will include a summary of Natural England’s accounts, with information about the total amount of levy received and the amount spent on conservation measures each year. Through this process, we are confident that there will be an adequate level of transparency in respect of both costings and expenditure.
I turn to Amendments 314 and 315, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Blencathra. As I set out previously, removing Natural England’s ability to recover administrative expenses would require the Government or Natural England—and as a result, the taxpayer—to shoulder the cost of creating EDPs and any administrative costs of implementing them. Similarly, removing Natural England’s ability to include previous expenses would directly impact this and remove the Government’s ability to forward conservation fund measures to Natural England, which would then recover the money through the levy when development proposals come forward before repaying the Government. Furthermore, limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure would restrict its flexibility to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and plan for unforeseen circumstances. Allowing these costs to be included within a charging schedule will ensure the long-term viability of the nature restoration fund and provide greater certainty that environmental outcomes will be achieved.
In a similar vein to previous amendments, Amendment 301A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would require that money accepted through the nature restoration levy be classified as additional to the core funding of Defra or Natural England. I can assure the noble Lord that the legislation is clear that the nature restoration levy is provided to Natural England to deliver on the EDP and cannot be used for purposes outside the EDP. As part of this, and to ensure transparency, regulations may require Natural England to account separately for any money received through the nature restoration levy that would prevent this from being merged with central budgets.
Although the levy can be used by Natural England for administrative expenses in connection with an EDP, this must, as the drafting suggests, be in connection with an EDP. This might cover the costs of drafting and implementing a specific EDP, or a proportion of the cost of setting up a digital platform for the NRF generally, but the nature restoration levy would not affect the core budget of either Natural England or Defra, which remains a matter for the Government. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel comfortable to withdraw his amendment.
On Amendment 307A, the nature restoration fund is being established to support development, so it is vital that the nature restoration levy does not undermine the economic viability of development while still being able to secure sufficient funding to deliver the necessary conservation measures to meet the overall improvement test. There is no legislative requirement to include contingency in the levy, as framed by this amendment. However, it is important that the regulations allow for circumstances where it may be necessary or prudent to include a precautionary buffer to support the delivery of conservation measures, whether through back-up conservation measures or simply because the primary conservation measures may cost more than originally anticipated.
Crucially, a draft charging schedule will include details of how the levy has been calculated. If a contingency were included in the charging schedule, this would form part of the draft EDP, which will be subject to consultation before being considered by the Secretary of State. While I am confident that the nature restoration levy will be set at a fair price that supports development, the use of EDPs will remain voluntary in all but the most exceptional circumstances. A developer is therefore free to use the existing system if they do not think the EDP or the levy is appropriate. Developers will have full clarity on what they are paying—
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for explaining those points, but I just want to clarify something. I think that we were both at the same meeting where I challenged Natural England on this, and it assured me that there would be a contingency. For a large project, I think it is perfectly sensible to have a contingency, but when I questioned what would happen to the contingency, or indeed any unspent funds, after of meeting the required level of environmental reparation, I was assured, to my astonishment, that it would not be handed back as excess but would spend it on some more good environmental stuff, above and beyond what was anticipated for the levy. That is a sleight of hand, if I can put it in those terms, to use money that was not needed for the purpose for which it was provided for another purpose. Perhaps, at best, there is a difference in understanding between the department and Natural England, which it would be helpful to clarify.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point; I will attempt to clarify that for him. There are potentially significant complexities and legal and financial liabilities introduced by requiring the return of the money with interest to developers. Given that developers will have already received the benefit they paid for, it would be more proportionate, and better for nature, for Natural England to use any excess funds to the benefit of the environmental feature. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I think that the Minister has just confirmed exactly what I said, which is that if there is any money left over, it will be spent on some other good stuff. That is rather unfair on the developer who has paid for something, and now the excess that was not spent is being used on something else.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I have listened very carefully. The developer knows what he has paid for. The developer has bought something. The developer has purchased an 80-year project, but he has not bought anything until year 79. I We have to get our heads around the money side and the financials—we are not going to know. I will dwell on this a bit more on a later group. The suggestion that someone has bought something and it is done and dusted on day one is a false premise; we have to understand that.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The noble Lord and I are starting to repeat ourselves, so perhaps we can talk about it outside. However, that is not the reply that the Minister has given me.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am happy to continue the conversation on this, but I would reiterate that it is up to the developer whether they enter into an EDP. They will have a charging schedule set out before them and, if they feel the contingency is too great, they can argue it or not take part in the EDP.
On Amendment 309A, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Young, I reassure my noble friend that the intention of her amendment is already captured. I agree that it is crucial that Natural England ensures the effective delivery of conservation measures, which is why Clause 55 sets out that the conservation measures in an EDP
“are to be taken by, or on behalf of, Natural England … to … address the environmental impact of development”,
as well as
“contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the identified environmental feature”.
Lord Roborough (Con)
It is clear from the amendments in this group that there is broad consensus across the Committee on a number of key principles in the use and governance of the nature restoration fund’s levy. The first is transparency, the second is fairness and the third is value for money. The fourth is my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s point that the funds should stay local, as far as possible. We discussed, in a previous group, the implications of that for the BNG market.
Frankly, I agree with all the amendments. The Minister has given us a very comprehensive answer to the amendments, which was helpful. There was definitely some reassurance in there about the potential for ring-fencing the NRF; I will take those away and study them further, but I suspect this might be something that we return to on Report.
I think the Committee is concerned that this could become a slush fund. We know from the water restoration fund how resistant the Treasury is to the hypothecation of funds and how keen it is to get hold of penalties to the water industry and so on. We do not want to see this turning into a slush fund used to acquire land at will by Natural England, spent on bureaucracy or even returned to the Treasury. For now, I will withdraw my amendment, but I would very much like to return to this.
Member's explanatory statement
This would be a minor drafting change to align the style of paragraph (a) of clause 57(2) with that of paragraph (aa) (as inserted by my another of my amendments to clause 57) and paragraph (b).
“(aa) Natural England’s opinion on how the conservation measures will enable the EDP to pass the overall improvement test, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require an EDP to expressly state how Natural England considers the conservation measures will enable the EDP to pass the overall improvement test.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
“(c) which private market solutions were explored to address an environmental impact on an identified environmental feature, and why no existing and available private market solution was deemed sufficient or suitable.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, connected to others in the name of Lord Curry of Kirkharle, seeks to ensure that private market solutions can contribute to the implementation of Part 3 of the Bill, ensuring that developers can pursue mitigation strategies on their own sites and that private sector investment in nature is protected.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 258, 268 and 353 within this group. I appreciate the extended thinking in Amendment 320B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
I endorse the need to speed up planning and development, and I support many of the measures in this Bill to improve the process, but Part 3 remains a real concern, as we have heard already this afternoon. Despite all the reassurances—and I welcome the letter from Ministers this morning—to pay a levy to Natural England to ease our environmental conscience is highly unlikely to deliver better outcomes than locally targeted solutions. I have always been rather sceptical of off-setting. This feels very much like the same principle—pay a levy and ease your conscience. It may give developers a lot more freedom, but do we really think that a public body such as Natural England will deliver better environmental outcomes through the administration of a levy than locally contracted, locally managed, locally targeted arrangements between developers and ecologists, who will have assessed the species and ecosystems at risk and are taking appropriate actions to address the impact? Contractual arrangements and relationships have been established in recent years to address this challenge, and in many cases are working really well. It would be a serious retrograde step if these were demolished by the application of measures in this Bill and replaced by a much less effective solution.
One of my concerns is that the levy will need to be administered, as we have heard. What proportion of the levy collected will eventually be spent? Will it be 80%, 75% or 70%? Natural England is a public body, so we know that a whole new department will need to be created and we can assume that lots of bureaucracy will have to be paid for.
There will be a likely time lapse. Local market solutions can be established almost immediately by local actors and in parallel with the development. Development by Natural England is likely to take place at a much slower level—I was going to say “snail’s pace”, but perhaps that is not appropriate—and it will take years for Natural England to find sites and replace lost habitats and ecosystems. There will be a constant and ongoing environmental deficit as a consequence. Ecosystems vary within a few miles, as we know, and should be replaced as near to the development site as possible. Local knowledge is essential, and Natural England may not be as close to the action as local players.
The impact assessment of this Bill has identified many of these risks, so it is a concern not just of mine. In addition, the Bill places huge responsibility on the Secretary of State. He or she will need to spend their holidays getting on his or her bike to visit sites the length and breadth of the country to make sure Natural England is doing its job. If local solutions to replace or replicate ecological sites at risk from development cannot be identified or negotiated, we should by all means apply a levy and give Natural England the challenge. But we should allow time for local solutions to be explored first. These amendments are proposed to allow developers the opportunity to present local private market solutions before the Natural England levy is applied. In response, I suspect Ministers may state that this opportunity exists; but it needs to be an explicit requirement and an obligation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is really important that we have private market solutions as a key way of delivering what we are trying to achieve. At risk of this becoming a Second Reading speech or of it being accused of that, I just want to go back a few years. The first green strategy did not mention nature at all. That was back in 2019. Then we produced the road map for sustainable investing. I managed to get in on the act when I was at DWP by talking about how pension funds should get involved in this; we had already introduced TCFD, and I hope we can get TNFD going.
Then there was the green finance strategy in 2023. It is not only for what we need to do in this country; it is the whole concept of private finance being a fundamental partner to making nature restoration real. Whether it is the GBF or the other aspects of international environmental treaties, the United Kingdom has repeatedly been at the forefront of making sure that private finance and markets are a fundamental way of achieving this.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, is looking at me in disbelief. I am not sure if that is because I have misunderstood his amendments, or perhaps he is just surprised that I am so supportive. Nevertheless, the current Administration have also talked about the importance of private finance coming in.
There is a real fear that quite a lot is going on that will kill the private nature markets and reduce land being made available, such as for BNG—this is novel, which is why it is coming up again. I am really concerned in a variety of ways that if we end up with just a state-led solution, we will fail. The advantage of the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has tabled is to be very clear in this legislation that it must be considered and involved.
While I appreciate that we may get, dare I say, warm words, as with much previous environmental legislation, if it is in the Bill and becomes part of the Act, then the Government will do something about it. If it is not, they will not necessarily do it, and they may resort to then apologising, perhaps years later, when it has not quite worked out how they had hoped.
The market was growing. It is still nascent to some extent and has got moving, but it is now having a bit of cold feet, and we do not want it to be enveloped by the Himalayan balsam or anything else, such as the ground elder, which is the worst in Hampshire. Therefore, we need to make sure we get that market thriving and not declining.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Curry, because he knows a lot, and I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, because otherwise, he might poison my breakfast—but on this occasion, I feel I have to comment.
I understand entirely that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is worried that the emerging, very valuable nature markets should not be eclipsed totally by the levy and Natural England’s role. However, some of the amendments in this group tip the balance too far the other way and say that nature markets must be the first port of call and not considered alongside all other potential organisations that can deliver the right solution for the right site for a particular EDP.
The existing nature market products are very valuable; some of them are less so. However, there are a shedload of organisations and groups that could deliver the requirements of an EDP for Natural England, such as some of the large charities, the ENGOs, farmers, groups of farmers, other landowners and the Forestry Commission. The role of Natural England must be to consider which of those organisations, or groups of them, should be the best way forward, including private nature markets but not giving a pre-eminent place to them and them preventing Natural England choosing perhaps the most effective partner, who would be someone who is local, onsite, available, already working in providing nature outcomes and could do more work to help with that EDP.
I would be particularly unkeen that we avoid Natural England being able to do it itself. On occasion, if there is work that can be delivered to take forward an EDP next to a national nature reserve that is already managed by Natural England, why should Natural England not simply do that by extension? It would be the most sensible proposition.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I would like to assure the Committee that I am looking forward to many convivial and toxin-free breakfasts with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the future—in case anybody was worried that I had, in some way, threatened her with anything else. That was far away from anything I would wish to do.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Thank you. See you for breakfast!
On a more serious note, I ask the Minister perhaps to write to me to set out what these opportunities are, how they will be made available, and how the appropriate payment rates will be determined. I am not suggesting that she can quantify them now, but what is the process? I do not think the Bill makes that clear, unless I have missed it.
I will take the three amendments in my name as a group, as they are linked. They address the actual delivery of the conservation measures set out in environmental delivery plans, once those have been established. Clause 76(3) recognises that and says:
“Natural England may pay another person to take conservation measures”.
But the Bill lacks a clear, simple and manageable series of steps for Natural England to follow to achieve that. My Amendment 318B would turn the “may” into a “must”, meaning that third parties should be engaged. Incidentally, I do not think that those would be entirely commercial; they could be non-governmental organisations that are able to deliver.
My Amendments 320B and 325ZA set out a series of rational steps for delivering conservation works, which are: first, hold a competitive tender process; secondly, if there are no willing bidders, seek to buy the land at market value; thirdly, if that really proves impossible, proceed to compulsory purchase as a last resort. These amendments would strengthen the Bill by setting out a clear set of sequential and proportionate process stages for the all-important implementation of conservation works. This would be helpful both to Natural England and to those wishing to engage with delivering the EDP process. I hope the Government will recognise this as a helpful clarification that will support the effective implementation of the plans under Natural England supervision.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am greatly concerned that the Bill potentially freezes out the role for private sector providers, thus stopping the flow of investment into nature. That said, I was mildly reassured by the letter that came this morning. Nevertheless, I am anxious that the proposition is that Natural England will become a monopoly consolidator and provider of mitigation solutions—with the dead hand of the state. This Bill should define how private operators can work alongside Natural England to address the market for mitigation.
In an earlier grouping, I explained the distinction between permitting and licensing. In my view, licensing is the way to go for the EDPs, not least because it will prevent the derivatives—secondary markets that enrich speculators at the expense of delivering the outcome. We cannot afford to create a new milk quota disaster with the creation of a collateralised asset class that has everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with nature recovery. That is not an argument against private involvement; it is an argument for channelling and regulating what is a fast-developing industry.
I support Amendments 258 and 268 because they seek to put in place how we deal with private industry and how Natural England is required to engage with it. This Bill should set the terms of trade. How will those 80-year-tail liabilities be secured? What step-in rights will there be in the event of the provider going bankrupt? Will the obligations be characterised as in Section 106 or as a land charge at the Land Registry? The Section 106 route has criminal and prosecution routes in the event of non-compliance, but a land charge is an unenforceable civil matter subject to litigation. How we deal with these will be very important and needs to be in the Bill.
I spoke about these tail liabilities. I have some experience with this, as I declared earlier. I am a director of Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, the device through which the local councils in Norfolk manage environmental credits. We are subject to international accounting standards. We need to take into account our covenant strength. I do not believe that this has been thought through at all. We made about £5 million-worth of sales of credits to local developers, but the balance sheet value was nil because we had to discount that income over an 80-year tail. I see my noble friend Lord Mackinlay nodding. He is a tax man and understands these things.
The interplay between the P&L and the balance sheet is something that the Bill has not contemplated at all—and it must. Unless we include sensible benchmarking accounting standards to value the upfront contributions against those tail liabilities, we will never give confidence and clarity so that schemes can be consistently compared. None of this essential detail is contemplated by the Bill but it should be.
This is before we get to private industry having a role in the pricing, and the heroic assumption that Natural England, as is anticipated, will be able to deliver mitigation more efficiently than a competitive, healthy private sector. Given the monopolistic nature of the state-owned mechanism for charging, and the speed at which the large bureaucratic organisations operate, this completely unqualified assumption seems tenuous. There are obvious conflicts of interest and susceptibility to legal challenges through those conflicts. How is Natural England going to kitemark private proposals? What protections would private operators have against predatory pricing or the loading of legal contractor inspection costs on to innovative solutions, with the only opportunity for these private operators to appeal being against the organisation that is trying to eat their lunch?
We need the innovation of private providers so that we avoid muddled thinking. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in his place. He characterises as eco-zealots those who order the use of bat bridges, the eye-wateringly expensive bat tunnels—each of which was a colossal waste of money —or the sloppiness of the designation of land at Ebbsfleet as unfavourable when it was not unfavourable.
We need a streamlined process where developers can work with landowners to propose and have certified good schemes delivered in local markets at sensible prices—especially now that we contemplate that hundreds of these EDPs may be produced. While Natural England is focused on its own proposals, we need to give comfort to private operators that their applications will be dealt with promptly rather than them submitting the ideas and not having them taken seriously by Natural England. That is no way to proceed. We need to establish contract certainty, the legal basis and the enforceability of these projects, with the assurance that the mitigations will be delivered over the liability period.
Failure looks like packaging and collateralisation of these schemes into another subprime crisis. We must guard against that. The private sector has a role and can and should work in tandem with Natural England. But all this counts for nothing unless the terms of trade are set.
I have other things to say but, given the time, I will stop there. The Bill needs to state explicitly that the private sector has a role to play. But Natural England should have a statutory duty to actively assist competition in this space in a prompt and timely manner, even if it is at the expense of its own proposals.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, as I listened to this debate, I thought that everybody was talking about it from the perspective of the person who does the work. The prime focus of what we are discussing should be the best outcome for nature. The most choice available to help nature is the route we should go down. Therefore, we should not exclude any possibility of all kinds of commercial arrangements that may surround this, some of which, particularly given the points drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, we may not yet even have thought of. We should keep every option open to ensure that the outcome for nature is ultimately the prime consideration.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. He makes a point that I missed when I turned a page in my notes. Essentially, we are creating financial instruments with muddy wellingtons attached. We need to think about that balance as we contemplate how the Bill will work in practice, with those 80-year requirements to keep and maintain these projects contemplated by the EDP. It needs a change of thought.
Certainly, international accounting standards will be at the front of our mind. This is the sort of question that actuaries at life insurance companies are employed to handle. They know that they have a liability and what sum of money is needed up front to deal with it. That is not contemplated at all in Clause 59. It needs to be. That is the point I am trying to make. The state cannot do it itself—it needs a flow of private money coming into this space to benefit nature, but one that has its feet on the ground and where the numbers add up.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 318ZA seeks to ensure that farmers and farmer cluster groups are permitted by Natural England to apply to the nature restoration fund and actively participate in the delivery of conservation measures required under EDPs. This is a straightforward but essential point. Farmers are not just stewards of the countryside. In many cases, they are the very people who are best placed to implement and sustain long-term environmental outcomes.
If we are serious about delivering the ambitions of the Bill, we must make full use of the capacity, expertise and local knowledge of the farming community. Allowing them access to the nature restoration fund is not only fair but practical, efficient and better for nature and, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, expands choice.
One of the many concerns that I and others have expressed about Part 3 of the Bill is that it disenfranchises the private sector, which has been developing BNGs to aid developers with the mitigation hierarchy. I appreciate that the Minister has suggested, and probably will again, that EDPs are intended to operate alongside the existing structures and to engage with the private landowner and farming community. But it is far from clear how that will work and it does not appear to be in the Bill. However, this amendment encourages Natural England to define the EDP that it is seeking to deliver and allows the private sector to offer solutions on commercial terms. The amendment has very considerable merit, as it guarantees the involvement of the private sector and takes pressure off the underresourced NE to design the EDP and deliver it. At a time when budgetary pressure and government decisions are seeing funding to the rural economy reduced in real terms, I hope the Minister will welcome this or any similar amendment.
Amendments 258, 268 and 353, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, aim to ensure that private market solutions can play a meaningful role in the implementation of Part 3 of the Bill, including through on-site mitigation by developers and investment in nature recovery through market mechanisms. We support the sentiment behind these amendments. They are thoughtful, interesting, pragmatic and right. The noble Lord rightly identifies that if we are to achieve our environmental targets, we must unlock private capital alongside public investment. That includes enabling developers to deliver effective biodiversity net gain directly where appropriate and giving confidence to investors that their participation in ecosystem markets will be valued and secure.
Amendments 318B, 320B and 325ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would strengthen the obligation on Natural England to use private markets in delivering EDPs and introduce a clearer hierarchy for Natural England’s direct involvement. These amendments point to a real concern—notably the risk of crowding out private sector delivery by overly centralised or bureaucratic processes. They would also introduce a limitation on Natural England’s ability to compulsorily acquire land, requiring Secretary of State authorisation and evidence that land cannot be bought at market value. This too is an important addition to amendments we have already put down and debated trying to restrict Natural England’s power to compulsory purchase land at will.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, what my noble friend Lord Roborough has said is very important. I draw the Committee’s attention to an announcement in February of this year from the Environmental Farmers Group, which comprises about 4% of England’s farmland—nearly a million acres—and over 700 farmers. Before the powers of this Bill got into print or came to this House, the Environmental Famers Group managed to reach an agreement with Natural England that satisfied Natural England and the local authority, and ended the moratorium on housebuilding between Salisbury and Christchurch. Thousands of new houses will be built as a result of this agreement, and the environment will benefit. It would be a tragedy if this Bill inadvertently started to block agreements such as that and Natural England resorted to compulsory purchase and a state attitude that it is the only one that can do it. It is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood said, that every possible angle is kept open for the private sector in its various forms to contribute to the benefit of biodiversity, development and growth in this country.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Curry, for Amendments 258, 268 and 353. These amendments speak to the role that private providers of nature services will play in the delivery of the NRF.
We share the desire of the noble Lord—and that of other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—to support private sector investment in nature. We are clear that private and third-party providers will play a critical role in delivering the NRF. By design, this Bill allows a partnership approach to the delivery of conservation measures. This includes explicit reference in Clause 76 to paying others to undertake conservation measures. The Government expect Natural England to use competitive procurement approaches, wherever appropriate, to ensure innovation and value for money.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, we tried to spell this out a little better in the letter that we sent round. It explained that EDPs will provide new opportunities for the private sector, habitat banks, farmers, local authorities and environmental groups to supply nature services. Of course, local solutions are an important part of this, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord regarding processes. As part of the wider measures to support the NRF, the Government will issue guidance to natural England specifically on this point.
The noble Lord also asked about the percentage of the levy that would go to conservation measures and how much would be spent on other things. We cannot be specific on that because clearly it will depend on the nature and size of the EDP and the measures that are going to be agreed. Admin will be able to be claimed for, but the overall focus is delivering the conservation measures—that is what we want the money to be spent on. There will be charging schedules which will provide more information.
The problem with enforcing the binary choice in the amendments is that it would reduce the role for private solutions as part of the implementation of Part 3 of the Bill. My The noble Lord—I think I will call him my noble friend—Lord Inglewood rightly said that we need choices in order to have the best outcomes for nature.
On Amendments 318B and 320B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, Natural England will work with private providers and landowners to deliver conservation measures. We recognise the vital role these providers will play in making the NRF a success. Restricting Natural England’s ability to deliver conservation measures itself in the way proposed would risk EDPs being unable to deliver value for money for developers where the only available and willing providers are prohibitively expensive.
We are shortly going to be discussing compulsory purchase, so I will say here that we expect Natural England to consider compulsory purchase only where attempts to acquire land by agreement have failed, and that use of Natural England’s compulsory purchase power must be authorised by the Secretary of State. I trust the noble Lord will be content not to press his amendments.
I turn to Amendment 318ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I understand the desire for clarity on the opportunities for farmers and others to be involved in the delivery of conservation measures. As mentioned earlier, this model relies on close working with private partners and landowners, and we will publish guidance to support this. However, we are aware that local landowners know their land better than anybody else.
On Amendment 325ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I will be very brief. I reassure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary because, where the land is available to Natural England at market value, it will already be able to pursue the compulsory purchase order as there is a long-standing requirement that compulsory purchase orders can be used only where reasonable efforts to negotiate the purchase of land by agreement have failed.
Finally, regarding the noble Lord’s questions around SFIs, to confirm, we are looking to launch a reformed scheme next year. As I know more details, I will keep the noble Lord in touch with that. With those explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, would it be possible to share the guidance, or at least a draft of the guidance? I think it would help us to understand where we go to on Report.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My noble friend should know better than to say “Before the Minister sits down”—really.
When this project gets going and we start to see how Natural England is balancing its own activities against involvement with the private sector and farmers and others, how is Parliament going to be informed as to what is going on? How will information flow to us as to how Natural England is fulfilling its role? The Minister had some very fine words in her replies, but how can we butter some parsnips with them?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we want to make it work. As I have said, Defra will be monitoring it closely and reports will come out on it, and I am absolutely certain that I will get questions.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and I am partially reassured by the answer.
I am trying very hard not to remain slightly cynical about Natural England’s overarching role as the controlling body that will determine what happens on the ground with each development. There might be—forgive the phrase—oven-ready solutions in local areas which get delayed significantly by the decision-making process that will inevitably occur within a bureaucratic organisation such as Natural England. I ask the noble Minister to think about whether there might be a slicker, smarter way of achieving better environmental outcomes by local actors on the ground which could be included in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2A) Where an EDP includes conservation measures of the type mentioned in section 55(4) (network conservation measures), it must state how, in the opinion of Natural England, the measures comply with the requirement in section 55(4A) (network measure to make a greater contribution to improvement of conservation status of the feature than onsite measure).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that, where an EDP includes network conservation measures, it must state how Natural England considers that these meet the requirement in section 55(4A) (inserted by my amendment to clause 55 at page 92 line 12) that they are more effective than onsite measures.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment leaving out clause 58 and my amendment inserting a new clause before clause 88.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 76 inserting a new subsection (4).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I alert the Committee to the fact that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment 263 by reason of pre-emption.
“(A1) When Natural England decides to prepare an EDP, it must— (a) notify the Secretary of State of that decision, and (b) publish the notification given to the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment leaving out clause 58.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make changes to strengthen the overall improvement test, which the Secretary of State must consider before making an EDP.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I alert the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 287 or 287A by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Roborough
“(8) Where the Secretary of State chooses not to make an EDP, the Secretary of State must also seek to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order where the Secretary of State has decided not to make the connected Environmental Delivery Plan.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 292 and speak to Amendments 298 and 324 my name. I will leave my comments on other amendments in the group to the time I have available at the end. However, I see merit in those amendments and hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, listens to those contributions. I apologise if I inadvertently misspoke when I interrupted the Minister at the end of the previous group.
As I have mentioned in previous debates, we are strongly opposed to Natural England being awarded CPO powers in connection with environmental delivery plans. We question the necessity of the nature restoration levy used to fund EDPs. Just 1% of housing applications consulted on by Natural England are objected to on the basis of environmental concerns, and only 10% of long-term infrastructure projects are challenged by environmental concerns. To suggest that environmental regulations are the reason that development is not occurring on the Government’s desired scale is simply not correct. For Natural England to then be given CPO powers for EDPs is surely rubbing salt into the wound.
The Bill threatens to create a Government monopoly on conservation project delivery and delegated responsibility to Natural England. With that in mind, these amendments attempt to rein in the powers of Natural England and outline their scope so that, while still extensive, they do not step into outright intrusive. Amendment 292 ensures that land that is subject to CPO is returned to the original owner if the intended EDP does not go ahead. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has already discussed the Crichel Down rules, and this amendment simply makes that part of this legislation. I believe that it is a valuable safeguard to ensure that land is CPO’d only when an EDP is certain.
Amendment 298 is in a similar vein, ensuring that land is also returned if a CPO is revoked—again, a valuable sanction against underperformance by Natural England. Amendment 324 seems a simple and obvious amendment, and a critical protection for every home owner or tenant in this country. Surely Natural England’s CPO powers should be limited such that it cannot CPO a garden, an allotment or indeed a home for an EDP. It may seem unlikely for that even to be a possibility. For that reason, some may think that this is not a serious amendment, but it is. What if someone’s garden or allotment is located in an area subject to an EDP and contains a feature, species or habitat that NE finds attractive? Under the Bill, NE has the power to force entry to assess it and to CPO it if the homeowner does not want to play ball. I urge the Government to accept this simple amendment to allow us all to remain secure in our enjoyment of our property.
I hope that the Minister, will listen carefully to the amendments in this group and be sufficiently stimulated to help to prevent Natural England’s becoming an authoritarian empire.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and I thoroughly support them. I do not wish to add anything to what he has said. I have also put my name to Amendment 323 in this group. I ask your Lordships to look at paragraph 816 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which says:
“Subsection (2) sets out that the power can only be exercised if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure”—
and here are the important words—
“set out in an EDP”.
In other words, Natural England cannot go around compulsorily purchasing land for just any old conservation measure; it has to be one set out in an EDP. My Lords, I presume that this is just a typing error between the green pages of the Bill and the white pages of the Explanatory Notes, and that the Government will therefore be able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment I have tabled. I removed a group from the debate, noble Lords will be pleased to know, and thought this was the appropriate place to put it. I start by supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Roborough. The human rights memorandum accompanying the Bill is frankly on the edge of trying to suggest that this could well be allowable on the basis of it being for the public benefit. Clearly, if the land is no longer needed and has not been approved for use by the Secretary of State, it must go back to the original owner without question. If not, it would be a further infraction of land removed. I appreciate that there may have been some compensation in the interim; perhaps the details of that need to be sorted out.
My amendment goes all the way to page 119 in this Bill and then back to Clauses 83 and 84. It suggests that powers to acquire land compulsorily do not apply in relation to Crown land, and then subsection (10) defines Crown land in that regard. Subsection (10) says that Crown land means land in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest, but Crown land, as I may have explained to the Committee, is also land belonging to any government department. I appreciate that I do not know the full conventions for discussing matters regarding the royal family, but I give the example of Dartmoor, which has been a combination of Duchy of Cornwall land, part of Dartmoor National Park and privately held. It is also a significant landscape, probably of the type that could well have EDP proposals put there, ideally fixing the SSSIs that are not quite so good at the moment.
My main focus is government land. Perhaps I am being too strong, but it seems somewhat heinous that the Government can start going after all other private land. Bearing in mind how much land this Government own—I think the MoD is the fourth-largest landowner in the country—why does this not apply? Quite often, with bits of government land around the country, Homes England try to get some of it for housing, and so on. But it is an exceptionally laborious process while trying to achieve a government outcome. Departments such as the MoD often want the full market value, as if it were a commercial enterprise when selling to Homes England.
So, I am concerned. I would not mind if we excluded the bit that was the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster, but we should not be excluding government land from being potentially available to undertake the exercise that we want it to as a Government and Parliament intend. I therefore encourage the Government to think again and perhaps to rescope Clause 91(10) to have only the very specific narrow elements of that definition, as set out in Part 13, Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to exclude only those held by the relevant Crown and Duchy interests that are not government land.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 292, which requires that, where land has been acquired under compulsory purchase but is not then used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary of State should seek to return it to the landowner. Surely that is natural justice. However, it leaves open what happens to any compulsory purchase funds that have been paid to the landowner. To my mind, the funds should be returned if they wish to take back the land.
I draw the Committee’s attention to evidence from HS2, including coverage on the BBC—is there a debate we can have without reference to HS2? Land was compulsorily purchased, but when it was decided that the land was not needed, it was offered back to the farmer in question to buy at a far higher price, or the so-called market value, which is a fine example of profiteering on the back of compulsory purchase. I also remind the Committee of the concerns I evidenced on Monday about the bullying behaviour of agents acting for authorities with compulsory purchase powers. Despite what it says about it being a last resort in theory, when the agents are motivated to acquire the land as quickly and cheaply as possible, different tactics often apply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this group relates to the powers in Part 3 for Natural England to make a compulsory purchase for purposes connected with the taking of conservation measures. The Government have taken a cautious approach in respect of compulsory purchase powers, but it is clear that this needs to be available to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure that conservation measures are delivered. However, the Government recognise the need for such powers to be tightly constrained, and I am confident that, when considered alongside existing safeguards, the proposed amendments are not necessary.
I turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, which seek to require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order in two different scenarios. The first is when Natural England uses these powers to purchase a piece of land and the Secretary of State later decides not to make the EDP in question. I can assure the noble Lords that this will never happen, as Natural England cannot make a compulsory purchase before the EDP has been made.
The second scenario is when an EDP is revoked. Where an EDP is revoked, any land secured through compulsory purchase may still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Requiring land to be returned automatically would risk removing a crucial way of delivering remedial measures and potentially damaging the relevant environmental feature.
Where land has been compulsorily purchased and is not needed, and it would genuinely be surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply. The land would be offered back to the former owner, their successor or sitting tenants at market value, provided that the land has not materially changed and none of the exceptions under the rules applied. These rules are well-established, as we discussed in a debate the other day, so I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
Moving to Amendment 323, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I assure the noble Lords that the subject of their amendment is already addressed in the Bill. CPO powers may be used only in connection with the taking of conservation measures, as defined in the legislation. Amendment 324 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is part of a private dwelling. I would first like to assure noble Lords that this type of land is incredibly unlikely to meet the high bar for compulsory purchase or to be approved by the Secretary of State. The use, or future use, of land will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when approving the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight, and noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act 1998. I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned that himself.
Finally, Amendment 352 would extend the compulsory purchase powers to Crown land. The CPO powers in the Bill are there to provide assurance that land can be acquired where necessary to ensure that an EDP can deliver the necessary conservation measures. Extending these powers to cover Crown land is unnecessary. To put it simply, if Natural England were to require Crown land for a conservation measure, that would be resolved between Natural England and the relevant authority. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this short debate and previous debates covering other amendments relating to CPOs have been a clear demonstration of just how emotive compulsory purchase is. Handing these powers to Natural England almost unfettered is surely a step too far. I am grateful to the Minister for trying to reassure the Committee, but the comments about going back at market value are exactly the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted: if that market value has changed dramatically between when the CPO happened and when it was decided to return it, that would seem rather unfair. A requirement to buy the land back at the same price would be fine.
Baroness Grender
“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 294 would prohibit any changes to an environmental delivery plan that would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures designed to protect identified environmental features. In effect, the Secretary of State would be unable to alter an EDP if such an amendment would weaken established environmental protections.
The aim here is to safeguard against the watering down of environmental commitments once they have been set out in an EDP. Years and years of planning history have too often shown that protections established at the outset erode over time, whether under pressure in the name of economic growth, or because of shifts in ministerial priorities or as new developments are proposed nearby. For example, more than a third of England’s rivers remain classified as in poor ecological health, frequently because enforcement and standards around protections weaken as circumstances change. It is therefore vital that commitments to mitigate the negative impacts of development are not easily reversed or diminished.
This amendment is rooted in the environmental non-regression principle. This asserts that environmental law and standards should not go backwards but instead serve as a stable and reliable foundation for ongoing improvement. Once conservation measures are agreed and an EDP is made, the protections and enhancements should be seen as a baseline from which further progress can be made, not as a temporary line which can be negotiated away. Local communities, environment groups and stakeholders need assurance that commitments to, for instance, river restoration or species recovery will not be diluted at a later date. The amendment aligns with the Government’s own Environmental Principles Policy Statement, under which all departments are obliged to prevent, reduce and rectify environmental harm, not simply react to it after the fact.
This amendment enhances long-term investment in environmental improvement. Developers and landowners will know that measures agreed at the outset must be maintained, promoting higher standards of stewardship and accountability. Policymakers will be able to set conservation targets with assurance that they are durable, not fleeting or subject to administrative whim.
This amendment is the chance to break the never-ending cycle of much-promised and not delivered. I note that it is in the same group as several other amendments, which I suspect will have a very fair wind behind them, and I just hope it slips in along with them. It would be excellent if this joined them or if there was any possibility of that. I hope the Minister will consider the merits of this amendment, I look forward to hearing her response and I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 294, submitted by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I apologise that I was not in the Chamber this morning to participate: I had to attend my Select Committee, especially as it was on a subject that I demanded that we investigate. Way back last June, we fixed the meeting for this morning at my convenience, so I had to be there.
The amendment from the noble Baroness would prohibit the Secretary of State from having the power to amend an EDP in a way that would reduce the measures taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of development. This amendment touches on important points of principle, including environmental conservation and the remit of the Minister’s power. I would be interested in hearing the Government’s response.
I will also address the government amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which would require Natural England to consult on the EDP when certain amendments to it are proposed. The circumstances in which the consultation will be necessary are when the proposed amendment would increase the maximum amount of development covered by the EDP, include new places in the development area or add new types of conservation measures not currently included in the EDP. It seems an important principle that amendments which would change an EDP in this way are subject to consultation. I agree entirely. Such consultations should aim to allow for relevant expertise and the voices of a variety of stake- holders to be heard. I look forward to hearing the noble Minister’s response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this grouping includes further amendments that the Government have tabled to address matters raised in advance of Committee. As part of this package, the Government’s Amendment 295B clarifies the consultation requirements when amending an EDP, where the intent had always been to ensure that consultation was taken forward where it was proportionate to do so. This will ensure that, where an EDP makes a significant amendment, measured by its meeting certain criteria, there will now always be a requirement to consult on that amendment, so that the public and expert stakeholders are able to contribute to and comment on the proposals.
Government Amendments 295C, 295D and 295E contain minor legislative fixes and a consequential amendment necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following the substantive government amendments. I hope that the Committee agrees to accept these amendments, and I commend them.
I turn briefly to the non-government amendment, Amendment 294, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, which would make it impossible to amend an EDP when that amendment would in any way reduce or weaken the conservation measures it contains. While I absolutely appreciate the concerns that she has rightly raised, the amendment would substantially restrict Natural England’s flexibility to make crucial amendments to EDPs, which may include reducing both the amount of development and the conservation measures contained in an EDP. For example, we would want to ensure that, if an expected development was not actually going to come forward, an EDP could be amended to reflect this and reduce the scale of conservation measures, in line with the reduction of impact from the development.
I also note that all significant amendments will now need to be consulted on. All EDPs will continue to need to pass the overall improvement test following any amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness agrees to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. She will understand that we are attempting to prevent what happens over custom and time, which is always the weakening of something such as an EDP. We will examine her words carefully and meet with her between now and Report to make a bit of progress on this. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(5A) A report under subsection (1)(a) (midpoint report) must also include an assessment of whether the EDP is likely to pass the overall improvement test.(5B) A report under subsection (1)(b) (final report) must also include—(a) an assessment of whether the EDP has passed the overall improvement test, and(b) if the assessment is that the EDP has not passed the test, the extent to which the conservation measures have failed to outweigh the negative effect of the EDP development as mentioned in section 60(4).(5C) A report under subsection (2) (revocation report) must also include—(a) an assessment of whether the EDP would be likely to pass the overall improvement test if it were not being revoked, but reading section 60 as if—(i) the reference in subsection (4) to the conservation measures were a reference to the conservation measures that have been or will be taken despite the EDP’s revocation (but not including any measures taken by way of remedial action under section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked)(4));(ii) the reference in subsection (5) to the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply were a reference to all of the development in respect of which a developer has paid or will pay the nature restoration levy despite the EDP’s revocation;(b) if the assessment is that the EDP would be unlikely to pass the test, the extent to which those conservation measures are likely to fail to outweigh the negative effect of that development.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to include more detail in its reports about the effect of any conservation measures that have been implemented.
“(2A) Where Natural England requests, or the Secretary of State is minded to make, an amendment to an EDP that—(a) increases the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply, as specified under section 54(5),(b) changes the development area to include a new area to which the EDP does not currently apply, or(c) adds new conservation measures that are of a kind not currently included in the EDP,the Secretary of State must direct Natural England to consult on the EDP as proposed to be amended.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult when an amendment is proposed to an EDP which would increase the maximum amount of development covered by the EDP, include new places in the development area or add new types of conservation measures.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 63, inserting a new subsection (2A).
“(5) The Secretary of State may make an amendment to an EDP only if the Secretary of State considers that the EDP as amended passes the overall improvement test.”Member's explanatory statement
This would be a drafting change to align the drafting of clause 63(5) with that in clause 60(3).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would correct an incorrect cross-reference in clause 63(10).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
I cannot call Amendment 297 by reason of pre-emption.
“Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked(1) This section applies where a report under section 62(1)(b) or (2) (report at end or on revocation of EDP) contains an assessment that the EDP has not passed, or would be unlikely to pass, the overall improvement test (see section 62(5B) and (5C)).(2) The Secretary of State must take such action (“remedial action”) as the Secretary of State considers proportionate for the purpose of seeking to materially outweigh the negative effect on the conservation status of the identified environmental feature that is (or is likely to be) caused by the environmental impact (as identified in the EDP in accordance with section 55(1)(b)) of any development in respect of which a developer has paid or will pay the nature restoration levy.(3) In deciding whether remedial action is proportionate, the Secretary of State must take into account—(a) the extent of the negative effect on the conservation status of the identified environmental feature,(b) the extent to which the remedial action would remedy that negative effect, and(c) the cost of the remedial action.(4) Remedial action may include—(a) taking (or continuing to take) any conservation measures included in the EDP, or directing another public authority to take (or continue to take) such measures;(b) taking, or directing another public authority to take, any other measures to improve the conservation status of the identified environmental feature.(5) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the report mentioned in subsection (1) is published, publish a statement setting out—(a) the remedial action that the Secretary of State intends to take, and(b) the effect that the remedial action is expected to have on the identified environmental feature.(6) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the statement mentioned in subsection (5) is published, publish a report setting out—(a) the extent to which the remedial action has remedied the negative effect mentioned in subsection (2), and(b) whether the remedial action has had its expected effect, as set out in the statement under subsection (5)(b).(7) If any measures taken by way of remedial action have not been fully implemented by the time the report mentioned in subsection (6) is published—(a) that report must set out when the measures are expected to be fully implemented, and(b) the Secretary of State must publish a further report, containing the information required under subsection (6)(a) and (b), before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the measures are fully implemented.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take remedial action in any case where an EDP ends (not only in cases of revocation) and its conservation measures have been assessed not to have been effective. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the remedial action that will be taken and to report on it when it has been taken.
Lord Roborough
“Nature restoration levy: payment, liability and amount(1) A developer may make a request in writing to Natural England to pay the nature restoration levy in relation to a development to which an EDP applies and if Natural England accept the request, the developer is committed to pay the nature restoration levy.(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the nature restoration levy (“nature restoration levy regulations”).(3) Nature restoration levy regulations may—(a) seek to ensure that costs incurred in maintaining or improving the conservation status of environmental features can be funded (wholly or partly) by developers in a way that does not make development economically unviable,(b) make provision about liability to pay the nature restoration levy in relation to a development, including who is liable to pay the levy, and when liability to pay arises.(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule, Natural England must have regard to, in the manner specified by nature restoration levy regulations, the actual and expected costs of the conservation measures relating to the environmental impact of development on the environmental feature to which the charging schedule relates.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 306A and 308 in my name. These amendments seek to introduce clarity, proportionality and fairness into the operation of this new levy.
Amendment 299 seeks to specify the principles governing payment, liability and the calculation of the amount payable under the nature restoration levy. I appreciate that the noble Baroness the Minister wrote a very helpful letter today laying out some of the process that developers will be subject to here. It is essential that developers have certainty and predictability. Clarity on who pays and how much they pay is fundamental to ensuring a functional and trusted levy regime that does not deter responsible development. There is considerable concern over the cost to developers of the EDP, particularly given that it appears it will be taken outside the Section 106 agreement and therefore threaten the financial viability of developments. My noble friend Lord Lansley appears to have a similar intent with Amendment 306, and I will listen to his comments with interest.
Amendment 306A deals with proportionality. It would recognise that, in some cases, even after applying the mitigation hierarchy in full, there may still be residual environmental impacts. This amendment would allow for a proportionate contribution, not a full contribution, to be levied in such cases. It would ensure that developers who are genuinely taking steps to minimise harm are not disproportionately penalised, while still upholding our responsibility to invest in nature restoration where impacts cannot be wholly addressed on site. I believe that this is an important environmental protection that ensures that mitigation on site remains incentivised, as it would result in a reduced contribution to the nature restoration fund. This would also help to ensure that private sector services remain important for developers. My noble friend Lord Grayling’s Amendment 305 again appears to pursue a similar aim, and I am sure that we will speak prior to Report if we do not receive satisfactory reassurance today.
Amendment 308 turns to implementation. It would ensure that the regulations governing the nature restoration levy include provisions for how it is to be collected and enforced. Crucially, it would require that the funds received are spent by Natural England on conservation measures directly linked to the environmental feature that justified the levy in the first place. This would not only increase transparency but maintain public trust in the system. Further, the amendment includes a right of appeal on a question of fact related to the calculation of the levy. This is a basic principle of fairness and accountability.
I believe that these are sensible amendments. They do not seek to undermine the nature restoration funds, but rather to ensure its integrity, effectiveness and fairness, all of which are principles that should be central to any regulatory mechanism. Put together, the amendments in my name would form a coherent and practical approach to ensuring that the nature restoration levy supports both environmental enhancement and sustainable development. I look forward to the remarks from noble Lords on all Benches. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 306, which is in this group in my name, but I want to make a number of other points. First, I want to note that we have just agreed Clause 65. I remember that my noble friend Lord Caithness did ask a question in a previous group at an earlier time about the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan, to which the answer was that there was a provision for that somewhere. This is indeed true; it is in Clause 65, which we have just agreed. I will just point out—we may need to return to it and check that we are clear—it is a challenge by way of judicial review; there is not the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan in circumstances where one believes that the facts and the evidence are wrong. The merits of the decisions may not be challenged; only the procedural aspects may be challenged by way of judicial review.
I mention that because, in this group, my noble friend in his subsection (1)(c) of the new clause in Amendment 308 refers to a right of appeal in relation to the establishment of the levy. This is an appeal on a question of fact, so it is a different kind of an appeal for a different purpose. I think that it is rather a good thing, but the question is: to whom should it go? Clause 70 sets out that there may be an appeal, but, unfortunately, it does not say to whom, or how or whatever. Do the Government happen to know to whom the appeal will be made? When I look at Clause 69 and the provisions setting out at some length how the charging schedules may be established in regulations, it seems to me awfully similar to the legislation that provides for the community infrastructure levy, for those who recognise these things. An appeal against the community infrastructure levy would be to the District Valuer Services, so it might be sensible for Ministers, if they can do nothing else, to at least tell us if it is the intention that the District Valuer Services would undertake the work on charging schedules and levy amounts for the environmental delivery plans.
The point of my Amendment 306 is to acknowledge that we have this lengthy set of clauses that tell us that the EDP must be calculated in relation to its costs and that that must be turned into a charging schedule. Clearly, we cannot assume that the development will be the responsibility of any one person; it may be the responsibility of many persons. The charging schedule is actually very like a community infrastructure levy charged against the development, and indeed it might be imposed, and the charging schedules could, as Clause 69 says, be determined by reference to the nature and/or the amount of development. It could be very like a community infrastructure levy for commercial purposes; it could be so many pounds per square foot and so on. If it is very like it, it would be quite useful to know that.
The Minister might say there is not really a requirement on local authorities to consult about a community infrastructure levy, but actually many do. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, when an environmental delivery plan is proposed, it will be the intention of Natural England to talk to the people who are potentially liable to pay the levy. Otherwise, I am not quite sure how we arrive at the point, which the legislation appears to anticipate, that the developers would volunteer and request to pay the levy. They need to know about it and be consulted. They should also be consulted about the charging schedule, not with a view to agreeing it, but certainly to be able to understand the nature of the additional costs.
This is linked to the second point in my amendment, which is about the regulations setting out when and how a viability assessment might be undertaken. Often, for developers, the viability assessment that matters is the one that starts out the development—at the point at which one is buying the land, at the point at which one is understanding the costs, at the point at which one puts all these potential costs together and says, “How much is this option worth? How much is this land worth?” The later viability assessments are potentially very burdensome and may torpedo a development, but that is not what we want to do. We want to arrive at an understanding at the earliest possible stage of what all the costs look like.
The regulations should provide for Natural England to talk to the potential developers who might pay the levy and make provision if necessary for a viability assessment to be undertaken at a relatively early point. To that extent, it is a probing amendment, because I want to be sure that these things will happen. They can, under the legislation, be included in the guidance that is to be provided. The question is: will they? If Ministers cannot say that they will do so, perhaps they ought to reconsider or at least look at whether the regulations should provide for that.
In Clause 69, when the amount of the levy has been determined, we suddenly encounter the proposal that the environmental delivery plan may be mandatory. I have not found the place where we understand in what circumstances and for what reasons the levy becomes mandatory as opposed to voluntary. I would be grateful if the Minister, either at this stage or at a later stage, would explain that to us.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 304 in this group on the payment of the NRF levy and appeals. This amendment seeks to ensure that
“the cost of works for nature restoration and enhancement are covered by the developer, in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle. The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact on the natural environment, redirecting them to locations with lower environmental impacts”.
This is an amendment to Clause 67 aiming to define the fundamental purpose of the nature restoration levy and to embed a core principle of environmental justice into the legislation. In this way, the amendment is quite different from the others in this group, and it is important. It proposes that the Bill explicitly states that the Secretary of State, in making regulations for the levy,
“must ensure that the overall purpose of the nature restoration levy is to ensure that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features are funded by the developer”.
It further clarifies:
“The setting of the Levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developments that would have an outsized impact”,
thereby redirecting them. This is important to make sure that we are not just permitting this kind of damage.
I thank the Ministers for their letter earlier today. I was in Committee this morning, so I have not managed to go through it fully, but there are still concerns about the nature restoration fund and developers paying to offset and the potential impacts that exist in the Bill. My amendment seeks to change this by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that the overall purpose of the levy regulations is that developments remain economically viable. The approach in the Bill has been identified by the Office for Environmental Protection as risking leaving the process open to economic compromise. The Wildlife Trusts, similarly, has articulated that it is essential that it is not the case and that achieving overall environmental improvement should be an absolute priority within the new system. It argues that that would
“correct the oddity of clauses which are meant to be environmental in character having an economic viability overall purpose”.
The amendment directly addresses this flaw by placing nature restoration, funded by the developer, as a primary overarching purpose of the levy. In so doing, it does three things. As I said, it upholds the “polluter pays” principle. It prioritises nature recovery; it ensures that the nature restoration levy is a tool for delivering genuine ecological improvements rather than a mechanism designed primarily to facilitate development viability at nature’s expense, and it directs the levy to act as a deterrent. A robust levy set appropriately will incentivise developers to choose sites with lower environmental impacts, thereby proactively safeguarding our natural environment and preventing irreversible harm.
This is a sensible amendment. I welcome the other amendments in this group, which I read as probing amendments, so I am interested to see what the Minister says in response to those. This is an important matter. I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister prior to Report and to her response.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Randall of Uxbridge cannot be here, but their Amendment 305, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench has also added his name, is really important in trying to make sure—going back to the environmental principles and government policy—that developers should be rewarded for doing the right thing up front, instead of just being prepared to sign a cheque. It is certainly not a blank cheque, but it could be a very big cheque. That should be offset, recognising the work done by developers as they develop their housing and other projects.
I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will go into more detail, but in essence, we risk entering a regime where mandatory levies are applied, and it is not even necessarily guaranteed that planning consent will be given. Meanwhile, instead of outsourcing, in effect, a lot of the work that would happen as a consequence of an EDP, we want developers to make sure that they design in the integration principle, which the Government have in their policies. It is a transfer of that into thinking how we build right first time, instead of constantly thinking about how to retrofit or do other elements, which, frankly, may not be as well done considering the original design.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the payment and collection of the nature restoration levy. First, Amendments 299 and 308, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, seek to reframe the powers to make levy regulations. In designing these powers, the Government have been careful to ensure they cover everything required to support the levy. These powers are drawn from existing powers in the Planning Act 2008 to make community infrastructure levy regulations, to which the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Lansley, referred. These provide for all relevant circumstances. As such, we believe the powers as drafted are appropriate and sufficient to cover the matters the noble Lords set out in their amendments. In addition, Clause 69(1) already requires Natural England to base the schedule on the expected costs of conservation measures when considering how much to charge developers.
On Amendment 304, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, while the only test the EDP needs to pass is the overall improvement test, ensuring the viability of development is a crucial consideration for any EDP. Put simply, if using an EDP would make development unviable, then developers will simply choose not to use the EDP.
Amendment 305, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to add a duty on Natural England to offer discounts to developers paying into an EDP if they incorporate measures to enhance biodiversity on their sites. This approach risks conflating the existing BNG requirements with the discharge of environmental obligations through an EDP. However, we will look to ensure a smooth, user-friendly experience for developers, including the SME builders that we have been talking about so much during the debates.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. I note that, in Clause 69, there is a provision that the regulations may require or permit Natural England to integrate the process—that is the levy process—
“to the extent and in the manner specified by the regulations, with processes undertaken for other statutory purposes”.
Are we in that territory? Are we in the territory where a community infrastructure levy, environmental delivery plan levy or the nature restoration levy could be part of the same process?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not sure they would be the same process, but I think that refers to the fact that some of the same processes—for example, the appeal process—might be similar to the process being used for the levy for the EDP. That is what that reference is to, but if it is any different to that or more complex, because the way that the noble Lord described it would be a much more complex integration of both processes, I will confirm to him.
The noble Lord also referred to the viability assessment and the way that developers do this. In my quite lengthy experience of planning, I have found that developers are pretty masterful in developing their viability assessments. In the early days of this, they will want to look at how EDPs and the charging regimes around them are being framed. Most developers are quite competent at working up a viability assessment to take into account some of the new things that come along. The guidance point is an important one. We will always aim to assist those who are involved in this process with guidance, so I would anticipate that there will be guidance forthcoming. With this explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments.
Finally, Amendment 306A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seeks to allow the nature restoration levy regulations to impose the liability to pay into the nature restoration fund where the impact of the development cannot be fully dealt with through the mitigation hierarchy. The levy regulations will already allow for differential rates to be charged based on the varying impact of development. It follows that development that is having a greater impact on the environmental feature will be charged a higher levy rate. Where a developer chooses to use the existing system, they would need to address the impact of development through that approach. However, should a developer subsequently decide that they wish to use an EDP, they could still make a commitment to pay the levy prior to the planning application being determined. As such, the legislation can already accommodate the circumstances envisaged by the amendment, so I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend replies, can I just ask the Minister if—perhaps not now, but at some point before Report—she could just go back to the question on Clause 66 regarding the circumstances in which an EDP makes the levy mandatory and explain what kind of circumstances are anticipated?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not answer his question, which was quite clear. I think the issue of mandatory EDPs was put in as a precaution, but he is right—it would be useful to have some examples of where that might be necessary. We will come back to that between Committee and Report, so that we are all clear on the kinds of circumstances where a mandatory EDP may be put in place. It is important that we all understand that.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this short debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his comments clarifying my question about financial viability. I remain not completely clear. The letter this morning was helpful, but it would be helpful if, when the Minister responds to the questions raised in this debate, she could say whether the actual cost of contributing to the NRL will be available prior to Section 106 being available. The Minister has much greater experience than I do on how developers act in these ways, but it would be reassuring to know that there is no excuse for reopening affordable housing contributions in Section 106 based on unexpected costs of the NRL.
I thought the Minister’s response about the proportionate nature of the application of the nature restoration levy very helpful, and I will go away and read her comments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(c) monitoring EDPs.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would move the requirement on Natural England to monitor EDPs (currently in clause 57(7)) into clause 76.
The Earl of Caithness
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that those paid by Natural England to deliver EDPs have the appropriate expertise for the role.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 319 and will speak to Amendment 320. I would like a little bit of clarification on Clause 76(3), which reads:
“Natural England may pay another person to take conservation measures”.
Surely that ought to be “an appropriate person, with the right qualifications, to take conservation measures”? I would be grateful if the Minister could expand a little on what the Government’s intention is on this. Could she also confirm that subsection (3) refers entirely to EDPs, not to wider powers? It just says:
“Natural England may pay another person to take conservation measures.”
If the noble Baroness can help with that, I would be grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have every sympathy with these amendments, which reflect wider concerns expressed about the capabilities of Natural England and those whom they will deploy, but I do wonder how they will work in practice. In that regard, I have three quick questions for the Minister.
First, will Natural England reveal to levy payers which organisations—and, equally importantly, which qualified individuals—will be given responsibility for using that levy payers’ money to deliver relevant EDPs, so that levy payers can, as stakeholders, have confidence in delivery? Secondly, will such levy payers be able to communicate with these individuals or organisations to learn of and discuss progress? Thirdly, how, and by whom, will these individuals or organisations be held to account for the work that they do?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to address Amendments 319 and 320, as introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness—I thank him for that. These important amendments seek to ensure that future environmental delivery plans are delivered by people or bodies that have the appropriate capabilities necessary for conservation projects.
Environmental delivery plans are centralised schemes that will thus pull together more resources than have previously been designated to environmental initiatives. That means an increase in both scale and responsibility. Delivering plans at an increased scale necessitates that those responsible have the required expertise—not only industry knowledge, but larger-scale management capabilities. Amendment 320 particularly speaks to that, as it expands the potential providers to include bodies, allowing delivery to be overseen by a wider and more diversified group of people.
Responsibility is higher with EDPs, as the use of pooled resources—necessarily greater than case-by-case funds—increases the risk of wasteful externalities. This means that providers must be prudent and resourceful. It is therefore important that those entrusted with delivering EDPs have the relevant experience and qualifications to mitigate waste and mismanagement and maximise the effectiveness of those schemes. These amendments seek to ensure that those paid by Natural England have the requisite skills. I look forward to the Minister’s answer to that and to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his Amendments 319 and 320, which seek to amend Clause 73. These amendments specifically seek to ensure that those paid by Natural England to deliver conservation measures have the right level of expertise.
I understand that it is of course important that appropriate expertise and an appropriate person are deployed in the delivery of conservation measures. The Bill contains measures to ensure that the conservation measures within an environmental delivery plan deliver the necessary environmental improvements, with further safeguards included in the amendments that the Government have proposed.
Without the necessary expertise to deliver conservation measures, Natural England simply cannot comply with the requirements set out in the Bill when procuring conservation measures from third parties. The overall improvement test, as amended, will ensure that, when making an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State has confidence that the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effects of development. That includes confidence in the delivery of the conservation measures. Natural England will need to demonstrate that high integrity and standards will be applied in the procurement of any conservation measures and services.
As noble Lords are aware, we have introduced a requirement for Natural England to take sufficient measures to monitor the effectiveness of conservation measures and the effects of EDPs in general. That will ensure that any non-performance is addressed.
Finally, the Secretary of State will issue guidance as needed to ensure that conservation measures are designed and delivered using the appropriate expertise. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, asked a lot of detailed questions about how the levy will operate. If he will bear with me, I will write to him on those issues.
Amendment 320, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks to ask for “or body” to be put in after “person”. However, I can confirm that the meaning of another person in this context includes already bodies. That is the default position under the Interpretation Act 1978. I hope that reassures the noble Earl. The Bill already delivers the spirit of the noble Earl’s amendments, so I kindly ask him not to press them.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Can she confirm that Clause 76(3) refers only to EDPs?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful. This has been very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4) In monitoring an EDP, Natural England must take sufficient measures to monitor—(a) the effectiveness of the conservation measures that have been implemented, and(b) the effects of the EDP in general.(5) In deciding how to monitor an EDP, Natural England must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide more detail about exactly how Natural England must monitor its EDPs. It would also move the provision about guidance from clause 57 into clause 76.
The Earl of Caithness
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Lord Cameron of Dillington to clause 77, seeks to ensure that both statutory undertakers and private individual land managers are given equal treatment as regards the powers of entry to be exercised by Natural England.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, we now turn to the very important question of the powers to enter for Britain’s new Rostekhnadzor, the dominant state operator. I find it rather terrifying that a Bill can be put before your Lordships’ House by people who seem to be so out of touch with the real world. In Clause 77(3), a statutory undertaker—most likely in this case to be Natural England—gets 21 days’ notice, whereas in any other case the notice is 24 hours.
I understand that Natural England does not visit its trees very often, if at all. They probably do not need much management once they get going. Perhaps there is a bit of thinning to do or a felling exercise, but the people can go home at a set time to their families. Natural England will get 21 days’ notice for the benefit of that position.
On the other hand, the farmer will be working on their farm outside probably from 6 am to 9 pm. Then they come home, start to do their emails and suddenly find that they have Natural England coming the next day and that there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. Why is there this prejudice against non-statutory undertakers? Why are they given such a short time?
While on this part of the Bill, can I ask the Minister some more questions? Clause 77(2) states that the powers
“may not be exercised in relation to a private dwelling”
and quite right too, but are they exercisable in regard to a garden? That is a concern.
In Clause 77(4), why is notice not required for a second or subsequent visit? Surely that would only be courteous if they are going on to somebody else’s land. If it is a farmer’s land, they might be combining, they might be sowing or they might be getting sheep or cattle in for inoculation. They probably have a very full programme. Somebody appointed by Natural England then suddenly turns up. Would the Minister like it if that happened at home in Cumbria? She is about to catch the train down to your Lordships’ House and Natural England says, “No, you can’t do that, Minister. I need to speak to you now. Let us go and have a look at this”. This could be redrafted to be a lot better for the private individual.
The final point I put to the Minister is the question of notice in writing. When I was a surveyor, a letter in writing was all you could do. Can she tell me whether writing includes emails and social media? It comes through in written form on one’s dreaded machines. Will it be a signed letter like the one she sent us this morning, or can it be done a different way? I have asked lots of questions and it would be very helpful to have some answers. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for their excellent amendments—excellent because I was a co-signatory. These amendments seek to ensure consistency in treatment between statutory undertakers and private individual land managers as regards the powers of entry to be exercised by Natural England.
Frankly, this was an unwelcome addition to the Bill in the other place, giving Natural England even greater powers than already envisaged. I have referred before, or my noble friend has, to Natural England being turned into an authoritarian empire. This is part of what I was referring to. These amendments would require that at least 21 days’ notice be given to both sets of parties by Natural England to enter and survey or investigate any land covered by this part of the Bill. This appears to be the least amount of respect that private landowners should be entitled to. There are major issues around biosecurity—the risk that entrants to land carry on animal disease or predatory species. Given Natural England’s activities across the country, there is a considerable and real risk involved in their entry.
Farms may also have livestock that pose some risk to visitors and need to be kept away from roads and public rights of way, but for the behaviour of which they remain liable. Giving the additional time would allow landowners and Natural England to consider the risks around the entry and sensible precautions that can be taken and warnings given.
We in the Conservative Party have always strongly believed in both equal treatment before the law and the importance of public and private land ownership. These are principles we will always continue to support and are rights that we believe all should have access to. I therefore welcome Amendments 321 and 322, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them in further detail.
I hope that those who drafted this law did not take the view—we have no evidence that they did—that, “The public sector is good and can be trusted but private ownership is bad and cannot be trusted, so let us go in and speak to them straightaway”. As an aside, I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that if inspectors arrived at the farm of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and wanted to see it immediately, if it meant she could no longer travel on a ghastly Avanti train with me I can understand why she would happily ask them to come in straightaway.
However, I trust that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I agree with the underlying principles. I await the Government’s response to them with anticipation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to disturb the travelling arrangements of noble Lords who live in Cumbria. Amendments 321 and 322, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land. This is currently set at 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases.
Although we agree it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry in similar legislation. In aligning with other legislation, we are reducing the risk of confusion for landowners but also recognising the justified difference in treatment regarding statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and so may require additional preparation to protect public safety and to prevent disruption.
However, noble Lords have made some very good points and we will consider this further. It is also worth highlighting the additional safeguards in the Bill, such as ensuring that these powers cannot be used to gain access to private residences—I believe it says “residences” not “dwellings”, so I hope that covers the point about gardens that the noble Earl made. These safeguards further ensure that the powers cannot be used in any other manner other than for carrying out functions under this part of the Bill.
The noble Earl made a very good point about a second or subsequent visit. We do need to consider that further. He also raised the point about notice in writing. He is right to point to the fact that this could be an actual letter—a physical letter—or it could be an email; it could probably not be social media, because that would not be an appropriate way of communicating directly with the person concerned.
With that, and a commitment to discuss this further, I hope that, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will agree to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I think that is the most positive reply we have had from the Government in 48, 58, 68 hours. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that. I feel she understands the point that my noble friend Lord Blencathra and I are after: fairness. I was involved as a surveyor in giving notices to people, and there are circumstances when 24 hours is required, but this is not emergency legislation. There should be no need for Natural England, if it is doing its job properly, not to be able to give a decent length of notice and treat people in a civilised manner. I am very grateful to her and look forward to hearing from her shortly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.
“(6) In this section “remedial action purposes” means purposes connected with the taking by the Secretary of State or another public authority of—(a) a conservation measure as mentioned in section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked)(4)(a), or(b) any other measure to improve the conservation status of an identified environmental feature as mentioned in section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked)(4)(b).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.
“(2) In subsection (1), “remedial action purposes” means purposes connected with the taking by the Secretary of State or another public authority of—(a) a conservation measure as mentioned in section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked)(4)(a), or(b) any other measure to improve the conservation status of an identified environmental feature as mentioned in section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked)(4)(b).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the need for an annual report on EDPs to include an assessment of the effectiveness of all EDPs in force, which is considered no longer necessary in view of the changes made by my amendment to clause 62.
The Earl of Caithness
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this group relates to concerns about the wide-ranging powers afforded both to the Secretary of State and, most importantly, NE by this Bill. Amendments 326 to 332 seek to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the expertise of the person or bodies, giving greater accountability to the power to designate a person to take on NE’s responsibility. We touched on this a moment ago, and I hope the Minister will give a positive reply.
I particularly want to draw attention to Amendment 343 because this introduces a new clause which provides independent oversight for the administration of Part 3. This is important as the Bill currently invests power in Natural England that means it is both a regulator and a beneficiary, with limited ability for challenge—a point raised in earlier amendments. It is important, too, because we have also talked about the ability of Natural England to perform its current duties, let alone the duties proposed under the Bill.
I was at the launch of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme’s report yesterday and talked to a lot of people, and everybody was concerned about NE’s ability to do its job now and, with the financial pressures on it, whether there will be any hope of it doing the work proposed under this Bill satisfactorily in the future. Increased oversight would support greater adherence to scientific evidence—the subject of a number of amendments to the Bill—in the work that Natural England does.
There is also an absence of clarity in the Bill on the transparency and accountability of NRF distribution. We touched on that, and again that should be independently looked at. Amendment 361, which is in this group, is consequential on Amendment 343. The main point I come back to for the Minister is this independent oversight of the administration of Part 3. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, several of the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Caithness seek to ensure that those to whom the Secretary of State may delegate power are more precisely clarified. I support my noble friend’s efforts to ensure that the legislation is as clearly drafted as possible, so that it may be enacted in the way that both Houses intend. Furthermore, under this Bill, Natural England is being conferred a variety of different powers. It is therefore important that those delegated these powers, whether individuals or bodies, are appropriate. As a result, I am supportive of my noble friend’s amendments, and I am sure the Government will provide them with the necessary attention they deserve.
Amendment 343, also proposed by my noble friend, calls for the establishment of an independent body to oversee Natural England’s powers and duties. I support the principles behind such an amendment as transparency and accountability are essential requirements for effective government. I am therefore supportive of some of the ideas included in the amendment, such as requests for information, transparent reporting and independent monitoring. I hope the Government take this amendment seriously as well.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his Amendment 328. It is a probing amendment to ascertain which people the Government envisage taking on the responsibilities of Natural England under this part, and whether they include the farmers and occupiers affected by the EDP. I am sure that the whole Committee will welcome clarification of this question, as we have addressed it in prior groups.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Earl has tabled a number of amendments that seek to amend Clauses 86 and 87. I will consider these together, as they relate to the role of Natural England and who can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP.
First, Amendments 326, 328, 329 and 331 seek to ensure that only appropriate persons can be designated in this role and also seek to amend or clarify who can perform this role. Noble Lords are aware that Natural England is named in the Bill as the body responsible for the preparation and implementation of environmental delivery plans. However, there may be instances where it is appropriate for another body to take on some or all of Natural England’s role. There might be a scenario where it would make sense for a different public body to do this role. In the debate on Monday, I explained, for example, that the Marine Management Organisation might take on the role for an EDP that applied to coastal waters.
Clauses 86 and 87 provide for the Secretary of State to make the necessary changes to allow another body to exercise the same functions as Natural England. Any changes by regulations made by the affirmative procedure would receive the proper scrutiny of Parliament, which would ensure that only an appropriate body could be named. The Bill has been drafted to allow this partnership approach, which includes consulting relevant local expertise—farmers and land managers, for example. We expect that farmers and land managers will be able to benefit from new opportunities to provide conservation measures and so diversify their own revenue streams.
Amendments 343 and 361 would establish an additional independent body to monitor the success of EDPs in achieving the overall improvement test. Establishing an additional body would, however, increase the burden on and cost of administration of the nature restoration fund. The fund is to be implemented on a cost-recovery basis, and this additional administration would increase developer costs through higher levy rates and divert money away from environmental delivery. However, we agree with the noble Earl that oversight is important. The Secretary of State already has oversight of the nature restoration fund, which includes final approval of all environmental delivery plans following public consultation, and the ability to amend or revoke an environmental delivery plan if it is not delivering as expected. In addition, the Office for Environmental Protection may also scrutinise and report on all matters relating to the implementation of environmental law.
On Amendments 327, 330 and 332, as I set out earlier, the meaning of “another person” includes bodies already in line with the default position under the Interpretation Act 1978. As we set out in the debate on Monday, we would only ever expect to designate a public body to fulfil the role currently fulfilled by Natural England in the Bill.
I hope I have done enough to reassure noble Lords about the safeguards that ensure the benefits for development and nature, with Natural England fulfilling the role of preparing and implementing EDPs, alongside our intentions as to who else can perform this role or otherwise participate in the delivery of EDPs. I therefore kindly ask the noble Earl to consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I agree with her that one does not want to increase costs, but if it means producing a better result for nature and a better outcome, the costs are worthwhile. I know that the Secretary of State has a role in this, but the Secretary of State and Natural England are quite interlinked and I was looking for somebody slightly set back. The OEP will certainly help, but it was highly critical of the original draft of the Bill and it is as a result of its criticism that the Government have sought to try to improve it. I wonder whether, in future, criticism will be effected to try to improve the situation if the OEP thinks that the Bill is not working in the way that it wants. However, I will read what the Minister says and perhaps we will discuss it between now and another stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Pre-application biodiversity audit(1) Before a relevant planning application or application for development consent may be considered by a planning authority or the Secretary of State, the applicant must carry out and submit a comprehensive biodiversity audit of the proposed development site.(2) A “relevant planning application” means any application for planning permission, development consent, or reserved matters approval that involves—(a) land disturbance exceeding a prescribed area,(b) the creation or alteration of buildings exceeding a prescribed footprint or volume, or(c) any development within or adjacent to a site of ecological designation or significance.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “comprehensive biodiversity audit” means an assessment of the existing habitat types and their condition, and the ecological features present on the site and within its immediate vicinity, sufficient to establish a robust baseline biodiversity value.(4) The biodiversity audit must—(a) be undertaken by a suitably qualified and competent ecological professional,(b) employ a recognised methodology for habitat classification and condition assessment, and(c) include, but not be limited to, an assessment of habitat distinctiveness and ecological connectivity potential.(5) The results of the biodiversity audit, including a baseline biodiversity value calculation, must be submitted as part of the planning application or application for development consent.(6) A planning authority or the Secretary of State must not consider an application referred to in subsection (1) to be duly made unless the requirements of this section have been met. (7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provision about—(a) the prescribed areas, footprints, or volumes for the purposes of subsection (2),(b) the methodology and scope of biodiversity audits under subsection (3) and (4),(c) the qualifications and competence of professionals undertaking biodiversity audits, and(d) any exemptions from the requirements of this section for specified types of development or sites of negligible biodiversity value.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 335, tabled by my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately they cannot be here at this stage. Their Amendments 335 and 336 are somewhat self-explanatory. It is important to have audits and that there is consideration of the baseline. I know we have had considerable debate on this—it seems it is just the nature of how debates happen in this place, depending on the groupings—so I do not wish to detain the Committee excessively by covering old ground.
My noble friends put a significant amount of detail into what qualifications anyone should have to undertake the audit and on having a recognised methodology. I think this is intended to make sure that we have consistency right across how audits are done. It has been a long-standing criticism of this part of the Bill that, if you do not know where you start, how do you know where you are going? The Government have sought to address some of those criticisms, but these amendments, in particular Amendment 335, are trying to put in the Bill a common starting point so that the overall improvement test of being significant or material, wherever we end up, can be achieved.
On Amendment 336, again, there are some technical elements in here. For the first time I have seen the phrase in an amendment, in proposed new subsection (4), “in an accessible manner”. Of course, all documentation from the Government and arm’s-length bodies should be published in an accessible manner, but this would ensure that the details of the biodiversity mitigation decisions are made very public, for everyone to see. That recognises how difficult it sometimes is and how often FoIs get rejected by a number of government bodies, and so having this in the Bill has merit.
Amendment 341, which I have tabled, is rather straightforward: it is about allowing ponds. I am conscious that over two-thirds of ponds that existed in England in the 19th century have now disappeared. Ponds support two-thirds of freshwater species, providing an ideal habitat for invertebrates such as whirligig beetles, damselflies and dragonflies, and they are a key hunting ground for flycatchers, warblers and many other birds which rely on insects for prey—including swifts, which we have debated at some length.
Ponds are also a vital habitat for amphibians, including natterjack toads, common frogs and smooth newts, and the decline in pond habitats therefore has had a negative impact on UK species abundance, with one in six species currently at risk of extinction. Ponds are also a nature-based solution to the growing risks of flooding and drought. They help to hold water on the land. They slow the flow of water during periods of heavy rainfall, thereby helping to prevent flooding downstream. In periods of drought, ponds can act as a natural reservoir, storing water on the land when it is scarce.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 339 and 345 are in my name; each provides critical innovations for the protection of nature and heritage trees in England.
The new clause proposed by Amendment 339 would introduce wild belt as a legal category in planning considerations and require the Secretary of State to establish protections within six months of the Bill’s passage. The purpose is clear: wild-belt designation would permanently safeguard nature-rich areas and their associated ecosystems, extending well beyond the traditional boundaries of green belts or isolated wildlife reserves.
The UK faces a biodiversity crisis, with only around 3% of England’s land effectively managed for nature, an insufficient figure compared with the country’s 30% by 2030 target for habitat restoration. Current planning policy has lacked a tool for protecting sites in recovery, or those being actively restored to higher ecological value. Amendment 339 would fill this legislative gap, empowering local planning authorities and strategic bodies with guidance for identifying, protecting and reporting on wild-belt sites, and promoting public access to nature-rich spaces.
Wild belt would operate alongside existing designations, such as green belt and sites of special scientific interest, creating new, joined-up areas that enhance ecosystem connectivity. Crucially, wild-belt designation encourages the restoration and protection of not only land but water bodies and wetlands, and I am delighted to be in the same group as the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Bennett, standing up for both ponds and trees. In the long term, it will help address habitat fragmentation, support climate resilience and benefit public health. Natural England estimates that green spaces such as wild belt can save the NHS approximately £2.1 billion annually, through improvements to mental and physical health—a testament to their broad social, as well as ecological, value.
The new clause proposed by Amendment 345 would establish heritage tree preservation orders, responding to a major gap in current tree preservation order law. Existing TPOs focus on amenity, but heritage trees—those of significant historic, ecological or cultural importance—require elevated protection and clear statutory recognition. I thank my noble friend Lady Tyler, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for supporting this amendment.
The scale and significance of England’s heritage tree resource are striking. The Ancient Tree Inventory records over 233,000 ancient or veteran trees. Academic modelling suggests that there may be 1.7 million to 2.1 million across the country, indicating underreporting, and therefore associated risks. A single heritage oak tree can support roughly 2,300 species, so the harm or loss of such trees has outsized impacts on biodiversity. Amendment 345 gives planning authorities new powers to issue dedicated preservation orders and sets higher penalties for any damage. The shocking loss of the Sycamore Gap tree underlines the need for this—along with the Whitewebbs oak in Enfield, which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Tyler. It would also require advertising of heritage status and associated legal obligations, and develop partnership agreements for long-term management.
Crucially, Amendment 345 would create a statutory register for heritage trees, giving Natural England responsibility for identifying, publishing and maintaining the list. This would promote transparency, consistent protection nationwide and proactive stewardship, not reactive enforcement after harm has occurred. Owners and occupiers would be compelled to take reasonable care of heritage trees and would be liable for costs if the state must intervene, setting a clear expectation for shared custodianship.
This tiny amendment is like an acorn. If it could be planted in this Bill, it might grow into a mighty oak, spreading its branches throughout the nation, and protecting our heritage trees. I hope that the Minister agrees.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on Amendment 345 on heritage trees, to which I put my name. This amendment echoes the key provisions of my heritage tree Private Member’s Bill, which, alas, ran out of road at the last ballot. It remains in my heart, and I shall continue to re-ballot it on every possible occasion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has ably made the case that heritage trees are really important for history, culture and biodiversity, but they have remarkably little protection and are threatened by development, by deliberate damage—as with the Sycamore Gap tree—by inappropriate management or by sheer neglect and lack of management. The provisions of this amendment would bring protection to these important trees, and there is already the beginnings of a register, as proposed by the amendment, in the Ancient Tree Inventory. The Government have shown signs of interest in this in the past and asked the Tree Council to investigate and report on the issue. The Tree Council submitted its report in spring 2025, and concluded that trees of high social, cultural and environmental value are only indirectly protected, with significant legal gaps, and recommended the development of a “robust and effective system” to ensure that they are safeguarded. Other countries, such as Poland and Italy, have very effective protections.
Examples of socially, culturally and environmentally important trees lost in the last few years include the 300 year-old Hunningham oak near Leamington, which was felled to make way for infrastructure projects in 2020. There was a tree in Hackney called the Happy Man tree, which was the named tree of the year in 2020, but was felled in 2021 to make way for a housing development. There were 60 wonderful ancient lime trees in Wellingborough which were felled in favour of a dual carriageway in 2023. There are lots of examples of historic and culturally important trees, as well as their biodiversity significance, simply failing to be protected. I think that the outpouring of grief and rage that arose from the felling of the Sycamore Gap tree shows just how much the public value these trees, and, indeed, that was reflected in the sentencing.
I asked the Government in a Written Question on 17 July what progress they had made in implementing the recommendations of the Tree Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, replied:
“We are carefully considering expert recommendations laid out in the Tree Council and Forest Research report. It will be important”—
note the weasel words here—
“to balance our approach with existing priorities and our statutory obligations. We recognise the value of our most important trees and consider all ancient and veteran trees to be irreplaceable habitats”.
I ask just three questions of the Minister. First, am I right in summarising her response to my Written Question as, “Push off: they are irreplaceable habitats already. We aren’t going to do anything more to proceed with this report and protect them”? Secondly, if that is not the case, when and if will the Government come forward with an action plan following the Tree Council and Forest Research report? Thirdly, if they are not going to respond to the Tree Council report with an action plan, will she accept this amendment? I look forward to her response.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 341, which refers to ponds. She was quite right to mention floods and drought. I would just like to follow up on that and remind your Lordships what happens with flood and drought. It is the loss of topsoil that is so damaging to farms. If one has ponds, one can collect the topsoil before it does further damage. It does further damage in two ways.
First, if you are near a chalk stream, you get silt going into the chalk stream, which is destroying the environment of the chalk stream. A chalk stream should not have silt in it. I remember speaking in the House last year, I think, about chalk streams and how a sudden thunderstorm had turned a chalk stream from being a crystal gin-clear stream, as it should have been, into a dirty brown river, and the damage that that was doing to the environment of the chalk stream.
Secondly, if the water catchment area goes into a reservoir, a huge amount of topsoil is filling up reservoirs. One might look at a reservoir once it is full of water and think, “Gosh, that’s a really big reservoir”, but one finds that actually a third of it is silted up from years of run-off from the adjoining land. Having ponds that stop that must be a good idea. They can easily be sited in areas of unproductive farmland.
I also notice the interpretation of a pond. My noble friend was absolutely right to mention that this should be permanent or seasonal. With the recent flooding we have had, there has been some terrible damage to farmland, sometimes where a pond would have stopped the damage. It would not be a permanent pond, it would be a seasonal pond, but it would help to reduce the damage to farmland from the run-off of the heavy rain. I hope that the Government will look at that amendment particularly carefully.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak chiefly to the amendments in the Green group’s name in this diverse but very important group. I will briefly mention Amendment 345, already powerfully and poetically spoken to.
In the discussion, we heard so many sad stories of the trees we have lost. As a Save Sheffield Trees campaigner, it made me think of two magnificent specimens in Sheffield: the Chelsea Road Elm and the Vernon Road Oak in Dore, where communities had to make enormous efforts—including risking life and limb and arrest—to save those trees. The amendment would create a mechanism to make sure that those efforts could be put towards more constructive activities, rather than defending what is already there.
I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 346 in my name, which calls on local authorities to report on land contamination, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in both groups. My amendment raises Zane’s law. I have essentially tabled it before, to the Building Safety Act and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, when they were passing through the House. The whole campaign for Zane’s law has developed significantly since then. This is a probing amendment, because a lot has happened since we last discussed this, when the Minister was then sitting beside me on the opposition Benches and expressing interest in the issue.
It also offers the Government a suggestion for at least a partial way forward. This is a very urgent issue, which has been acknowledged. Recently, in July, the Mayor of London backed a Zane’s law, pushed very much by London Assembly Member, Zack Polanski. Just a few days ago, a motion moved by the Fire Brigades Union at the TUC conference, also backed by the NEU, Unison, Unite and the CWU, called for a Zane’s law.
There have been many new noble Lords since the last time we discussed this in this House. Zane’s law is named after the seven year-old Zane Gbangbola, who died in February 2014 during flooding of the River Thames at Chertsey in Surrey. Zane’s parents, Kye and Nicole, know that he was killed by toxic hydrogen cyanide gas from a former waste dump. His father was left paralysed by that gas. That is not what the inquest says, but everyone knows that is the fact. Indeed, I note that Zane’s parents recently had a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the Truth About Zane campaign and to see what could be done to finally get the record set straight.
This is about an issue that directly affects many people. In June, I held a Zane’s law summit here in Parliament, acknowledging that current UK regulations on contaminated land are grossly inadequate and a threat to the safety of many, particularly given climate breakdown, rising sea levels, increasing rainfall and flooding. That summit heard from campaigners around the country on very significant issues. The case of Zane is about a historic landfill which was closed off many decades ago. There are ongoing, immediate landfill issues which are not being properly dealt with, and which Zane’s law would deal with more broadly.
I have to acknowledge and give all credit to the Government that the then Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, came to the summit, where he said that the Government knew that there needed to be more transparency about contaminated land and that they would publish a new state of contaminated land report in spring next year. One thing I am looking for from the Minister today is a report on how that is going—a reassurance that progress is being made. The Secretary of State said at that meeting that the department is developing a land remediation pathfinders scheme to provide financial support to councils to remediate land that is contaminated. With this amendment, I hope to hear from the Minister about what progress is being made. Of course, we have seen a change of personnel in her department since then, but I would like to hear what is happening.
I also want to raise a further issue, which has been raised with me. I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me about it. As the pressure and the campaign for Zane’s law grow, I am hearing reports that landowners might be selling what they know to be contaminated land, even if it is not properly identified and fully understood, and trying to basically dump it before further action is taken. Does any agency or institution have a duty to record, report or interact when there are such disposals or purchases? We know that there is a big issue coming; how can we ensure that innocent buyers and communities do not get dumped with land like this?
I come now to Amendment 346A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which fits more closely in this group, dealing as it does with trees. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, we are going backwards in terms of biodiversity and on issues around trees and so on. According to the State of the UK’s Woods and Trees 2025 report, roughly 40% of our ancient woodlands, the UK’s most biodiverse temperate habitat, are being damaged by plantation forestry, making their restoration a priority to meet the Government’s 2030 nature recovery targets. Here is a truly shocking figure: in 2023, 6 hectares of damaged ancient woodlands were restored, but the target for the year was 5,000 hectares—so six hectares versus 5,000 hectares.
Crucially, this amendment would create a duty for the appropriate forestry authority—in many cases, this will of course be the Forestry Commission—undertaking any planning or development function relating to forestry land, or taking any part in any exercise in such functions, to prioritise achieving the targets under Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 and targets in the environmental improvement plan, as well as following, of course, their duties under the Climate Change Act 2008. This would ensure that the Forestry Commission took all reasonable steps to contribute to the legally binding targets for nature recovery and climate mitigation and adaptation.
I think that I have previously debated this issue with the Minister. The Forestry Commission’s current legal remit is outdated. Its primary duty, as established in the Forestry Act 1919, is to promote timber production, so that is the job it is being given. There is only a vague conservation duty, which was added in 1985, a very long time ago. That 1985-added duty lacks clarity and enforceability and does not align with the UK’s environmental targets. We need to do this simply to protect nature and to act on the climate. If the forestry estate is open to renewable development through the Bill—and eventually the Act—it is vital that its decisions do not undermine irreplaceable habitats. Updating the Forestry Commission’s remit is timely, necessary and, as we know, widely supported by the public and the conservation sector.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have the last amendment in this group. I very much support my noble friend Lady Coffey on her ponds amendment. We are short of ponds in the landscape, generally, and they should not be hard to create. I like the idea of wild belt, but I am not convinced that we can compel anyone to create a natural environment in this country. We lack the natural systems that would maintain a natural environment. Anything in this country has to be managed, but to have places set aside for nature and properly managed seems a much better concept than a green belt. It is much easier for people to enjoy and much easier to look after.
My amendment says that we should recognise that construction and demolition activities cause disruption to nature, much as we recognise that wildlife can cause disruption to growing crops. The Government have recognised this in relation to wind farms; they accept the damage to wildlife that wind farms cause. What we do causes damage to nature. If I was to put on my house a bird box and a bat box, there would not be a single month in the year when I could repaint my house without some risk of disturbing wildlife. We need to take a realistic attitude to this, which I hope is what my amendment does.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to address the amendments in this group. There are some important amendments here, some that raise interesting concepts and some that are apparently sexy but may be difficult to implement. Biodiversity is vital to preserving our ecosystems, which in turn provide clean air, water and food. It holds significant cultural, aesthetic and economic value, supporting industries such as tourism and agriculture. I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for moving the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling concerning biodiversity.
Amendment 335 seeks to ensure that a biodiversity audit is incorporated into the planning application process or application for development. I recognise the potential merit in integrating biodiversity considerations at this stage in the planning process and I keenly await the Government’s response. I agree entirely that, as far as EDPs are concerned, one must do an audit at the beginning to know what one has before one can say later whether it has improved, got worse or stayed the same—I hope that the Government will correct me if I am wrong—but I think that my noble friend’s amendment may refer generally to planning applications, where a balance has to be struck. I can see the benefit of doing an environmental audit beforehand, when it might speed things up and cost less, but doing it afterwards might also speed things up and cost less. I would like to know what the Government’s thinking is.
I understand that, before I joined Natural England, about eight years ago it reached out to HS2 and said, “We know that you’ll be doing a lot of work on the route. You may come across some biodiversity problems. Talk to us in advance and we’ll see if we can sort it out”. I understand that Natural England was told, “Pooh, pooh. We don’t need you involved in this. We know what we’re doing”. By not involving Natural England in the early planning stage, HS2 hit the bat problem, which is when it invented the £110 million tunnel. So there can be merit in getting nature bodies and the developers involved with Natural England early in the planning stage.
Amendment 336 calls for transparency in offsite biodiversity mitigation decisions. If the amendment were to pass, the Government would be required to publish a statement setting out the scientific basis for that decision. Government accountability is a principle on which Members on both sides of the Committee agree and I thank my noble friend for his contribution and my noble friend Lady Coffey for moving the amendment.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendment contributions. These amendments seek to provide important protections for potential wild-belt areas and their associated ecosystems. I particularly like my noble friend’s amendment on ponds. It is an excellent idea and, if the Government do not accept it, I would like to hear a good reason why.
On heritage tree preservation orders, I can tell the Committee that on 27 September 2023 I was driving back from Newcastle along the Hadrian’s Wall road—well, my wife was driving and I was sitting in the passenger seat, giving my usual expert guidance on how to drive, as men often do. She said, “We’ve driven past this gap for years. Why don’t we go and look at it?” I said, “Well, you can go if you like. I’m not going to try to stagger up there. It’s about to rain”. That night, a few hours later, those swine cut down the tree. It grieves me that I did not try to stagger up to look at it. The Sycamore Gap tree was iconic. The word “iconic” is not in the amendment, but the tree, although it was not of cultural significance, was of iconic significance. I like the concept of the amendment. My only worry is that the definition seems rather wide and that it lands it all on Natural England, which is not geared up to do this.
If this amendment were to pass, I suspect that, within one month, Natural England would have a million letters from people saying, “You must ledger this tree, that tree and that tree”. It could not just say, “Thank you very much, it’s all in the register now”, and tick the box; it would have to investigate every single one, it would have to see whether it was genuine or not and, no doubt, there would have to be a review process, as people would demand that a tree be taken off the list or added to it. So, I like the concept and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that something must be done, but I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that we need to do it properly and find an easy way to do it that protects all the right trees, but not at a huge bureaucratic cost.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will talk first to Amendment 335, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It would require developers to establish a biodiversity baseline before development begins. Through biodiversity net gain, developers are already required to provide a site baseline, using the statutory biodiversity metric, as part of their planning application for Town and Country Planning Act developments. The biggest developers are also going to be required to do so from May next year, when it is extended to nationally significant infrastructure projects.
On Amendment 336, the Government agree that it is important that the use of offsite biodiversity gains by developers is justified. As part of the statutory biodiversity net gain framework, decision-makers need to take account of the biodiversity gain hierarchy, which prioritises, first, the onsite delivery of net gains. Again, this is distinct from the NRF, but we are not convinced that there needs to be a further duty on the decision-maker to prepare a statement justifying each offsite gain. The biodiversity net gain framework already requires a developer to provide information about why the use of offsite gains is required as part of the approval of the statutory BNG plan. It would be disproportionate to require decision-makers to prepare a further statement justifying the use and would add additional burdens on local planning authorities, especially for their ecologists, for little further benefit.
Turning to Amendment 339, which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for tabling, I will say that the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that decision-makers should contribute to and enhance the environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value. Local plans are required to identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation. Furthermore, the Environment Act 2021 introduced local nature recovery strategies, which are now being rolled out across the country.
These spatial strategies for environmental improvement are developed in partnership with local stakeholders and enable strategic authorities to agree a set of priorities for nature recovery. They also map out the most valuable existing areas for nature, which are often underpinned by other protections in the planning system, and areas which could become of particular importance for biodiversity. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to take local nature recovery strategies into account when planning for development under legal provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Where it is appropriate for large areas of habitat to be conserved or enhanced, local nature recovery strategies provide a mechanism to do so.
Local nature recovery strategies allow local areas to determine the best opportunities to take action for nature restoration, while also planning for any development needed in the area. In February, we published guidance setting out the role of the local nature recovery strategies in the planning system, and we are exploring how we can best reflect them in policy through our wider work.
The application of planning policy through up-to-date strategic development strategies and local plans, which consider local nature recovery strategies, will ensure that local people are equipped to make decisions about where habitat enhancement and creation can drive the best environmental outcomes. Therefore, while I understand the intent behind this amendment and agree that promoting nature restoration at scale is an important objective, the legislative framework to enable this is already in place.
On Amendment 341, we recognise that ponds can deliver important biodiversity benefits, and we want to encourage them in the right locations. We also recognise the benefits of ponds for farmers, providing valuable sources of irrigation during dry periods. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned the recent flooding; of course, things such as balancing ponds can be really helpful.
Permitted development rights are a well-established part of the planning system. For example, under an agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to manage and control impacts. Meanwhile, home owners can create new ponds in their gardens under householder permitted development rights.
Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order. A public consultation would ensure that the views of the public, including those who would benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. It would also allow for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and how these might be mitigated.
The amendment seeks to provide a national planning permission for ponds across the whole of England, regardless of whether one would be appropriate in a particular location, such as on land used for public recreation or in an area where it could increase flood risks. To ensure that ponds are properly located, there are circumstances in which a planning application is appropriate. On that basis, we cannot support the amendment. However, I assure noble Lords that we will continue to keep permitted development rights under review.
Turning to Amendment 346, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, while obviously I understand the ambition to improve information on the state of contaminated land in England, I also believe that the policy intent of her proposals is largely met by existing legislation and statutory guidance.
Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides a framework for identifying contaminated land in England and allocating responsibility for its remediation. It provides a legal definition of contaminated land and lays out the responsibilities of local authorities and the Environment Agency for dealing with contaminated land. These responsibilities include local authorities inspecting their area to identify where land may be contaminated, and maintaining a public register of land that has been identified as contaminated land. Local authorities and the Environment Agency are also required to ensure that “appropriate persons” remediate these sites.
Additionally, there is a statutory obligation for local authorities to report to the Government on the state of contaminated land in their area when asked to. Defra commissioned the Environment Agency in November 2024 to complete a state of contaminated land survey, and a subsequent report, and we will soon release the survey to local authorities. Regarding the noble Baroness’s question about Zane, I just want to clarify that the previous Secretary of State, Steve Reed, did meet Zane’s family, and it was following that meeting that the state of contaminated land survey was commissioned. We are looking to release it to local authorities to respond to very soon—this month—and we are aiming to publish the final report in spring next year.
Given that the existing frameworks are already embedded into legislation and guidance, Amendment 346 would cause unnecessary duplication and distraction for local authorities. Therefore, while obviously I completely appreciate the noble Baroness’s concerns, I would ask her not to press her amendment, and I will check the other questions she asked and get back to her in writing.
Amendment 345, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, wishes to create the new category of “heritage trees” and give them further protection. The National Planning Policy Framework recognises the benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services, which trees and woodlands provide. We are clear that opportunities should be taken to incorporate trees into new developments, and that existing trees should be retained whenever possible. Moreover, development that results in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodlands or ancient or veteran trees should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons, and a suitable compensation strategy exists.
Aside from these protections at national level, there are tree preservation orders, a key method of protecting trees and woodlands in England; and authorities are already expected to take into account the historic, cultural and ecological value of a tree. Local planning authorities are also required to notify relevant parties when the order is made so that they can encourage good tree management, particularly when determining planning applications. Local officers have powers to enforce protections, and an order makes it a criminal offence to cut down, prune, uproot, or wilfully damage or destroy a tree without the local authority’s written permission. Regarding the Sycamore Gap, the people who cut that down have actually gone to prison.
We are concerned that the creation of a new category of heritage trees could cause confusion and add to burdens on both Natural England and local authorities without the commensurate benefits. My noble friend asked about the Tree Council report, and I can say that Defra is working on a tree strategy, which I am sure she will take great interest in when she sees it.
Amendment 346A seeks to place an additional nature duty on forestry authorities when exercising their functions in planning, development and infrastructure on protected landscapes. We share the aims of the amendment and agree that public bodies should fully contribute to nature conservation and biodiversity recovery.
However, the objectives of the amendment are already embedded in the statutory and policy framework that forestry authorities operate within. Where renewable electricity development on the public forest estate is consented through the development consent order process for NSIPs, the national policy statements will apply, and the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy stipulates:
“In considering any proposed development … the Secretary of State should take into account … its potential adverse impacts, including on the environment, and including any long-term and cumulative adverse impacts … at national, regional and local levels”.
Furthermore, forestry authorities already have relevant and bespoke duties applicable to all land, and this balancing duty is a statutory obligation laid out in the Forestry Act 1967, requiring them to balance their forestry-specific duties with the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. Although I welcome the spirit of the amendment, I do not believe it is necessary to introduce this new statutory nature duty, as outlined in it.
Amendment 346DC, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove potential obstacles which may arise from Sections 1 or 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. We recognise the desire to clarify the position of development when it comes to exceptions from these obligations and offences towards wild birds. However, where impacts are unavoidable, development activity can already be exempted as lawful action in the existing list of exemptions under Section 4 of the Act. We will, however, carefully consider how to better manage the interactions between protected species and development both through the NRF and as part of our wider efforts to improve the regulatory landscape.
Having said all that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we have had another one of those odds and sods groups, with the desire to perhaps insert or add permitted development rights. I am sure that the Minister will recognise my disappointment about what she said about ponds. She will be aware that this is the only opportunity for Peers who are not Ministers to try to get some secondary regulations through and enacted. I am conscious that there was sufficient encouragement for many others in the aims of trying to improve nature, which is what many of the amendments were about. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 335.
“Sustainable drainageThe Secretary of State must bring into force in England all uncommenced parts of Schedule 3 of the Water Management Act 2010 (sustainable drainage) within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
In England, developers have the automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for this. Implementation of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) would end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), paving the way for their widespread use.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have reached this small but perfectly formed group of amendments in my name. I take the opportunity to thank for their support the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I wish her a speedy recovery for her toe—and Lady Willis of Summertown. I am very grateful to them all.
If I could declare my interests, I am co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water and an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities. I have co-authored a number of Bricks & Water reports with the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum, and I am very grateful for its support on that.
I will initially set out the contents of the amendments and then explain why I think the Government should support them or come forward with their own amendments in lieu on Report. Turning first to Amendment 337, as the Explanatory Notes make clear, developers currently have an automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for it or not. Implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 would end that automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems, paving the way for their widespread use.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. If we pass legislation, it is important that we actually commence it. As the noble Baroness so ably presented, this is a real gap and it is has become even more imperative as we seek to up the level of development. I hope that the Minister will recognise the need and agree to press forward with bringing this schedule into operation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Given that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed this amendment, I just briefly reinforce what the noble Baronesses have already said. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made the point about laws being passed and then nothing happening. That is a problem both for industry—in this case, developers—and for local councils, which are left in a state of uncertainty, not knowing where they are going with this. People start to prepare, read up and think about it. I should perhaps declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association at this point.
There is also an issue of trust with the Government—something that we discuss often in your Lordships’ House. A classic example of this is the bottle deposit scheme that we are all still waiting for after it was announced so long ago. Many people out there still believe that, when a Government announce something, it will happen—it is already on the way. Probably more people believe that, once a law is passed, that will happen. When it does not happen, there is then a real problem with trust in the Government.
I can trace my knowledge about sustainable urban drainage schemes to 2006, when the first Green was elected to Islington Council. I can remember her talking excitedly about how crucial it was to deal with local flooding issues as well as environmental issues. I had not yet learned the phrase “slow the flow”, but that is of course very much what urban drainage is about. I also recall visiting, some years ago now, Cherry Hinton Brook near Cambridge—I bring up chalk streams again, just for one final time. I talked to local people concerned about a proposed development there, what was happening with the sustainable urban drainage scheme and how it would potentially be managed. What is crucial about Schedule 3 is that it provides a framework for construction but also for oversight of management because, very often, sustainable urban drainage schemes cannot just sit there; they have to be managed throughout their lifespan for many decades. If we do not have everything set out here—the required technical analysis, the inspections and the responsibilities —as it is in Schedule 3, then we will be stuck with schemes that have been built but are not being looked after.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. To lift the curtain a little bit on life in government, it is one of my disappointments that we did not get this enacted. I perhaps have to dob people in: it was the Ministry for Housing. We had finally got there with Plan for Water, where it was adopted as a policy. We managed to get it in there and we did the review—it was all beautiful. I am pleased that the Government did the standards; they published that in July. It just needs this final push. Now that Steve Reed has moved from Defra to the Ministry for Housing, I hope that he will take full advantage of being enlightened about the benefits of ensuring that we have proper connections and sustainable drainage and, candidly, that we can get on with it and the Government take advantage of this primary legislation to ensure that it happens.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 337 and 342. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her speeches tonight. She cares about these issues deeply and I commend her for her hard work. I am sure that the Committee is united in agreement that the environment is an important factor worthy of consideration in any planning Bill. I share my noble friend’s concern about building on the flood plain. Travelling down from Carlisle to London every week, at certain times of the year I look out of the window and see that scruffy low-lying land knee-deep in water. Six months later, they are building houses on it. I wonder whether someone somewhere in government should do something about it. Thank God that it is not me.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments and for her thorough introduction. I meant the other day to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to take our very good wishes for a speedy recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I hope is recovering quickly. I am sorry that I did not do that before.
Effective implementation of SUDS, including adoption and maintenance, can reduce the impact of new developments on sewers by adding up to 87%, creating headroom for additional developments where they may not be possible with only conventional drainage. I have previously shared with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, some of the outstanding schemes that I have seen in Sussex and with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in Cambridge. The responsible developers make provision for the ongoing maintenance of these schemes. We need to see sustainable drainage in more developments, to designs that cope with changing climatic conditions, deliver wider water infrastructure benefits and help to tackle our water pollution problems. We have already taken steps to improve the delivery of SUDS through the planning system. The update to the NPPF, published on 12 December, expanded the requirement to provide SUDS to all development with drainage implications. I restate that, although the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself, it is part of the statutory planning system.
Sewerage undertakers have the ability to refuse a connection where it appears to them that it would prejudice their network or not meet their reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to a sewerage system. The Independent Water Commission, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, is reviewing the water sector regulatory system in England and Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments will consider the report, including whether it has implications for the right to connect. That report should be factored in before considering any potential legislative changes to Section 106. Regardless, the Government are strongly committed to requiring standardised sustainable drainage systems, or SUDS, in new developments and are considering how best to implement our ambitions.
The Government published updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS in June 2025, which were welcomed by stakeholders as a positive step. We intend to consult on the national planning policy related to decision-making later this year, including policies on flood risk and SUDS. I will take back the noble Baroness’s point about run-off, because it would be useful to consider that at the same time. Also this year, we will consult on ending freehold estates, which will include options to reduce the prevalence of private management arrangements for community assets including SUDS. For this reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to all who have spoken and those who have supported the amendment: the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who echoed my concerns about why the original legislation was not implemented; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for reminding the House about the “slow the flow” scheme, particularly the Pickering pilot scheme that I was closely associated with; and my noble friend Lady Coffey for pointing out the reason for the blockage and delay. It is like, “We are going to do it, but just not yet”. There is a degree of urgency and let us bear in mind that, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the Front Bench pointed out, if your house was built on a flood plain since 2009, you cannot be insured, or the only insurance that you can get is probably so cripplingly expensive that you cannot afford it.
For a host of reasons, I believe that the time is now. I was told during the passage of the levelling-up Act that we would have to wait for a different opportunity. The time is now, so I will revert to this at a future stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ravensdale
“Development for reasons of national security or energy security in the absence of an EDP(1) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/1012) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 64 (Considerations of overriding public interest), at end insert—“(7) In paragraph (1), “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” may include a situation where—(a) the Secretary of State considers that the development is necessary—(i) for reasons of national security, or(ii) in relation to the generation and conveyance of low carbon electricity, energy and security, and(b) no environmental delivery plan under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 applies to the plan or project(8) In paragraph (1), “no alternative solutions” should be read to mean no alternative solution which can be delivered whilst maintaining reasonable development costs.(9) “Low carbon electricity generation” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Energy Act 2013 (Regulations to encourage low carbon electricity generation).”(3) In regulation 68 (Compensatory measures), at end insert—“(2) The Secretary of State may disapply this regulation where—(a) the appropriate authority commits to alternative compensatory environmental measures, and(b) the Secretary of State considers these measures—(i) have a higher environmental value than any compensation measures which would be necessary to meet the requirements of this regulation, or(ii) are necessary to maintain reasonable development costs.(3) Within six months of the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State may publish guidance setting out how reasonable development costs are to be assessed in relation to this regulation.””
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis, and as co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear. This group of amendments gets to the heart of some of the issues with this Bill. It is important that we get Britain building again, not least to reverse the long stagnation in the UK economy since 2008. The Chancellor tells us that growth is the problem, and investment is the solution, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
There is a significant risk that Part 3, the centrepiece of this Bill, is not going to deliver for complex infrastructure. The reasons are straightforward: Part 3 may work for a known issue such as nutrient neutrality for a housing development, where developers can club together and pay into a fund. However, for infrastructure developments, habitat issues will not be known in advance, and there will not be time for developers to agree and implement an EDP before consent. Therefore, they are left with a couple of options: they can try to twin-track, which could risk adding even more bureaucracy to the process, or go the existing route. We all know the issues with the existing route—bat tunnels and fish discos have been well-publicised—but less well known are the years-long delays to offshore windfarms due to issues with compensation for environmental impacts and the like.
For example, we have had multi-year delays to the trio of Norfolk offshore wind projects—Norfolk Vanguard East, Norfolk Vanguard West and Norfolk Boreas—due to issues around compensation for an undersea worm, Sabellaria reef, even in areas where it was not present. That is not to mention cutting the size by around 40% and the generation potential of East Anglia ONE North windfarm due to habitat issues with red-throated diver, despite assessments putting the impact at one bird death per year.
Ultimately, if the Government want to meet their ambitious targets for clean energy and growth, they will need an approach that delivers for infrastructure, as well as for housing. For energy, we have managed to build approximately 4 gigawatts of new capacity per year over the last three years. To meet the Government’s clean power target, that will have to increase to at least 15 gigawatts per year between now and 2030—from the Government’s own data—so that is a quadrupling of our current build rate. A lot of that is offshore wind, and I should be clear from my examples that this acceleration in build rates simply will not happen under the current regulatory regime.
At the foundation of all this are the habitats regulations, which are of course very important for the protection of nature in this country but which have become overly burdensome due to the impacts of case law over the years and an overly precautionary approach by the regulator in some cases. Amendment 350 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proposes some minor changes to steer the interpretation of the habitats regulations back to their original intent to protect nature but to strike a balance. This has been developed in broad consultation with planning lawyers and ecologists who have decades of experience in taking large projects through the planning system.
The amendment provides a menu of options for the Government. One of those is defining a science-led approach, which is important because too often the statutory nature conservation bodies require developers to provide evidence against hypothetical rather than real risks. I am vice-chair of the POST board—the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. POST is the link between the scientific research community and Parliament, and we work to ensure a science-led approach to lawmaking. This is an area where it is vital that we ensure that we take a scientifically rigorous approach.
The second part of the amendment would overturn some aspects of case law to get to a more proportionate approach, stating that de minimis effects cannot produce an adverse effect; that mitigation measures can be taken into account when deciding whether a proposed project is likely to have a significant effect; that there is no need to redo a habitats assessment for approval of conditions under a consent that was originally subject to a habitats assessment; and, finally, that compensation measures need not address the same type or scale of impact as the harm caused nor be in place before impact occurs, which restates existing law. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to fill in the detail.
The package of measures in Amendment 350 is a pragmatic and proportionate means of restoring some balance to a system that is currently making it extremely difficult to build infrastructure in the UK. One of the key benefits of what we are proposing is that it would have immediate benefits for a range of projects around the UK. It does not need additional regulations to be developed and raised nor EDPs to be developed; the impact is there straight away.
Amendment 346DA in my name is in the same vein and attacks the problem from a different angle—again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his support. It seeks to recognise that there are perhaps narrowly defined classes of projects which should be able to cut through the usual process. For example, we are building offshore wind, which is vital to our energy security and therefore to our national security. Is it really acceptable that these developments have been held up for years because of delays to compensatory regimes under the habitats regulations? Can we really afford to delay infrastructure that is key for the Government’s net-zero target, for energy security and therefore national security in this way? I suggest not, and that there could be certain classes of project, those related to national security and energy security, where the Secretary of State should have additional powers to allow projects to proceed and to work to define their own compensatory measures.
Between Amendments 350 and 346DA, we have a package of options for the Government which seek to recognise the issues of Part 3 for infrastructure and ensure that the Bill delivers for growth—I add to this my previous Amendment 46 on regulators. Ultimately, we need to strike a better balance between the impact of infrastructure on the local environment—the micro view—and the benefits of that infrastructure for the nation, whether that is net zero, energy security or economic growth: the macro view.
We have heard some rumblings in the news about a second planning Bill focused on infrastructure. I do not know the truth of that, but my observation is that we cannot wait for another Bill; we simply do not have the time. The Government need to seize the opportunity that the Bill represents and ensure that it delivers for infrastructure, and I restate the immediate benefit that these amendments would have. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I thank him for his amendments and for his support of mine. In fact, he very ably summarised my amendments. It is clearly important and good that we are getting back to what the Bill is all about: the growth agenda. As the Explanatory Memorandum and policy background state, we have a huge problem in building the infrastructure that we need to get this country going again and growing again. The Bill is obviously designed to help us do that, particularly through the planning reforms, EDPs and so on. The big question is whether the Bill is sufficiently focused to give us confidence that our regulatory system is not going to prevent the kind of rapid growth that we need. This is where there is some concern.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Not for the first time I find myself entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I therefore do not need to take a lot of time on my amendment in this group, which originates with Catherine Howard of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and her Project Nutcracker and is intended to address the problems caused by three legal cases—People Over Wind, Sweetman I and CG Fry—and provide a hook for statutory guidance aimed primarily at addressing the customs and practice of the statutory nature conservation bodies.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know where to start on this one. I must admit that, if I had had the neck of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in my hands this morning after reading the Telegraph article, he would no longer be here to press his amendment tonight.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that does not sound very comradely, if I may say so.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I am definitely not feeling comradely right now.
We must get away from this polarisation. These amendments, jointly in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Ravensdale, are valuable and worth considering, particularly in the area of infra- structure. But they are complex, and they need calm and informed judgement and analysis before we go overboard for them. We will not stay calm, and we will not have orderly evidence-based judgement, if we get the sort of article that reports in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been portraying it, in places—some of which he reflected this evening.
The ENGOs are not on an ego trip. They are not intrinsically against growth. The regulators are doing their best job with their resources against habitats regulations that were invented in order to stem this massive decline of biodiversity in this country, which threatens our existence. Every species extinction foreshadows our own. We have to get away from this belief that somehow everybody else in Europe implementing the habitats regulations is doing it with less purity, and is being far less up themselves— if noble Lords will pardon that unparliamentary language—than we are. The reality is that most places implementing the habitats directive are not trying to maintain and recover biodiversity in an area that is as densely populated and as much contested, in terms of land use, as this country is, particularly England. We have to bear that in mind: we are trying to cram an awful lot into a very small space of land, particularly in the south-east and around our coastal regions. So let us get off the polarisation argument.
The Telegraph piece is headed:
“Eco-zealots are crushing the economy”.
That does not foster good and sane debate. It says that
“the anti-growth environmental quangos are blocking developments on spurious grounds”
and that Natural England has an “anti-growth” mindset. I do not believe any of these points. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been quoted incorrectly, but from what he said tonight I do not believe that. It would be very unfortunate if we fell into the trap of polarising growth against development; we are smart enough to do both, and there is real commitment across conservation interests to do that. So let us stop winding up this debate in an irresponsible way.
I was going to go on to many of the other reasons for delay in the planning system but, at this time of the night, I will not. I will simply say that, when you talk to developers who are not on their soapboxes about the barriers they face, you find that the barriers are not solely environmental; there are many others. It is an example of the poverty of the noble Lord’s case and the way he is making it—not necessarily its basic tenet—that he quotes the old, hackneyed example of the HS2 bat tunnel. The problem with the HS2 bat tunnel was the problem of HS2, not the problem of nature conservation. If, as we had recommended 20 years ago, HS2 was called MS2, Medium Speed 2, it would have been possible to have mightily reduced the cost of the whole project by taking 20 miles an hour off the top speed and allowing the route to wiggle around all the things that we have now spent a fortune compensating for.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
If my noble friend would let me correct a point, I did not mention bats at all; I mentioned my experience of Hinkley Point C, which is very different.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Lord for that, but the article in the Telegraph said that, on the night he was quoted, he talked about bats.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was at a conference yesterday, and the Telegraph reported on it. The headline is not my authorship.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I look forward to a detailed account from the noble Lord as to what exactly he did say that night and what in the Telegraph article he denies that he said. Anyway, if we had cut the speed of HS2, we would have avoided not only having bat tunnels but spending huge amounts of money on compensatory habitat for the destruction of ancient woodlands.
Let us not be unclear about this: Catherine Howard and her colleagues are very knowledgeable, but they are clearly representative of the development sector. Although their views are worth considering, they are not the only experts in this field. I do not believe that the extreme picture of the nature conservation bodies that is being represented is true. Nature is dramatically in decline and the habitats regulations were invented to meet that issue, so let us consider the approach in the amendments calmly and with a lack of polarisation. If we do not, we will simply continue to trade off nature in the interests of growth, when we should in fact deliver both.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments to say, basically, that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I thank her for her contribution.
I wholeheartedly recognise why both noble Lords have brought forward the amendments, the point that they are making about the energy transition and the fact that we need to get on and build this stuff. In doing that, however, there is a balance to be achieved. If we do not transition to clean energy, there will be an impact on the environment. Obviously, there are some cases where these things come into contact and conflict, so we need to find ways to manage them. It is absolutely vital that we transition. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we need to walk away from the polarised debates that are happening and to recognise that habitats are only one issue among a whole bunch of issues.
The bigger thing for me, weirdly, is the fact that the Bill could be doing more to help with infrastructure. There is a missed opportunity here, which is perhaps why there is talk of another Bill coming forward. I am interested to see how the Government will respond to the amendments. These are issues of balance, so painting all the problems as being about habitat regulations—and given the way that the noble Lords have painted their canvas—does not help the debate.
The Government have more to do to look at how we deliver infrastructure. I believe that that needs to be done—let us be honest—not at this time of night, with about four people in the Chamber who would rather be at home, but through a proper look. What I take away from the noble Lords’ amendments is that, with all these issues—getting to clean power, being a crowded island, managing habitat regulations and managing other projects—there is more to be done to consider other ways to help deliver the infrastructure that we all know we need, while balancing the facts that our nature is in decline and we are a small, crowded island. What we need to do is all work together in a spirit of co-operation to examine what are very technical and complicated problems. I thank the noble Lords for bringing their amendments, because they have resulted in important debates.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, these amendments address the critical interface between planning law and the protection of our sensitive natural environments governed under the habitat regulations.
Amendment 350, which I have signed—I should really have signed Amendment 349 too, which I also support—proposes a new Part 1A to the habitats regulations, placing scientific evidence at the centre of decision-making. That principle is vital. All too often, planning decisions are mired in ambiguity and subjectivity, which, in turn, creates delay and a window for opportunistic challenge. These amendments would create a framework that distinguishes between material and de minimis effects, gives due weight to credible science and offers clarity for both developers and conservation bodies. That said, we must take care that the new language, particularly around decisions not requiring absolute certainty, does not inadvertently weaken precautionary safeguards. It is a fine balance and one we will want to explore further.
I imagine that I am fortunate not to have read the article in the Telegraph today, so I am completely comfortable with the amendments. The only thing from the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with which I did not entirely agree is the idea that nature has to suffer. A lot of the debate we are having around the Bill is about how to make sure that nature suffers as little as possible and how to mitigate that in the hierarchy. I believe that these amendments can be part of that.
That goes to the broader debate that we on these Benches have been having throughout the discussions on the Bill about why we have Part 3 at all. When we started debating the groups on Part 3, we offered a number of amendments to deal with nutrient neutrality, two of which, taken together, would have released 160,000 houses immediately after the Bill commenced. I am still not clear how EDPs will release those houses from the blocking guidance from Natural England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tabled a number of amendments that would significantly restrict the extent of EDPs, which I also support. In all the amendments I have mentioned and which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has brought forward today, there are solutions which, frankly, would be far better than Part 3 for speeding up development, increasing certainty and reducing costs. I therefore support these amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendment 349A in this group makes a minor legislative fix, inserting the correct definition of the Ramsar site series into the habitats regulations.
I turn to the non-government amendments and the debate we have just been listening to. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath have tabled a number of amendments concerning the operation of the habitats regulations. I wish to add some detail to comments I made in Monday’s debate in response to amendments seeking to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific features and impacts identified in the environmental delivery plan. This is an important point which is relevant for today’s debate.
As I said on Monday, the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. I want to set out how this could work in practice. If a development proposal comes forward that has three different impacts on protected features—for example, nutrient pollution, recreational disturbance on ground-nesting birds and an impact on dormice—there might be two EDPs covering the area where that development is located, each addressing strategically the impacts of development on one of those environmental features. In this scenario, the developer may choose to discharge its obligations in relation to the two environmental impacts covered by those EDPs through payment of the relevant levy for each. The remaining impact would continue to be assessed in the usual way, either through the habitats regulations assessment or by applying for a species licence. With the other two impacts being addressed through the EDPs, the remaining assessment would be more focused and streamlined.
I want to be clear that it would remain necessary to consider any effects not covered by an EDP. This is by design. EDPs are intended to be modular, with each one addressing a specific impact or impacts. They are not intended to be a comprehensive way of addressing all the possible environmental impacts of developments. I hope that helps to clarify.
I come to the specific amendments that we have been debating. I know that noble Lords have been concerned that EDPs might not deliver for infrastructure, so they have proposed these amendments to improve the operation of the existing system. Our focus in bringing forward the measures in this Bill has been on ways to practically improve the planning process. Case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much- needed housing and infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, explained in his introduction. The nature restoration fund will allow developers to benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience, while delivering better outcomes for nature. The Bill is also clear that EDPs can be brought forward to support nationally significant infrastructure projects.
The Government already plan to address, through improved guidance, many of the points made in the amendments and by noble Lords. Although I note the desire for an open conversation about wider reforms to the habitats regulations, noble Lords will recognise that amendments of the type proposed go far beyond the NRF and would benefit from proper scrutiny and consideration. Although many in the Committee may favour the spirit of some of these amendments, legislating in this manner at this late stage of the Bill would risk a period of significant uncertainty for practitioners and a potentially negative impact on development that we would all wish to avoid.
I turn to Amendment 346DA. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for raising the important issue of energy security. I wish to clarify that, through the overarching energy national policy statement, nationally significant low-carbon infrastructure is recognised as critical national priority infrastructure. In relation to such projects, the Secretary of State will start with a presumption in favour of granting consent. It is recognised that it is likely that the needs case for this infrastructure will outweigh the residual effects in all but the most exceptional cases, and we are already seeing positive impacts of CNP infrastructure. The current overarching national policy statement for energy also confirms that, where there are no alternative deliverable solutions to mitigating the impact of the NSIP on sites subject to habitats regulations assessments, then compensatory measures are still required.
Delivery of compensatory measures is an important part of protecting our network of protected sites, where damage to a site is unavoidable and where there is an overriding public interest. For offshore wind, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, explained, there are particular issues around the identification of suitable compensation, and the marine recovery fund will provide an optional mechanism which developers can pay into to discharge their environmental compensation obligations. In addition, for offshore wind, Defra recently consulted on changes to the environmental compensation requirements and intends to introduce a statutory instrument to deliver these changes. Where an environmental delivery plan is in place under the nature restoration fund, this will enable developers to fund strategic, Government-led conservation measures.
Amendments 349 and 350, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 349B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would fundamentally alter many of the well-established principles of the current regime. While the Government understand and support many of their intentions, the focus of Part 3 is to establish the nature restoration fund and create a tool to address the environmental impact of development. Expanding the scope of the Bill in this way, as I said before on the other amendments, risks introducing uncertainty into the system and could slow the consenting of development. Several of the amendments also raise questions in respect of how they guard against environmental regression and significant harm to protected sites.
We feel that such significant changes to the habitats regulations assessment process would be better addressed following greater scrutiny, including from affected stakeholders. However, they raise a number of very important points about the operation of the habitats regulations. To take two specific points, decisions should be made on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately.
Government amendments to Part 3 include clarifying that both Natural England and the Secretary of State will take account of the best available evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP. However, introducing legislative definitions of “scientific evidence” or “scientific justification”, as proposed by these amendments, needs careful consideration to understand the impact of such changes and to avoid the risk that we introduce unnecessary uncertainty and increased litigation in this area.
Dan Corry’s review, which we have mentioned in previous debates, also suggests a potential reform to the habitats regulations and how they are applied, while ensuring consistency with international obligations. I can confirm that we are looking at how to improve the operation of the existing habitats regulations. We are preparing updated guidance on the assessment process, and the noble Lord’s amendment rightly addresses the role that guidance can play in encouraging a proportionate application of that process. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may also wish to note in relation to his amendment that the guidance will make clear the flexibility that exists in order to screen out the de minimis effects where it is clear that there is no risk of harm to the integrity of the protected site.
I supported much of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, and the approach that he suggested—that we need to be much more considered and take more time over some of this. We will of course continue to consider ways in which the operation of the habitats regulations can be improved, while protecting our most valuable habitats and species, at the same time as providing more certainty and an efficient process for developers. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments but continue to work with us on this important matter.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her summing up and the extra information that she provided, particularly the important clarity around NSIPs and Part 3. However, we have not yet got away from the central issue of how useful Part 3 is going to be for major infrastructure projects. I appreciated what she said on guidance, but, clearly, we need to go further in what is laid down in statute. Coming back to Amendment 350, we are talking about minor changes to the regulations, to bring us back to their original intent and to clarify the existing law. I certainly look forward to further discussions with the Minister and other noble Lords on this as we go towards Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Nuclear power station development(1) Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).(2) In subsection (2), insert at the beginning “Subject to subsection (3A)”.(3) In subsection (3), for “(4)” substitute “(3A)”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (2)(a) to (c) does not apply, and this subsection applies, in the case of an application for an order granting development consent for a nuclear-powered generating station with a proposed nameplate capacity of 500MW or higher, if and to the extent that the Secretary of State considers it is necessary and appropriate to disregard any provision of—(a) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,(b) the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, or(c) any environmental delivery plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025,to secure the provision of the generating station in an economic, efficient, proportionate and timely manner.”.(5) By the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to provide for a bespoke regime for the environmental impact assessment of any proposal for an order granting development consent for a nuclear-powered generating station with a proposed nameplate capacity of 500MW or higher. (6) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (5) must make provision for—(a) a page limit for environmental statements, not exceeding 1,000 pages for the main body of the statement and a total of 4,000 pages for any appendices, and(b) any person or body consulted on an environmental impact assessment to respond to the consultation within 21 days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause makes special provision in relation to large-scale nuclear power station developments by allowing the Secretary of State, when determining an application for a Development Consent Order, to disregard regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, habitats regulations assessment, or any environmental delivery plan, if this is considered necessary for the delivery of the nuclear power station. It also requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to put in place a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime for proposed nuclear power station development.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, I shall speak to Amendment 346DG. I should say at the outset that I agree with much of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in the previous group. This probing amendment continues in a similar vein. It addresses the urgent need to accelerate the delivery of new nuclear power in all its forms in the UK. It is designed with a clear objective: to ensure that our planning system enables, rather than obstructs, the development of the energy infrastructure that this country so desperately needs.
British-built plants cost far more per kilowatt than those of our competitors—six times more than in South Korea. Both France and Finland deliver the same EPR design for far less per kilowatt, at 27% and 53% respectively. These costs are driven by many factors, including slow, resource-intensive consultations relating to planning and permitting, and an 80,000-page environmental impact assessment driving overspecification on environmental and safety grounds. We need the process to become much more efficient.
Amendment 346DG would allow the Secretary of State, when determining an application for a DCO, to disregard regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, habitats regulations assessment or any environmental delivery plan if it is considered necessary for the delivery of a nuclear power station. It also requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to put in place a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime for a proposed nuclear power station development. This would put an end to the practice of blocking or delaying vital national infrastructure on environmental grounds alone and ensure that we cannot be held hostage to a system that prizes paperwork over progress and process over power generation.
The need for energy security is no longer a theoretical debate. It is a strategic imperative. We are presiding over the highest offshore wind auction prices in a decade, demand for electricity is rising rapidly and the UK is still overly reliant on imported energy sources. The last nuclear power station to come online in this country was in 1995. Hinkley Point C, the only one under construction, is now set to become the most expensive power station in history, not because the technology is flawed—far from it—but because of bureaucracy. We have witnessed the absurdity of eight years of negotiations to install 288 underwater loudspeakers—the infamous fish disco—to deter a trawler’s worth of fish from swimming into the water intake system. This amendment would put an end to that: no more paperwork that chokes innovation and pushes up costs, but rather a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime that will give a level playing field to the UK nuclear industry.
We must be clear: nuclear is safe, is low-carbon and has the smallest land footprint of any energy source. Dr John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation estimates that wind and solar require up to 3,000 times more land to produce the same amount of power as nuclear. This matters—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, agrees. We are a small island. In some regions, solar farm applications already cover up to 8% of available land, and the Government’s plan will require even more. Their decision to scrap our 24 gigawatt nuclear target—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I did not say overall; I said in some regions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have had figures bandied around about solar. The total figure covered at the moment is 0.1%, and the total figure for the energy plan, which goes up to 2030, is 0.8%.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
And I repeat: it is 8% in some regions—not in all regions, and not the overall figure for the United Kingdom land space.
The Secretary of State’s need for wind and solar seems to have blinded him to the mounting costs and spatial limitations they could impose. A 24/7 digital economy, data centres and artificial intelligence are not served by intermittent power. They need reliable baseload, and that means nuclear. France, Finland and Sweden—nations with some of the cheapest, cleanest electricity in Europe—all rely on nuclear. The truth is this: nuclear is not the problem; our system is. As we embrace more advanced nuclear technologies, we must try and fix it now in this Bill.
The current regulatory regime puts documentation above the national interest. It pretends that a legal checkbox exercise is the same as protecting the environment. It is not. By making it near impossible to build a handful of nuclear stations on tightly controlled sites, we are instead forcing ourselves to cover more of the countryside with wind turbines and solar panels. Of course, we all care deeply about the environment. Our national love of the countryside and of our natural heritage runs deep. But a planning system that blocks low-carbon, low-footprint, clean energy is self-defeating. It turns environmental regulation into a tool of environmental harm.
Cheap abundant nuclear is not a fantasy; it is our route to energy sovereignty, to lower bills and to powering a modern, prosperous Britain. If we are serious about delivering the infrastructure that will enable growth, attract investment, support heavy industry and safeguard our national interest, then we need to be bold enough to cut through the red tape that is holding us back. Britain stands on the cusp of a new industrial renaissance, but we cannot reach it with the planning system stuck in the past—particularly as we embrace the new, small and advanced nuclear technologies. These amendments are a crucial step towards a future that is energy secure.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and make a plea for a simplified environmental audit for small modular nuclear reactors. I have in my hand here the speech I delivered on 22 October 2015 in the Grand Committee, aiding and supporting my noble friend Viscount Ridley on small modular nuclear reactors. The debate was supported by everyone in that Committee.
The Environment Minister said that she was totally in support of small modular nuclear reactors and that the technology was coming along rapidly and had to be followed through. We were then told that DECC, the Department for Environment and Climate Change, was carrying out a technical study which would inform the development of small modular nuclear reactors, which would conclude in 2016.
What has happened since then? Absolutely nothing—until in June this year the Government gave Rolls-Royce the go-ahead. Rolls-Royce was gagging at the bit in 2015 to crack on with this. I am afraid the last Conservative Government dithered on small modular nuclear reactors, just as Tony Blair's Government dithered on building Hinkley Point, which was initially costed at €3.3 billion. Then it went to £5 billion, £10 billion, £18 billion and £24 billion. I do not know what it is now—£30 billion or £40 billion.
Small modular nuclear reactors are clean energy. They can be positioned around the country, avoiding the need for huge cabling and pylons. As I say, Rolls-Royce was gagging at the bit and has now got approval to go ahead. Rolls-Royce has been building small modular nuclear reactors for 70 years, perfectly safely. They are in nuclear submarines. Of course, there is a difference between the nuclear engine one has in a submarine and the land-based modular nuclear reactor. But the science is not worlds apart. It is like a car company able to build a petrol engine, then told to build a diesel engine. Yes, some of the components are different and the construction is different, but the concept is the same. It is not rocket science.
I was concerned to read the other day that the wonderful visit of President Trump may involve a deal to get American small modular nuclear reactors. Well, I say to the Government, as we have got Rolls-Royce able to make these things and ready to crack on with them, the people of this country will not understand if we get ones dumped from Westinghouse or GE Hitachi from the United States. At the moment, British industry has a head start. Let us make sure we keep that head start by not putting in excessive regulation—which the Americans might not be required to have—nor planning applications which could take years and years to put a small, safe, modular nuclear reactor outside some of our cities.
That is why we need a simplified environmental audit plan for the positioning of our modular nuclear reactors and then we can crack on and get the cheap, clean power we need. The wind farms are not overexpensive, but the government subsidy is now ridiculously high. No wonder everyone wants to build wind farms—it is money for old rope, considering the subsidy the Government give them. We will not need as many of those, and we will not need pylons all over the countryside. I urge the Government to consider not just my noble friend’s amendment but the possibility of a simplified system for small modular nuclear reactors.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, tempting as it is to have a large-scale debate about nuclear energy, I do not think that noble Lords will want that. I broadly understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, and I am sympathetic to the thrust of what she is saying. However, I say to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that nuclear is part of the package. It is the essential baseload. We are going to be very reliant on wind and sun, and the whole thing has to be seen together.
We have this huge potential now. Hinkley Point C is making real progress. A final investment decision has been reached for Sizewell C. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is right about the importance of the appraisal that GBN has undertaken, and government support for Rolls-Royce, and the announcement this week of the agreement with the US, which is twofold. The first point is regulatory alignment, which means, rather like in the pharmaceutical sector, that if one of the major regulators in the US, the UK, or Europe signs off a particular medicine, there is often mutual recognition. Clearly, this is important in meeting this point about reducing the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy in relation to regulation in future. The second point is on the announcement by a number of US companies, particularly from the west coast, who wish to invest in AI and data centres in the UK aligned to advanced modular reactors, which is fantastic news.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I am sure Rolls-Royce is going to be in a very good position, but it has to be open to companies to invite other countries’ reactors as well. You do not want to put all your eggs in one basket in any case. The question then comes back to the issues we have been talking about recently as to whether the regulatory system we have collectively is going to be up to meeting this challenge. I commend a report published yesterday by Britain Remade, whose conference I happened to attend, which caused such offence to my noble friend. It is a very good report about the history of nuclear power development in this country. We had the lead once upon a time. We foolishly threw it away. We have a great chance to get back in at a substantive level, but at the moment it simply costs too much. There are various reasons: there is overspecification—we have heard that before—and there is slow resource-intensive consultation, planning and permitting. We have heard about the issues around some of the environmental protections, and there are various other reasons as well.
I wanted to ask my noble friend this. She knows that there is a Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce. It was set up under the auspices of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It gave an interim report in the summer. It is going to come back very soon with a substantive report, but the interim report spoke of,
“fundamental concerns about how regulation operates in practice, with the most prominent being that the system is perceived to be unnecessarily slow, inefficient, and costly”.
On the assumption that this report comes out within the next few weeks, will it be possible to use this Bill on Report as a way of trying to deal with some of the regulatory hurdles? I understand that my noble friend probably cannot answer that, first because the Government have not received the report, and secondly because they will have to consider how to do it, but I just express the hope that we might be able to use this Bill as a vehicle.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
Very briefly, I follow on from the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I raised the point he just made in a question a week or so back. That is a really important point: to try and join the dots between the work ongoing with the regulatory task force and this Bill, because it is a prime opportunity to make the legislative changes that are required.
I certainly support the intent of the amendments that the noble Baroness put forward. To go back to the announcement on Monday, we are going to need nuclear in many more locations across the UK than the traditional nuclear sites. I chair an organisation called Midlands Nuclear, where we have been undertaking a siting study for where we can locate nuclear across the region in many non-traditional sites—for example, old coal-fired sites and gas sites. That is going to require a new approach to planning: how we take all these reactors forward, and the sheer number of reactors that were talked about in Monday’s announcement. I temper that by saying that, of course, we are going to need energy of all forms to get to net zero: more wind, solar, nuclear and gas storage. I highlighted some of the issues with wind in debate on the previous group of amendments. We need to think about how we do this more broadly in the planning system.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will very briefly respond on this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for introducing it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel. To be honest, we are unable to support this amendment for various reasons. I understand that is a probing amendment, but it does not come across as a fully figured out or good way of doing things.
I fully take the point that other noble Lords have made about the announcements today on the back of Trump’s visit about small modular nuclear reactors, which this amendment is about, in terms of their importance for the economy. Separately, I have tabled an amendment to this Bill about the need for energy efficiency and for small modular reactors. It is important that, while we grow the economy, we make sure that the new things that we are building are actually energy efficient and fit for purpose. We cannot just keep having new power-hungry technology and expect to get to clean power at the same time. We cannot let the AI beast get out of control.
First, just to respond to this amendment, I know that it is probing, but the key thing here is that the Government have not asked for any of these powers. Indeed, they have just recently updated a lot of their nuclear policies. We have had an update to EN1 and to EN7. At no point during that time have the Government requested any of the sweeping powers set out here.
The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State may, if “this is considered necessary” and appropriate, disregard the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. That wording in itself is just a carte blanche for the Minister to do whatever they want whenever they want. It is not good wording. Moreover, the amendment slashes the page limits for environmental impact assessments to 1,000 pages. I fully get that some of these documents are too long and that that can delay things, but 1,000 pages seems an arbitrary figure: 1,001 is not acceptable, but 999 pages is. It cuts the consultation period to 21 days. Again, it strikes me that these are vaguely plucked out of the air and are not properly thought through.
This could undermine democratic accountability, and people being able to consult on these things. It could incur significant legal risk, as we have obligations under retained EU law, international treaties and all sorts of things. It is also a risk as we are transitioning to a completely new way of doing nuclear energy—dispersing it, having it run by companies, and, inevitably, its being situated closer to communities. It is important for delivering this transition that we take communities with us and, as we deploy a new technology, that this is done in a way that creates confidence and does not undermine the very thing that we want to do. As we start to roll this out, it is more important than at any other point that we do this properly and appropriately. My worry is that rushing to sweeping powers like this could do the exact opposite of what the amendment intends, and undermine confidence in this part of our energy transition, so I am not able to support the amendment.
I have raised this in the House before: whenever we have this conversation about nuclear, it is always put in opposition to solar, and solar has taken over the world. Actually, this week we have had the Treasury itself saying that the long-term geological store for our historical legacy of nuclear waste has gone on to the red list and is not deliverable. Nuclear energy comes with different issues and benefits, but also has big, non-associated costs that are not always put forward. It has a long-term historical legacy of highly radioactive waste that needs to be dealt with. We recognise that nuclear is part of the mix but, coming back to what I said on the previous amendment, if the Government feel they need more regulation in this space—they may well do—we will listen to that. However, that needs to be done in the round and, as we transition to a new form of nuclear energy, this stuff needs to be done very carefully indeed.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I wanted to speak briefly on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made on regulatory alignment. I like regulatory alignment in principle, provided it meets the right level of agreed regulation. I am fairly certain with everything I read that British regulators are perhaps over-nitpicking and over-fussy here, and are causing delays at Hinkley Point by double- and triple-checking the welding. I am also fairly certain with what I read that American regulators are—I would not say sloppy—much more relaxed.
If regulatory alignment comes about from British regulation experts talking to American regulation experts and reaching agreement, I can live with that. What I could not live with is a political agreement on regulatory alignment. I admire the way that President Trump goes around the world fighting for American interests, and stuffs everybody else provided that American interests come first. My worry here would be that, at some point, he may offer a deal saying, “Okay, Britain, you want no tariffs on steel and whisky? I can go along with that, provided you accept American terms on regulatory alignment for our nuclear reactors”. It is the political deal that worries me, not any regulatory alignment brought about by experts. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer that or comment on it; I merely flag it. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, nodding, and I am glad that we agree on this point.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will not get drawn into the geopolitical issues of international trade on the planning Bill, but I will address the points in the amendment.
The Government shares the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who moved his amendment, to make nuclear development faster and more cost effective, and the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for SMRs. My noble friend Lady Hayman mentioned AMRs as well, which are important. Quite simply, we cannot grow the economy in the way that we want to without rapidly tackling the clean energy issue on all fronts, including nuclear. That is about not only clean energy but providing us with energy security and lower energy prices, which will help not only businesses in our country but households as well. It is important that we get on with that.
I fear that the solutions proposed in this amendment—I appreciate that it is a probing amendment—would potentially invite problems of their own, and risk undoing the growth we have seen in public support for new nuclear. I look first at allowing the Secretary of State to disregard environmental impact assessment requirements, where doing so would
“secure the provision of the generating station in an economic, efficient, proportionate and timely manner”.
We should remember that environmental assessments include not just impacts on wildlife but also take account of the impact on communities—noise, air quality, human health, and so on.
An application for a new nuclear power station will include proposals for mitigation measures designed to limit or remove any significant adverse environmental effects that it would have. This amendment could remove any requirements for those mitigation measures, which simply means that the significant impacts would not be managed. Like the noble Lord, we recognise that environmental assessment is in need of reform, which is why we are already carefully considering how to bring forward environmental outcome reports that will allow us to ensure that EIA is proportionate and to reduce the risk that these assessments are used to unduly delay development coming forward.
Allowing the Secretary of State to exempt nuclear power station projects both from the habs regulations and from any requirement to pay into an EDP could leave our most important protected sites and species at risk of irreparable harm. Simply providing for these regulations to be disregarded is probably the wrong approach and risks removing the need for even the most common-sense consideration of environmental impacts and actions to address these.
As I hope I have already set out to noble Lords in these debates, the nature restoration fund will allow developers to discharge their environmental obligations around protected sites and species more quickly and with greater impact, accelerating the delivery of infrastructure at the same time as improving the environment.
The planning regime must support new nuclear, so we have introduced a transformative draft national policy statement on nuclear energy. It is important, therefore, that both this policy statement and the overarching national policy statement for energy are considered when deciding applications for new nuclear power stations. This amendment would remove the centrality of these national policy statements in determining applications for those power stations, which would only slow down and confuse the decision-making process. The habitats regulations must be applied sensibly, which is why the overarching national policy statement for energy has already introduced the concept of critical national priority projects. This creates a presumption that the importance of low-carbon energy infrastructure is such that it is capable of amounting to imperative reasons for overriding public interest. We recognise that we need to go further and the nuclear regulatory framework—my noble friend Lord Hunt, referred to it, I believe—must avoid increasing costs where possible. We have therefore launched the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, which will report later this year.
The Government remain firmly of the view that, when it comes to development and the environment, we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both infrastructure delivery and nature recovery stall. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered and rather encouraging response, and indeed all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for reminding the Committee about the exciting progress towards regulatory alignment between the US and the UK on nuclear matters. I join him in encouraging the Government to investigate bringing forward helpful legislative changes on Report in the light of recent research. For now, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
“General duties when exercising functions relating to EDPs(1) This section applies where—(a) Natural England or the Secretary of State is exercising any functions in relation to the preparation, amendment or revocation of an EDP, or(b) the Secretary of State is considering whether to take, or is taking, remedial action under section (Remedial action by Secretary of State where EDP ends or is revoked).(2) Natural England or the Secretary of State must take account of the best available scientific evidence.(3) Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to—(a) the development plan for the development area,(b) the current environmental improvement plan,(c) any Environment Act strategies, and(d) any other strategies or plans,so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(4) Where an EDP specifies as the development area an area that includes waters adjacent to England (see section 54(2)(b)), Natural England or the Secretary of State must also have regard to—(a) any marine plan,(b) the marine policy statement, and(c) the UK marine strategy,so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(5) Where an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected feature of a protected site, Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to any conservation objectives of the site that relate to the feature, so far as Natural England or the Secretary of State considers them to be relevant.(6) Where an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected species, Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to achieve favourable conservation status for that species in their natural range.(7) Subsection (8) applies where—(a) an EDP includes as an identified environmental feature a protected feature of a protected site, and(b) the EDP includes conservation measures of the type mentioned in section 55(4) (network conservation measures).(8) Natural England or the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect the overall coherence of each relevant site network of which the protected site forms a part, so far as it relates to the protected feature.(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about other things that must be done by Natural England when exercising functions in relation to the preparation, amendment or revocation of an EDP.(10) In this section—“current environmental improvement plan” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021 (see section 8 of that Act);“development plan” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;“Environment Act strategy” means a strategy prepared under any of the following provisions of the Environment Act 2021— (a) section 104 (local nature recovery strategies);(b) section 109 (species conservation strategies);(c) section 110 (protected site strategies);“marine plan” has the meaning given in section 51(3) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;“marine policy statement” has the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 44 of that Act);“relevant site network” means—(a) the national site network within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations 2017 (see regulation 3 of those Regulations);(b) the national Ramsar site series within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations 2017 (see regulation 3 of those Regulations);(c) the network referred to in section 123(2) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (marine protected area network).“the UK marine strategy” means the strategy developed under the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1627).”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 58 sets out matters to which Natural England must have regard when preparing an EDP. This amendment would extend that duty to the exercise of other functions relating to an EDP (e.g. amendment and revocation) by both Natural England and the Secretary of State. It would also add in additional matters to which Natural England and the Secretary of State must have regard when exercising functions.
(a) after the definition of “marine area” insert—““the national Ramsar site series” means all the wetlands in the United Kingdom that have been designated under paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Ramsar Convention for inclusion in the list of wetlands of international importance referred to in that article;”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be a drafting correction to insert a definition of “the national Ramsar site series” into the Habitats Regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Young of Old Scone, would require the super-affirmative procedure for any regulations to amend to existing Acts or assimilated law under section 89(2).
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 351A and 351B. As currently drafted, Clause 89(2) gives the Government pretty sweeping powers to amend any other Acts of Parliament or assimilated law that they consider appropriate for the purposes of implementing Part 3.
Amending primary legislation is a big step, and I think it should require the highest level of consideration in your Lordships’ House, which is the super-affirmative resolution procedure. That would mean that a draft would need to be considered by each House and could be amended before it was formally laid for passing in the House. I hope the Minister can agree to this process, considering the sweeping nature of the powers that the Government are intending to take. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said. In fact, it would be preferable for Clause 89(2) to be removed from the Bill.
My amendment is about the Secretary of State. I have not had the chance to identify in Hansard precisely where Ministers spoke to that the other day and this morning. I just think it is fair. I do not think the Minister in any way misspoke the other day.
I do not want to do a long constitutional lecture. I should point out that right now I am very keen to monitor this legislation, but I am also keen to see the rest of the second half of Liverpool beating Atlético Madrid 2-1, which is the score now.
Back to the topic: constitutionally, any Secretary of State can undertake the role of any other Secretary of State. This is where aspects of this come into play. I have extensive experience of having many legal cases against me and other Secretaries of State when I was in government. There were certain legal cases where the sponsoring department was conceived to be the decision-making power. All I am trying to do with this amendment is to make it crystal clear that Part 3 applies to the Secretary of State for Defra. The Minister mentioned earlier that it will be, except in certain circumstances or whatever. This just avoids any difficulty in that regard.
For what it is worth, my sense is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is yet again blocking the commencement of other legislation, which is frustrating. Nevertheless, this is something I am happy to discuss and come back to on Report. I feel particularly strongly about it and would like it to be transparent in the Bill. If people suggest that portfolios and names change, there are existing procedures in legislation which, in effect, make the changes automatically. In that regard, I hope to move my amendments on Report.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey on this small but important amendment, Amendment 356. It may seem a technical thing, but it goes to the heart of how this Bill and the EDP will operate. I retired from the board of Natural England in December last year. I have worked with Defra officials for the past seven years, and I know the strength of their working relationship with Natural England, so the Committee will forgive me if I speak for a little bit longer than my noble friend did in speaking to her amendment.
When I discovered on Monday that the Secretary of State to whom Natural England will report on EDPs will be for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I was appalled. I stand by my comments from Monday that no one in that department has any knowledge of biodiversity, wildlife and the countryside or can tell the difference between a bat and a butterfly.
I know that some of my noble friends dislike Natural England, and possibly Defra as well, but at least Defra understood the legal position and duties of Natural England. I ask my noble friends and Members opposite, and outside NGOs: do they seriously think that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government understands the operation of the countryside and biodiversity? I can tell them of the fight we and Defra had to get biodiversity net gain approved and past the objections of the department for housing and levelling-up, as it then was.
My main concern is that Natural England is an NDPB with complete operational independence in a large number of matters. There was a new perm sec a few years ago who initially thought that Natural England was an executive agency fully under the command of Defra, like the Rural Payments Agency and large parts of the Environment Agency. Natural England does get some ring-fenced funding, which is controlled by Defra; for example, the £50 million for peat restoration and funding, the King’s coastal path and a few other things. But most grant in aid is for the 250 legal obligations that Natural England has to perform each year. Many of these are boring and technical but they are the day job and have to be done, like responding to tens of thousands of requests from planning authorities on planning applications which may affect nature. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, had an amendment in group 7, where it was said that if the Government give Natural England extra funding for EDPs, the Treasury will claw it back somewhere else, and the Natural England budget will be squeezed on some other vital areas.
Defra understands that Natural England is legally independent in its operations. Of course, the Secretary of State can issue instructions and take control in some areas but rarely does so. I cannot see any circumstances where Defra would order Natural England to prepare plans which could endanger or diminish an SSSI or protected landscape or any national nature reserve, but would the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government show the same restraint?
I suspect that this MHCLG plan to take over control of nature was an Angela Rayner brainwave. I am sure that she and the department thought that Natural England and Defra had too cosy a relationship and Defra might not be trusted to drive through development plans, so Housing had to take charge. Defra and Natural England do not have a cosy relationship, but they have a very good working relationship, and each understands the roles and duties of the other.
One of the changes we made six years ago was to invite a very senior Defra official to attend board meetings. He had no say in our decision-making and no vote, but he heard our thinking, and when we asked him he could give a steer on government thinking. That was and is invaluable. He was the director-general of environment and is now the interim Permanent Secretary, the excellent David Hill; a quiet, unassuming modest man but with a superb brain and great intellect—and, of prime importance, he cares about the environment and biodiversity. The thought that Housing will be in the driving seat in directing Natural England on the preparation of EDPs fills me with dread, not just for the effects on farming and the countryside but for biodiversity as well.
I wonder if the NGOs realise that Housing will be the master here. I would love to hear from the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and others on whether they are comfortable with Natural England reporting to the housing department on the operation of EDPs.
Let us briefly look at the Ministers making the decision. I regret that the new Housing Secretary of State, Steve Reed, whom I rather liked at Defra, issued a statement last week called “Build, baby, build”, and said that he would unleash a blitz of measures in this planning Bill. That does not sound like there will be much care for the environment and biodiversity. I assume that he has got a President Trump MAGA hat to go with that Trump slogan; I would much prefer to hear Ed Miliband say, “Drill, baby, drill”. However, no matter how nice they may be, the other Ministers in that department—from Peckham, Birkenhead, Greenwich and Chester—have no country or biodiversity experience.
In Defra, the new Secretary of State and Agriculture Minister do not have any rural, countryside or biodiversity experience, no matter how nice and decent they may be. Emma Hardy is quite good, and Mary Creagh is very good and has a track record of shadowing Defra and the Environmental Audit Committee. But there is one Minister in Defra who really knows her stuff, has represented a large rural area and understands the countryside and biodiversity, and she is sitting opposite us on the Government Benches. She is our own lass, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I hope that this praise does not kill off any further career chances for her, but I know that everyone in the House supports exactly what I have said.
We face the situation with the Bill that the only civil servants and Ministers who know what should be in an EDP, if we have to go down that route, are in the government department being bypassed. I know that the Minister’s brief will say that Defra will have input and that it will work in partnership with the MHCLG, but everyone knows that, just as departments have input into the Treasury on their budgets, the Treasury dictates everything.
The other golden rule in government is that the department with the money rules the roost. The Defra budget last year was £4.6 billion. The MHCLG budget was £25 billion—five times greater. Make no mistake, if this amendment does not succeed then all the expertise of Defra and its Ministers will be sidelined, the countryside will be ravaged and biodiversity will be sabotaged, as “build, baby, build” is unleashed by a department which simply does not understand. I do hope that my noble friend will return to this vital matter on Report.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I forgot a sentence in my contribution. I should have said that what we were informed of the other day completely explains how the Bill has been drafted. If it had been the Secretary of State for Defra definitively doing this, a lot of the clauses would not be needed, with the exception of compulsory purchase powers. I tabled this amendment in anticipation of raising the issue at this point.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these Benches totally agree with the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because the depth and range of the changes encompassed in this Bill are significant and substantial. Throughout the Bill are references to the regulatory changes that will be made in secondary legislation; therefore, it is vital to retain understanding by the communities that are going to be affected and to help them with transparency on what the Government are doing to keep them on side rather than in complete opposition, at every turn. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, proposed, there is super-affirmative secondary legislation, the details of those changes could be properly scrutinised in draft form and then through the affirmative process. That seems an important route to take.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this and hope that the Government Benches, for once in this Bill, as we approach the end, will give us the affirmative nod.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we support these amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Coffey. I will start with Amendment 356 in the name of my noble friend.
I am sure it was not lost on the Minister that, when she informed your Lordships that the Secretary of State for MHCLG would be the directing and reporting SoS for Natural England on the nature restoration funds and EDPs, there was a huge collective intake of breath. What a sigh of relief it was this morning to hear that this had been reconsidered. I would be most grateful if the Minister could indicate the circumstances under which it may not be the SoS for Defra, as she mentioned earlier.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, Amendments 351A and 351B, seek to ensure that the super-affirmative procedure is adhered to for any regulations to amend existing acts or assimilated law under Section 89(2). A super-affirmative procedure would result in both Houses having the opportunity to comment on proposals put forward by the Minister and to recommend refinements before amendments are tabled in their final form. I am sure that all noble Lords are of the firm belief that scrutiny of legislation and delegated powers are important principles and a staple of any democratic system. I therefore very much welcome the spirit of the amendments and look forward to the Government’s response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 351A and 351B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, would require regulations containing consequential amendments made under the power in Clause 89 to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Although I wholly agree that it is crucial that regulations receive the appropriate level of scrutiny, the super-affirmative procedure is intended to provide for statutory instruments considered particularly important or complex.
I want to assure noble Lords that any amendments made under this power would be limited to either consequential or technical changes that are required to ensure the proper functioning of the system. I trust that noble Lords would agree that use of the procedure for such amendments is not likely to be an effective use of parliamentary or government time. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will agree not to press her amendments.
Amendment 356, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require that the Secretary of State responsible for carrying out all relevant functions under this part be nominated in the Bill as the Defra Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said in an earlier debate that it would be unusual to explicitly set out in legislation which Secretary of State is being referred to, as this could risk confusion down the line if, for example, departments or portfolios changed. I take the point that the noble Baroness made. In addition, it will generally be up to the Government of the day to agree which Secretary of State was best placed to use which powers.
In the case of the powers in question, we recognise the role the Secretary of State for Defra needs to play in the nature restoration fund. To reassure noble Lords, and as I clarified this morning, we would expect the Secretary of State for Defra to lead on the consideration and approval of EDPs as the NRF is established. However, we do not want to put this specifically in the Bill, partly because of the precedent it sets but also because there may be certain circumstances where it is appropriate for another Secretary of State to carry out functions under this part. I cannot give the noble Lord an example because we do not expect it to be a frequent thing. It would have to be looked at specifically at the time if there were circumstances that meant another Secretary of State would have the knowledge and the expertise required to make the judgments and the assessments that were needed. Just in case that could happen, we do not want to remove the possibility by specifying the Environment Secretary purely in isolation in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her assurances about consequential or technical amendments being the only things that are envisaged by this provision, and that the super-affirmative process was more appropriate for important and complex changes. That is fine when government is in the hands of reasonable people, but, increasingly, we have to anticipate that a future Government might not be as reasonable. This provision, as currently drafted, would leave open a door for substantial changes to any primary legislation that could be remotely associated with the Bill. I am not seeing reds under the beds or whatever it is, but I hope the Minister might consider that we need to start thinking about proofing some of our legislation against lunacy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Pre-consolidation amendments of planning legislation(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments and modifications of the Acts relating to planning as in the Secretary of State’s opinion facilitate, or are otherwise desirable in connection with, the consolidation of the whole or a substantial part of the Acts relating to planning.(2) The Acts relating to planning are—(a) the Commons Act 1899;(b) the Public Health Act 1936;(c) the Agricultural Act 1947;(d) the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953;(e) the Land Compensation Act 1961;(f) Part 4 of the Public Health Act 1961;(g) the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965;(h) the Forestry Act 1967;(i) the Post Office Act 1969;(j) the Land Compensation Act 1973;(k) the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978;(l) the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979;(m) Parts 9 to 18 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;(n) the Highways Act 1980;(o) the New Towns Act 1981;(p) the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;(q) Part 2 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982; (r) the Building Act 1984;(s) Part 5 of the Airports Act 1986;(t) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;(u) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;(v) the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990;(w) the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990;(x) Parts 1, 3 and 5 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991;(y) the Transport and Works Act 1992;(z) sections 67 to 69 and 96 of, and Schedules 13 and 14 to, the Environment Act 1995(z1) Part 7 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;(z2) the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;(z3) sections 118 and 397 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Communications Act 2003;(z4) the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;(z5) the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006;(z6) the Commons Act 2006;(z7) the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008;(z8) the Planning Act 2008;(z9) Parts 6 and 9, and sections 202 to 205, of the Localism Act 2011;(z10) the Mobile Homes Act 2013;(z11) the Infrastructure Act 2015;(z12) Parts 6 to 8 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016;(z13) the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017;(z14) the Environment Act 2021;(z15) the Building Safety Act 2022;(z16) the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023;(z17) Parts 3 to 11 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;(z18) this Act;(z19) any other provision of an Act relating to planning, whenever passed.(3) For the purposes of this section, “amend” includes repeal (and similar terms are to be read accordingly).(4) Regulations made under this section do not come into force unless an Act is passed consolidating the whole or a substantial part of the Acts relating to planning.(5) If such an Act is passed, any regulations made under this section come into force immediately before the Act comes into force.(6) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(7) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause enables pre-consolidation amendments to be made to planning legislation, in anticipation of a future Consolidation Bill. It is intended to probe the desirability and feasibility of consolidation of planning legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we are nearly at the finish. All I want to do here is make a plea to my noble friends the Ministers to consider the benefit of consolidated Acts in relation to planning law. As I have discovered in my imperfect dip into planning law for the Bill, it is very complex; it is a labyrinth of Acts, and they overlap and cross-refer. They have been amended by layers of primary and secondary legislation, and the framework has become very complex. The Bill is all about growth, and I have every sympathy for people that have to operate in the field.
As Ministers, we all acknowledge that consolidated legislation is a good thing, and then we all fail to bring any consolidated legislation. I am well aware that it is my second mea culpa of the week. If we want to sort out our planning system, consolidated legislation would be a very good thing to do. It does not really involve much parliamentary time. It involves the department in work and parliamentary counsel, but the Law Commission is usually able to help. To achieve internal consistency, you need to have pre-consolidation amendments, and that is what my amendment would also allow for.
My noble friends have shown huge stamina in getting through Committee. They have responded sympathetically to many of the constructive amendments put forward. I just hope they might be able to say that they will consider this. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am concerned about this amendment, in particular subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, because it talks about repealing primary legislation. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is getting at in trying to make legislation straightforward. That is why we have all these schedules to legislation nowadays, to try to bring that about. I fear, and I have heard on the grapevine, that the noble Lord has been advised by somebody who is now advising somebody very important in the Government and who has also made subsequent comments about how nature is getting in the way of development. While I am conscious of the positive intentions that the noble Lord seeks to achieve through the amendment, I am just flagging my concern.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing forward Amendment 356A for the consideration of the Committee today. The proposed new clause would allow for pre-consolidation amendments to be made to planning legislation in anticipation of a full future consolidation Bill. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to probe the desirability and feasibility of consolidating the extensive and at times unwieldy body of planning law. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the matter.
It comes at a timely moment. We hear that, hot on the heels of the first planning Bill, the Government may now be contemplating a second. As we have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, if the Government had proceeded to commence either in full or even in part the schedules and clauses already contained within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we might well have avoided the need for yet another Bill in the first place.
That brings me to the specific questions for the Minister. Can she confirm whether there is any truth in the strong rumours circulating that a new planning Bill is indeed on its way? If so, will such a Bill aim to consolidate the many changes that have been made right across the breadth of planning law in recent years? Do the Government accept that consolidation is both needed and desirable, not least to provide clarity and certainty to practitioners, local authorities and communities alike? Finally, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered what such a consolidation process might look like and under what timescale it might realistically be delivered? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for Amendment 356A and for highlighting the merits of consolidating our planning legislation. As someone who has been on the sticky end of it for a number of years, I can absolutely see his point.
My noble friend is not the first to consider this. Indeed, the existing legislative framework provides the Government with sufficient powers to consolidate the planning legislation at an appropriate time. Specifically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, Section 132 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides the Secretary of State with broad and flexible powers to make regulations that amend, repeal or otherwise modify a wide range of planning-related statutes.
While we have no immediate plans to consolidate planning legislation in England, we will keep this under review, as we recognise that consolidating planning legislation could offer some benefits. Since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the legislative framework has undergone numerous amendments, and consolidation may help to streamline and simplify the system. However, a comprehensive consolidation needs to be weighed against the risks of uncertainty and disruption, particularly at a time when the Government are prioritising targeted planning reform to drive economic growth.
Any move towards consolidation would also require substantial resources, so we would need to be confident that it has clear benefits. At this stage, we believe that targeted reform is the best way forward, but we are live to the possibilities that consolidation offers. I hope that my noble friend and other Peers with an interest in planning will continue to work with us. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, first, that the person to whom she referred has not in fact advised me on this amendment. Secondly, she should not fear the amendment; I realise that it is a Henry VIII provision, but all it would allow us to do is have pre-consolidation amendments. We could not use it, for instance, to create a special pathway for nuclear developments in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, suggested. I hope I can reassure her on that.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. Clearly, she and her department recognise that, for people in the field, this can be very complex, so everything we can do to make it as straightforward as possible is to be desired. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(x) section 46(1), (4) and (5) come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(xa) section 46(2) and (3) come into force—(i) in relation to applications made to the Secretary of State, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Secretary of State come into force;(ii) in relation to applications made to the Scottish Ministers, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Scottish Ministers come into force;(iii) in relation to applications made to the Welsh Ministers, on the day on which the first relevant regulations made by the Welsh Ministers come into force;and in this paragraph “relevant regulations” means regulations under paragraph 9A of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 (inserted by section 46(4));”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would adjust the commencement of clause 46 so that the repeal of existing fee-charging powers takes effect in each of England, Scotland and Wales only when new fees regulations come into force in the area concerned.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, connected with another in the name of Baroness Neville-Rolfe, seeks to prevent the commencement of provision on EDPs until guidance has been published setting out how any regulatory burdens on smaller developers and construction firms can be minimised.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am honoured to speak, in the last group, to my Amendments 361A and 361B, on encouraging SME builders, and to Amendments 363 and 364, on mechanisms for encouraging the speedy rollout of planning reform. Amendment 275A, which I was unable to speak to this morning, belongs in a family with the first two amendments, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her comments in my absence. I am especially keen to improve the position of SMEs; it is a theme of many of my amendments to many Bills before the House of Lords.
My SME amendments follow a constructive discussion we had at one of the two Ministers’ helpful briefing sessions. My concern is that the new EDPs under Part 3 will further damage the position of smaller developers and construction firms, and I would like to see guidance provided to Natural England to head off that risk. I am afraid that neither the requirement to consider the viability of development in making regulations nor the tiering of the nature restoration levy by type of development quite does the trick.
We know from the trouble over nutrient neutrality just how religiously Natural England follows rules designed for nature protection at the expense of anything else. We need balance in relation to how it treats small developers and the smaller sites that developers need. The truth is that SMEs contribute so much to local communities and local employment and can do so much more in construction.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, SME builders play a very important role in the housebuilding sector of the country because they are able to build on small sites that often need to be redeveloped or are in villages or small townships. We need to encourage SME builders, because they add variety to the range of housebuilders that we rely on in this country. It does seem that, throughout this Bill, there has been too much emphasis on the major house developers—on the basis, I guess, that they are the only source of the very large numbers of housing units that the country requires.
I know that throughout the Bill the Government have attempted to support SMEs, although I am not sure that that has been sufficient. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has important points to make about SMEs. As always in planning, it is the balance—between encouraging SMEs, maybe at the expense of some of the regulations regarding environment, and relying too heavily on the major housebuilders, which will be able to cope with the growing need for consideration of environmental responsibilities. I look forward to what the Government are going to say about this; encouraging SME builders is really important.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank all noble Lords from across the House for their contributions to the Bill. Over long and often intricate debates, sometimes stretching well into the night, your Lordships have engaged with candour, with insight and with seriousness befitting the weight of these issues. The cross-party spirit of scrutiny and the diligence shown in Committee has, I believe, genuinely strengthened our deliberations.
Amendment 361, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is sound and reasonable. I shall not detain the Committee with another extended rehearsal of why Part 3 is, in our view, both damaging and unnecessary. But let me be clear: despite the Government’s determination to plough ahead with this part of the Bill, the opposition to it will only crystallise further on Report. Part 3 needs to go. At the very least, there must be an independent oversight of its administration. Without that, the concerns raised in Committee will only deepen.
The two thoughtful amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe are practical and considered proposals that go right to the heart of the issues we have debated throughout Committee. Amendment 363 would ensure that the Secretary of State updates all national policy statements before the Act can be commenced. This is vital; out-of-date national policy statements do not provide the clarity or certainty required for developers, planners or communities.
Meanwhile, Amendment 364 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an analysis of how each section of the Bill will affect the speed of the planning process and construction before any provisions are commenced. If the central purpose of the Bill is, as Ministers insist, to accelerate planning and speed up delivery, it is only fair to ask how it will achieve that objective in practice. Will it, for example, make any real progress towards the former Deputy Prime Minister’s target of 1.5 million new homes, a promise which, under this Government, looks ever more distant as housebuilding rates continue to decline?
I conclude by returning to the point that I made at the start of Committee. This Bill does not go far enough. It makes adjustments to processes, to roles, to fees and to training. But it leaves untouched the fundamental framework of planning—the very framework that needs serious, bold reform if we are to unlock the scale of housebuilding that this country so urgently requires. We now hear rumours of a second planning Bill to come. If that is true, what your Lordships’ House has been asked to consider is not reform but merely a prelude.
The Government have missed an opportunity with this Bill. They had the chance to set a clear vision for the planning system that delivers for communities, supports growth and tackles the housing crisis head on. Instead, they have brought forward a piecemeal piece of legislation more about tinkering at the edges than about grasping the real challenge. The Government have chosen to use up their remaining political capital on Part 3 rather than building more homes, and the Minister will soon realise that she and her department have wasted their energy on this Bill.
I repeat my thanks to all the staff in the House: the doorkeepers, the technical staff and Hansard have all had to work very hard on nights when we have sat late on this Bill, and I thank them very much for that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the amendment, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee debates and the meetings we have held around the Committee stage of the Bill. We have apparently spent 60 hours in the Chamber debating the Bill and covered 650 amendments. Noble Lords’ knowledge and experience have helped us to shape this important new approach to planning, growth and the environment, which has been especially valuable.
I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople who have shown great stamina and fortitude, which has been really greatly appreciated. I also thank all the outside bodies who have contributed to our debates in the House. I especially thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill. The processes in the House of Lords mean that our officials often have to work at very short notice on putting together papers for Front-Benchers. I also thank the staff of the House, who have worked often very long hours on the Bill.
I also give my personal thanks to my fellow Front-Bench government spokespeople, the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who have supported me so ably on the Front Bench during Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for their support.
This final group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, relates to the commencement of the legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her support and encouragement of the growth agenda that the Bill is aimed at promoting. As we have made clear throughout Committee, our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will play a key role in unlocking economic growth, and we must progress to implementation as swiftly as possible to start reaping the benefits of these measures and getting shovels in the ground—including shovels operated by SME builders. My noble friend Lord Livermore yesterday quoted the fact that this Bill has already been assessed to be making a great contribution to the economic growth we all want to see.
On Amendment 363, while I commend the intent of bring all national policy statements up to date, we must resist this amendment because the clauses in the Bill already address this through the introduction of a requirement for all NPSs to be reviewed and updated at least every five years. These clauses include transitional requirements, the most stringent of which require the NPSs which were designated more than five years before the date when the clauses came into force and have not been amended, to be brought up to date within a two-year period. Delaying the commencement of the rest of the Act until such a time as all NPSs have been updated is therefore unreasonable and would have a detrimental impact on the objectives of the Bill, stalling delivery and growth in our country.
Amendment 253 also seeks to have all remaining sections of the Bill come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. Commencement regulations under this amendment are to be subject to a negative resolution. The commencement of each section of the Bill has been carefully considered with regard to the specific issue and relevant circumstances to determine whether that provision should come into force on the day the Act is passed, or a set period beginning with the day on which the Act is passed, or on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. This bespoke consideration should not be displaced by a blanket rule requiring commencement regulations, and I do not believe there is any reasonable basis for requiring all commencement regulations to be subject to the negative procedure rather than the generally standard procedure of commencement regulations not being subject to any procedure.
Amendment 364 would require the Secretary of State to publish analysis regarding the impact of each section of the Bill on the speed of the planning process before we can commence any of its provisions. I appreciate the noble Baroness’ intentions behind this amendment, and we are aligned in that we want the Bill to have as big an impact as possible in unlocking growth and accelerating development across the country. However, we have already published a full impact assessment on the Bill, including analysis of how each measure will impact on the planning system. As I mentioned earlier, this analysis showed that the economy could be boosted by up to £7.5 billion over the next decade by this pro-growth legislation, and we should not look to delay the implementation of these clauses and the reaping of the Bill’s benefits across the planning system.
We are confident that the Bill will streamline and turbocharge planning processes. For example, our analysis of the Bill’s reforms to the pre-application stage of the NSIP regime shows that these changes could reduce the typical time projects spend in pre-application by up to 12 months. This is a dramatic acceleration of the current system and of delivery of major economic infrastructure and demonstrates clearly how the Bill will get Britain building again. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken from the Front Benches, and I thank the Minister for some of her reassurance. I will look carefully at Hansard. I do not think we are quite there on Natural England. There is the choice of the existing system, which has its problems, or the new system, which also has potential problems, so if we can make sure that SMEs have an easier time, that would be a great plus in the passage of the Bill.
In terms of commencement, obviously my amendments were exploratory, and I will not press them, but I look forward to better information on the NPSs, including the scheduling of when they will come forward as part of dissemination on the Bill. People need to understand the whole picture, as the Minister has acknowledged on a number of occasions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 20th October 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-I(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Oct 2025)
16:34 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 164 - Amendment 3 agreed.
17:48 - Division on Amendment 7A (as an amendment to Amendment 4) - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 175 - Amendment 7A agreed.
18:00 - Division on Amendment 7B - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 168 - Amendment 7B agreed.
18:36 - Division on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 12 disagreed.
Baroness Pinnock
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure,(b) improve the planning and consenting processes,(c) support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and(d) increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the purpose of the Act.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, at the beginning of Report on this important Bill, I move my Amendment 1, which is to insert a new purpose clause at the beginning of the Bill to define what it is about. While this Bill aims to deliver significant change, without a clear guiding statement of intent we risk losing sight of the balanced objectives necessary to truly sustainable development. Amendment 1 sets out the core purposes of this Bill:
“to … accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure … improve the planning and consenting processes … support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and … increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development”.
This is not merely a statement of aspiration. It is an important mechanism for accountability and clarity that directs the interpretation and implementation of every subsequent clause.
In Committee, there was support from across the Committee for a similar amendment. The benefit of adding a purpose clause to the Bill is that it will enshrine in law the tension between the need for construction and the requirement for robust environmental and democratic safeguards. The necessity of explicitly stating the duty to support nature recovery, for instance, directly addresses those profound concerns debated in Committee on Part 3 of the Bill.
Equally, many have voiced concerns about the negative impact of these reforms on local democracy and community voices. The CPRE, for instance, has concerns regarding the “dangerous erosion of democracy” inherent in measures that increase ministerial powers, such as the ability to issue holding directions to stop councils refusing planning permission when they do not accede to the law. To prevent them by issuing holding directions is a huge step in denuding local voices and local democratic councils from making the decisions about issues that affect their areas and communities. The inclusion of, for instance, the need to
“increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development”
directly mandates that the Government and implementing authorities address these democratic deficits. It would transform community engagement from a burdensome hoop to jump through—a problem noted by the previous regime in the Planning Act 2008, which led to proposals removing pre-application consultation requirements—into a stated core objective of the entire legislative framework.
The Government’s stated objective for this Bill remains the right one: we must
“speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure”;
however, acceleration without clear direction risks unintended long-term consequences that undermine the very public good that the Government seek to achieve. By accepting Amendment 1, we would embed clarity, provide a crucial framework for legal interpretation and establish legislative accountability for all stakeholders, ensuring that this major infrastructure Bill delivers not just efficiency but genuine sustainable development and broad public confidence. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, so here we are again. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for focusing our minds at the outset on what this Bill is about. It is a welcome amendment because the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has at least attempted to bring some thematic coherence to a ragbag of proposals from a dozen departments, none of which appears to be talking to each other.
I have read the press notices and compared them to the Bill’s text—never has a Bill been more oversold by a Government. Belatedly, it now seems that the Government’s purpose for this Bill is to persuade the OBR that it will speed up the process of development so that its economic forecasts can help the Chancellor balance her books. But most of the proposals of this Bill will prove that Newtonian notion that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It hands development veto powers to a self-serving quango and it talks about empowerment and streamlining processes, but it emasculates those with the local knowledge and mandate to unblock officialdom. Instead, it proposes a system whereby the Secretary of State is to become a one-person planning committee—good luck keeping to the 12-week determination deadlines on that one. It could have ironed out Hillside or introduced a proportionality test so that at least the little boys could get on, but there is boneheaded resistance there.
One talking head on the “Today” programme this morning bemoaned the lack of planning permissions, the number of which seems to be falling like autumn leaves, but failed to realise that it is the building safety regulator that has put the black spot on building in London, with a response rate of at least 44 weeks. On that, the Bill is silent. So, instead of unblocking the blockers, it creates an EDP process that is so ponderous that it is unlikely to unlock any stalled homes within this Parliament. It is three and a half years since we started the neutrality madness, and it will be at least another three and a half years before we can rip off that scab. So much for speeding up building; all it is doing is putting speed bumps in the way.
Of course, I welcome the important and critical proposals to free up the placement of roadside power poles to improve the electricity grid. But even this Government recognise that the potential of development corporations is something for the next Parliament—just at the moment that those structures and powers to unleash them are being thrown up in the air. For all the bluster and press notices, this Bill will slow development, not speed it up. By any measure, the Government’s purpose will be frustrated by their own legislation.
I come to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which would
“accelerate the delivery of new homes … improve the planning and consenting processes … support nature … and … increase community acceptability”.
This is what we will debate over four long days. But what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has done is laid out the functions of the Bill; they are not its purpose. The reason that this Bill is in such a muddle is that it has not been framed through the purpose lens that dates back to the Labour Government of the post-war period, when the planning system was established in the first place.
Quite simply, the purpose of planning is to arbitrate between private interests and the public good; everything flows from there, and that balance between private and public is what makes the system work. It makes the economy flourish and enhances the environment. This Bill gets that balance all wrong, with too much state interference and not enough private initiative, so I am sorry to say that it is bound to fail. That is a shame, because we need to get those homes built and those rivers cleaned up, that clean power flowing and those new towns going—but little will be achieved, because in this Bill all roads flow to Marsham Street, back home to the dead hand of the state.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward this purpose clause. It serves as a timely reminder of what the Bill is meant to achieve: the delivery of 1.5 million new homes and important infrastructure projects. It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that this goal is slipping further and further from reach. The problem is not simply one of ambition but of process and principle. The Government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Bill, in almost 30 pages of legislative text, and have done so at a very late stage.
The media were briefed in advance, I note, yet this House received no explanation from Ministers when those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny in Committee, not introduction on Report. To describe them as minor or technical, as Ministers have attempted to do, simply does not match the scale and significance of what has been briefed to the press. The Financial Times and others have reported that the Government’s own description of these measures is that they represent substantial reforms to the planning system, so which is it? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? It appears that we are witnessing a major talk-up—an oversell of provisions designed to mask the Government’s ongoing failure to deliver the homes. It is a conjuring trick, saying one thing to the press and quite another in this Chamber.
According to reports, the Prime Minister himself ordered a last-minute rewrite of the Bill, with Ministers working throughout the weekend to agree a package intended to speed up major housing and infrastructure schemes. That was on Friday 10 October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that that rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November Budget—a Budget date already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm.
Monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth at all in July. I therefore ask the Minister how the Bill will change that. Should not the Government instead focus on things such as modular construction, utilising 3D modelling and reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the Government have created.
It is therefore fair to ask whether these amendments reflect deliberate legislative design or the political and fiscal pressures of the moment. By mid-October, the Treasury would already have seen the OBR’s preliminary focus and, I rather suspect, blanched at what it showed. It may be that in the face of deteriorating growth and revenue projections, someone in Whitehall decided that a hasty burst of planning reform might steady the nerves ahead of the Budget, but legislation made in haste rarely makes good law. The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure, with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny. Bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation in your Lordships’ House, the Government risk undermining the very trust and co-operation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions.
The Government have clearly not learned. They crudely cut £5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR’s scorecard. I fear that they are now making the same mistake again, rushing to legislate for the sake of appearance rather than outcomes for this country. That is why this purpose clause is so valuable. It brings us back to the first principles. What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it truly to build homes or to centralise power? We do not even know who is in charge of this legislation. Is it No. 10, No. 11 or MHCLG? The Minister knows that throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to offer the Government constructive support, but it becomes ever harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos: saying one thing and doing another; briefing the press with grand claims while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. I hope the Minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House.
In conclusion, whatever the Government’s intention, the manner in which these amendments have been introduced must not diminish the scrutiny they receive. The House has a duty to examine legislation carefully, especially when it touches on this delicate balance between local democracy and national authority. We will approach these amendments in that spirit—with diligence, patience and respect for due process—and we will not be rushed or intimidated into setting aside our responsibilities in the name of political convenience. The scale and consequence of these proposals demands nothing less than the full and thoughtful consideration of your Lordships’ House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide-ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. Nevertheless, I thank those who contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her extensive engagement between Committee and Report.
This is indeed an ambitious piece of legislation. It is our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. The Bill will support delivery of the Government’s hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that his Government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, yet they failed to do so. Our Government are working across departments—yes, and I welcome that—to deliver what the last Government failed to do, which is to build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes, and to get our economy moving again.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I am afraid she cannot have it both ways on the amendments that the Government have tabled. She has accused me in this Chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen in Committee and some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised then. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved Administrations and we rightfully had consultations with those Administrations between Committee and Report. There are some truly pro-growth measures that we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done to improve the delivery of infrastructure, and there are a number of technical, minor amendments.
The Bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we have reissued the National Planning Policy Framework; we have provided funding and training for planners; and we have provided a huge packet of support for SMEs. I met the APPG for SME House Builders the other day and it was pleased with the package that is being delivered. There is more to be done in working with the APPG, and I will be happy to do that. We have also carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see.
I outlined the core objectives of the Bill at Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length in Committee. I do not suggest that I do so a third time. I recognise that planning law can be a complex part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret, whether you are a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public. I also appreciate that where a Bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the Bill and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This Bill has a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It is simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision.
I believe we are all united by a shared objective today. On whichever side of the House we sit, we all agree that this House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the Bill’s benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand that it is tabled to aid interpretation of the Bill. My issues with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment, boil down to two things: their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well-written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by the Government to deliver their objectives. It is for the Government to set out in debate why they are bringing forward a Bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for themselves.
The Government’s objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents that set out the Government’s strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary according to the topic—some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another. If this was not the case, the Bill would lose its strategic vision.
The Government strongly support a strategic approach to planning. The word “strategic” is mentioned 196 times in the Bill, as amended in Committee. The Bill inserts a part specifically called “Strategic plan-making”, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the Bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving the Government’s objectives. For example, this legislation gives regard to other strategic documents, such as the clean power action plan. This is all done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver the Government’s objectives.
Adding a purpose clause to the Bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it would do the opposite; it would add additional room for interpretation to a Bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify a system. It risks creating additional complexity in interpretation, gumming up the planning system further. It risks reinserting the gold-plating behaviour we are seeking to remove. Developers and local authorities, for example, would feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities that are much more relevant to other parts of the Bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause would provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down.
The measures in the Bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They have been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The courts should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes sitting on top of strategic objectives. A purpose clause would create ambiguity rather than clarity.
It does not appear to me, from the debate I have heard, that the House is confused by why the Government are seeking to bring this Bill forward. I think we all know that we seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore move forward to further debate how best to achieve them. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone involved in this short but important debate and those who have supported, in word at least, the objective of Amendment 1, which is to set out strategic purposes for the Bill. From time to time, parliamentary procedures have been considered and purpose clauses proposed, so I think the debate will continue on whether it is right and helpful to have purpose clauses at the outset of a Bill, as they do set out strategy. I understand what the Minister is saying about the strategy being throughout the Bill, but if you have it right at the outset it provides clarity on what the Bill is supposed to be trying to achieve.
“(1A) When carrying out a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects on—(a) the environment;(b) residents living in areas in which such projects are being developed.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to my Amendment 2 and, I hope, to extract a reassurance from the Minister in this short debate. The amendment looks at how it is expected that nationally significant infrastructure projects will operate in the planning process as set out in the Bill. I am not satisfied with the way that the process has been set out, and therefore the thrust of Amendment 2 is to call for a potential review, during the course of which the Secretary of State should assess the
“cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects on … the environment”
and, in particular,
“residents living in areas in which such projects are being developed”.
I first raised this issue on one of the statutory instruments giving effect to the clean energy Act. I was very grateful to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for explaining to me how cumulative impact was meant to operate. It is clear that the cumulative impact of all the proposals set out in this Bill will be unexpectedly deep and wide for all those living in rural areas, yet their opportunities to be involved in the process will be curtailed if the Bill proceeds in its present form. This relates a little to the previous debate on the purpose of the Bill, because I believe that if the Bill is to function well—as I am sure the whole House would wish, having spent however many hours on it in Committee—it should ensure that it operates effectively.
I am deeply uneasy that the thrust of the proposals on nationally significant infrastructure projects are to benefit those living in the deep south of England and London, to the specific disbenefit of rural residents across the whole of the north of England. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that this amendment relates not so much to the housebuilding aspects of the Bill as to nationally significant infrastructure projects in the energy sector. I am thinking in particular of solar farms and the unimaginable scale currently foreseen.
This is not unique to this country. I follow developments in Denmark very closely. For the first time ever, a solar farm was going to be created in a deeply rural part of the northern mainland of Denmark, Jutland, but a very effective campaign, under rules in Denmark that are very favourable to this type of project, has been so successful that I am delighted to say that the project will not go ahead. I envisage similar concerns in this country once the full impact of the Bill is known.
My main concern, as the Bill is currently drafted, is this question to the Minister: should there not be a requirement that the cumulative impact assessment should be included in the local plan? My understanding is that currently that is not the case. If that is so, why is there no specific provision in either the planning applications or the Bill itself that such an assessment should be included in the local plan? Surely it is incumbent on developers, planners and the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that residents will see a joined-up planning application and that we will no longer see what we have seen historically.
For example, if there is an application for an offshore windfarm over here, people living in East Anglia think, “Well, that’s perfectly harmless, it won’t affect me, so that’s fine, it can go ahead”. Suddenly, the second stage of the planning application is to foist on them a major substation that they had no idea was going to be built on their doorstep. Then the third stage of the application is for overhead pylons, which is causing such great concern, particularly in East Anglia and other parts of eastern England: I am thinking here of east Yorkshire.
There have been two if not three Planning Inspectorate policy guidance publications, one in April last year and one in September last year. The Government are bringing forward their own proposals but, as I said earlier, the legislation is currently defective in this regard. What is most concerning about the September 2024 advice is that it specifically states:
“This advice is non-statutory. However, the Planning Inspectorate’s advice about running the infrastructure planning system and matters of process is drawn from good practice and applicants and others should follow our recommendations”.
So I have a further question for the Minister. If the advice published in September last year is non-statutory, how do we know that the advice and guidance will be followed? Surely it should be in the Bill, it should be statutory and it should be spelled out in plain English for all to see and understand, so that, when the fast-track process comes about, everyone knows. While the guidance was welcomed by civil engineers at the time it was published, lawyers were split as to how significant the changes would be for infrastructure developers. That makes me wonder whether it will have any effect whatever.
Therefore, in moving Amendment 2, I conclude by asking the Minister what assurance she can give the House that there will be joined-up planning applications in future. What checks will there be and what penalties will be imposed if the Planning Inspectorate’s advice is not followed in the fast-track procedure? I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having attached my name to the amendment so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I will speak very briefly to explain why this is something the Government need to address and respond to.
We know that the Government tend to operate in silos and look at one project at a time, without taking a comprehensive view of the overall impact on the country. New paragraph (a) proposed in the amendment focuses on the environment. In the past 10 years or so, we have seen real progress in understanding that we need to think about the landscape on a landscape scale, rather than just going, “We’ve got a nice little protected bit here and a nice little area there”. This amendment starts to get to the issue of thinking on a landscape scale in terms of the environment.
It is not impossible to imagine. Recently, we have become very aware of the importance of corridors through which different populations of wildlife can be linked up. There could be projects where one on its own does not look like it will have a serious impact, but two together would effectively cut off and separate two populations of animals that might already be lacking in genetic diversity and not be able to afford that separation.
Then there are the humans: the “residents living in areas” where the “projects are being developed”, as the proposed new paragraph says. Over the recess, I was speaking to a couple of people very much affected by the Sevington customs facility and the impact of light pollution. This is the sort of thing that we do not think about nearly enough, but where we may see effects on people’s lives build up and up.
The other obvious area where the impacts may be cumulative is traffic. If there are projects for growing and linking together, the impacts of traffic could be absolutely disastrous on the lives of residents in those communities.
So I think this amendment is modest: it just asks the Government to think on a broader scale than I am afraid Governments—very typically—generally do.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I believe this amendment has merit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just said, it is important that there is a comprehensive overview of the cumulative impact of a national strategic infrastructure project on a wider area than just the single project that is being considered.
In response to the first group, the Minister was very clear in stating that the Government wanted a more strategic approach to planning. I have issues with a more strategic approach, because it is often the details that matter most. But, if there is to be a more strategic approach, surely that must imply that it is not just on a single project but on the whole range of infrastructure projects—150—that the Government have in mind for the remainder of this Parliament.
For instance, there will be a cumulative effect of road infrastructure, and of the move to net zero, which we on these Benches totally support, and therefore more green infrastructure for energy creation. All of that requires an oversight of the totality of those projects, because it is important to understand the overall impact on local communities, rather than considering the impact project by project, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, explained, in terms of wind farms or solar farms, for instance. I support all of these, but we need to understand their cumulative impact on communities, the landscape and the environment.
So these issues are important and I am glad they have been brought up. I hope the Minister in her response will be able to satisfy those of us who have these concerns that the Government are not going to run roughshod over the needs of communities and the environment while making their rush for growth.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
First, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling her amendment and raising the issue of cumulative impacts. Under the Planning Act 2008, which governs nationally significant infrastructure projects such as major energy, transport and water developments, environmental and social assessments are already in place at various stages. However, my noble friend raises a very important issue: we should not look at developments just in isolation, whether or not they are nationally significant infrastructure projects, but consider their cumulative impact in an area.
My noble friend also raised what I refer to as consequential developments. If one were to build an offshore wind farm, by implication one would also have the consequential development of an electrical connection. Should this not also be considered as part of the planning process?
While we do not believe that this is the most appropriate mechanism—the Minister raised the issue of strategic and spatial planning, which is probably a more appropriate way to address this—we believe that it is an important issue. Depending on the Minister’s response, we may return to this at a later stage.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her Amendment 2. It would require the Secretary of State to assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—on both the environment and the communities in which such projects are being developed, when reviewing a national policy statement.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I wholeheartedly agree that cumulative impacts—particularly those affecting the environment and local communities—must be given due consideration in the NSIP consenting process. I am therefore pleased to reassure her that the existing regime already provides for such considerations. It is already a statutory requirement for the Government to undertake an assessment of sustainability when designating or updating a national policy statement. These appraisals of sustainability—which include the strategic environmental assessment process—play a vital role in shaping national policy statements by evaluating their potential environmental, social and economic effects and any reasonable alternatives that could be used.
The strategic environmental assessment regulations require that the effects assessment includes an assessment of cumulative impacts. Non-spatial national policy statements that do not identify the likely locations of NSIPs are strategic-level documents, which means that it is not possible to identify cumulative impacts in detail. However, cumulative impacts are addressed, so far as possible at this level, to meet the requirements of the strategic environmental assessment regulations at this stage.
It is important that detailed consideration of cumulative effects takes place at the project level. By virtue of factors such as their nature, scale and location, NSIPs are likely to have significant effects on the environment around them. Under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an environmental impact assessment process must be undertaken, and the Secretary of State is prohibited from granting consent until an EIA has been carried out. The environmental statement must identify and assess the direct and indirect significant effects on specified factors, including environmental factors, population and human health. Cumulative effects are one of the required types of effects that must be identified and assessed.
In short, while the concern raised by the noble Baroness is entirely valid, the existing framework already requires the consideration of cumulative impacts, both in the preparation and review of national policy statements and in the assessment and consideration of individual development consent order applications.
The noble Baroness asked me about the local plan process. The whole process of local plans focuses on cumulative impacts. One of its purposes is to start off with individual policies and work through a process towards cumulative impacts. This will be enhanced by the addition of strategic level plans, giving a direct link from neighbourhood planning to local plans and then to strategic plans, allowing the cumulative impact across the whole picture to be assessed. In light of this, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful for that response. I most humbly apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not thanking her for cosigning the amendment in the first place, for which I am very grateful. I am grateful for her supportive comments, and for those from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock; they clearly set out why this is so important. I took comfort from the support from my noble friend Lord Jamieson on my own Front Bench, and from the Minister. I hope we can explore this further in the context of spatial planning.
I was a little bit concerned when the Minister used the expression, “This is addressed so far as possible”. She helps to make the case for me, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent the removal of a requirement for the Government to reply to any resolutions by Parliament or recommendations from a select committee.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I raised this issue in Committee. This is an identical amendment to that tabled in the House of Commons by multiple chairs of Select Committees, who were concerned about the reduced opportunity for the Government to at least reply to the parliamentary scrutiny rightly undertaken in terms of national policy statements.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said in Committee, and I have not re-tabled a whole plethora of amendments, as I would not want to be thought to be trying to hold up national policy statements unduly, because they are a good thing. I have re-tabled this amendment because when Parliament puts forward recommendations or has a resolution, the least we can expect is that the Government will respond, rather than removing that as a requirement of the law, as this legislation does. In a nutshell, that is why I think this matters.
This matters because we are starting to see an increasing number of national policy statements. There is a lot of merit in trying to give a clear direction to the country—residents, developers or whoever—to make sure that they can continue to consider future development in a measured and structured way.
Reading the responses of the Minister here and the Minister in the Commons, I am conscious that a lot of focus seems to be on the fact that a Select Committee might take a bit of time, or that we would table a resolution anyway. Actually, although this House has the opportunity to table a resolution and vote on it, it has become quite hard to table things in the Commons unless you have control of the parliamentary timetable. I notice that while this House had a debate on nuclear power—and energy Statements, for example—it did not happen at the other end. Maybe everybody was happy, but it is more likely that certain parties did not have the opportunity to look at the timetable.
One of your Lordships’ Select Committees made some recommendations in its report regarding the energy grid. I am not aware that the Government have yet replied—although they may have—recognising that a debate is to be tabled on that report as a whole. Overall, this issue does matter: when this House is minded to at least give some comments or thoughts on national policy statements, we should expect a response from the Government. That is why I am minded to test the House’s opinion on the amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend. When I was chair of the Delegated Powers Committee under the last Government, we published a report regretting the trend that over the last 30 years, more and more regulations have bypassed Parliament—not just by using the negative procedure rather than the affirmative, but through departments issuing guidance after guidance, none of which came before Parliament.
The point I want to make is a simple one of principle. We see in legislation Parliament being bypassed, in that case and in far too many cases. Parliament should not be bypassed, and necessarily so. My noble friend’s amendment simply makes the point that the Government should consider Motions by Parliament and what Select Committees say. They do not have to accept it, but at least we should have a chance to give that input. Otherwise, as I also see in cases, we will depend on various stakeholders to comment.
On the number of consultations issued by departments, there is a huge list of stakeholders, some of them great and grand organisations, royal colleges and organisations such as the RSPB with goodness knows how many million members. However, often the local MP is not listed, parliamentarians are not considered—and possibly not even the Select Committee which might have relevant views on it.
I believe my noble friend is on the right lines here, and I hope the Government will accept her amendment or at least give us assurances that Parliament will not be bypassed in the way she has suggested.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we now have before us Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—which I thought was coming in the previous group—and there is much to agree with in what she said. The national policy statements set the tone and the content for the NPPF and then the further guidance on planning legislation, so they are the fundamental base of all further changes to planning law. They are very important.
For the Government to try to take out the opportunity for democratic oversight and scrutiny is not just regrettable but a centralising process which we should not support. Planning affects everybody’s life one way or another, be it major infrastructure projects or small housing developments. Planning affects people, and if it affects people, people’s voices should be heard, and so people’s democratically elected representatives ought to be heard. It is our role in this House to scrutinise legislation. That is what is happening now, and we are saying, “This will not do”. We cannot have more centralising of planning processes and removing democratic oversight in so doing. If the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, wishes to test the opinion of the House on this issue, as she has intimated, we on these Benches will support her.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
In Committee, I described this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, as vital because it preserves parliamentary accountability, ensuring that government must respond to resolutions and recommendations from Select Committees. The safeguard strengthens transparency, clarifies policy direction at an early stage, and reduces uncertainty for those affected by these statements. Robust scrutiny helps to catch potential issues before they escalate later. I appreciate that the Minister has sought to reassure us with a new, streamlined process for updating national policy statements, and of course efficiency is welcome, but scrutiny must not become the casualty of speed. This amendment strikes the right balance. It enables timely updates while ensuring that Parliament remains meaningfully engaged.
Clause 2 concerns the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. While I accept that certain elements of the process could be accelerated, key aspects of the clause diminish accountability to Parliament in favour of the Executive. I struggle to understand why, given the enormous impact of national policy statements, the Government are proposing to remove such an important element of parliamentary oversight. We continue to support parliamentary scrutiny and as such, we will support this amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment.
Clause 2 introduces a new, additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the planning system for our most significant national infrastructure. In the past, national policy statements have been too slow to reflect government priorities, planning policy or legislative changes, with some NPSs not updated for over a decade. As the National Infrastructure Commission has recognised, a lack of updates has created uncertainty for applicants, statutory consultees and the examining authority. It has also increased the risk of legal challenge and driven the gold-plating in the system that we are all trying to avoid.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have heard the Minister but do not think that the answer has changed since Committee, which I regret. I am concerned that removing any requirement on the Government to reply to either House is not satisfactory when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Projects relating to water(1) Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (nationally significant infrastructure projects) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).(2) In section 27 (dams and reservoirs)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In this section, references to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker include a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(3) In section 28 (transfer of water resources)—(a) in subsection (1)(a), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) In this section, the reference to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker includes a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(4) In section 28A (desalination plants)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “by” insert , or by a person appointed by,”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In this section, references to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker include a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(5) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a project where, before the day on which this section comes into force—(a) consent for the project was required, or otherwise provided for, by or under an enactment other than section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 (requirement for development consent in relation to development that is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project), and(b) any steps provided for by or under the enactment in question, to obtain that consent, had been taken.(6) In subsection (5), “consent” means any consent, approval, permission, authorisation, confirmation, direction or decision (however described, given or made).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties appointed by water undertakers to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project by virtue of section 14(1)(m), (n) or (na) of the Planning Act 2008, provided the other conditions in sections 27, 28 and 28A of the 2008 Act are met.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 4, I will speak also to Amendment 256. This proposal responds to concerns raised by Peers about the need to address water scarcity, particularly through easing restrictions on reservoir construction to encourage more reservoir development. Growing demand and climate variability have placed increasing strain on existing water resources, reinforcing the need for additional storage capacity. Without new reservoir capacity, we risk being unable to meet that future demand. Reservoirs are fundamental to maintaining secure public water supplies and supporting economic growth, yet delivery, particularly of major schemes, has been too slow under current processes.
This amendment removes a procedural hurdle, thereby streamlining the consenting process and enabling faster delivery of major water projects, after more than 30 years without new major reservoirs in England. Crucially, it enables third-party providers appointed by water undertakers to apply to deliver major water infrastructure, including reservoirs, transfer schemes and desalination plants, through the streamlined development consent order route. That will accelerate delivery of essential water infrastructure, help secure future water supplies, and unlock housing and economic growth, including delivery of new towns and our ambition for building 1.5 million homes this Parliament. Importantly, this change does not reduce environmental or public scrutiny: projects will continue to be subject to the full planning process, including statutory consultation and environmental assessment.
This amendment is an important step in responding to concerns about water scarcity and supporting the pro-growth measures contained in the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter to ensure that it is quicker and easier to consent and build the reservoirs we need so desperately, now and into the future.
The Government are content to accept Amendments 5 to 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I am mindful that water infrastructure, particularly reservoirs, has had a difficult history in parts of the United Kingdom. Communities still remember the loss and upheaval caused by past projects, such as at Capel Celyn. It is therefore right that, as we modernise and expand the routes by which these essential schemes can be delivered, we also strengthen the mechanisms that guarantee their safety, integrity and public accountability.
These amendments make a helpful clarification to government Amendment 4. They will ensure that where a third-party provider is appointed to deliver a large-scale water infrastructure project under the specified infrastructure projects regulations, that provider must be formally designated as an infrastructure provider under Regulation 8. This means that they will be fully subject to the statutory safeguards provided by those regulations. Those safeguards are vital. They ensure that any company delivering major water infrastructure is formally designated and operates within a framework of strict oversight and accountability. Ofwat’s supervision, the requirement for licensing and consultation, and the ability to challenge decisions through the Competition and Markets Authority, together provide a robust system to protect the public and the environment.
I also clarify that these amendments do not alter the position for projects delivered through direct procurement for customers, known as DPC, the other competitive procurement route for third-party delivery of NSIPs. Under that model, water companies competitively appoint third-party providers to finance and deliver major infrastructure. This mechanism also has a strong regulatory framework, with Ofwat oversight, competitive tendering, and measures to protect customers from cost and delivery risks. DPC is a useful option for less complex NSIP-scale projects, providing an alternative route for competitive delivery. Under both schemes, projects benefit from strong regulatory protections for customers and the public, with clear oversight, risk management and accountability built in.
By accepting these amendments, we will bring greater clarity and reassurance that the statutory protections apply fully to third-party providers under the SIPR framework. This means that these important projects can be taken forward with confidence—safely, transparently and in the public interest. Faster, flexible delivery of major water infrastructure is essential to secure resilient water supplies, support housebuilding and unlock local economic growth, while always ensuring that safety, environmental and consumer standards are maintained. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling these amendments and for his engagement on this important matter.
I welcome Amendment 7A, which seeks to require that applicants for dam and reservoir schemes seek separate consent for the heritage impacts of their project outside the NSIP regime. While I recognise that there may be concerns about the future impact of these desperately needed water projects on heritage assets, the Government believe that the thorough process set out in the Planning Act already provides adequate protections. Applicants for all projects, including dam and reservoir schemes, are already required to include information relating to heritage impacts from their projects, including an assessment of any effects on such sites, when they submit their application.
Further, where the development is subject to environmental impact assessment regulations because of the likely significant effects on the environment by virtue of its nature, size or location, the applicant is required to undertake an assessment of any likely heritage impacts, including cumulative impacts, as part of the environmental statement. This is also set out in the water resources national policy statement updated in July this year. Moreover, concerns may be raised by communities or statutory bodies through relevant representations where the examining authority considers that more information is required before reporting to the Secretary of State, and it can require it from applicants and schedule hearings.
In determining applications, the Secretary of State will identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development, including affecting the setting of a heritage asset, taking account of the evidence. The Secretary of State must also comply with the specific decision-making obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments placed on the Secretary of State set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. When making the decision, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historical interest that it possesses.
Requiring applicants to undergo a separate process to secure these consents would delay delivery of these critical infrastructure projects, adding additional process, complexity and costs. This goes against the intention of the Planning Act 2008 regime, which was introduced to provide a one-stop shop approach for obtaining consents for large-scale, nationally significant infrastructure. Moreover, it would also hinder this Government’s ambitions to speed up and streamline the planning process for major infrastructure projects.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling Amendment 7B. It seeks to provide that in cases where a dam or reservoir is already defined as a nationally significant infrastructure project and will result in the demolition of 20 or more homes, those whose homes would be impacted are notified and may make representations to the Secretary of State before the scheme enters the NSIP planning route, with a view to perhaps preventing the project being determined through the NSIP regime. I acknowledge the significant impact that NSIP projects have, and that dam and reservoir schemes, in particular, can have when numerous homes near each other are demolished. It is clear, and we all agree, that a thorough process must be followed that allows all these issues to be understood before a decision is reached. That is why the Planning Act is so important. We believe that there are already sufficient legal requirements that provide adequate opportunity for impacted persons to be heard.
I am afraid that the amendment seeks to insert discretion for the Secretary of State in a part of the process that does not exist. Dams and reservoirs that meet the threshold set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act 2008 are not directed by the relevant Secretary of State. They are automatically treated as NSIPs once they meet the threshold in Section 27. There is no other route to consent than via the Planning Act 2008. I understand that the amendment is driven by a desire to ensure that the voice of impacted individuals is heard throughout the process and before the Secretary of State makes a final decision whether to grant or refuse development consent. I say emphatically that this is already provided for by the Planning Act 2008.
All individuals who are impacted or whose land is proposed to be compulsorily acquired are both recognised as affected persons and notified of an accepted application under Section 56. This notification means these persons are treated as interested parties under Section 102 without having to complete a registration form. This allows them to play an active role in the examination by submitting written and oral representations to the examining authority, so that their views and specific circumstances can be heard by that examining authority.
These affected persons are able to submit notice to the Secretary of State requesting a compulsory acquisition hearing, which the examining authority must hold if a request is made by at least one affected person within the deadline set by the examining authority. Individuals who are not directly impacted or whose land is not being compulsorily acquired can also submit a relevant representation and complete a registration form to be considered as an interested party. This provides an opportunity for those living nearby to engage and share their concerns with the examination.
Finally, local authorities are invited by the Secretary of State to submit a local impact report, which gives details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area. This may include the impact on individuals within that area. I do not agree that, in cases where there are significant local impacts, it should automatically be the case that local decision-making should be followed. This would remove the ability of the Government to make decisions in the national interest and ensure sufficient infrastructure is built which meets a strategic rather than a local need.
There is no easy answer to the impact of projects on individuals and communities. However, the Planning Act 2008 provides a means through which to balance the interests the nation has in building the infrastructure it needs, particularly water infrastructure, with the interests of those acutely impacted. Applicants will be expected to argue why alternative sites are not appropriate and how impacts, where possible, may be mitigated. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will not press her amendment.
On Amendment 56, the Government already take steps to facilitate the building of both small and large reservoirs, and £104 billion of private sector investment has been secured through Ofwat’s price review. We continue to support farmers to develop local resource options to secure water supplies. Reservoir safety legislation does not prevent new reservoirs being constructed but ensures that structures are well built and maintained. Reservoirs which store water above ground level pose a potential risk to life, property, business and the environment, and would cause economic disruption to local communities if the dam structure were to fail. These risks are managed through reservoir safety regulation. Reservoirs which store water below ground do not pose the same risks and so are out of scope of reservoir safety regulation. The Government’s advice to farmers and landowners is to consider options for non-raised water storage first.
The Government are intending to consult soon on proposals to improve reservoir safety regulation, including making the requirements more tailored to the level of hazard posed and bringing some smaller raised reservoirs into scope. These proposals do not alter the need for more reservoirs, nor do they prevent new ones being built, but are to ensure that reservoir dams are structurally sound and that flood risks for communities downstream are effectively managed. There is already a permitted development right which enables the creation of on-farm reservoirs where they are reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes. Under this agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to manage and control impacts of development. We have not got the exact numbers but I believe there are around 3,000, so people are already taking advantage of that.
Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation, as amendments to the general permitted development order, often following consultation. Carrying out a public consultation ensures the views of the public, including those who will benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. It also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and how these might be mitigated.
The Government will continue to keep permitted development rights under review. It is important that new reservoirs are built in locations where they do not pose a flood risk for local communities, and that existing reservoir dams are structurally safe. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment and ask that she does not press it, based on the actions already being taken forward to review safety regulations impacting small, low-hazard reservoirs, and the subsequent secondary route to make any necessary changes to encourage their creation. I beg to move.
Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4)
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 7 in my name. They are all designed to achieve the same purpose, which I will go on to explain, but happily I do not have to explain at any length because of the admirable way in which the Minister introduced Amendment 4 and explained her approach to Amendments 5, 6 and 7. I am most grateful for the time she gave for the discussion last week on the amendments and my proposals for amending that. Noble Lords will recall that there was no debate on this in Committee; these are amendments tabled just at the beginning of last week. I hope we all agree that the purpose is a beneficial one: to facilitate the pace at which we want to proceed with water dams and reservoirs as nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly pointed out, many of these matters were not dealt with in Committee, but they are arising now. The Minister referred to Capel Celyn and the controversy that arose in Wales with regard to what was known as the Tryweryn Valley scheme on that occasion. I would be grateful for some clarification as to whether the amendments being moved have any bearing whatever on the powers of Senedd Cymru to come to a determination on schemes in Wales—schemes that may be put forward by providers from outside Wales but which are located in Wales. Does Senedd Cymru have the powers, which it has always believed that it should have, to decide on schemes that may be regarded in Wales as being of national significance?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of amendments and for the very helpful meeting that we had last week, particularly when we covered the role of smaller reservoirs. I said to the Minister then that, while I shall not stand against the creation of large reservoirs, I have some concerns about them. They are not always particularly efficient. Given the weather that we have had in successive summers with their intense heat, they can be inefficient as the water can evaporate quickly, as we have seen in north Yorkshire, where I think a hosepipe ban is still in place.
I do not know how many noble Lords remember the wonderful David Bellamy, who made his name when he was a professor of botany at the University of Durham—I see a number of alumni in the Chamber this afternoon. He was particularly concerned when a reservoir was due to be constructed at Cow Green in upper Teesdale, where I grew up, in the Pennines. The significance was that blue gentians grow in only some parts of the country, outside the immediate alpine regions of Austria and Switzerland, and upper Teesdale was one of them. We were all particularly grateful to Professor Bellamy at the time, as he spoke passionately against the need for creating such a reservoir.
That massive reservoir has meant that what was the highest waterfall in England at the time now has only one waterfall, in most cases, rather than the two, which were spectacular to see when the River Tees was in spate. It was not just about the tragic loss of a number of farms, which were flooded with the construction of the reservoir; it was the fact that the water was never actually needed. It would be helpful to understand how, in the process of these planning applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the need is felt to be so great at one stage—but then, when they are constructed, the water is never actually used.
There are alternatives to large reservoirs. We were asked to create a large reservoir for the “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering, to prevent that town flooding to the extent that it had. I think that it was three times in 10 years but it may have been longer, perhaps over 20 years. Since it was deemed to be unaffordable to build the large reservoir required, a smaller reservoir was created along with other schemes, such as planting trees and creating smaller dams to soak up the water, which have proved extremely effective to date. Since the creation of the smaller reservoir, Pickering has no longer flooded.
Yorkshire Water also introduced a multimillion-pound project to transfer water from the water-plenty parts to the water-stressed part of the region. We now have the technology to do that across water regions. I hope that the Government may also look at that, rather than just considering the easy option of building a mega-reservoir.
My amendment looks at the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs and the case for smaller reservoirs. It was pleasing to hear what the Minister said as she set that out. I am sure she is also aware of the recommendations set out in 2019, some six years ago, following the Toddbrook and Whaley Bridge dam safety incident. My concern is that there is no sense of urgency and we have not seen anything happen since 2019 as regards a revision of the Reservoirs Act 1975. Currently, I understand that they are looking at not just amending that Act, which was the particular genesis of Amendment 56—the previous Government and I think this Government are probably pursuing that thinking. It would be good to have it on the record this afternoon that the Government’s intention is to replace the Reservoirs Act and to bring into effect the Balmforth recommendations, which were made as far back as 2019.
There are many pressing reasons for smaller reservoirs, both on farms and on sports clubs such as golf clubs. In the particular case of small farms, an excellent article recently in Farmers Weekly showed that because of the increasing water stress and water shortage owing to climate change, the many competing claims that farmers are finding, and the fact that water abstraction is to be curtailed in the future, it is particularly concerning that:
“Food is not seen as a public good when it comes to securing water supplies”.
If farmers face losing abstraction licences in April next year, this is a source of great concern to them. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on applications for smaller reservoirs on farms or on golf clubs, for the reasons that I have set out. For these reasons, I would still like to consider either testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 56 or bringing it back at Third Reading.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 7A in this group, which, like my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 5, is an amendment to government Amendment 4. I welcome many of the changes to the Bill that the Government have brought forward, particularly to Clause 41, which we will touch on later on Report. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for their time over the Conference Recess to discuss the changes that they have made in that area of the Bill. But the 67 amendments which the Government tabled last week cover some significant new issues and it is regrettable, in many ways, that we have not had the same opportunity to discuss those, either in Committee or with the Minister and others in the intervening period.
Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I agree in general terms with the Government’s intention to ensure that more reservoirs can be constructed, and more quickly. But just as with the Government’s original proposals in Clause 41 for infrastructure projects carried out under the Transport and Works Act, which they have, I am glad to say, brought forward amendments to alter now, the plans in the proposed new clause under discussion about projects relating to water give rise to concerns about the proper safeguards for our shared heritage. Noble Lords and, I am happy to say, the Government benefited from being able to discuss their proposals with regard to Clause 41 with a number of heritage groups. I am glad that those discussions fed into the changes that they have tabled later in the Bill, but of course the construction of a reservoir is a major undertaking as well. It is a significant and lasting intervention in our heritage—both our natural and built heritage.
I am almost the same age as Kielder Water, which was opened by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Northumberland the year before I was born. That holds 44 billion gallons and is the largest artificial reservoir in the United Kingdom by capacity. Like the manmade forest that surrounds it, it is a source of quiet marvel and pride across Northumberland, a county that is rich in an impressive array of civil engineering feats. Of course, there was a price to pay regarding displaced communities and lost heritage for that impressive reservoir. Some 95 residents lost their homes, a number of farms and a school were lost, and indeed the route of the former Border Counties Railway was partially submerged by the new Kielder Water reservoir.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I speak on these amendments not with any great authority on them but because I had some experience of a heritage village being destroyed to create a reservoir when I was Member of Parliament for Penrith and The Border, a huge constituency in the north of Cumbria including the beautiful lake of Ullswater.
South of Ullswater, there is a reservoir called Haweswater, which was created in the Haweswater valley. In 1929, the Manchester Corporation took possession of the village. It moved out all the villagers, exhumed 97 graves and moved the bodies to Shap, and demolished the church and the pub. Then it flooded the village and created Haweswater Reservoir. That village in the Lake District National Park was called Mardale. We have no idea how beautiful it was—we have no photographs—but if it was in keeping with all the other villages nearby, we know that it was a superb heritage Lake District village bang-smack in the middle of a national park. We would hope that that would not happen these days, but that is why we need Amendment 7A to guarantee it. Wainwright said:
“Gone for ever are the quiet wooded bays and shingly shores that nature had fashioned so sweetly in the Haweswater of old; how aggressively ugly is the tidemark of the new Haweswater”.
I think the 1980s was the first time that, in a severe drought, the level of Haweswater dropped down to the bottom and we could see what remained. One reason that was interesting is that it destroyed the wonderful myth we had for about 100 years that on quiet, cold, still nights you could still hear the church bells clanging beneath the water level. When the village was revealed, the church tower was only about 10 feet high; it had all been removed and there was nothing left. How many houses were destroyed? We know how many bodies were exhumed, but we have no record of the number of people moved out. However, the ruins would suggest a village of more than 30 houses, including a wonderful church and pub.
Wainwright mentioned the ugly tide-mark. My constituency had Ullswater, the most beautiful lake of all in the Lake District, if I may say so. On occasions of drought in this country, the level of Ullswater is lowered by two enormous pipes, one 12 feet in diameter and the other eight feet, which pump all the water down to Manchester. I do not want Mancunians to die of thirst—the answer is to build more reservoirs there—but the damage it does to the landscape in the Lake District is extraordinary. We have these wonderful images of the Lake District and its lakes, but when you see the level in Ullswater 10 feet below normal, there is an appalling scar around the whole lake. The important point about the Lake District National Park is the landscape and the visual value of what you see. Lowering severely the level of Ullswater, with Haweswater pumping into it, causes enormous environmental damage, which is about not just oils, gases and pollutants but destroying the visual quality of some of our lakes.
On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Parkinson mentioned Kielder, which is superb. It is great for tourism and fish and really improves the quality of the landscape. I disagree with him on the tree planting. They planted millions of Sitka spruce around the lake but put them right down at the water’s edge, so you got acidic run-off. Now, as the forestry departments are cutting down those trees, they are replanting those nearer the lake with proper mixed English landscape trees which do not cause that damage. There is only one thing wrong with Kielder: it is in completely the wrong place in terms of where water is required.
Over my time as a Member for a constituency in Cumbria, every few years various schemes came up to build some huge pipes and pump Kielder down south. The cost was astronomical, not to mention the huge engines that would be required to do it. Then there were other wonderfully clever schemes to pump some of it into the Tyne, let it flow down, intercept it before it got to Newcastle, then pump it into the River Wear and intercept it before it got to Bishop Auckland—and goodness knows where it would go then. There were also ideas to pump it into canals and force them to be rivers. All these schemes have been reviewed and considered; they do not work and would not work even at enormous cost. The answer must be to build appropriate reservoirs where they are needed.
Reservoirs are needed in the south, and the problem with finding them “down south”—as we up in Cumbria would say— is that they will be in areas with wonderful villages and lots of people, and they are very difficult to construct because of the damage that may be done to those local environments. They may be in places with lovely villages and AONBs, or on the edge of a national nature reserve, or even taking in one of those nature reserves. I accept that destroying a village may be necessary, but in that case, the villagers must be consulted, and they must have a right to be properly compensated. It cannot be taken for granted that a national infrastructure project can overrule those requirements.
Turning to compensation, I will be very brief because it is not in the amendment. We can come up with compensation for people living in these places, but how do you compensate for the destruction of a wonderful 1,000-year-old Norman church or the local post office—buildings which, in some ways, are not owned by people, and involve no right to compensation?
In future, to create a reservoir it may be necessary to destroy villages, even heritage villages. In that case, we should have a protection, as my noble friends have suggested in Amendments 7A and 7B. I am happy to support them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that it was regrettable that these amendments were brought at this late stage. I have a feeling that it is unacceptable that the Government should, in the final throes of the Bill, introduce very significant amendments that will have a profound effect on our communities and the environment surrounding them. This is why we are having a long debate on this group of amendments.
The Government wish to find a different route for agreeing the construction of new reservoirs. While that is a laudable aim, the methods proposed in the Bill represent a huge backward step for environmental protection and democratic accountability, without considering perhaps more straightforward solutions such as water conservation. The Government’s proposals seek to shift the decision-making process from the local to the national. As a result, and in light of their amendments on removing pre-application—which we will come to in the next group—local residents, as the Minister has said, would have to register in order to speak against the decision or to make their comments heard. It is quite an ask for people to appear before the equivalent of a planning inspectorate examination, which can be quite daunting for residents to take part in. That is regrettable.
The other issue I have a problem with is that the Government intend that where a region has a water shortage and, as a consequence, housing is turned down because there is not enough water to feed the new estates, they will issue “holding directions” to stop councils refusing planning permissions and will consider call-ins to try to overturn those. How those people will get water is yet to be understood. We on these Benches believe that the Government, alongside pursuing some new reservoirs, ought to put greater emphasis on the solution to water scarcity, which should be about addressing demand inefficiency.
This includes getting water companies to reduce the scale of the leaks from their water pipes—which is approximately 20% of the totality—to 10%. That is achievable and, on its own, would solve the immediate issue of water scarcity. The use of grey water and black water—I hate those terms—within new developments also needs to be addressed by not requiring all water that is used in this country to be of drinking water quality, which is what happens now. When you get your car washed, the car wash uses water of drinking quality to clean your car, because all water produced is to that standard. There ought to be changes in that direction as well.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 4—the new clause to be inserted after Clause 2—relates to projects concerning water. As I understand it, this amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties, appointed by water undertakers, to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project under Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, provided that the other conditions set out in Sections 27, 28 and 28A of that Act are met.
While I appreciate the intention to streamline delivery and facilitate investment in critical water infrastructure, I must raise a number of concerns and questions to the Minister. First, what safeguards will ensure that the thresholds for NSIP designation—particularly those relating to scale and national importance—are still meaningfully applied? It is essential that this designation remains reserved for truly nationally significant projects, not simply those that happen to be large or, indeed, convenient.
Secondly, can the Minister clarify why the existing provisions—which limit NSIP status to projects undertaken directly by water undertakers—are now deemed insufficient? What problem, precisely, is this amendment intended to solve?
Additionally, are the Government considering similar extensions of NSIP eligibility in other sections of infrastructure? If so, it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether this represents a broader shift in planning policy or an exceptional measure just limited to water infrastructure.
Finally, will the Government commit to a review of the amendment’s impact after, say, three or five years, to ensure that it has not led to unintended consequences, particularly in relation to accountability, environmental standards or the integrity of the NSIP regime?
I also welcome my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments in this group. I understand he has had many discussions with the Minister, and I thank the Government for their response on these amendments.
Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also raises important questions for Ministers about the ability of farmers and landowners to develop small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities. We know we need more reservoirs, and the Government have talked about this a great deal. We look to Ministers to show willing on smaller reservoirs too, and we encourage the Minister to listen to my noble friend on this important issue.
Finally, Amendment 7A in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson and my Amendment 7B are on introducing due process for communities and heritage threatened by reservoirs being delivered through the NSIP process. We tabled these amendments in response to the Government’s amendment tabled last Monday and we are keen to work with the Government to get a workable amendment into the Bill, if it is necessary.
I also say at the outset that we are fully supportive of the steps to get on with the delivery of critical national infrastructure, but where consultation of local communities and heritage protections are disapplied through the NSIP process, we have to be sure that is appropriate in those cases. As the Government seek to deliver more reservoirs, we want to ensure that communities, heritage and local individuals who have their homes, gardens and history invested in those areas are protected and that the Secretary of State takes proper account of their views. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken about a number of historical examples. If villages are to be flooded in the future, with all their history and heritage, we must make sure a proper process is followed.
It is not just in the north of England that we have reservoirs. I farmed near Bough Beech and I knew Bewl Water in Kent; both of these were where some communities were flooded. Decades and generations on, people are still talking about the community that is under that water.
We will therefore seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7B and ask the Minister to seriously consider making sure that future communities will be protected.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will keep my comments relatively brief, because I had a lot to say at the beginning of this group. I start my concluding remarks by pointing out to noble Lords that it was concerns about water provision that encouraged the Government to bring forward further amendments in this respect. I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in engagement both in the recess period, which I was very grateful for, and subsequent to that. I thank all those who met with me.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution. He set out his concerns very clearly and we appreciated that. That is why we are able to accept his amendments.
On the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I understand the great and ongoing concerns around the Capel Celyn issue. I am afraid that the powers in this Bill are for England, but I will come back to him in writing about what powers the Senedd has to act in a way that might help with his concerns. If that is acceptable to him, I will write to him on those specific issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, discussed the efficiency of reservoirs. There have been recent improvements in that, but there is room for further improvement, and I am sure that colleagues in Defra are as exercised as she is in making sure that that is the case. I am very glad that she mentioned Professor Bellamy; that brought back some very happy memories. I will not try an impression—I am not very good at them—but he was a real character. His contribution to the natural world in this country was enormous, and I am very grateful for that.
The noble Baroness asked about how the need for water is assessed; the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to that too. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide a secure supply of water for customers efficiently and economically and to set out how they plan to continue to supply water through statutory water resources management plans. They are assessing that constantly. These set out how each company will continue to meet this duty and manage the water supply and demand sustainably for at least the next 25 years. There is therefore a constant assessment of that.
On the noble Baroness’s points about smaller reservoirs, I hope that I set out clearly in my comments that these can be undertaken currently under permitted development. We recognise the need to look at those permitted development regulations, and we will return to them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I understand that I bounced this idea into the debate and that the Minister was not aware that I would do so, but can she write to me on the state of the proposals to dispense with the Reservoirs Act and bring forth recommendations from the Balmforth review from 2019? That is an incredibly long time. Can she set out what the timescale will be?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am happy to do that.
I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, out of order, because, as he said, some of the issues that he raised could not happen now; the Planning Act 2008 means that many of those issues would not be the case now. I am making my response to the noble Lord out of order because I want to come back to the points about heritage issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. As the noble Lord said, my colleague from DCMS and I have now set up a very useful round table with heritage organisations, or organisations representing heritage issues. I will raise some of those specific issues with the round table; it is important that we do so. The National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure has a dedicated section on the historic environment, which sets out what applicants should do in their development consent order application.
The Secretary of State will, when determining applications, specifically identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development. All applicants for development consent, including dam and reservoir schemes, are required to provide information about heritage impacts from their projects when they submit their application. Where development is subject to an environmental impact assessment, the application is also required to take that assessment, as I pointed out earlier.
With the examining authority considering that as part of the examination, and the Secretary of State identifying and assessing the particular significance of heritage assets, I hope that that gives some reassurance that proposed developments must comply with specific obligations related to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments. That obligation is placed on the Secretary of State and set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the noble Lord.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, discussed some of the other measures that can be taken to conserve water; I do not disagree with her on that. Colleagues in Defra are exercised in ensuring that we make efficient use of water and that we are not setting up reservoirs unnecessarily. Because I come from one of the areas of great water scarcity in the country, I know what a huge issue this can be. I point out to her that, in contrast to where reservoirs were built for the steel industries and then the water was not needed afterwards, we are now looking at data centres as a new generation of economic activity. They need water, so I know that there will be new needs for water going forward.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. I beg to move Amendment 5.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.
“(7) Part 4 of the Planning Act 2008 (Requirement for development consent) is amended as set out in subsection (8).(8) In section 33 (Effect of requirement for development consent on other consent regimes), after subsection (1), insert—“(1A) Paragraphs (f), (g), (i) and (j) of subsection (1) do not apply in relation to projects falling within section 14(1)(m) (dams and reservoirs).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that consent regimes for heritage sites apply in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which involve the construction of reservoirs.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the further information she set out, and to noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support for my amendment.
I am glad to hear that the Minister will discuss the issue further with heritage groups in the round tables that she and the Heritage Minister are jointly holding; that is a very helpful step. Of course, that comes rather too late in our deliberations on the Bill. If this were Committee, I would be able to withdraw my amendment and see what they made of it following those discussions—but of course I cannot do so. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said, we are very keen to work with the Government if this amendment is supported and put in the Bill; we are happy to work with them at later stages in a way that is workable. Given the support that it has received today and given its importance, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7A.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Projects relating to water which require the demolition of villagesAfter section 35(4) (directions in relation to projects of national significance) of the Planning Act 2008 insert—“(4A) Where a development falls within the definition in section 27 and requires the demolition of more than 20 residential properties the Secretary of State may not give a direction under subsection (1) unless the persons who live at, or otherwise occupy, premises in the vicinity of the land have been notified and given the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.””
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. However, for future communities who may be affected by the issues we have been debating, and in order to ensure not just proper consultation but proper engagement in those schemes, I wish to divide the House on my Amendment 7B.
Baroness Pinnock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the provisions in the bill which remove the requirements for pre-application requirements for development consent.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the importance of pre-application as a formal part of the process in determining NSIP applications. They are all much of a muchness. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to retain the current statutory pre-application consultation; Amendments 11 and 12 are similar. Amendment 12, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to put an emphasis on the importance of pre-application to the NSIP and setting out the purpose of it. The emphasis we have had from our Benches and the Conservative Benches today is on the importance of hearing the voices of communities and protecting heritage and the environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, in the last group of amendments, talked about the importance of engagement of communities in these very important national infrastructure projects. That is where pre-application is very important, because although we accept and support the Government’s aim to speed up decisions on national infrastructure projects, it is equally important that a consensus be built with the community from the outset, which you do not achieve if you eliminate upfront engagement. The key to building consensus is maintaining a statutory pre-application process. The cost of giving up short-term speedy decisions could be long-term stability and success. Amendment 12 seeks to have issues resolved early. Community influence is built into the process so that people have their say at the outset, before a planning application is submitted for examination, to ensure that the applications are technically sound and that mitigation is embedded at the beginning, rather than added in later.
All those issues are vital if communities are to feel that their voice has been heard, even if in the end a contrary decision is made through the NSIP process. Throughout my long experience as a councillor, it always struck me that if people have had their say, they are more likely to accept the consequences of a view to which they are opposed. In response to arguments in Committee on this issue, the Minister argued that it was a tick-box exercise and that others took a more constructive view in building consensus and did it well. The answer should be not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to ensure that all construction is done with a meaningful pre-app process.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether this is premature, but I wish to speak to Amendment 83.
The modern methodology of infrastructure planning is heavily dependent on the computer. Computer-aided design software has replaced the draughtsman’s drawing board. This has greatly expedited the design process. Moreover, CAD technology enables the design of houses and other structures to be made public at an early stage of development. The building information modelling standards are intended to facilitate the sharing of information, which can be consigned to the cloud to become accessible to all concerned, including the public at large. The transparent information is liable to be shared via a so-called digital twin model. Level 2 of the BIM standards was made mandatory for public projects in 2022. Level 3 was due to be made mandatory this year, but there has been a delay—indeed, more than a delay; there has been some backtracking.
The Minister’s response to the original version of the amendment was to declare that the requirement for a digital twin at an earlier stage of the development would impose extra costs and delays. This evinces a fundamental misunderstanding. It is precisely at the earliest stages of a project that modern technology is most efficacious. The question arises of what could have caused this misunderstanding. I am liable to attribute it to the civil servants as much as to the Minister. I imagine that one of the causes could be the experience of inappropriate applications of the BIM standards. There has been a minor change to the text of the original amendment. It now declares that the standards should not be imposed on projects concerned with limited extensions of existing buildings, or on those concerned with the restoration of existing buildings.
I have been told by an architect involved in the restoration of historic buildings of a demand to provide a fully dimensioned plan of a listed building, plus an inventory of all the materials involved in its original construction. The BIM standards were never intended to be imposed in this way. With this proviso, I propose the amendment as a serious attempt to promote a methodology of infrastructure planning, of which Britain is a leading exponent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, these amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, were first brought forward in Committee, and I made the point then, which I repeat now, that Clause 4 systematically removes several of the existing pre-application requirements.
This amendment seeks specifically to retain Section 47 of the Planning Act, the statutory duty to consult the local community. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, we have said throughout that it is only right and appropriate that local communities should be consulted and involved. Removing this requirement for pre-application consultation risks cutting communities out of the conversation altogether. It means local people may neither understand nor even be aware of the broad outlines or detailed implications of developments which, for better or worse, will have a direct impact on their lives and the local environment.
As I understood the Minister in Committee, the Government’s concern was not with the principle or value of consultation in itself, but rather with the potential delay cost that the current process might entail. However, delay and cost can be addressed through sensible reform of the system. That does not justify what feels like a nuclear option: the wholesale removal of the duty to consult. We remain unconvinced that the House has yet been given a satisfactory explanation as to why such sweeping change is necessary.
The Government have said:
“I am sure we all have experiences of the best in consultation—with a developer that not only consults but truly engages with communities over a period of time to get”
a better project
“and those at the opposite end that carry out a half-hearted tick-box exercise and then”
carry on regardless
“without changing anything, keeping a laser focus on”
minimising their costs, and that
“We want to encourage the former, not the latter”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; cols. 2073-74.]
That is an admirable sentiment, but how is that objective served by the removal of the very mechanism that requires such consultation in the first place? These questions matter not merely as points of process but because they go to the heart of public confidence in the planning system.
The Government should provide clear and succinct guidance on pre-application consultation: that there should be genuine engagement with communities; that the relevant information should be provided transparently and in easily digestible form; that the issues and ideas from the consultations are reflected in the final application or a rationale for not doing so.
However, these amendments propose a much more prescriptive and, I might say, confusing and even contradictory pre-application process. While we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment in full, we equally cannot support the Government’s decision to sweep away the entire framework. A more balanced approach could have addressed legitimate concerns about delay, while enhancing the opportunities for local people to have their say on developments that shape their communities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing back these amendments, which we debated extensively in Committee. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to reinstate the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the pre-application stage of a development consent order application. While we absolutely recognise the value of early and meaningful engagement, we have been clear that the existing statutory requirements have become overly rigid and are now contributing to delays and risk-averse behaviours.
Removing the statutory duty instead allows developers to tailor their engagement to the scale and nature of their projects, supported by guidance. I repeat: the Government still expect high-quality consultation to take place. We have listened carefully to the industry and the message has been consistent. The current statutory framework is slowing things down, encouraging excessive documentation and making developers reluctant to adapt proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of required statutory consultation. We are confident that developers will continue to consult meaningfully and that communities will still have further opportunities to engage through the examination process. We are so confident, in fact, that this will not undermine the quality of applications brought forward that we are amending the Bill to make reasons for rejection more transparent, a point which I will come to later.
Guidance will be published to ensure that applications remain robust and responsive to local issues. The Government are currently consulting on proposals associated with this guidance and will take into account responses when it is developed. If these amendments were accepted, we risk reverting to the status quo and failing to address the very issues we are trying to fix: delays, complexity and confusion. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.
Amendments 11 and 12 seek to impose statutory obligations around guidance for pre-application consultation, despite the statutory requirement to consult being removed from the Planning Act 2008 through this Bill. The decision to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation was not made lightly. It was introduced to tackle the growing delays and procedural burdens that have crept into the NSIP regime over time. We are trying to fix a system that has become too slow, too risk averse and too complex.
As we have discussed and recognised throughout the passage of the Bill, the current Planning Act requirements have led to rigid approaches, which are designed with the need to meet legislative prescription in mind, rather than the need to develop high-quality infrastructure schemes which are capable of improving the lives of local communities and delivering positive environmental impacts. I suppose my frustration here is that we all agree that we need to speed the system up but whatever we propose to do that, Members object to.
Over the last few months we have had the opportunity to meet a wide range of stakeholders and discuss the removal of pre-application requirements, including a number of bodies and individuals with valuable insight and experience of the NSIP regime since its inception back in 2008. We have seen a positive reaction to our proposals from those stakeholders. Speaking to local authorities and statutory consultees, it is clear that the existing requirements are not successfully driving constructive engagement and consultation.
Our discussions have reaffirmed our conviction that the existing approach is not working; changes are needed for the Government to meet the UK’s national infrastructure needs. These reforms will save time and money, benefiting everyone. This does not mean worse outcomes or poorer quality applications. Instead, it means resources can be focused on the main issues at the heart of the planning decision. It means there will be greater flexibility for applicants to innovate in how engagement is done when working through the iterative stages of an application during pre-application. It opens the door to more bespoke, targeted and effective engagement and consultation practices.
Requiring applicants to have regard to guidance about consultation and engagement, where the underlying legal duty to consult has been removed, would, we feel, be confusing. Moreover, the noble Baroness’s proposed amendment goes further by attempting to bind the content for future guidance to a fixed set of principles. While I understand these principles are well-intentioned, we do not believe it is right to legislate for them. The Government have already launched a public consultation on what the content of the guidance should be, and we want it to be shaped by the views of those who use guidance, not constrained by prescriptive legislative language developed before that process has even concluded.
All sides of the House agree on the importance of meaningful engagement and consultation; it is essential if we want to deliver infrastructure which is well designed and delivers positive outcomes for neighbouring communities and the environment. We expect developers to engage and consult proportionately and constructively, but we also believe that flexibility, not statutory rigidity, is the best way to achieve that. While I appreciate the spirit behind the amendments, they would undermine the very reforms we are trying to deliver, so I hope the noble Baroness will not press them.
Amendment 80 was a proposal previously raised in Committee. As the House will recall, the clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether a nationally significant infrastructure project application should be accepted for examination. It sets out a number of criteria, including whether the applicant has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant local information and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation with the affected communities. As we discussed at length in Committee, the Government recognise the value of community engagement. Since 2013, the pre-application stage has nearly doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects.
I say this to remind noble Lords of the reasoning behind these changes, including the “adequacy of consultation” test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. We had a system where applicants focus on defensibility rather than dialogue, and where consultation is treated as a hurdle to clear and not a tool to improve proposals. The reformed acceptance test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application, recognising that the NSIP process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. It incentivises applicants to engage with the objective of producing good-quality applications, as opposed to meeting prescriptive statutory requirements.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the careful consideration that she gave to my amendments during the Conference Recess. I have again listened carefully to what she had to say today and it appears that there is agreement across the House that pre-application engagement with affected communities is vital, but we disagree on how it should be achieved. The proposal in the Bill is to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application engagement. That leaves us with the good constructions engaging effectively and the poor constructions avoiding doing it well. The contention on our Benches is that all projects and constructions should engage well. The only way to achieve that is by making it a statutory requirement.
The other point about removing a statutory requirement and having a set of principles by which it should be undertaken is that, if the amendment is not accepted, we will be left with engagement that is designed by the developers and often for the developers—not for the community, as it should be. As these issues are important for those of us who care deeply about hearing the voice of people and being able to engage early in a big application, while I shall not press my Amendments 9 to 11, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 12.
Baroness Pinnock
“(7A) In issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure pre-application consultation is meaningful, including, but not limited to, adherence to the following principles—(a) pre-application consultation should be open and transparent with information and evidence provided in a timely and straightforward fashion to provide affected or interested parties with objective and relevant information to enable them to make an informed response;(b) applicants should demonstrate a responsive approach to queries and challenges raised;(c) applicants should ensure consultation and engagement activities are inclusive and enable affected or interested parties to have a reasonable opportunity to participate;(d) applicants’ interpretation and representation of results should be fair and objective;(e) all pre-application consultation should be undertaken through meaningful engagement with communities and stakeholders, offering genuine opportunities to influence proposals;(f) pre-application engagement should be proportionate, with applicants providing the right level of information to enable positive outcomes to be delivered.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides principles which the Secretary of State’s guidance required by new section 50(2) of the Planning Act 2008 must have regard to, to ensure that pre-application consultation is meaningful.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the amendment made by clause 6 to section 37(3) of the Planning Act 2008, with the result that the test for acceptance of an application for a development consent order would remain unchanged.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 13 to 16, 18 and 20, which revise Clause 6. They are essential to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its core objective: to speed up the delivery of infrastructure by removing unnecessary complexity and delay from the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.
As noble Lords will know, Clause 6 was originally introduced to provide flexibility at the acceptance stage by allowing the Planning Inspectorate—PINS—on behalf of the Secretary of State to request minor changes to applications. It also introduced a new form of words at the acceptance test, requiring PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to determine that an application was
“suitable to proceed to examination”
before it could be accepted. This would have replaced the existing test, which is for the application to be of a “satisfactory standard”.
Although a decision not to accept an application at the acceptance stage is rare, the uncertainty that this may occur has contributed towards the growing delays at the pre-application stage. Clause 6 intended to address this in two ways: first, by reducing the risk of a decision not to accept an application by PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, by inserting a discretionary power for PINS to delay a final decision while applicants remedied minor issues; and secondly, by making it clear that the acceptance test should focus on whether an application is suitable to be examined.
Since that time, the Government have proposed more radical steps to streamline the system. In future, guidance for applicants will support them in their approach to engagement and consultation on national infrastructure projects. The Government also published a consultation on changes to consultation guidance over the summer.
Although Clause 6 was intended to speed up the system and provide greater certainty, feedback from the sector throughout the Bill’s passage has made it clear that these changes risk doing the opposite. There are concerns that the change of language on the acceptance test is unclear and subjective. One concern is that it may require PINS to routinely interrogate whether there has been sufficient agreement on key issues. There are also concerns that the acceptance test will be too vague and open to interpretation. There are justified concerns that this could lead to inconsistent decisions or even higher barriers to entry of the system. Equally, there are concerns that the new process whereby PINS could request minor changes to applications before they were accepted may be routinely used by PINS to delay applications, rather than being used on rare occasions to assist applications that would otherwise fall.
That is why I am moving amendments that listen to and seek to address those concerns. They restore the original, clear test for acceptance, requiring applications to be of a “satisfactory standard”. They remove the power to delay acceptance decisions through requests for further information and they strip out the consequential provisions that would otherwise support or reference these now removed powers. These changes are simple, targeted and effective. They preserve clarity, reduce uncertainty and ensure that the acceptance stage remains focused on what it should be: assessing whether an application is complete, clear and ready to move forward in statutory timeframes, not interrogating whether every issue related to the project has been resolved.
Although we want applications to be well developed at the acceptance stage, it is not right or realistic to aim for consensus or agreement between all parties at this stage of the process. At the acceptance stage, we want application documents to meet the required standards and we want applicants to be well prepared for the upcoming examination. This means having an awareness of the issues likely to arise and using pre-application to develop a high-quality application, but it does not mean that PINS needs to see that all issues have been resolved.
I can be very clear and say that we remain absolutely committed to high-quality applications being accepted into the NSIP regime. However, in the light of feedback, we no longer think that these select provisions in Clause 6 support achieving that.
PINS will still have tools available to request that applicants address clear gaps, correct deficiencies or provide additional information early on in the process, through either Section 51 advice prior to submission or making procedural decisions during the pre-examination stage. These mechanisms allow for clarification and improvements to documentation, but without creating uncertainty or additional process for applications which meet the acceptance criteria.
These technical amendments are pro-growth, pro-delivery and pro-certainty. They reflect what we have heard from noble Lords and the sector, and they align with the broader reforms we have already made. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting them.
Government Amendments 17 and 19 introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish reasons for deciding not to accept a development consent order application at the acceptance stage and clarify the point in the process when a legal challenge against such a decision can be brought. These amendments respond directly to concerns raised in Committee by noble Lords from across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, who rightly highlighted the importance of and need for transparency and accountability in the early stages of the nationally significant project regime. A transparent process holds everyone to account, and applicants should be reassured that this amendment removes the risk of arbitrary or opaque decision-making.
While I disagree with the position that our pre-application consultation changes will create greater uncertainty in the system or allow poorer-quality applications to progress further, I am in favour of shining a light on the decision-making process and ensuring that the system is as transparent as possible. In other words, we are putting our money where our mouths are. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to notify the applicant of their reasons when they decide not to accept a DCO application. At present, and in line with its openness policy, PINS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, already publishes reasons for its decisions not to accept a DCO application. However, as noble Lords noted, there is no statutory obligation to do so. These amendments aim to improve the legislation to address this gap.
The amendments align the acceptance stage with the principles already embedded in Section 116 of the Planning Act 2008, which requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons when refusing development consent. The amendments ensure that applicants, stakeholders and the wider public can understand why and on what basis a decision has been made not to accept an application, supporting the integrity of the NSIP system. This is a principled response to concerns raised in Committee, and I hope it shows that we are listening carefully to noble Lords’ concerns about how our changes impact the system as a whole. I therefore commend this amendment to the House and urge noble Lords to support its inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened in Committee to the concerns that were raised about the acceptance process. I am pleased that there has been a rethink. The changes proposed in the amendments are not opposed by these Benches.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have before us the Government’s latest set of amendments to Clause 6—or should I say what used to be Clause 6 before the Government took a pair of legislative shears to it? This clause as originally drafted, as we have heard from the Minister, would have changed the test for when an application for a development consent order is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The Government now appear to have decided that their proposal was, in fact, unnecessary, perhaps even unworkable, so we are back to the status quo: the clear, objective test that ensures that applications are accepted only when they meet the proper standards of completeness and adequacy. Thank goodness for that. The test protects everyone: developers, communities and the integrity of the process. It ensures clarity at the gateway stage, not confusion. I thank the Minister for making these changes to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 11, line 14.
(a) prepare a statement of the Secretary of State’s reasons for that decision,(b) provide a copy of the statement to the applicant, and(c) publish the statement in such form and manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of reasons for any decision not to accept an application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove new section 55A of the Planning Act 2008 which would have permitted the Secretary of State to require an applicant for a development consent order to provide further information before accepting the application. It would also make provision consequential on this.
“(13A) In section 118 (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent), in subsection (3)(b), for “notifies the applicant as required by subsection (7)” substitute “provides the copy of the statement of reasons for the decision to the applicant as required by subsection (7)(b)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the substitution of section 55(6) of the Planning Act 2008 by clause 6(11) of the Bill.
“(14) In consequence of the amendment in subsection (10), omit section 137(4) of the Localism Act 2011.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 1.
Lord Ravensdale
“Applications for development consent: low carbon energy infrastructureAfter section 35D in the Planning Act 2008 (timetable for deciding request for direction under section 35B) (inserted by section 3 of this Act) insert—“35E Representations by relevant authorities, net zero and sustainable development(1) In relation to relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects, relevant authorities should have special regard to the matters in subsection (5) when carrying out the activities in subsection (6).(2) The relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects are—(a) the construction or extension of a generating station within the meaning of section 14(1)(a) for the purpose of low carbon electricity generation, or(b) the installation of an electric line above ground within the meaning of section 14(1)(b) for the conveyance of electricity generated by a station in subsection (a).(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) it does not matter whether the electric line is also used or intended for use in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated from other sources.(4) The relevant authorities are—(a) the conservation bodies in section 32 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (UK conservation bodies),(b) the Environment Agency, and(c) such other bodies as may be prescribed in regulation by the Secretary of State.(5) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are the need to contribute towards—(a) achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (Carbon target and budgeting),(b) the achievement of biodiversity targets under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,(c) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(d) achieving sustainable development.(6) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are any representations under Part 5 and Part 6.(7) In discharging their duty under subsection (1), the relevant authorities must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by Secretary of State.(8) In this section “low carbon electricity generation” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Energy Act 2013.””
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis.
I was reassured by what the Minister stated in response to this amendment in Committee, but I have a few additional points of clarification, hence bringing this back on Report. I am grateful to the Minister for her time last week in discussing the response to this amendment.
Moving in this direction is important for a number of reasons. The first is to help speed projects through the system by ensuring that regulators are aligned with the Government’s goals, in the case of this amendment relating to electricity generating projects and infrastructure. It is all about ensuring that regulators are concerned not just with the micro view, the local impacts of the project on the environment, but the macro view, the potential benefits that that project will bring for the country, whether that is net zero or environmental benefits—in effect, assessing the benefits as well as the costs. That will help some of the issues we have seen in the logjam of projects related to offshore wind and nuclear.
It will continue the work that Peers have undertaken to apply a consistent duty across regulators. We had the duty on Ofgem under the previous Government, on Ofwat under this Government, and on other organisations such as the Crown Estate. This takes inspiration from the Private Member’s Bill that is being taken through by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about a consistent duty across all regulators.
It is consistent with the output of the Corry review to help prevent, in the words of the review, the “regulatory overload” that has emerged over time. Simplifying duties on regulators is another key point in helping to speed projects through the system.
I shall not delay the House any further. I would be grateful if, in summing up, the Minister could provide answers to the following points. In Committee, the Minister stated that:
“As we review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider, alongside government policy in national policy statements, how we can support the intent of this amendment”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; col. 2094.]
Can the Minister please provide additional detail on how duties on regulators are being brought within that guidance and national policy statements now that consultations in that area are under way?
There is still the point on the statutory duty. So far, the Government are going down a guidance route; we have had numerous debates on guidance versus statute throughout the Bill. What plans do the Government have to bring forward statutory duties on regulators to align with the work already done on Ofgem and other regulators? I believe that long-term strategic certainty and drive can be done only via statute.
Finally, on timescales, I would be grateful if the Minister could give an update on the strategic policy statements for all regulators—the commitment that was made by the Government coming out of the Corry review—and what that programme looks like. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 20A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We welcome this amendment; it is a well-judged and timely proposal which will give practical effect to the commitments Parliament has already made in law to achieve net zero, protect biodiversity and promote sustainable development within the planning system and nationally significant infrastructure projects.
In essence, this amendment is about coherence—ensuring that the way we plan consents and deliver low-carbon infrastructure genuinely aligns with the environmental and climate obligations this country has already bound itself by. At present, there remains a troubling gap between our statutory climate targets and the machinery through which we approve major energy projects. The Planning Act 2008, however good it is, pre-dates our key climate primary legislation. This amendment would help bring the planning regime for major projects into line with a more modern legislative landscape. It would create a new Section 35E, placing a duty on the relevant authorities—conservation bodies, the Environment Agency and others—to have specific regard to four key objectives when they make representations on nationally significant projects.
I will not detain the House any longer, but we support this sensible amendment.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. It seems that all the experience we have is that there is not coherence where there ought to be. I thank the Minister for her earlier willingness to react to the House and show that she was able to make the changes the House asked for. I hope she will say to her colleagues how much it helps the Government if we feel that they listen on things which are not party political but about how best to organise ourselves.
With the range of regulators we have, it is crucial to get coherence. I believe that we all know we have not got it at the moment. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, may not be ideal—I do not think he sees it in those terms—but it seeks to get from the Government a coherent programme for coherence. We all know that every day the urgency that climate change forces upon us gets more and more obvious. I have just come back from Northern Ireland, where businesses right across the board were saying how important that was and—I have to say to my noble friend—pointing out how unacceptable it is to try to change the architecture we have to try to deal with this. That architecture will work much better if we get a greater coherence across the board.
Therefore, I hope the Minister will be kind enough at least to give us some understanding of the way in which the Government hope to bring about that coherence and, in that, give us something about dates and times. I was a Minister for rather a long time and I know perfectly well that it is very easy to promise in general about the future almost any nice thing but what really matters is when and how it is going to be done.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 20A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, was considered in Committee. A number of questions were asked, and I think a number of questions remain unanswered. While we fully recognise the importance of sustainable development, we are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. It appears to us that the Government already have—or should have—the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process, and I think we are satisfied that these powers are sufficient.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for meeting me during recess to discuss this. His Amendment 20A seeks to ensure that, in relation to NSIP for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities should have special regard to the achievement of Government’s environmental targets and sustainable development.
The amendment is similar to one debated in Committee. It refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008, the achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021, and achieving sustainable development.
As the Government made clear in Committee, we recognise the importance of this issue, but we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. The Bill will deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery. The Government also appreciate the important role that these bodies play in the planning system. That is why we have taken action in response to the Corry review to ensure that these bodies are joined up and aligned with the Government’s broader priorities. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.
As I did in Committee, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are already utilising the tools they have to guide the considerations given by public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process. The first of these relates to national policy. The energy national policy statements already take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. We are also strengthening national policy statements through this Bill by requiring that they are updated at least every five years, and by making it easier to undertake interim updates for certain types of material amendments. The Government have recently concluded consultation on drafts of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5, which will be updated to reflect the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.
The second relates to guidance. It is critical that public bodies engage fully in examinations so that the examining authority has access to their expertise and can properly scrutinise the application before reporting to the Secretary of State. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a new duty on public bodies to have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State in making representations as part of examinations. This guidance will support government objectives by ensuring that these bodies engage effectively in the process and can provide the right information in a timely way.
We are currently consulting on reforms across the NSIP system to streamline the process. As well as consulting on what pre-application guidance to applicants should contain, we are seeking views on whether to strengthen expectations that statutory bodies attend hearings in person where relevant. As we then review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider how this, alongside government policy in national policy statements, can support the intent of the amendment.
As I have made clear today, the guidance the Government will issue to statutory bodies about their role in the NSIP process will play a vital role, I hope, in addressing noble Lords’ concerns. The Government are clearly in the process of developing policies to update, streamline and rationalise the operation of these bodies and that of regulators and their role in the operation of the planning system, in response to both the Corry and the Cunliffe reviews. My colleagues would welcome further engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others in the House who have a particular interest in this area, as we undertake the important work.
Complex projects engage multiple regimes, and I understand that they find themselves batted backwards and forwards between Defra regulators. So we are piloting a lead environmental regulator model to provide a single point of contact for developers on the most complex schemes. We have already made a start, working with the Lower Thames Crossing on this.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked about the timescale for releasing strategic policy statements for Defra regulators in response to the Corry review. This is one of nine fast-tracked recommendations—and I mean fast-tracked. We will communicate on this very soon—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I am sorry to use that term—and, when I say “very soon”, I am talking about days, not weeks or months; I hope that gives him some guidance. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters that are relevant and important to decisions. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those remarks. I am reassured by what she said on timescales and the work that is being undertaken on the NSIP process and the guidance that will come out of that. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with her and her team on that guidance. There is more work to do here. The key is ensuring coherence, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. But I am encouraged by the progress and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“(4A) After paragraph 104(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) insert—“(ba) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when determining whether planning consent should be granted for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, the Secretary of State must take into account any EDP applying to the land which will be developed.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has just said potentially her favourite words. She spent a lot of Committee on this Bill saying that “in due course” was her least favourite phrase, so it was delightful for her to be able at least to say “very soon”. I wonder whether the same might apply to my amendment; sadly, I expect not. In Committee, I mentioned that I was not satisfied with the response of the Minister and that I would be minded to bring the amendment back on Report. It is somewhat clunky, but it is just the nature of the Bill that we are discussing NSIPs and, as a consequence, I have to speak to my amendment at this stage of the Bill.
So what does my amendment basically say? In essence, we will have environmental delivery plans; what I am asking is that, alongside other matters that the Secretary of State has to consider, they should consider the environmental delivery plan when it comes to an NSIP. For me, this seems logical. I am conscious that other provisions in Section 104 of the Planning Act refer to the need to consider
“any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates”.
It requires
“the appropriate marine policy documents … determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009”
and consideration of “any local impact report” as well as—I am conscious the Minister may say this—
“any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to the … decision”.
The reason why I believe the proposed wording merits being included in the Bill and put into legislation is that, in other parts of legislation, the primary duty of the Secretary of State for Defra is to achieve a variety of targets for nature recovery. But, as we debated in Committee, in reality what we are considering now is what the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will consider. Let us be candid: there has not always been a happy exchange between the two departments in previous history, especially with the new Secretary of State, having just been the Secretary of State at Defra, now talking about “Build, baby, build” and rolling out a whole series of reasons for why infrastructure is being held up—which could not necessarily be stood up properly.
Coming back to my amendment—by the way, I tabled a similar amendment on councillors’ consideration of matters that are not NSIPs—we are trying to get to the bottom of what the EDP will really do, which is still unclear to me. On the whole purpose of this, it is quite possible that an environmental delivery plan may cover land being used by an NSIP. But, according to the answer from the Minister in Committee—I appreciate that she did not use this phrase—it is the quintessence of cash for trash: “That will have already been considered and we don’t need to think about it ever again. There should be no reason for it to be even considered by the Secretary of State when they’re making their determination”. However, I believe it matters so much that it should be.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to raise this as an issue of importance. Equally, she pointed to the fact that the impact and effect of EDPs will be discussed at more length when we discuss Part 3. Although EDPs do have a significant part to play in any NSIP consenting regime, the essence of this is about EDPs. Therefore, I hope we can look to a further debate on the whole issue of EDPs when we come to Part 3 later on Report.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan, or EDP, is taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally significant infrastructure project.
I can assure noble Lords that the way in which EDPs will work in practice means that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with an EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system, is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission. When a promoter commits to pay the levy in relation to an EDP, the making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.
I emphasise again that it will, aside from in exceptional circumstances, be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they pay the levy to rely on the EDP. This means that while the Secretary of State will need to consider a wide variety of matters, for the purposes of these decisions, the EDP will not be a consideration other than as a way of reflecting that the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature will have been addressed. It does not need to be considered beyond that in the decision to grant permission. This notwithstanding, the Secretary of State may already have regard to any matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision.
I therefore hope, with this explanation, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I was clearly hoping for a little bit more than that from the Government—but I am also conscious that we need to get into the real nuts and bolts of the EDP in practice, which we will consider later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 20th October 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-I(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Oct 2025)
22:53 - Division on Amendment 43 - Ayes: 32 / Noes: 57 - Amendment 43 disagreed.
Baroness Kramer
“Whistleblowing and oversight for nationally significant infrastructure projects(1) For the purposes of this Act, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) is responsible for receiving and investigating protected disclosures in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects.(2) In particular, NISTA is responsible for—(a) receiving disclosures of information from individuals or organisations relating to suspected misconduct, mismanagement, breach of environmental regulations, or any other matter of public interest connected to nationally significant infrastructure projects;(b) assessing whether such disclosures fall within its remit and merit investigation;(c) undertaking investigations where appropriate and referring matters to relevant regulatory, law enforcement, or oversight bodies;(d) providing advice and guidance to individuals considering making protected disclosures in relation to such projects;(e) reporting on the nature, volume, and outcome of disclosures received, with appropriate protections for confidentiality and whistleblower anonymity;(f) establishing and maintaining a framework setting out the protections afforded to whistleblowers, including remedies for individuals who suffer detriment as a result of making a disclosure, and procedures for seeking redress.(3) For the purposes of this section, “protected disclosures” are those that meet the conditions set out in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (disclosures qualifying for protection), as they relate to the planning, development, or operation of nationally significant infrastructure projects.(4) NISTA is responsible for ensuring it has—(a) an appropriate governance structure;(b) clear processes and criteria for assessing disclosures;(c) mechanisms for collaboration with other statutory regulators or planning authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment places responsibility on the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) to receive, investigate, and oversee whistleblowing disclosures relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects, ensuring protections for whistleblowers and coordination with relevant regulators.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I recognise there is a lot of business to get through tonight, so I will be brief.
When whistleblowing was discussed in Committee, speakers from around the Chamber—except, sadly, the Government—seemed to recognise that the current whistleblowing framework is unfit for purpose. It is the framework that left whistleblowers on HS2 and Crossrail at best sidelined and at worst silenced and persecuted. The cost to the taxpayer because trouble was covered up and not nipped in the bud and managed has run into billions. This has happened on many other transport and power projects where problems are covered up and exposed too late.
In Committee, as I have done before, I proposed a new whistleblowing framework, including an office of the whistleblower. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, constructively suggested that, instead of a separate office, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, NISTA, could be an effective body in which to place whistleblowing powers and a whistleblowing channel related to infrastructure. A redrafted amendment, Amendment 22, now reflects that proposal.
I still have a preference for a single office of the whistleblower under the Cabinet Office, but I am also a realist. Change on that scale will not be achieved anytime soon. However, if we launch a new drive for infrastructure—which we all recognise is essential for growth—without fixing the whistleblowing framework, we would be fooling ourselves if we expect not to repeat the scandals we have seen historically. Cover-ups will continue and will seriously damage the growth agenda. I hope that the Government, with this revision, will respond more constructively to the issue of whistleblowing and to the approach that places the framework inside NISTA.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as I did recently in the Moses Room on the same issue of whistleblowing. The noble Baroness is our pioneer, expert and leader on whistleblowing. I signed this amendment because it is important to demonstrate that this is an issue of broad concern.
The noble Baroness made clearly the case that we have huge problems with effectively and cost-effectively delivering major projects so that they do what they say they will do on the tin. The people who are most likely to know that something is going wrong are people within the organisation. It is terribly important to ensure that whistleblowers feel safe and will not tear their life apart if they come forward to report the issue.
The noble Baroness, helped by other Peers, has come up with a creative solution for NISTA to pick up this role in this context. I therefore hope that we will hear some movement from the Government on the issue.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as we said in Committee, Amendment 22, from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is a clear and well-intentioned proposal that raises important questions about how individuals can share their concerns relating to NSIPs. However, as we noted previously, establishing independent bodies through amendments is not straightforward. The former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, addressed that point, and the Government have set out their enthusiasm to work with organisations that support whistleblowers. We will hold the Government to account on that assurance and continue to work with your Lordships’ House to ensure that whistleblowers are protected.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposes that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—be given a new responsibility to receive, assess, investigate where appropriate and oversee whistleblowing disclosures related to nationally significant infrastructure projects. The amendment seeks to ensure appropriate protection for whistleblowers and co-ordination with relevant regulators and planning authorities.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue and have listened carefully to her remarks. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, I must say again that I do not share the view that there is evidence of whistleblowing being a current, widespread concern within the NSIP regime. As she will know, there is already a well-established framework of prescribed persons and bodies to whom whistleblowers may turn, independent of their employer, as provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996. They include organisations covering areas such as environmental protection, health and safety, transport, utilities and local government, which are of direct relevance to NSIPs.
Adding NISTA to this list would duplicate existing functions already carried out by regulators, such as the Environment Agency, which have the appropriate expertise and statutory powers. Given this existing framework, we believe that adding another body to the list would create a duplication of roles and, in any event, would not require primary legislation to achieve, as new persons or bodies can already be prescribed through Section 43F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the light of this, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am saddened by the Government’s response. The next time we have a major project and there is a major scandal, they will have to take ownership of it. They looked at the framework that delivered us the problems on HS2. The names of the whistleblowers are now public: Doug Thornton and others reported that financials had been distorted, misrepresented and covered up, which delayed the making of a series of appropriate decisions on HS2. In the end, they were fundamental in requiring the truncation of what had been a much larger scheme. Crossrail is a similar example. Until about eight weeks before it was due to open, nobody in political decision-making knew that the project had fallen into deep trouble. It ended up being delayed by four years and was £4 billion over budget. This is repeated again and again. We have had similar problems with Hinkley Point and many other projects. That is what the current framework, which the Minister defends, actually delivers.
If the nettle is not grasped, we will see the same experiences again. Even if it is in only 10% of the projects that are anticipated for the future and that will be relevant to the growth agenda, the consequences will be significant. The existing framework, no matter what it says on paper, has demonstrated that it is unfit. Look at the Post Office scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, the issues in the NHS, the PPI scandal and the series of financial scandals—the framework does not work.
I ask the Minister to take the issue away, speak with some of his colleagues and see what can be done to make sure that, at least within the context of infrastructure, there is an effective channel that works. It must provide protection for whistleblowers in a real way, not just on paper, and lead to the necessary investigations. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Hanworth
“Decisions in cases of development consent orders for critical national priority projects(1) In the Planning Act 2008, after section 117 insert—“117A Orders granting development consent: critical national priority projects(1) Schedule 3A applies to an order granting development consent for a project that is a critical national priority if, at any time before the order was made, the applicant for the order had made a request in writing to the Secretary of State that Schedule 3A should apply to the order.(2) A project is a critical national priority if a national policy statement that has effect in relation to the application for development consent for the project specifically identifies the project as a critical national priority.”.(2) After Schedule 3 to the Planning Act 2008, insert—“Schedule 3AParliamentary confirmation of orders granting development consent for critical national priority projectsOrders granting development consent subject to this Schedule
1 (1) An order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies may only come into force if approved by an Act of Parliament passed in accordance with this Schedule.(2) Sections 130 to 132 (special parliamentary procedure in relation to National Trust land, commons, open spaces, etc) do not apply to an order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies.Introduction of order confirmation Bill
2 (1) As soon as practicable after making an order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies, the Secretary of State must introduce into Parliament a Bill for confirmation of the order, which is to be treated as a public Bill.(2) The Bill must include the order as a Schedule to the Bill and must be accompanied by an Environmental Report prepared by the Secretary of State.(3) The Environmental Report mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) must set out a summary of the likely significant effects on the environment of the project granted development consent by the order and the main measures proposed to be taken to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the project.Petitions against order confirmation Bill
3 (1) If, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which a Bill to which this Schedule applies is introduced into either House of Parliament, a petition is deposited against the Bill in that House, the petition stands referred to the Chairmen for examination in accordance with this paragraph and Standing Orders.(2) Within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which any such petition is deposited, the Secretary of State responsible for the Bill or the applicant for the order may deposit a memorial objecting to the petition, or any part of the petition, being certified as proper to be received, stating specifically the grounds of their objection.(3) As soon as practicable after the expiration of the period of seven days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the Chairmen must take into consideration all petitions referred to them under sub-paragraph (1) and any memorial deposited under sub-paragraph (2), and if the Chairmen are satisfied with respect to any such petition that the provisions of this paragraph and of Standing Orders have been complied with in respect of the petition, or part of the petition, they must certify that the petition or the specified part of it, is proper to be received.(4) The Chairmen must not certify that a petition, or any part of a petition, is proper to be received if the petition, or that part of the petition, relates to matters considered during the examination of the application for the order conducted under Chapter 4 of Part 6 of this Act and subsequently by the Secretary of State under Chapter 5 of that Part, other than—(a) matters relating to sections 130 to 132 (special parliamentary procedure in relation to National Trust land, commons, open spaces, etc), or(b) matters relating to the compulsory acquisition of any interest in or right over land provided for by the order.(5) In respect of every Bill to which this Schedule applies, the Chairmen must report whether any petitions have been presented against it and, if so, what petitions or parts of them, have been certified as proper to be received and whether any amendment to the Bill proposed by the petitions would, if made, alter the scope of the Bill or affect the interests of persons other than the petitioners; and subject to Standing Orders, every such report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.Proceedings following petitioning period
4 (1) Where a petition or part of a petition has been certified by the Chairmen under paragraph 3 as proper to be received, the Bill—(a) after being read a second time in the House in which it is presented, is to be referred to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament for the purposes of the consideration of that petition or part of it, except where either House has resolved within the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the report of the Chairmen referred to in paragraph 3 is laid before it, that the petition or part of the petition should not be so referred,(b) after it has been reported by the joint committee, is to be ordered to be considered in the House in which it was presented as if it had been reported by a committee of that House, and (c) when it has been read a third time and passed by that House, is to be treated as having passed through all its stages up to and including committee stage in the second House.(2) A joint committee shall consist of three members of the House of Commons and three members of the House of Lords, in each case to be nominated by the House’s Committee of Selection within 10 sitting days of the Chairmen’s report having been laid before both Houses of Parliament under paragraph 3.(3) Where no such petition or part of any petition has been so certified by the Chairmen under paragraph 3 as proper to be received—(a) the Bill is, after its presentation, to be treated as having passed all its stages up to and including committee in the House in which it is presented,(b) the Bill is to be ordered to be considered in that House as if it had been reported from a committee of that House, and(c) when the Bill has been read a third time and passed in that House, the like proceedings on the Bill are to be deemed to have been taken, and to be taken, in the second House.Powers and proceedings of joint committee
5 (1) Where any petition or part of a petition against a Bill to which this Schedule applies is referred to a joint committee under paragraph 4, the Bill is to stand referred to that committee for the purpose of the consideration of the petition or part of the petition, and the committee must report the Bill either without amendment or with such amendments as they think expedient to give effect, either in whole or in part, to the petition or to the part of the petition, and with such consequential amendments, if any, as they think appropriate.(2) The joint committee must conduct its consideration of the Bill and of all petitions and counter-petitions in accordance with any instruction given by the House concerned after second reading of the Bill, and must report the Bill in accordance with any programme set out in the instruction.(3) Subject to Standing Orders, the report of the joint committee is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.Costs
6 (1) A joint committee considering a Bill to which this Schedule applies has the same power to award costs as a select committee of either House in relation to a Provisional Order Bill under sections 9 to 12 of the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 (as a result of section 15(4) and (5) of that Act); and sections 9 to 12 of that Act apply accordingly subject to any necessary modifications.(2) Sections 2 to 8, 13 and 14 of that Act apply with any necessary modifications to costs incurred in respect of a Bill to which this Schedule applies, as they apply to costs incurred in respect of a private Bill.Standing Orders
7 (1) Except as may be provided by Standing Orders made under sub-paragraph (2), the Private Business Standing Orders, and the custom and practice of Parliament relating to private business, do not apply to a Bill to which this Schedule applies.(2) Standing Orders may be made by the House of Commons and the House of Lords for any purpose relating to the provisions of this Schedule, to the extent they are compatible with this Schedule, and in particular— (a) for regulating the manner in which petitions against a Bill to which this Schedule applies must be framed and deposited,(b) for regulating the manner in which memorials relating to petitions against a Bill to which this Schedule applies must be framed and deposited,(c) for extending the periods prescribed by this Schedule in relation to the deposit of petitions and memorials in any case where either period expires on a day on which the House concerned is adjourned for more than four days,(d) for providing, in the case of any amendment to a Bill proposed by a petition, for a counter-petition to be deposited by any person or body whose interests would be adversely affected by the amendment; and for prescribing the cases in which a counter-petitioner has the right to be heard before the joint committee, and the cases in which the counter-petitioner may be allowed to be heard by the joint committee if the committee thinks fit,(e) for the withdrawal of petitions, memorials and counter-petitions,(f) for enabling the functions of the Chairmen under this Schedule to be performed by any deputy appointed in accordance with Standing Orders,(g) for regulating the proceedings of the Chairmen in connection with the examination of petitions and memorials under this Schedule,(h) for prescribing the cases in which a petitioner whose petition, or any part of the petition, has been certified as proper to be received, has the right to be heard before the joint committee, and the cases in which the petitioner may be allowed to be heard before the joint committee, and for enabling the Chairmen to determine in the case of any particular petition whether the petitioner has such a right to be heard or may be allowed to be heard by the Chairmen,(i) for prescribing the quorum of any joint committee, and(j) for regulating the proceedings of any joint committee.Effect of order confirmation Act
8 (1) Any Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule is a public Act of Parliament that may not to be questioned in any court or tribunal.(2) In the case of any order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule, any reference in this Act to the date when an order granting development consent has been made, published or comes into force, and any reference in the order to when it was made, published or came into force, is instead to be taken as being the date on which the Bill for the Act receives Royal Assent.(3) Section 134 of this Act applies to any order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule with the following further modifications—(a) in section 134(7) after “A compulsory acquisition notice is a notice” omit “in the prescribed form”, and(b) omit section 134(7)(d).(4) In all other respects any order granting development consent that is confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule is to be treated as an order granting development consent.(5) In particular, an order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule may be— (a) corrected through the exercise of the power contained in section 119, and(b) changed or revoked in accordance with section 153 and Schedule 6.Non-justiciability of proceedings in Parliament
9 A court or tribunal may not question any Bill or proceedings in Parliament that purport to be conducted in accordance with this Schedule.Interpretation
10 In this Schedule—“the Chairmen” means the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees,“the Chairman of Committees” means the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and includes any deputy acting on their behalf in accordance with Standing Orders,“the Chairman of Ways and Means” means the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and includes any deputy acting on their behalf in accordance with Standing Orders,“joint committee” means the joint committee to whom a Bill is referred under paragraph 4,“the order” means the order granting development consent proposed to be confirmed by the Bill mentioned in paragraph 2,“the Private Business Standing Orders” means the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to Private Business 2019 ordered to be printed on 19 December 2019, and the Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Private Business 2018 ordered to be printed on 18 December 2017, and“Standing Orders” means standing orders of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons made under paragraph 7(2).”.(3) After section 118(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent), insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an order granting development consent for a project that is a critical national priority for the purposes of section 117A and to which the provisions of Schedule 3A apply, and accordingly such an order is not to be questioned in any court.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause would provide for a development consent order relating to a critical national priority project to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament after the order had been made by the Secretary of State, if the applicant for the development consent order had requested that before the order was made. In the normal way the resulting Act of Parliament would not be subject to legal challenge in the courts. Once confirmed by such an Act, subject to some necessary modifications, the development consent order concerned would be treated like any other development consent order and could be changed or revoked through the existing procedures contained in the Planning Act 2008.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to move Amendment 23 in my name; I believe it to be of fundamental importance. A similar amendment, Amendment 52, was moved on day one in Committee on 17 July by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I spoke in support of it. The amendment was not supported universally in the House, and it has since been modified to take account of the advice of officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was concerned that it should be made clear that the provisions of the amendment should apply only to infrastructure projects of significant national importance.
In July, I observed that our planning system has become sclerotic. The time that it takes, on average, to secure planning permission, known as development consent, for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. The development consent system is nowadays beset by objections and judicial reviews, with several judicial reviews sometimes affecting the same project. The effect of the delay may be to cause an otherwise viable project to become uneconomic and unaffordable.
I gave the example of the Stonehenge tunnel, which was delayed by over four years by two sets of judicial reviews relating to two separate development consent orders—DCOs. A similar delay was caused to Manston Airport, which has reopened recently. There were two sets of judicial reviews necessitating two development consent orders, and there was a delay of almost four years.
In 2020, a judicial review affecting the airports national policy statement took over two and a half years before the principle of a third runway at Heathrow was endorsed. The Government’s current judicial review reforms contained in the Bill are very modest. They will make little difference, because they relate only to the prior permission stage for judicial reviews. Approximately 75% of judicial reviews are given permission by the court to be brought forth when they proceed to a substantive hearing, which, in turn, can take a considerable length of time.
The Bill does not address this problem of judicial reviews and the consequent costs and delays. There is little indication that the necessary reforms to address the problem are under consideration. Meanwhile, judicial reviews continue to arrive. Last week, 10 grants for an intended judicial review of a recent decision to give development consent for Gatwick Airport’s second runway were announced, and one expects that the judicial review will be initiated soon. The present amendment provides an acceptable alternative to judicial reviews of nationally important infrastructure projects, and it has constitutional precedents.
The amendment would allow for approved development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects to be confirmed by a one-clause Act of Parliament. It would reactivate the system which prevailed when provisional order confirmation Bills were commonplace. After due consideration by Parliament, including a Joint Committee, the resulting Act incorporating the approved development consent order would essentially be incontestable after it had been ratified.
The amendment is accompanied by an extensive schedule, Schedule 3A, which declares how this system of parliamentary confirmation of these nationally important DCOs would operate in practice. The schedule provides for a process of petitioning against the Bill, largely in relation to matters not already considered by the examination process for the DCO and subsequently by the Secretary of State. This would preserve the rights of the affected parties.
However, once this process has been undergone and the DCO has been confirmed by an Act of Parliament, the possibility of wilful obstruction to the delivery of the project concerned would be minimised. Neither the Act nor the DCO could be questioned in any court or tribunal.
However, if circumstances do change, such as to require a later modification of the DCO—for example, because of project design changes—the amendment allows for the DCO to be changed in accordance with the procedures set out in Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008, as proposed to be amended by Clause 11 of the Bill.
The revised amendment carefully reflects the points that were made in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was concerned that this procedure should not be applied to the commonality of development consent orders, but only to those relating to projects of critical national importance. At the start of the amendment, there is now an explicit link to the relevant national policy statement. The parliamentary procedure would be open only to those projects set out in the national policy statement as being of critical national priority. The revised amendment accepts that the parliamentary procedure should be resorted to only if the applicant for the DCO had asked for it to apply. There is no need for a separate Secretary of State determination of critical national priority status.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was also concerned that the objections of those facing compulsory acquisition through the development consent order should have an explicit right to be heard by the parliamentary Joint Committee, and such a right is now accorded in the revised wording of Schedule 3A.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this is a significant proposed new clause, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke to in Committee, where he made broader remarks on the functionality of our planning system, which he has repeated today. I recall the comments about the length of time it was taking to get a bypass round Stonehenge, and my comment that it will take longer to build that bypass than Stone Age man took to build Stonehenge.
We agree with the issue that the noble Viscount is seeking to address: that the planning system does not work all the time for these large national infrastructure projects. They take too long, the costs go up and deliverability goes down. So I have immense respect for those who have taken the time to draft this new clause reflecting some of the comments made in Committee—I really appreciate the time that that has taken. The noble Viscount proposes that each order determining an application to be a critical national priority must be presented to Parliament as a full public Bill. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule then sets out a petitioning process, a counter-petitioning process and a reporting process. The remaining parts of this lengthy amendment provide a highly detailed description of how such a Bill would progress through a Joint Committee and then complete its passage.
However, we do not consider that presenting a Bill to Parliament with all the associated procedures would be a proportionate proposal. We are somewhat sympathetic to confirmatory Acts in areas such as nuclear, but this is a prescriptive amendment and therefore one that we cannot support, even if we understand the issue.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for Amendment 23, which builds on a previous amendment tabled in Committee. It proposes a process for projects designated by the Secretary of State as “critical national priority”, where development consent orders would come into force only once approved through an Act of Parliament. This amendment seeks to bypass judicial review and insulate these projects from challenge and thereby speed up the building of infrastructure.
Although the provision does not directly alter the judicial review process itself, it uses parliamentary process to significantly reduce the public’s ability to challenge government decisions on these types of critical projects. This amendment proposes a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as “critical national priority”, based on identification in a relevant national policy statement.
It is important to remind the House that this status already exists and is actively applied—for example, to renewable and low-carbon energy projects through the energy NPS, to strengthen the need case for such infrastructure. However, this amendment seeks to go much further. I cannot support it for a number of key reasons. First, the proposed ouster in new Section 118(1A) would shield decisions from judicial review even where they were unlawful. For this reason, it is an approach which the courts have historically resisted. Given that this would be applied to some of the biggest and most controversial schemes, it is likely that challenges would be lodged in respect of the confirmed DCO, thereby undermining the time savings sought in the first place.
Secondly, the amendment would result in a constitutional confrontation between Parliament and the courts. This may result in questioning of well understood constitutional conventions, inviting further legal uncertainty.
Finally, there are serious practical impediments to the amendment. It would introduce a new, truncated parliamentary procedure for applicants to undertake after having completed the DCO process. It risks creating confusion and slowing the delivery of our most important projects by layering parliamentary procedures on top of an already rigorous regime. That adds more work and uncertainty for applicants—particularly detrimental for our largest projects—at a time when clarity and efficiency are essential. We recognise that the amendment is driven by valid concerns that lengthy legal challenges delay projects and add costs. However, the right approach to tackling this problem is by still enabling legal challenges but supporting the courts to handle them efficiently.
Further to our commitment to implement the Banner review and limit the ability for meritless cases to return to the courts, the Government recently decided to go further. On 15 October, they announced their intention to work with the judiciary to implement further procedural changes to ensure that NSIP cases are dealt with more quickly and consistently. The changes include introducing clear target timescales for NSIP cases in the High Court, aiming for a substantive hearing within four months of the application. We are also making it clear that NSIP cases in the Court of Appeal should be handled by judges with appropriate planning experience.
Together with the recent reforms, these further procedural changes will help make the judicial review process for major projects quicker, clearer and more predictable. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and for the thoughtful debate that it has prompted.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I am somewhat disappointed by that response, because we face a crisis. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming that will address the crisis adequately. However, I must defer to the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2B) In deciding how to comply with the duties under this section, the Independent System Operator and Planner shall have regard to the need to assist the owners of renewable energy projects below 10 MW in dealing with the requirements of the application processes for establishing a connection to the grid.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to ensure prioritisation of support for small scale renewable energy projects.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 24 and briefly speak to Amendment 46 in this group. I will start with Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, because this is a very important amendment talking about the idea of local area energy plans. I signed the amendment, or a related one, in Committee but had not quite caught up with this one.
Both amendments deal with how the Government throughout this Bill and overall are talking about giant-scale projects. However, very often, we are going to find local solutions to local problems using local resources. That is something on which you can be sure to have local consent after local democratic engagement. A local area energy plan is a way of ensuring that we do not chase after these large-scale projects that so often go wrong, at least solely, and that we have local alternatives working at small scale that can be quite nimble and quite fast. That is what Amendment 46 does.
My Amendment 24 is rather more limited because it is a very specific, technical amendment talking about how the independent system operator and the planner should have regard to renewable energy projects below 10 megawatts to help them in dealing with the requirements for the application process of establishing a connection to the grid.
I think back over the years to small-scale hydro projects in Wales, projects I visited, and to solar farms in the south-east of England; connections to the grid were what people kept tearing their hair out about all the time. That is a huge barrier that the amendment aims to provide a modest solution towards to ensure that we prioritise small-scale projects that have local consent—very often a community energy project—so they can go ahead.
I note that your Lordships’ House has collectively been a long-term champion of community energy projects, wrestling with the former Government and this one, eventually successfully, to get acknowledgement of their importance. It is something that we really have to make sure is in the Bill, so I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 46 in this group on local area energy plans, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his support.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, moved an amendment calling for government guidance, and I moved an amendment which was pretty mandatory on local area energy plans. At the time, we both talked about the need to go away and maybe come back together with a joint amendment, and that is what we have done today. However, we have done more than that; we have taken the time to reflect on the debate that happened in Committee. I realise that the amendment that I moved then was too prescriptive, so I want your Lordships’ House to be clear that this is an entirely different beast of an amendment, and it is far less prescriptive on the Government. It aims to make some progress on this really important issue, which is an important part of our energy transition.
I want to also acknowledge all the things that the Government are doing in this space, and I recognise that it is quite a crowded environment. We have local plans; we have the regional energy strategic plans; we have the warm home plans; we have the heat network zone; and we have local work being undertaken by the newly established Great British Energy. We recognise that this is a complex landscape, and we recognise the argument from the Government that so much is going on at the minute that this would only further complicate this landscape and not necessarily help.
I want to push back against that just a little bit. This is a vital bottom line and the missing piece in the jigsaw. To have a full systems view for our energy and the energy transition, it is important that we do not ignore or do not look specifically at this bottom tier. I look at it a bit like the parcel delivery problem. It is really important that we get energy to every door and that we get the energy transition delivered to every single property.
Our local authorities know better. They best understand their areas. They best know how to join things up locally. It is really important that they are involved and we develop these local area energy plans.
The Government were also concerned about burdens on local authorities and about the prescriptive nature of the previous amendment. So to be clear, I have gone away, and this amendment is very different. It calls on the Government to conduct research. It gives a timeframe for that to happen. Then, based on those research findings that come back, the amendment simply calls on the Government to formulate a policy and to publicly speak whatever that policy happens to be. I am not saying they have to implement local area energy plans; I am saying that they should go away and do this research on this part of the energy transition and, based on that research, come up with a coherent policy and then come forward to Parliament with an argument that makes sense about how that works.
This amendment is really important. By adopting it, we get closer to the energy transition. We will get rid of energy inefficiency and make the energy system more stable. It is also important for local community energy, for tapping that in and for making sure that we bring people with us and that they can benefit from the energy transition as well. It inherently makes our grids and our energy systems much more stable and robust to the challenges that they will face.
That is my amendment. I want to thank the Minister and her officials, because we have had meetings since the holidays, and I am very appreciative of the time that we have had.
I think there is still a little confusion from the Government on what my amendment does. Today, I want to push the Government at least to pick up some of the research aspects of this amendment. I hope the Minister will be amenable and receptive to that. I leave that there.
I will speak briefly on Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which I support. It is a clever and worthwhile idea. As the noble Baroness alluded to, the House has a long tradition of supporting community energy. Such projects struggle to get the funding to compete against large players and get their systems up and running, so this amendment about helping with the energy system operator is clever and worth while, and we support it.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I have just a few brief points to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, stated. For me, this goes back to the governance system. Of course we have made progress in recent years; we have the strategic spatial energy plan, which is being managed by NESO, but we are hearing some feedback on that plan. In effect, it tries to map out what energy projects should be located where, in minute detail across the country. The industry has highlighted a number of problems with trying to do this at that scale; we need local knowledge flowing up into these plans. As well as the top down, we need the bottom up. We need to capture all the great knowledge that local areas and local authorities have.
I will just take heat as an example. One area may be better suited to heat pumps and another to heat networks. One area may have relatively well-insulated housing stock; another, poorly insulated housing stock. We need to capture all that and bring it into the energy transition. It is an important piece of the puzzle to making this energy transition work and making it cost effective. A recent study by UKRI highlighted tens of billions of pounds of savings if a place-based approach is taken over a place-agnostic approach, so it is important that the Government make some progress on this. We have not seen the progress needed.
We have had some good pilots using this approach in various areas across the country, but we now need the Government to get behind this approach to feed all the benefits of that local knowledge into the energy transition. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister at least on timescales, on how they see this programme developing and on it reaching a decision on the role that local area energy plans will play in the energy transition.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that small-scale renewable energy products are prioritised by the independent system operator and planner. As the noble Baroness knows, we on these Benches are very concerned about energy prices and want to see Ministers taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy infrastructure that we need.
I know that there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole-system approach, tackling policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful for the House to know what plans the Government have on smaller renewables.
Although we feel that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is too prescriptive, it raises an important question about planning our energy supply for the future. Clearly, local needs should be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, though well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of greater support with the grid connection process for smaller renewable energy projects. The amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects when they apply for a grid connection. I recognise the noble Baroness’s helpful attempt to support smaller renewable energy projects. The Government appreciate the important role that smaller renewable energy projects, such as rooftop solar and community energy, can play in meeting our clean power mission, reducing energy costs and engaging communities in renewable energy.
Along with the independent energy regulator, Ofgem, the Government also recognise that more needs to be done to support smaller electricity network connection customers, including renewable energy projects, but this is achievable within the regulatory framework without the need for primary legislation. Indeed, Ofgem has already proposed stronger incentives and obligations on network companies to provide better connection customer service. Following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details and next steps in the coming weeks.
The amendment’s wording would also not meet the desired outcome. Section 16 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires electricity distribution network operators to connect customers. The amendment would place an obligation on the independent system operator and planner only in terms of the way in which the duties under Section 16 are complied with. However, the independent system operator and planner has no duties under Section 16. Given the legislative unworkability of the amendment, and given work already under way to support smaller renewable energy connection customers, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw it.
Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to require the Government to commence a programme of research and analysis on the imposition of a statutory duty on local authorities to produce local area energy plans, and publish a report on their findings; and to require the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a formal policy decision on a statutory duty within two years. We recognise that the amendment moves the debate on from Committee so that an immediate burden is not placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, and nor are the Government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans. The amendment places this work in the context of planning for electricity infrastructure, but the approach set out in the amendment risks constraining and duplicating work already under way, and it may constrain the way the Government continue to work in partnership with local government.
The overall approach to this work is being undertaken jointly with local government through the ministerial Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which meets quarterly. This is co-chaired with the Local Government Association. The group has discussed the development of a framework for local government to provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities for net zero and energy. This group will need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the warm homes plan and Great British Energy’s local power plan, both due shortly.
The kind of research envisaged by the amendment is already under way. This has been commissioned by DESNZ from local government officials working in local net zero hubs. This includes preparing guidance for local authorities on what they need to do on energy planning to prepare for the regional energy strategic plans that Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—are producing. Ofgem and NESO are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help it specify and procure high-quality data to support energy planning, with outputs due by January 2026.
In conclusion, we do not believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out in such detail a programme of work to review local energy planning. We are sympathetic to the points raised and agree with the point made in Committee about the importance of including local understanding in delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the Government agree that local involvement in energy planning is important and that the kind of work the amendment envisages is already under way.
I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. Preferably, this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is satisfied with our response and will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. I was sitting here thinking of the volunteers who are undoubtedly sitting at home in front of their spreadsheets trying to plan for a local energy scheme, trying to make it work, trying to pull it all together, trying to solve all the issues. I hope they are at least feeling a warm glow, given the strong expressions of support for the principle of what they are doing from around the House, including from the government Benches.
The Minister said, essentially, that the drafting of my amendment is faulty and not quite correct. I am, of course, seldom, if ever, attached to the detail of the drafting. The point is that putting something in the Bill provides some sort of long-term certainty and security. The Minister said that there are regulations, and that the regulator is doing this, but we all know that what we need is long-term security of planning in our energy system, and that is simply not being delivered.
A phrase was used by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that was important and deserves to be highlighted: “place-based solutions”. We often talk about the right tree in the right place; we also need the right energy provision in the right place, and that is what Amendment 46 was seeking to achieve. But we are where we are, and the debate has been had. I still hope we might see some movement from the Government somewhere down the track, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Fuller
“10Q Long duration electricity storage: safety(1) The Authority must ensure that the scheme established by section 10P includes measures to be taken by LDES operators (as defined by that section) to reduce fire risk and protect public safety.(2) The scheme must ensure that before installing long duration electricity storage, LDES operators consult the local fire authority who must assess the fire risk posed by the installation.(3) The LDES operator must pay the local fire authority a reasonable fee for their assessment of the fire risk under subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, to define a “reasonable fee” for the purpose of this section.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that proposals for long duration energy storage systems, which may contain flammable batteries and equipment, are designed in consultation local fire authorities to minimise fire risk and protect public safety.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, when I moved this amendment, which is now Amendment 25, in Committee, the lamented noble Lord, Lord Khan, went as far as he could at that point to open the door to accepting the principle that when electricity storage systems are planned, it is with the full knowledge, connivance and consent of the local fire authority, so that the fire and public safety risks and mitigations are fully understood. I am therefore disappointed that the meeting to discuss this is scheduled for after completion of Report. I fear that, rather than agreeing to my sensible, proportionate and non-controversial proposals, precious time is now being wasted litigating it on the Floor of your Lordships’ House and, wholly avoidably, with additional time spent in the Division Lobbies.
As the grid is reinforced, the ability to stabilise the electricity supply and isolate it from surges and shocks is essential. A number of long-term and short-term technologies exist to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to the consumer, and LDES facilities are part of that mix. These solid-state devices are needed alongside rotational energy sources in the energy balance. The people of the Iberian peninsula—where I am travelling to when the House rises this evening—will attest to the consequences of failing to have network stabilisation in place. A tiny 0.2 hertz perturbation in the grid set in train a chain reaction that brought down their entire grid, which required an unprecedented black start. That is what is at stake here.
Some of these long-term storage technologies contain highly flammable materials such as lithium. Hydrogen storage could be another possibility, but I am going to restrict my remarks to lithium for the purposes of proving the point. Not a day goes by when a fire is not caused by a lithium battery in a car, in a refuse freighter, or in a block of flats when a scooter overheats. The issue is clear: when a lithium battery catches fire, huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. I will not remind the House excessively about the details of the car-based conflagration at Luton Airport, but once it took hold, the batteries in electric cars quickly made the fire unfightable for longer, more so than had petrol and diesel alone been involved.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is very similar, as he noted, to the one he tabled in Committee.
In Committee, we welcomed the debate on these important topics. We take fire safety and the safety of large-scale energy storage systems extremely seriously, and I know the Government do as well. However, we are not able to support this amendment because we feel that the systems currently in place are adequate and coherent, and we worry about the additional burden and problems associated with the amendment as proposed.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said that
“this Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate, and it risks unintended consequences”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 568.]
On these Benches, we agree with the Government’s position.
This seeks to establish a statutory duty for long-duration energy storage operators to consult and pay a fee to local authorities for risk assessment prior to installation. So, as I said, although we absolutely share this general intent, the question on this amendment is: are these proposals necessary, proportionate and effective, and do they bring benefits overall or do they disproportionately create new unintended consequences for the rollout of our net-zero energy infrastructure? I make it clear that LDES facilities are an emerging technology, but they have a very high safety standard.
As in Committee, the noble Lord put forward a number of examples of batteries catching fire. I make it clear that all the examples given relate to individual batteries, and in most cases those kinds of fires relate to counterfeit or illegal imports. Actually, those issues are the subject of a Private Member’s Bill in the name of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, which I hope the noble Lord will be able to support. As far as I am aware, there have only ever been two fires at LDES large-scale battery storage facilities in the UK, so they have an extremely strong safety record.
The Minister gave a coherent answer in Committee, setting out that robust safety systems are in place already, including that the Health and Safety Executive already regulates battery energy storage system sites with a comprehensive framework, mandating designers, installers and operators to uphold the highest safety standards. Existing planning guidance also encourages developers to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to submitting their planning applications and to consider guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council. So engagement is already taking place. We already have other avenues as well. We have the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the general fire safety regulations, and we must ask whether these additional burdens bring benefits. In Committee, the Minister also noted that this would have an impact on the LDES cap and floor system, making it far more complicated to implement.
There are some issues with the definition of LDES. The amendment speaks about “LDES operators”. Not all LDES is equal, and not all of it needs to come under the scope of this amendment. If I am running a large-scale piped hydro facility, these requirements would not be necessary or helpful, and they would not bring about benefit. There is also a small drafting mistake in the amendment. Based on this, we feel that the systems in place now are adequate and sufficient, and we feel that, on balance, this amendment would create more burdens than benefits.
But we must not be complacent about these matters; they are important. I will ask the Government Front Bench one question about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, the then Minister. In summing up at the end of Committee, he said:
“The Government are considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of BESS. Defra recently published a consultation on proposed reforms to environmental permitting for industry, including the principle of including BESS in scope of the environmental permitting regulations. This would give further safeguards for both people and the environment”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 568.]
I take the opportunity that this amendment presents to ask the Minister kindly to reconfirm this commitment from the Dispatch Box and to give further assurances on these matters, perhaps going beyond “considering” and possibly some giving timeframes for when those further safety measures might come forward.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendment, which raises the important question of fire safety and long-duration energy storage. It is right that there should be a role for local fire authorities in looking at planning applications involving potentially highly combustible materials. It is clear that energy storage based on lithium batteries or other highly reactive materials, if not suitably engineered, could pose a fire risk.
This is still a relatively new large-storage technology, where councils and fire authorities are building their levels of expertise. In this context, having clear national guidance on safe installation and construction akin to building control, taking account of HSE, fire, industry and other experts would facilitate the assessment of these schemes. Do the Government plan to provide such clear guidance that councils, industry and others can rely on in assessing applications for LDES that would also streamline consultation and hence facilitate local engagement with fire authorities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. I start by apologising to him for the meeting date, which I understand is 30 October. He will know from comments made earlier that I have had a great number of meetings before Report, so I can only assume that it was a misunderstanding and apologise to him that it was not held before we got to Report.
The noble Lord said that over on this side we would not be shedding any tears about the price of Lamborghinis going up, but he obviously does not understand my guilty pleasure of fast cars—but then I come from the same town as Lewis Hamilton, so I have an excuse.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult the local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. In Committee, the noble Lord commented on the frequency and danger of lithium battery fires. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the distinction that he made between individual battery fires and these large-scale ones. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take issues relating to fire safety extremely seriously—I know that my noble friend Lord Khan gave the same reassurance—but we still do not feel that this amendment is proportionate or necessary, and indeed it could create unintended risks for fire services.
I understand that these concerns are largely in relation to lithium-ion batteries. Analysis from DESNZ suggests that fires at battery energy storage sites are rare. The latest available five-year annual average fire incidence rate for GB batteries is 0.7%, which is lower than that for wider non-domestic building fires in England, which is around 0.8%. We expect all LDES developers to ensure that their sites are safe, regardless of the technology employed. It is still, of course, vital that any risks are appropriately and proportionately managed to ensure that we maintain public safety and trust. We have spoken previously of the role that the Health and Safety Executive plays in regulating storage assets. Developers and operators of these sites have a legal duty to manage risks, and government expects them to engage with local fire services when drawing up emergency response plans.
Defra will conclude its industry consultation shortly on the modernisation of environmental permitting for industry, which includes proposals to bring BESS within scope of the 2016 permitting regulations. If introduced, EPR would require developers and operators to demonstrate to the Environment Agency how specific risks are being managed, while providing for the ongoing regulation of battery storage sites. While it is already the Government’s expectation that developers engage with fire services during the planning process, this amendment risks imposing additional administrative burdens on fire services which are not proportionate to the risks associated with this technology.
DESNZ is actively engaging fire authorities and the battery storage industry on the whole issue of battery fire safety. In fact, Minister Shanks hosted a round table today on battery safety, which included representatives from the National Fire Chiefs Council and battery developers, so I can reassure the House that Minister Shanks is taking this issue extremely seriously. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with the reassurances and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I came to this debate keen to divide the House on this important matter. However, during the debate a number of issues have come to light, not least the meeting held today by Minister Shanks and the acceptance that we are still owed a meeting where we can discuss this. Rather than detain the House at this point with a Division, I wonder whether the Minister and I might have an understanding that we will keep the date in the diary and, if I am not satisfied, then the opportunity will come to bring this back at Third Reading.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes all regulations implementing the consumer benefit scheme subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in my name seek to ensure that all regulations relating to the bill discount scheme set out in Clause 26 are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
The Government welcome the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, through these amendments, we accept its suggestion. We understand and recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and agree that the regulations discussed in Clause 26 are matters of substance. These amendments will help ensure that the regulations implementing the bill discount scheme are appropriately reviewed by Parliament, aiding their workability and ensuring a smooth implementation of the scheme. I cannot guarantee to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there will be a Halifax clause, but I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I cannot react to the Halifax clause, since I do not live in Halifax.
I welcome the move to the affirmative procedure but remind the Minister that there are already 22,000 high-voltage carrying pylons in this country, over 250 of which are in Doncaster and over 700 of which are in North Yorkshire, including in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
That leads me to the argument I made in Committee: if the Government are minded to provide compensation for those residents and customers who live adjacent to new plants, either transmitting or creating electrical energy, then, as the Minister confirmed in Committee and in a conversation we had during recess, that payment—that compensation—will be a burden added to every electricity customer. That does not seem right to me. If those folk who are going to have a new imposition of electrical infrastructure are to have compensation, surely it should be funded by that electricity region and not by those that have, for instance, had pylons for many decades because regions knew it was in the national interest to do so.
I am pleased that we are going to the affirmative measure in consideration of compensation, because it will enable me to make arguments in favour of not the Halifax amendment but the Huddersfield amendment—let us call it that, as it is a bit nearer home. It is important, because to me this is about fairness. Those of us in the north—the very far north—and the Midlands should have fair treatment compared to those who have the infrastructure now. I am sure that the Minister will enjoy having that debate with me when we get around to doing the SIs.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, group 14 concerns a matter of principle that cuts across the Bill: the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for far-reaching executive powers. New Section 38A introduces a consumer benefit scheme to provide financial compensation to those living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The principle behind this is entirely sound. It is right that communities that host nationally significant infrastructure should share in its benefits.
We support Amendments 26 and 27 in the name of the Minister. Amendment 26 would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, not just those relating to offences or enforcement. These regulations will define who qualifies for support, how benefits are delivered and the responsibilities of electricity suppliers. These are substantive decisions that should not be made without oversight of Parliament.
Amendment 27 is a necessary consequential amendment to reflect this change. Given the wide scope of delegated powers in the new section inserted by the clause, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament has a say in how much a significant scheme is developed and applied. The affirmative procedure does not prevent progress. It simply ensures that when Ministers exercise broad powers, they do so transparently and with accountability.
We believe these amendments strike the right balance between enabling the Government to deliver the scheme and ensuring that Parliament plays its proper role. We are pleased to support them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for getting Halifax and Huddersfield mixed up. But neither Halifax nor Huddersfield will be getting their own clause in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at page 36, line 8.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment standing in my name seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where windfarms are proposed to be built. Sorry, I am on the wrong group. I have got ahead of myself—who thought I would do that at 9.30 pm? My apologies; I turned over too many pages.
I am in fact speaking to an amendment to Clause 28, which amends the Forestry Act 1967 to enable the development of renewable electricity projects in the public forest estate. The clause as currently drafted applies to both England and Wales. The Government have tabled these amendments to remove references to the
“Natural Resources Body for Wales”
and “Welsh Ministers” from the clause. At the start of today’s proceedings, I referred to some amendments which are there to respond to the devolved Administrations. Although Clause 28 represents an important and shared objective, the Welsh Government have indicated that they wish to pursue existing, non-legislative processes to develop renewable energy on the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. Following extensive negotiation, this amendment alters the provisions in Clause 28 so that they apply only to the Forestry Commission.
I turn to government Amendments 36, 37 and 40. The provisions restrict the exercise of the powers of the Forestry Commission by giving the Defra Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the commission first to obtain her consent. The purpose of the Secretary of State’s power is to ensure that Ministers are sighted on projects above a certain size and can assess the use of the land appropriately. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns that the regulation-making power was broader than the stated policy intent. The Government therefore propose Amendments 36, 37 and 40, which will amend the clause to clarify that consent may be required only for projects exceeding specific capacity thresholds.
The thresholds are set at 5 megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for other sources and are now laid out explicitly in new Section 3B. New Section 3B also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the relevant wattage of the capacity thresholds, allowing flexibility to reflect future advancements in renewable energy technology. This change provides greater legal certainty while maintaining the original policy intent, and I therefore commend these amendments to the House.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It would place statutory duties on the Forestry Commission, in the context of any planning, development or infrastructure function it might have, to take all reasonable steps to contribute to biodiversity targets set under the Environment Act 2021 and targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act. It would also add a requirement for the Forestry Commission to balance the development of energy infrastructure with the maintenance of ecosystem services, alongside a requirement to avoid any direct or indirect adverse effects on designated sites and irreplaceable habitats.
The driving force behind Clause 28 is the need to increase the amount of renewable electricity that can be generated in the UK. This will enable the Forestry Commission to increase its contributions to government targets set under the Climate Change Act. The Forestry Commission already has legal duties on afforestation and conservation, and by its very nature is already providing significant benefits to help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. It is therefore my view that the amendment is unnecessary.
Of course, the Forestry Commission will have regard to the Government’s biodiversity targets while exercising these new powers. It has clear responsibilities to consider and act to improve the environment via its biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as strengthened by the Environment Act. This legislation requires public authorities, including the Forestry Commission, to consider and take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. In doing so, it must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy as well as any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.
Furthermore, I can assure the House that the Forestry Commission will consider the importance of the climate in its use of these new powers. It has existing ambitious net-zero targets which it is working to meet via several significant projects for woodland creation and peatland restoration currently under way across the public forest estate. In the context of climate adaptation planning under the Climate Change Act, the Forestry Commission already provides reports on how it is adapting to or proposes to adapt to climate change, and it will continue to do so.
However, in recognition of the Forestry Commission’s importance to the achievement of our statutory targets concerning climate and nature, the Government may consider changes to the Forestry Act 1967 should a suitable legislative vehicle become available. It is my belief that these wider considerations of the Forestry Commission’s duties would be best considered in the round rather than in relation to this specific measure, which limits the application of the duties to the development context. Given these commitments, alongside existing provisions, I hope the noble Earl is reassured and will not press his amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Defra Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for meetings around Clause 28. In the Bill, there is still a concern about industrial-scale biomass. I have been assured by the Minister that the 1967 Forestry Act stops that from happening. I have read the Act, and I am not totally convinced but I take the Minister’s view on it as being correct.
What concerns me about Amendment 40 is the two limits on wattage. The limit of 5 megawatts on wind turbines is understandable as they have a low footprint, and I can see how that might work as being a limit on wind power. There is a 50 megawatt limit on all others, including solar. I am very much in favour of solar, but to put 50 megawatts of solar—which seems to be envisaged in Amendment 40—on Forestry Commission land seems completely excessive, even to me as a renewable energy advocate. At the moment, 50 megawatt solar farms are some of the most popular sizes because they have just come in below the nationally significant infrastructure projects level. I seem to remember, from a statutory instrument we went through in the Moses Room some months ago, that is now changing.
However, a 50-megawatt solar farm covers a huge acreage. When we are behind in terms of our national targets on tree planting, I cannot see why the Forestry Commission should be able to cover that amount of their own land with solar panels without the approval of the Secretary of State, when we are so desperate to increase our woodland planting. Where on earth did these figures come from? They do not seem consistent to me; if they were the other way around—5 megawatts on solar and 50 megawatts on wind power— they might make sense, because there is a much smaller footprint in terms of wind. I am very keen to hear from the Minister how this is justified.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 44. I begin by thanking the Minister and apologising, because strangely the Minister has answered my amendment before I have spoken to it, but that is just the way that this group has operated. My speech is slightly back to front, so I will go through it and then come to the end.
Amendment 44 is in my name and is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who are both in their places. This is an important and timely amendment, and I am delighted that it has the firm support of the Wildlife Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link. Amendment 44 would require the Forestry Commission, when exercising its functions, to contribute actively to the achievement of our legally binding climate and biodiversity targets. The Forestry Commission, founded in 1919, manages some 5% of all publicly owned land in the United Kingdom.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, reminded us in Committee, it is now nearly 60 years since we last legislated comprehensively on forestry. The commission’s core duties remain, unfortunately, deeply rooted in a 20th-century focus on timber production, despite its remit having long been broadened. We need to complete the task of modernising its responsibilities, aligning them with the Climate Change Act 2008, the Environment Act 2021 and the environmental improvement plan, so that the commission’s huge influence over land use supports the delivery of statutory targets, rather than leaving them to chance or good faith and good management.
Without these changes, the Government are in danger of trying to deliver their climate and nature ambitions while failing to direct one of their key public bodies to act in joint support of delivering it. I have said this before, but it is a little like a general knowing the strategy but neglecting to tell their own troops. We cannot expect effective delivery in the Forestry Commission if it is left without a clear duty to act.
The public forest estate contains some of England’s most ecologically valuable land, including irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland, yet there is currently no explicit statutory duty for the commission to protect these sites or to prioritise biodiversity outcomes. Clause 28 already extends the commission’s remit to allow greater renewable energy activity on public land, and that duty makes it more vital that the nature aspects of the estate are given equal statutory weight to ensure that the drive for renewables proceeds hand in hand with the protection and restoration of nature.
The new clause we propose after Clause 28 does precisely that: it would place,
“a duty on the Forestry Commission to contribute”,
to the achievement of the climate and nature recovery targets, to avoid harm, to designate conservation sites in ancient woodland and to balance energy and timber production with ecosystem services such as biodiversity, carbon storage, access and recreation. It is a low-cost but high-impact reform that would modernise Governments, ensure accountability and bring clarity and consistency to decision-making about land acquisition, leasing and woodland creation.
As we know already, between Committee and Report there has been substantial progress on this matter. I am very grateful not only to the Ministers but to their officials for the time that they have given to us in discussing these amendments, and for the movement the Government have made on this important issue. I know that the Government now intend to address this issue as part of a wider and broader package of measures. We are not against that as a system and a means of addressing this problem; in fact, it is a welcome strategy. We are buoyed up by the progress we have made on the Crown Estate Act and the Great British Energy Act, where collaborative work with Ministers and across the House—across all parties—achieved similar provisions. We look forward to the outcomes here.
The Minister has already spoken to give her comments. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who has been pushing on these issues. He of course has his important Private Member’s Bill and I hope that, as part of this package of measures, some of the broader aspects in his Bill can also be taken up. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her work on these matters.
The Government’s words are very welcome and I am thankful for them. We push the Government to go slightly further on the duties of the Forestry Commission, and for a little more clarity on when this legislation might come forward. However, we have come to a reasonable place. What we would like now is to see this legislation come forward so that progress can be made on these matters. With that, I thank the Minister and those involved, as this is a sign of real progress to come.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on his Amendment 44, which I put my name to. The Forestry Commission is a really important organisation; it is the largest landowner in England. What it does can not only influence the Government’s climate and biodiversity targets; it can inspire other people to do stuff that will deliver those targets. Therefore, it is really sad that we have got to the point where, by a process of accretion, the legislation surrounding the Forestry Commission’s duties is so complicated.
When the Minister responded in Committee, for which we thank her, it revealed just what a piecemeal patchwork of responsibilities is laid on the Forestry Commission—not just by the aged Forestry Acts, dating back 60 years, but by extensions to its duties from the Countryside Act 1968, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the NERC Act 2006, strengthened by the Environment Act 2021. In addition, the Minister’s account, both in Committee and today, has brought up other requirements, such as those laid on the Secretary of State in the national policy statement for renewable energy on his influence over the Forestry Commission. It is a bit of a quagmire of legislation. It is certainly not clear to the Forestry Commission how it will help it do that important job of meeting government targets in any systematic way, rather than by an accretion of decisions made that reflect various bits of legislation.
I, too, thank the Ministers and their staff for the discussion behind the scenes, but we have to press on moving forward from saying that the Forestry Commission will use its best endeavours or have regard to various pieces of policy. Instead, we have to try to nail down whether there is a real commitment within government to update the legislation surrounding the Forestry Commission—and when a suitable legislative vehicle might come forward that would allow it to operate in a systematic way within a modern, comprehensive and effective framework. We need to make sure that its important work will be carried forward systematically.
The alternative way of doing this is to adopt the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who, alas, is not in his place. In his Private Member’s Bill, he sought to give these duties to any public body that had the ability to deliver, in a substantial way, the climate, environment and biodiversity targets—that would be the simple way of doing it. However, if we have to do it piecemeal, can the Government say how soon and in what way it will be done?
Very briefly, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on Amendment 40. He is absolutely right that we have the limits the wrong way round.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. They are leading and I am following on Amendment 44, which is about the duties of the Forestry Commission. Given the hour, I will be brief in bringing out two points.
First, the noble Earl rightly said that both Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Wildlife Trusts—two of our key organisations—totally back the approach in the amendment, which says that the Forestry Commission needs a clear mandate on climate and nature. As the noble Baroness just set out, this has just been nibbled at, changed and fiddled with over many decades, but that has not given the Forestry Commission the clear remit that it needs.
Secondly, the point that I will make that has yet to be made is about how incredibly precious our forests and woodlands are specifically because we have so few of them. Having just been to Ukraine and Poland—the latter is nearly 30% forest—it was striking that forest is part of just about everything I looked at. Even Ukraine, with its huge reliance on arable agriculture and the destruction it has been enduring, still has a higher percentage of forest than we do. We are talking about a terribly rare resource for Britain in looking after our climate provision and our nature. We cannot afford the Forestry Commission, which is such a major landowner, not having clear direction from legislation stating that its job is to look after climate and nature.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments in this group. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a renewable energy developer and as a forester and forest planter.
First, the removal of the application of Clause 28 to Wales is interesting. I am most grateful to the Minister for her explanation for why that should be. Secondly, limiting the powers granted under Clause 28 is a welcome change, in response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The DPRRC recommended that the Government constrain the power to make regulations, so that the Secretary of State’s consent can be required only in relation to generating stations that exceed certain capacity thresholds. As pointed out in its report, the Bill was originally drafted with a wider power, but the Government’s policy intention is that the Secretary of State’s consent is required only for significant renewable electricity projects. We welcome that change.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on 50-megawatt solar farms. It does seem strange that we should be allowing developments of that size. In general, areas that are most suitable for forestry tend also to be suitable for wind, but less suitable for solar. I would be most grateful to the Minister for any clarification she can give about the intention of this amendment. We will of course return to the competing uses of land between renewable energy and traditional rural interests in a later group.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly respond to questions I have been asked during the debate. I agree with what has been said about the Forestry Act 1967. It was a long time ago now, but I firmly believe that the Act needs reviewing in the round, not in bits and pieces; otherwise, we will just exacerbate the current problem.
On the thresholds, the thresholds of five megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for other sources were based on current data to illustrate the typical scale, visual footprint and land use of renewable energy projects at those capacities. If the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State for Defra will be able to amend the capacity thresholds in future through secondary legislation. All renewable electricity projects that export electricity to the grid on the public forest estate will be reported to Defra each quarter.
The Secretary of State, as the landowner, and other Defra Ministers have decided that they would like early visibility of proposed developments above the relevant thresholds. The Forestry Commission will be required to submit an application for ministerial consent before entering into any significant legal or commercial agreements. This early-stage safeguard ensures appropriate oversight of land use decisions. Ministers decided that they want to assess at the pre-planning stage all projects above an agreed size on the public forest estate; that means all significant projects. As previously stated, the thresholds have been set at five megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for all other technology types.
I hope that has helped to clarify the role of the Secretary of State and of the Forestry Act 1967. With that, I beg to move the government amendments.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment at page 41, line 13 would replace the current power to impose consent requirements on the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 28 with a narrower power limited to generating stations above a certain megawatt capacity.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at page 40, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
“3B Section 3A: power to require Secretary of State’s consent in certain cases(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations that, in a case within subsection (2), require the consent of the Secretary of State to an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A.(2) The cases are those where—(a) a proposed exercise of the powers is intended to enable the construction on English forestry land of the whole or part of a generating station (including an extension to an existing station), and(b) the capacity threshold is exceeded.(3) In the case of the construction of a new generating station, the capacity threshold is exceeded if it is expected that the generating capacity of the station would equal or exceed the relevant wattage.(4) In the case of an extension to an existing station, the capacity threshold is exceeded if it is expected that—(a) the extension would cause the generating capacity of the station to equal or exceed the relevant wattage, or(b) the extension, whether alone or taken together with previous non-consented extensions, would increase the generating capacity of the station by at least the relevant wattage. (5) An extension is “non-consented” for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) if—(a) it was enabled by an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A, and(b) that exercise of those powers did not have the consent of the Secretary of State under regulations under subsection (1).(6) But an extension ceases to be “non-consented” for those purposes if—(a) a subsequent extension to the station in question is constructed having been enabled by an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A, and(b) that exercise of those powers had the consent of the Secretary of State under regulations under subsection (1).(7) The relevant wattage is—(a) 5 megawatts, if the station generates electricity from wind, and(b) 50 megawatts, if it does not.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the relevant wattage (including by adding or combining categories of station in relation to which a particular wattage is prescribed).(9) In calculating the relevant wattage there is to be disregarded—(a) in the case of a generating station only partly situated on English forestry land, any generating capacity that can be attributed to parts not situated on English forestry land;(b) in the case of a generating station whose capacity is provided in part by facilities for the storage of electricity and in part by other means, the capacity provided by those facilities.(10) In this section—“generating station” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (see section 64(1));“storage” is to be read in accordance with section 3A(9).3C Regulations under section 3B: further provision(1) Regulations under section 3B(1) may—(a) make provision about the process by which consent is to be sought and given or refused;(b) provide for consent to be given subject to conditions.(2) Regulations under section 3B may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) include consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(3) Regulations under section 3B are to be made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 3B(8) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 3B(1) (but not regulations under section 3B(8)) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 40, line 1.
“Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about planning permissions or consents relating to wind generating stations that may affect the functioning of a relevant seismic array system.(2) A “relevant seismic array system” is a spatially distributed system of linked seismometers, arranged so as to enhance the detection and characterisation of seismic signals, that—(a) is used for defence purposes, and(b) is in use on the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The regulations may provide for—(a) an exclusion zone, and(b) a restricted zone,around a relevant seismic array system.(4) The regulations may—(a) require a planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, a planning application relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in an exclusion zone;(b) provide that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant planning permission for development relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in an exclusion zone;(c) allow the Secretary of State to direct that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant such planning permission.(5) The regulations may, in relation to a planning application relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in a restricted zone—(a) require the applicant to provide specified information about the seismic impact of the proposals (“seismic impact information”) to which their application relates;(b) require the planning decision-maker to use the seismic impact information in a specified way when determining the application (including when determining conditions relating to a permission or consent);(c) require the planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, the application in specified circumstances;(d) require the planning decision-maker to provide the Secretary of State with the seismic impact information, and to seek the Secretary of State’s views on the seismic impact of the proposals;(e) require the planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, the application if the Secretary of State objects to it on grounds relating to the seismic impact of the proposals.(6) The regulations may—(a) require a person proposing to make a relevant development order or MCA scheme to consult the Secretary of State if the order or scheme would grant planning permission for development relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in a restricted zone;(b) allow the Secretary of State to direct that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant such planning permission. (7) The regulations may include provision about the procedure for planning applications to which they relate, such as—(a) provision enabling or requiring a planning decision-maker to decline to determine or accept an application;(b) provision modifying the process for determining an application;(c) provision allowing the Secretary of State to give a direction to the planning-decision maker about the procedure for an application;(d) provision modifying or disapplying a right of appeal or review;(e) provision disapplying a duty imposed on a planning decision-maker when determining an application.(8) The regulations may require a planning decision-maker to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(9) Regulations under this section may—(a) amend or repeal provision contained in an Act of Parliament or an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(b) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(c) make provision binding the Crown;(d) make transitional, transitory or saving provision;(e) make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision.(10) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section which amend or repeal provision contained in an Act of Parliament or an Act of the Scottish Parliament may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(13) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.(14) In this section—“MCA scheme” means a masterplan consent area scheme made under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“planning application” means—(a) an application for planning permission under Part 3 or Part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) an application for planning permission under Part 3 or Part 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,(c) an application for an order granting development consent under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008, or(d) an application under section 36 or 36C of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent for construction etc of generating station);“planning decision-maker” means a person who determines a planning application;“relevant development order” means—(a) a local development order made under section 61A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; (b) a Mayoral development order made under section 61DA of that Act;(c) a neighbourhood development order made under section 61E of that Act;(d) a development order made under section 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“wind generating station” means a generating station that generates electricity from wind.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to planning permissions for wind generating stations that may affect the operation of seismic array systems used for defence purposes that are in use at the time that the Act is passed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment standing in my name seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where wind farms are proposed to be built, thus enabling the development of onshore wind where it will not have an adverse effect on seismic array systems. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has a very deep knowledge of this subject and who kindly agreed to have a meeting with me even this morning on the topic, so I am grateful to him.
This amendment will enable regulations to be brought forward for the safeguarding of current Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty essential seismic arrays, notably the Eskdalemuir seismic array in southern Scotland. As a component of the international monitoring system for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, signed by the United Kingdom in 1996, the array is critical for maintaining effective defence monitoring capabilities.
The amendment allows for regulations, subject to forthcoming consultation, to underpin more accurate measuring of the seismic impact of wind turbines, create clear zones within which seismic impacts must be taken into account, and set out how the Ministry of Defence would make these assessments. This would create certainty for planning authorities, the Ministry of Defence and developers, enabling appropriate proposals for wind farm development to be brought forward.
Enabling the development of onshore wind in the Eskdalemuir area will be a positive step towards the Clean Power 2030 mission and net-zero targets, with up to 3 gigawatts of onshore wind that could deliver by 2030. This 3 gigawatts could bring with it up to £2 billion of investment into UK-based onshore wind services. It could deliver up to £15 million per year to communities in the Eskdalemuir area through community benefit funds.
The amendment has been introduced at a late stage to allow for ongoing development of technical and policy work to identify a solution that effectively safeguards the array and enables onshore wind within the Eskdalemuir Working Group, a collaborative forum that has historically been led by the Scottish Government, to whom we are indebted, and has input from the UK Government, including the MoD.
The Bill represents the last available opportunity to secure the 3 gigawatt onshore wind capacity in time for 2030, and the economic benefits that it would bring. Not proceeding at this time and delaying further would impact deployment, reduce critical investor/developer confidence, and halt the momentum to resolve this issue. That being the case, I hope that the House will support this amendment.
Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to specify the maximum extent of zones within which onshore wind development may be totally restricted, and within which relevant regulations will apply. Such specificity at this stage risks pre-empting the government decision-making prior to the launch of a public consultation, which the Government committed to in the onshore wind taskforce strategy in July 2025. To do so could result in the most appropriate options for safeguarding seismic arrays and enabling onshore wind being discarded without proper consideration, as they would not be possible under the primary powers as amended. Safeguarding zones around MoD assets are constructed from specific criteria appropriate to individual assets.
The Government are seeking legislation to enable regulations that both protect seismic arrays and create certainty for onshore wind developers and planning authorities. If these zones are created through regulations, it will not be with the aim of blocking all onshore wind development, as is the case currently, but with the intention to safeguard seismic arrays and allow appropriate onshore wind development.
I hope that clarifies the approach we have taken, and that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment. I beg to move the government amendment.
Amendment 42 (to Amendment 41)
Earl Russell
“(a) an exclusion zone of not more than 10 kilometres, and(b) a restricted zone of not more than 50 kilometres,”
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to my Amendment 42, which seeks to amend government Amendment 41. I have written a speech, but I might just speak off the top of my head.
The Government’s amendment came out on Report, and when it did it is fair to say that in relation to Eskdalemuir, and particularly to CWP Energy, there were worries about its possible impacts. As the Minister said, Eskdalemuir is a very big proposal for a wind development of 3 gigawatts of energy.
These matters are complicated. They relate to the interplay between the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty ground-based sensors and a monitoring system which has second-tier arrays that are part of the treaty, providing a global monitoring system for above-ground and underground nuclear tests. As the Minister alluded to, at one point in my life I did research on nuclear arms control and did my master’s in it, which is how I know a tiny bit about some of the policy side—not the technical side, to be clear.
When the government amendment was tabled, there was worry in the industry that these exclusion zones and their extension would have significant impacts on what is a big renewable energy deployment that is important for the UK. It is important for us to reach our clean power targets. It is also important for the Borders area and for more than just that area and this wind site going ahead. This corridor of development has good fibre-optic cables. The plan is to develop data centres and link them to the cables and the network stuff that is happening there. There is a whole bunch of economic development here that could be impacted by this.
The industry was worried that the government amendment would, in effect, stymie this wind project. The people who have been developing the project have been trying to find mitigations and solutions for how we can have our onshore wind energy generation and meet our Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty monitoring obligations. As part of that process, they have invested over £200 million. Instead of having sensors on the surface, they have come up with plans to bore down from 60 metres to 200 metres. They have worked with one of the founders of the treaty. The sensors that they want to put in place are recognised by the CTBTO. When they are in place, because they are not on the surface, they will no longer be subject to other vibrations. It is not just wind. It could be quarrying or forestry or all sorts of other activities that could interplay.
The hope is that the project developers get to a place where they can fund not only the research, development and placing of these sensors but their ongoing upkeep. Some technical conversations need to take place between our people in the MoD and the AWE and the Government, to make sure that they can do their stuff so that we can have both these things together and do not have an either/or.
To cut my speech short, following the conversations that I have had with the Minister, I am satisfied that the Government will work to find a way forward and that in the fullness of time the experts can get together. Because we already have solutions with offshore wind for these kinds of problems, I am hopeful that these can be resolved. I appreciate the Government’s and the Minister’s time.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I speak slightly in awe. I am not the world expert on seismic arrays, so I will keep my comments brief. This is the practical bit. We recognise that the Government are trying to create a balancing act between the safe and critical operation of seismic arrays and the opportunity of wind farms. From this side of the House, without the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can we receive an assurance from the Government that they have that balance right and that we will not compromise those seismic arrays and the potential national security and treaty obligations?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with our colleagues in the MoD on this issue and will endeavour to make sure that the balance is right in both cases.
Lord Fuller
“Prohibition on the application of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime to large-scale solar developments on the best and most versatile land(1) Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (nationally significant infrastructure projects: general) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Large-scale solar developments must not be considered nationally significant infrastructure projects where they are built or developed on agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a.”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) The Secretary of State may not use orders under subsection (3)(a) to extend the application of subsection (1) to large-scale solar developments.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that planning decisions remain in the hands of local councils for large-scale solar developments on the best and most versatile land through prohibiting such developments from falling under the nationally significant infrastructure projects provisions in the Planning Act 2008.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 43, co-signed by my Front-Bench colleagues, is simple and straightforward, rather like Amendment 45 from my noble friend Lady Hodgson, who, sadly, is not in her place.
Our amendments are similar, but I prefer my own, because my proposal is not the complete ban on solar developments on the best and most versatile land contemplated by my noble friend. What mine seeks to achieve is that where such proposals do come forward, they are successful only with the consent and agreement of local people. It recognises that solar farms have a role to play in our energy security, but that role must be balanced with an effective use of our best farmland for food security.
This amendment will not prevent or fetter the development of solar farms on the poorest-quality land or restrain smaller proposals on better-quality land where they command the support of the local authority. But where large-scale solar proposals do come forward that include the best and most versatile land, my amendment means that the NSIP process cannot and will not be engaged. It is not the absolute ban on solar on the best land, but it does put a hurdle on which the applicant will need to work hard with local people to surpass, and that restores the balance of negotiating power that has become out of kilter between the developers and local residents.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 45, which has been tabled by my noble kinswoman, my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. My noble friend cannot be here—she is part of an IPU delegation in Geneva—and she asked if I would come tonight, apologise to the House for her absence and make a few remarks about this amendment on her behalf.
I am happy to do this not just for reasons of domestic harmony, although domestic harmony is very desirable, but because this amendment runs very parallel to one about food security that I moved in Committee. My issues then looked top-down at the world position and how it would impact this country’s food security; this amendment looks bottom-up at what we need to do to make sure that we do not unnecessarily and unduly impede our ability to feed ourselves, which must surely be a key responsibility of any Government.
My noble friend asked me to make a number of points. Before I do, I remind your Lordships of my entry in the register: my family investment company owns a few acres of agricultural land.
The first point is that solar power development should not take place on higher-quality agricultural land, which was the point that my noble friend Lord Fuller made. We need to keep this productive land to feed ourselves and remember that, if we lose it once to solar panels and solar farms, we have probably lost it for ever.
The Minister might refer to the forthcoming land use framework as providing the answer to this, but that will not come out until this Bill is an Act. One hears the awful sound of a door slamming behind a bolting horse.
The second issue is another point made by my noble friend Lord Fuller, about the continuing and rising tensions geopolitically. We need to keep those always in mind when we consider this country’s position and our ability to feed ourselves by bringing in food from overseas. We grow just over half our food ourselves.
The third point is that using agricultural land for solar panels has too often been the soft touch and the easy option. As has been said, farming is not particularly profitable and is cyclical. Therefore, it is much easier for a farmer to sign a long-term contract that provides security for a generation, for himself and for his family. That is one route.
The other route, of course, which is much more difficult, is to go down the commercial channel. There, the Government are likely to see much more hard-headed commercial resistance. For example, as a first step, why are we not putting solar panels on every new house we build? Why are we not insisting that solar panels are put on every new factory and every commercial building that is constructed? Why are we not thinking about retrofitting solar panels to existing buildings where suitable? All that would improve the situation without us having to reduce the amount of land available for production of food.
My fourth point takes the Minister to a point she made in Committee, to which she was not, to be honest, able to give an entirely satisfactory response. What plans do the Government have to monitor the continuing ownership of these solar farms—not just the person who builds them and owns them initially but when they are sold? If the Government argue that solar power is critical to this country, some monitoring of who owns that critical facility is obviously important. The Minister has written to my noble friend—she is grateful for that—and indicated that the Government are thinking of some form of monitoring, but it is not clear in what form the statutory basis of the monitoring will be. Will it be in statute? Will it be guidance? Will it be advisory? Who will enforce it? My noble friend Lord Blencathra and I have spent enough time dealing with secondary legislation to know that there are all sorts of ways in which this can be effective or not. It would be very helpful for the House to know what the Government have in mind for this critical part of our future national life.
Finally, no proper account has been taken to assess the permanent damage to our countryside—not just the short-term implications for roads, with tons of material being brought in to establish a solar farm, but the long-term visual impact on our country. In an age when mental illness is rising, we should not underestimate the value of open country. Not for nothing did Octavia Hill, one of the co-founders of the National Trust, write:
“We all want quiet. We all want beauty … we all need space. Unless we have it, we cannot reach that sense of quiet in which whispers of better things come to us gently”.
The Minister will say that the Government have clocked this and are working hard to make sure they are collecting all the appropriate statistics to ensure that these risks are being examined. Indeed, she concluded a long paragraph on this in Committee by saying:
“The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 1963.]
I do not for a moment suggest that the Government are not collecting lots and lots of statistics. The critical question is what they are then doing with them. Which government department and Secretary of State are responsible for taking all this information, which we are told is now being collected and we all agree is very important and has a real impact on our future as a country, assessing it, working with it, interpreting it and using it to guide future policy?
I think the House is entitled to know from the Government how it is being used, how we can be reassured that our future is being properly assessed, and that it is not falling between the stools of different departments and that there is a Secretary of State responsible who is going to be able to keep us, Parliament and the country, informed that our future is safe.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, in supporting these amendments, I must first declare my family farming and land-owning interests for the purposes of Report on this Bill. I should say in this context that we have both food production and some land—less good land, I may say—with a solar array on it.
Normally, in the past, I have stood up and said on these land use decisions that we should wait until we get the land use framework, which we are told is imminent, any minute now. But I have had a conversion. First, I am not quite sure to what extent conformity with the land use framework is going to be mandatory for local planning authorities or indeed for Secretaries of State. Having been chairman of the Land Use in England Committee, I have had a glimpse of what the Government’s response to the consultation is likely to be. I am not disclosing any secrets here but they seem to be saying that, when it comes to solar arrays, merely—I underline that word—that lower-quality agricultural land is preferable to higher-quality agricultural land. That is seriously not good enough. We should take this opportunity to ensure that our best food-producing farmland is legally protected for the long term.
I firmly believe that good food production should be sacrosanct. Whatever the land use framework comes up with, now or in any future iterations—there no doubt that it is going to change as demands change over the decades—there is no doubt in my mind that the long-term defence of our realm depends crucially on our ability to feed ourselves, more so than on the number of regiments we have, frankly. Indeed, so does the peace of our realm. I think it was over 10 years ago that I first mentioned in this House that we are only ever nine meals away from total anarchy. At the time, I had to explain exactly what I meant by that phrase; nowadays, I think people take it as read and know exactly what I mean by that phrase.
Whatever the passing needs of our energy requirements, our best food-producing land should remain constantly sacrosanct, and the flexibility of our land use should never include or usurp our best food-producing land. There is, after all, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, lots of other land all over the country, often south-sloping hillsides, that is less than optimum for producing our food and which therefore can be used for solar panels.
There is no doubt in my mind that in every local planning authority and every county, maybe every year, there are going to be lots of people trying to produce solar panels. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, just asked, who is going to be monitoring this? We need somebody to monitor what is going on, because every year we are going to be whittling away at our capacity to feed ourselves. I do not believe we should allow that to happen, so I strongly support Amendments 43 and 45.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I cannot match the eloquence of other speakers, or the length of their speeches for that matter, but I want to support my noble friend Lady Hodgson’s Amendment 45. The reason I want to support it is that I want, as has just been said, some clarification about the Government’s position regarding the use of agricultural land for solar panels—and, I suppose, for battery storage plants, which are equally a concern to an awful lot of the public at present.
In Yorkshire, at the moment, we have a plethora of applications, all speculative, without apparently much resource behind them, and all hoping to get permission from local planning authorities, being just below the 50-megawatt limit that would require them to have more strategic consideration. There are so many of them at present that the planning officers are quite undermined in their work and unable to deal with them—but they will do. The problem we have is that, unless the Government are a little clearer on their view about the use or misuse of very good agricultural land, lots of these matters will proceed much against the wish of agricultural experts, farmers and local rural communities in particular.
I therefore urge the Minister to make it quite clear not just that the Government prefer that we do not utilise grades 1, 2, 3 and 3A agricultural land for solar panels, and that it should be used for agricultural purposes—preferably the production of food—but that this will not be allowed. They should tell planning officials that that is the view of the Government, because otherwise, simply preferring something is absolutely pointless.
The only other point I wish to add is that every single one of these speculative operators that seem to have come on the scene, certainly in Yorkshire and I believe elsewhere, try to placate local communities by saying that this will be only for 40 years—that in 40 years everything will be put back to its present state, or improved for that matter. I do not think I shall be here in 40 years, and I do not think most of the speculative companies will be. Without a proper bond in place, showing that they are worth the resources that they claim they are, this is a totally useless and pointless statement. The Government should point that out at all opportunities.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and her Amendment 45, to which I tried to add my name but was too late. It was persuasively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, and I will try to be brief.
The essence of responsible political choice is to look to the long term. Good agricultural land is one resource that should be with us for ever. Development should not be allowed to prejudice the long-term interests of our nation. While I support Amendment 43, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which was well supported by his local knowledge, I prefer Amendment 45 because it would guarantee the protection of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3A land against the substantial commercial pull of solar at prevailing returns in the energy and agriculture sectors.
Such protection would help to reverse the short-sighted change to planning guidance based on short-sighted thinking, to my view, by the Blair Government. Labour has never been a real friend of the farming community, despite its national importance, articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the need to grow our own food. It would be wonderful to see a change of heart in the changed circumstances we see today, where food security is so important.
My view is that we should concentrate solar investment in urban areas and on urban rooftops—for example, on businesses and on supermarkets, which I promoted in my years at Tesco—especially in countries such as Hungary and Thailand, where the sun is hot and shines more brightly. I should perhaps end by saying that I have an interest as a part owner of two small fields, the remnants of a family farm long since sold.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, there are 3.3 billion barrels of oil easily available in the North Sea. An independent study by Westwood Global Energy Group for Offshore Energies UK suggests that up to 7.5 billion barrels could still be produced, while the Government’s own figures suggest about 3.2 billion barrels. The North Sea Transition Authority estimates that there are 6.1 billion barrels of oil of contingent resources and 4 billion barrels of oil in mapped leads and prospects—whatever those are—plus an additional 11.2 billion barrels in plays outside these mapped areas. There are billions and billions of gallons of oil that we could use, and we need. But we have a fanatical Secretary of State for Energy who is obsessed with the last bit of his title: the Minister for Net Zero. He is destroying the UK’s energy needs on our doorstep—or under our seabed, to be more precise. Energy should be our priority.
Without substantial new investment in domestic production, the UK is projected to import about 70% of its oil and gas needs by 2030, rising to over 80% by 2035. Even with a goal of net zero by 2050, the UK will still need between 13 billion and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent to meet its energy needs. Although demand for oil and gas will fall significantly, they are expected to meet a quarter of energy needs by 2050 to provide long-term power and support the energy transition, especially when paired with carbon capture technology. So a quarter of our energy needs will still come from oil and gas. We are sitting on billions of gallons of oil that we will not extract from our own country, and we will then import billions from abroad. How barking mad is that?
This fanatical energy department is not only destroying our oil and gas production systems but putting whole swathes of British industry out of action, making it uncompetitive by removing a cheap commodity that all our competitors use. There will never be Labour’s dream of growth while the Secretary of State is still in post—no wonder most of the Cabinet want him sacked. His obsession with net zero is also leading to the destruction of some of our finest countryside and the imposition of massive—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
That is in the sentence that I am just about to say.
The Secretary of State’s obsession with net zero is now leading to the destruction of some of our finest British countryside, with the imposition of massive solar farms on some of our finest productive land. We would not need all these solar farms if we actually dug out the oil sitting under our own North Sea, but he has now put a stop to that. That is the point of my introduction. No doubt, as the MP for Doncaster North, he will still get his avocados, soya milk and pomegranate seeds from overseas, while our UK farms, producing the food that most Britons eat—our beef, our lamb and our wonderful vegetables, such as broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, et cetera—will be covered over by solar panels.
My noble friend has made that point, and I will raise a different but related one tonight. My friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not with us tonight. Noble Lords may have heard of a report about a month ago that a bus lost control in Victoria Street and crashed into a bus stop, including pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was one of those injured and was rushed to hospital. The photographs of his injuries are quite horrific, but he says that he believes he has not suffered catastrophic injuries, despite the bus fracturing his spine. He is in a brace, recovering. We wish him a speedy recovery and wish him back here as soon as possible.
Crucially, of course, he is as mentally sharp as ever, with lots of posts going out weekly defending victims of human rights abuses in all those countries that kill, torture, enslave and abuse their citizens. One of those countries is China. It is a threat to us militarily, as it builds a massive military complex superior to the United States. It is a threat to us commercially, as it steals every commercial secret we have. It is a threat to us politically and culturally, as it infiltrates our universities, institutions and even this Parliament.
The important point I want to make in this debate tonight is to say, in my inadequate way, what I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would have said if he were with us tonight. My concern is that we will be filling England with some of the products from that oppressive and hostile regime. China manufactures 80% of the solar panels in the world. Some 68% of all the solar panels sold and used in the United Kingdom come from China, many made by the slave labour of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province. Even those not made in that province are still made in the hostile Chinese regime, which has an appalling human rights record.
What has happened to the Labour Party, which permits the Secretary of State to cover our countryside with products made by such a deplorable regime? Some of the Members opposite will be old enough to remember the late Robin Cook, Labour Foreign Secretary, and his ethical foreign policy. It did not quite work out as planned, but at least he sought to have one. Underpinning the ethical initiative was the guiding idea that Britain would seek to advance the cause of human rights in international affairs. I know that is not easy, and I appreciate how Governments face difficult problems and have to get into bed with some awful regimes in order to keep out even more awful regimes, but this is an easy one as far as solar panels are concerned.
I want a commitment from the Government that all the solar wind farms rubber-stamped by Ed Miliband will have a condition that they will not use any Chinese-produced solar panels, bearing in mind that 32% of the solar panels in this country are not Chinese—so there are alternatives. I understand that there is a company based in south Wales called GB-Sol that manufactures a wide range of solar panel modules for domestic, commercial and specialist applications. There is a company called UKSOL, a British solar modules brand, that produces high-efficiency PV modules. There is another company called Romag, a large and established manufacturer that also produces British solar panels, as well as one called Anglo Solar, which I found—another UK company.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I would just like to say a few words, because I actually believe that solar energy is a very good thing. We have installed it—and I must declare my interest, in that my family bulb-growing and farming industry business in south Lincolnshire is obviously on grade 1 land. All our land is grade 1, and we do not want solar panels on it; our neighbours do not want solar panels on their land. But we have installed solar panels on all our warehouses that we use for our business.
There are ways in which the farming community can co-operate with the general wish to see regenerative energy available to the well-being of the country. But if you live in south Lincolnshire, you live on a corner of the coastline where so many powerlines go through and there is a risk that it is so convenient—there are so many substations and so many points of contact with the national grid that go across that particular area of the Wash—that it is a temptation. All I would say is that, while solar energy is good, so is food production. While bulbs, which most people know I produce, are not edible but are just for the delight of people in their recreation, most of our land is agricultural land producing vegetables and all the sorts of things that people need to have a healthy diet in this country. We would be wrong to do other than support the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Fuller.
There has been a lot of rhetoric, and I think some of it has been counterproductive. The Secretary of State for Energy is doing what he feels is his mission. However, this House should send amendments to this Bill that remind him that there are priorities other than renewable energy and, by passing these amendments, we would provide a contribution to the debate that makes it sensible for Governments of whatever colour or party to realise that food security is equally as important as energy security. I hope that noble Lords will see this question in the round and not from a partisan point of view and support these amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to both these amendments, considering the hour. We cannot support either of these amendments, which are both too prescriptive and too absolutist. Indeed, there is a complete disconnect between the amendments at hand and the speeches that have been made to defend them.
Amendment 43 would prevent certain solar projects from being treated as nationally significant infrastructure projects, fragmenting a regime that already provides national oversight, rigorous assessment and opportunities for local consultancy. Amendment 45 would go even further, imposing an outright ban on ground-mounted solar on land grades 1, 2 or 3a. Together, these amendments would send a chilling signal to investors, delaying deployment and weakening our ability to decarbonise our power system.
The Tory policy on climate change seems to change more often than the wind changes direction. I cannot accept these amendments and do not like this whole narrative that we have either food security or energy security. We can have both. Indeed, the biggest challenge to our food security is climate change itself. We have had the five worst harvests in the last 10 years; it is either too wet or too dry. We must do something about climate change.
Solar panels and agrivoltaics can fit together with agricultural land. When we face a warming climate, deploying agrivoltaics might actually be a way of safeguarding our food security, as opposed to challenging it. A quarter of our farmers in the UK already have some form of solar deployed, either on their roofs or in their fields. It is an important way of supporting our farmers, in the face of a changing climate that is weakening their abilities to make a profit from what they do, so that they can continue to survive and provide food to put on our tables.
This whole narrative that it is one or the other is absolutist. It is not helpful and does not get us further forward on this debate. If there were amendments coming forward saying more must be done to make sure that the last resort we use is agricultural land, I would listen to those proposals. We need to do more to get solar panels on rooftops, on warehouses and on balconies, but the Government are taking action on this. They have got policies for rooftop solar. We will be getting the warm home plans, and other plans so that we have rooftop solar on all new builds. We need to go further on that, but these amendments are not helpful.
The idea that you cannot take a single millimetre of grade 1 agricultural land is not helpful. Nobody on these Benches ever asked how much high-grade farming land is used for golf courses, driveways or any other need at all. Somehow, it is only ever solar panels which are a threat to our food security. It is a very simplistic, unhelpful narrative that is designed on propaganda. It is not about food security or protecting our country in any way.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Before the noble Earl sits down, where is his amendment to improve the Bill? Why has he not presented something to this House? I think it insults the House that he condemns positive constructions from the House in general while not presenting anything of his own.
Earl Russell (LD)
It is a very fair question. The noble Lord is entitled to ask me any question he wants and I welcome his intervention. I have tabled loads of amendments in Committee on the Bill. This is not a Bill about solar; it is about the wider planning system. I am happy with the system as it is, so I have not put an amendment in.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for Amendment 43 and to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for his loyal and able introduction of Amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I declare my interest as a farmer, although not of as much best and most versatile land as I would like. To illustrate the point made by my noble friend Lord Fuller, I point out that solar currently offers risk-free returns roughly five times as great as farming land. From a farmer’s point of view, the incentives for doing this are very strong and it is up to the Government to regulate and protect the best and most versatile land.
I will not repeat the arguments that we have heard. They have been very well made and were made at earlier stages of this Bill, as well as on previous Bills, debates and Questions. I will briefly outline our position on these amendments.
We on these Benches are steadfast: food security is national security. Protecting our best and most versatile agricultural land is essential, and we will not apologise for standing up for our farmers and consumers. When the most productive agricultural land is lost to solar developments, our food supply is less secure when it need not be. Where solar developments are pursued, they should be developed on weaker land, not on our most productive farmland. My noble friend Lord Fuller indicated that 42% of UK agricultural land is best and most versatile, but there is also a great deal of unclassified land. So if it is far less than 42% of our landmass, why are we building these large-scale solar farms on it?
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that there was not a problem here, but since the last election we have seen a number of NSIPs brought forward that include a significant amount of best and most versatile land. It is not necessary to use this best and most versatile land; plenty of land is available that is weaker and could support the incomes of the farming community while providing the energy that we are looking for. Should my noble friend Lord Fuller wish to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. I look to noble Lords on the Benches to my left to join us in standing up for farmers and underpinning our commitment to food security. It will be very disappointing if they are unwilling to support this important amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I respond, I send our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for a very speedy recovery. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, his amazing contributions to our debates, particularly on human rights issues, are greatly missed and I hope he will be back with us as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson—whom the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, ably stood in for—have tabled amendments relating to solar generation on agricultural land. This was debated at great length in Committee. While I appreciate the very strong feelings on this issue, the Government’s approach to these propositions has not changed.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it is important that every project is submitted to the planning process which befits its impact, scale and complexity. The Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP regime. The NSIP regime is rigorous. Local engagement remains at the heart of the process. Developers taking projects through the NSIP regime must undertake meaningful community engagement before any decision is taken. The level and quality of community engagement, among other factors, will be taken into account by decision-makers.
In Committee, the noble Lord appeared to suggest that the involvement of Ministers in the NSIP regime undermines public confidence in its ability to assess the costs and benefits of solar projects. I reassure him and your Lordships’ House that all ministerial planning decisions must be taken in strict accordance with planning policy and the Ministerial Code. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. As a result, as I explained on the last occasion when we debated this, we would not expect the planning outcomes to change.
As I argued previously, the Government are fully aware of the benefits of returning control, where suitable, to local authorities. At the end of the year, we shall double the NSIP threshold for solar, enabling projects of up to 100 megawatts to be decided locally. There is only one solar farm above 100 megawatts at the moment, and that was decided through an NSIP process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes. Any marginal gain in public confidence from returning control to local authorities must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. First, giving responsibility for the complex and lengthy examination of NSIP-scale projects to local planning departments will increase the burden on resources that are already under pressure. Secondly, for proposals that are of strategic importance to the country, central government is the most appropriate decision-maker. Changing policy to give these decisions to local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment. Lastly, accepting this amendment would imply that the NSIP regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate on some issues. It may reduce confidence in NSIP decisions that have already been taken and in those that will be taken in the future.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the Government sympathise with her objective to protect fertile farmland from overdevelopment. In Committee, she mentioned how the war in Ukraine has brought into sharp relief the need to protect food security. This gets to the heart of the matter, for another lesson of the war in Ukraine is the strategic vulnerability of relying on volatile imported fossil fuels for our energy supply. We must find the right balance between food security and energy security. That is why food security and energy security are currently balanced in the planning system, which considers both these factors.
This amendment tilts the balance too far in one direction, so we must oppose it. It would prevent a significant portion of the solar development required to deliver energy security. Many fields contain land that varies in quality. It would not be proportionate to reject an otherwise beneficial project because a small portion of its total area was classified as “best and most versatile land”. This blunt instrument would jeopardise the Government’s plan to achieve clean power by 2030 and, in turn, our work to deliver lower bills in the long term, high-skilled jobs, and, yes, energy security.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the monitoring of solar farms. The Renewable Energy Planning Database lists all projects larger than 150 kilowatts, such as solar farms, including their precise locations. It covers projects at all stages of the planning process, from application to operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to the land use framework and whether it is a material consideration in terms of the planning process. By law, planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise; what constitutes a material consideration is for the local planning authority to determine, based on the circumstances of a particular case. The evidence base that underpinned the land use consultation and feedback on it will inform the Government’s wider strategic planning agenda.
I would like to make a few brief comments on what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said about China—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The Minister talked about the monitoring procedures. Her remarks indicated they were going to be only when the projects were in their early stages. The worry is what happens maybe three, four or five years later, when the people who start owning it pass it on to someone who may be less attractive to the future of this country. Will the monitoring be a continuous process throughout the life of each project?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I believe I said—I hope I did—that all stages would be monitored, from application to operation. I hope that is reassuring to the noble Lord.
In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on China—it is important to pick them up—the Government are committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains, including the mining of polysilicon used in the manufacture of solar panels. We expect UK businesses and solar developers to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains. The Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February, enables public sector contracting authorities to reject bids from and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or anywhere in their supply chain.
The Government are considering how to strengthen Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which places a requirement on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more to publish an annual modern slavery statement, including possible penalties for non-compliance, as well as working with a wide range of stakeholders to update the Section 54 statutory guidance. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance that we are taking this very seriously indeed.
From my time as the Minister in MHCLG with responsibility for net zero, I know that we have looked extensively at the UK supply chains and what might be done to further promote and help them to grow their businesses. All this being said, I agree with the sentiments of the noble Baroness that more should be done to install solar on rooftops. We are pursuing various measures in connection to this, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from solar on schools and hospitals and our new building standards to tax breaks and our new £13.2 billion warm homes plan. We have recently conducted a call for evidence about solar car parks, which the noble Baroness praised in Committee.
It is important that we do not overstate the amount of agricultural land that might be occupied by solar infrastructure. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, questioned the Government’s figures on land use. Without being drawn into that discussion, it is clear that a relatively small amount of land, 0.4% in the most ambitious scenarios, is due to have solar installed by 2030. This does not constitute a threat to food security or to British farming, which the Government will always champion. Rather, the primary threat to British agriculture comes from the damaging effects of climate change, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, already mentioned the impact on harvests this year. We have to take that into account as well. I, for one, think that Britain should do its part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Building low-carbon power plants is an essential aspect of this.
I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will note the steps the Government have taken to return the decision-making of more solar projects to local authorities and the existing robust provisions for planning authorities to consider impacts on food production, and that the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her winding. I do not intend to relitigate the debate we have just had; it is very late. It is almost as if the Government timetabled this debate after hours so the viewers at home could not see it. That is a shame, because the viewers would have seen for the first time the Lib Dems’ touching concern for the chilling effect on the investment prospects of the international investors for whom they wear their hearts on their sleeves.
We have reached a turning point in our nation’s story. We have a choice: will we stand up for those who put food in our bellies or is the Minister stuck in the middle of a fight between the Prime Minister on one hand, who says he believes in food security being national security, and an Energy Minister on the other who is impoverishing our nation, sacrificing thousands of British jobs on the altar of net zero while importing the jobs we used to make, but this time for more polluting factories overseas, which achieves nothing but to make us poorer?
We have a choice before us. It is not a binary choice of one or the other, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In our proposal, 58% of the national land would continue to be available. That is not binary; that is proportionate. Here is an opportunity for us all to get the balance right between energy security and food security by agreeing to my amendment. The counterfactual is that we condemn our countryside to an uncontrolled future, where our landscapes are impoverished and collateralised, passed around the global financial system like chips on a poker table.
To govern is to choose. Will this Government continue their war on the countryside or will they, even at this late hour, support our landscapes, the food producers and the rural economy? We should know. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 22nd October 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (22 Oct 2025)
12:29 - Division on Amendment 55 - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 55 agreed.
12:42 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 120 - Amendment 56 agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall just make a quick statement before we continue. Before the first group is debated, I remind the House of some important guidance on Report stage, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly. First, I highlight paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:
“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.
Debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, but a number of contributions on the first day strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny while allowing us to make good progress in good time. Secondly, I remind noble Lords of paragraph 8.82 of the Companion guidance that Members
“pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.
Speeches appear to be getting longer. If noble Lords follow this guidance closely, we will be able to get to votes in a more timely manner.
Clause 33: Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession
Amendment 47
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove the Secretary of State’s right to compulsorily acquire possession of highway land.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 47 relates to Clause 33. We debated this in Committee at some length, but the result of that debate was not in any sense satisfactory from my point of view. I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the letter written to me by the Minister after the Committee debate, which covered a number of points, including this, but added only to the veil of obscurity surrounding this issue rather than clarifying it.
Perhaps I could just explain the political background to this, which gives rise to concern. As a conservative party, we are the party of property rights, and when we see clauses coming forward that appear to extend the rights of compulsory purchase on behalf of the state, we wish to explore and understand them and see whether they are absolutely necessary—especially when they appear, effectively, as a one-line clause at the bottom of a left-hand page in a Bill that appears to be largely about other matters. As I said in Committee, this issue could well deserve a Bill in itself; it certainly deserves proper scrutiny and clarity about what the clause is doing.
I will give the Government something for free: the National Farmers’ Union strongly supports this clause. I will briefly read out its reasoning for doing so and its account of the clause. It says:
“This is a positive step for landowners as, presently, National Highways can only apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable to it to use the land needed for a scheme. Under the Bill”—
that is, as a result of this clause—
“developers using the Highways Act for a project will be able to temporarily use and possess land rather than acquire it”.
That is a much clearer and better account of what the clause is doing than any I have heard from the Minister or the Government so far. But the first question one has to ask is whether the National Farmers’ Union’s understanding of the clause is correct. Can the Government say what it is doing? For example, in the letter that the Minister sent to me, he said that the clause “put beyond doubt” the department’s “existing power”, but the National Farmers’ Union believes that this is a new power, not a matter of putting something beyond doubt. Legal advice that I have formally taken outside the Chamber suggests that it is indeed a new power and not simply putting something beyond doubt. Can the Government state clearly and crisply what the clause is doing and what is new about it? That is the first question.
The second question relates to the issue of whether the clause can be used for the temporary acquisition of the ownership of land—that would be something akin to requisitioning in the Second World War, and it would be totally new—or whether it relates to the possibility of occupying land, traditionally done by means of a licence, a way leave or something of that sort, so that you have rights over somebody else’s land for a period but the land remains their property throughout. It is unclear which of those two it allows—or is it both?—because the clause refers specifically to “possession or occupation”, suggesting that there is a difference in the minds of the drafters between possession and occupation.
That question is tested by the wording of my amendment, which would leave out the words “possession or”. That would test whether this is tautologous or there is a genuine distinction. If there is a genuine distinction, could the Government explain what it is and whether it includes the temporary acquisition of the title to land in some fashion or other? That would be completely new and definitely worth closer scrutiny. If they are tautologous and there is no distinction, could the Government accede to the proposal in my amendment that one of them be left out, so that we have one that is operative and works?
The third thing is that there is no promise of any guidance to accompany this. In creating this new power—I assert, on advice, that the power is new and does not put something that exists beyond doubt—questions of a practical character arise that should be covered by guidance before it becomes operative. For example, how long can somebody temporarily acquire land for? How long beyond completion of the works are they allowed to keep occupation of the land? It might be as simple as: how long can construction huts be left on the land beyond the point when they are actually needed? What is the state in which the land is to be returned if it is temporarily acquired? That would all be useful to know in strong guidance from the Government that would accompany this new power. Again, that is all completely absent.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, that is a good start to today’s debate. It is a rather arcane topic with which to start the day. I wondered, when I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whether he had actually read the original section in the Highways Act 1980, which the Government intend to—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Excellent. I am pleased that he has, though I wonder whether he has, therefore, understood it. It is surprising that he has chosen to create legal uncertainty, which is what would happen with his amendment. Its consequence appears to be that developers needing a temporary use of land have in the past had to use compulsory acquisition powers if the landowner was not prepared to provide a temporary use. The Bill provides more assurance for both landowners and those improving or constructing new roads. For us on these Benches, the amendment makes no sense except as a tool to frustrate road improvements, and we will not support it.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for the amendment, which seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to grant powers to an acquiring authority to compulsorily possess land necessary to facilitate delivery of highway schemes. The purpose of the measure is to allow acquiring authorities to temporarily possess land when needed for highway works to the exclusion of others without resorting to permanent acquisition.
Permanent acquisition of land or acquiring the freehold or long leasehold title of the land would mean that the acquiring authority would own the land outright and permanently. This is unnecessary and disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this clause would enable an acquiring authority to compulsorily acquire the right to temporarily possess and occupy the land needed to facilitate the delivery of a highway scheme.
The rights of an applicant to temporarily possess or occupy land are routinely granted in development consent orders and Transport and Works Act orders. Furthermore, the power would use the same land compensation provisions as apply to compulsory purchase, adapting them as necessary to effect the temporary nature of the interest being acquired.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the National Farmers’ Union. It is not a new power; it is an implied right to take land temporarily that already exists and is already used, but the Government’s Bill makes it explicit.
Temporary possession is a well-established legal concept. It provides certainty and practical powers essential for the safe, efficient delivery of infrastructure works. Temporary possession would offer an acquiring authority—being a local highway authority or National Highways—a safe and proportionate route to exclude others from the land temporarily. This is critical when the land is needed for highways works. It could involve storing equipment and construction materials or manoeuvring large construction vehicles, as well as creating temporary routes to keep works traffic off the highway.
Temporary occupation, on the other hand, as the sole remaining power under the amended clause, would not confer the right to exclude others. This would pose serious safety risks and could undermine project delivery. Without clear powers, authorities would be unlikely to use the amended provision. It would risk introducing legal uncertainty, prolonging negotiations, leading to an increase in objections and public inquiries, all of which would increase costs and could delay delivery.
The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33, as I have said, would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession. Clause 33, as currently drafted, provides the legal certainty, operational clarity and safeguards necessary for the safe and timely delivery of infrastructure projects. It does not create a new power; it is about ensuring that highways infrastructure can be delivered safely and proportionately.
Having, I hope, clearly defined the difference between possession and occupation, I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this is not an attempt to own the land. In fact, it is clearly designed not to own the land, so that the title to the land would not change; it would be a right to occupy the land.
Finally, the noble Lord raised the question of how long it would be after works finish that the land can be possessed and whether there would be a need for guidance. That clearly is a subsidiary matter; I will take that subject away and write to him on it afterwards. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. However, I thought I asked some fairly precise questions, and I do not feel that he has answered the questions with the precision that I was hoping for. Therefore, at the appropriate moment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock
“(1A) Any disapplication of heritage protections under this section must be exercised in a manner that—(a) recognises the value of the United Kingdom’s archaeological and architectural heritage to the nation and to local communities;(b) respects the principle that structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance; and(c) ensures that development under this Act gives due regard to the importance of conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infra- structure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment imposes considerations for any disapplication of heritage protections.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is one area in the Bill where the Government have listened and made significant concessions in the light of the debate in Committee. In Committee, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, challenged the Government to think again about the removal of heritage protections currently provided in the Transport and Works Act. I have retabled the amendment debated in Committee to press the Minister to reconsider.
In Committee also, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, proposed that Clause 41 stand part as the only route to provide important protection for our nation’s heritage. Government Amendment 49 is the answer to those strong arguments: the original Clause 41 is deleted along with the schedule, and a replacement Clause 41 tabled by the Minister.
At the core of the new Clause 41 is the notion of deemed consent; the deemed consent route does not ensure that key heritage duties, such as the duty to have special regard to listed buildings and conservation areas, are included. The Secretary of State therefore makes decisions on whether work to a listed building, scheduled monument or in a conservation area can be given permission, with the provisos of having due regard to. That route enables decisions on those issues to be made more quickly, but it fails the public engagement test that we on these Benches believe is important. However, given the changes proposed by the Minister, we are satisfied that there are protections for heritage sites and trust that all Secretaries of State will use their power with a special and high regard for our heritage. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I speak in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is unable to be here today as she is hosting something that was set up months ago. As a former archaeologist, I am so annoyed by the Government’s attempt to do this. In fact, I have to warn noble Lords that I am going to be annoyed all day, because some of this Bill is absolutely appalling. I therefore very much support Amendment 48. I do not know whether we will vote on it, but I will certainly be there in the Content Lobby if we do.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I tabled my Amendment 50 before the Government tabled their own Amendment 49 in this group. Both seek, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, to leave out Clause 41. It is fair to say that that was the part of the Bill that caused the most concern among heritage groups. We heard in Committee about the concerns raised by bodies including the National Trust, the Heritage Alliance and the Government’s own heritage adviser, Historic England. I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who responded to the debate in Committee and is a man who cares about both our heritage and innovation, very sensibly listened to that chorus of disapproval and undertook to look at this matter again in discussion with other Ministers.
I was therefore very pleased when I saw the government amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has tabled in this group, which responds to the concerns raised in Committee, both in this House and in another place, and in the representations made by heritage bodies. I also welcome the fact that she and the Heritage Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, have met heritage groups directly to discuss this and other aspects of the Bill. That is very welcome, and I understand that it is the first of a number of round tables that they will hold on this issue.
Heritage and the construction of new infrastructure are sometimes held up to be in competition, which of course they are not. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, knows, for instance, from his time as chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, a proper celebration of our past can help to inspire and drive the innovation of the future. As we heard in Committee, if development is done in a way that respects the past and the vernacular of local communities, it then has greater support from those communities and is a much speedier and more welcome thing.
Having seen the government amendment, I will not press my Amendment 50 here on Report. I am glad that the Government have listened to the concerns raised in these debates.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am in the rather frightening position of agreeing with Amendment 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—no doubt they are as concerned about my support for them as I am. However, they have raised some very good points here.
I am in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and his desire to delete Clause 41 in its entirety—now with the Government's amendment—but the noble Baronesses who have tabled Amendment 48 deserve some praise. We can all look at buildings, monuments or parts of the countryside and think that they are wonderful and should not be built on or destroyed, but we do not have our valuable heritage determined by such random means. As the amendment makes clear in proposed new sub-paragraph (b),
“structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance”.
That is the key point. These protected sites are not based on the subjective opinions of us or local people, but on an objective determination using nationally approved criteria on what qualifies a building for listed building protection, or to be a scheduled monument or conservation area. Proposed new sub-paragraph (c) merely asks that due regard be given to conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. The question is, how long will that new infrastructure last?
I did a Google search, and this is what I got on typical building lifespan expectations. Standard residential buildings often have a design life of 50 years, with a possible maximum of 100 years. Commercial buildings can vary widely: some modern commercial properties may be constructed with a short design life of just 20 or 30 years, while others, such as high-quality concrete and steel structures, are built to last 100 years or more. Historical and monumental structures can, with constant care, last hundreds or even thousands of years, as seen with some Roman structures.
We destroy our history at our peril. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”. —[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]
On the one hand, we have the magnificent House of Commons next door and this marvellous Palace here. On the other, we have some of those appalling—but, no doubt, award-winning at the time—1970s tower blocks, which we are now flattening as quickly as possible because of their destructive effect on the people forced to reside in them. No Government would dare to demolish Stonehenge or Hadrian’s Wall, nor to drive a road through them, but there are thousands of ancient buildings that, although not as famous or sexy as Stonehenge or Hadrian’s Wall, are a vital part of our history and deserve protection—or, at the very least, special consideration—before they are demolished for some new construction.
In England, there are 9,320 grade 1 listed buildings and 21,782 grade 2 listed buildings. It is estimated that more than 1,000 of these buildings are over 1,000 years old. I cannot imagine any new development that would justify the destruction or damage of one of these buildings —except, possibly, a runway extension at Heathrow. Very few projects would justify it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has amendments in later groups on protecting heritage trees. In Committee and in HS2 Bills, we have debated saving ancient woodlands. Once they are gone, they can never be replaced. The same applies to conservation areas. Amendment 48 does not call for a complete ban; it calls merely for regard to be had to the need to conserve our historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. I commend the noble Baronesses for tabling that amendment and bringing it to the attention of the House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I cannot resist a brief anecdote. When the inner ring road was being built around Birmingham’s city centre in the 1960s, the highways department at Birmingham City Council approached the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham and said that, unfortunately, both the Pugin-designed Catholic cathedral and the Pugin-designed archbishop’s House next door to it would have to go to make way for the road. When the archbishop entered a modest word of protest against this loss, querying whether it was entirely necessary, the result was that the courteous gentlemen of the highways department went away and rethought the plans somewhat and the archbishop was given a choice: he could lose either the Pugin-designed cathedral or the Pugin-designed house. That explains why, to this day, the cathedral still stands but the house has long since gone. Happily, that approach to heritage is not something that we would see today.
At this point, I wish merely to congratulate those Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken so clearly and valiantly against the original proposal in the Bill. I also thank the Government for listening, because what was originally proposed really was unsustainable; what we have now is a great deal more acceptable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 48 and 50, I shall later move government Amendments 49, 51, 66, 258 and 260. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, as well as the other noble Lords who have raised this issue during the Bill’s passage. I also thank Peers for their time during the recess, when we discussed this matter at length.
As I have noted previously, the Government have no interest in loosening heritage protections; indeed, we see this country’s heritage assets as a vital part of our built environment. We are clear that these assets should be conserved and enhanced for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.
Amendments we have laid to the Bill on heritage and the Transport and Works Act order process will ensure that there is no loss of heritage protection while achieving the Government’s goal of streamlining the process to get on with delivering the infrastructure that this country needs.
Through these amendments, we have introduced a new power for the Secretary of State in England to direct that listed building consent is deemed to be granted in relation to Transport and Works Act order projects. This new power follows the same model as the existing long-established power for them to direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for these projects. This means that, in practice, applicants for a Transport and Works Act order can apply for deemed listed building consent at the same time, rather than having to apply separately to the local planning authority. This will streamline the process.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the long discussion that we had on this issue during recess and her commitment then to introduce a new clause. In my view, she has responded appropriately and fully to the concerns expressed. With those safeguards for our heritage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Deemed grant of listed building consent etc(1) In the Transport and Works Act 1992, for section 17 (listed buildings and conservation areas) substitute—“17 Listed buildings: England(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in England, the Secretary of State may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) Section 16(2) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under this section as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(3) Section 72(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special attention to conservation areas) applies to the making of a direction under this section in relation to a building in a conservation area as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building.(4) The provisions of the Listed Buildings Act apply in relation to any listed building consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Secretary of State under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Secretary of State on an application referred under section 12 of that Act.(5) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 62(2)(a) of that Act (decisions of Secretary of State that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(6) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in the Listed Buildings Act (see section 91(1) of that Act);“controlled listed building works in England” means works to which section 7(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in England) applies;“listed building consent” means consent under section 8 of the Listed Buildings Act (listed building consent in England);“the Listed Buildings Act” means the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.17A Listed buildings and conservation areas: Wales(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled conservation area works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that conservation area consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(3) Section 96(2) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under subsection (1) as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(4) Section 160(1) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to conservation areas) applies—(a) to the making of a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a building in a conservation area, as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building, and(b) to the making of a direction under subsection (2), as it would apply to the grant of conservation area consent in relation to the building concerned.(5) The provisions of HEWA 2023 apply in relation to any consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Welsh Ministers under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Welsh Ministers on an application referred under section 94 of that Act.(6) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 182(2)(b) of that Act (decisions of Welsh Ministers that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(7) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in HEWA 2023 (see section 210 of that Act);“conservation area consent” means consent under section 162 of HEWA 2023 (conservation area consent in Wales); “controlled conservation area works in Wales” means works to which section 161 of HEWA 2023 (demolition of building in conservation area in Wales) applies;“controlled listed building works in Wales” means works to which section 88 of HEWA 2023 (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in Wales) applies;“HEWA 2023” means the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023;“listed building consent” means consent under section 89 of HEWA 2023 (listed building consent in Wales).”(2) In section 22 of that Act (validity of orders)—(a) in the heading, for “under section 1 or 3” substitute “and directions”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) This section applies to a direction under—(a) section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (deemed planning permission),(b) section 17 or 17A of this Act (deemed listed building or conservation area consent), or(c) section 12(2A) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (deemed hazardous substances consent),as it applies to an order under section 1 or 3.”(3) In section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (reference of applications for listed building consent to Secretary of State), omit subsection (3A).(4) In section 94(4) of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 (reference to Welsh Ministers of application for listed building consent associated with Transport and Works Act application), after “application” in the second place it occurs insert “to the Secretary of State”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace the proposed power to remove the need for various heritage-related consents for a Transport and Works Act project with a power to put in place deemed listed building consent or (in Wales) conservation area consent for such a project.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I inform your Lordships that, if Amendment 49 is agreed, I am unable to call Amendment 50 for reasons of pre-emption.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment replacing Clause 41.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—“(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.””
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Amendments 52 and 57 aim to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to switch to an electric vehicle and install the necessary infrastructure so that they can charge from their home, thus benefiting from VAT-free electricity charging. Amendment 52 allows for cross-pavement solutions to be considered as public charge points to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for people to move to electric vehicles at home. Amendment 57 then extends permitted developments related to electric vehicle charge points where there is an agreed cross-pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15 centimetres.
Up to 40% of UK households do not have access to off-street parking. They therefore rely on public charge points, which can cost up to 10 times more than charging at home. A recent survey by the Electric Vehicle Association England highlights that, generally speaking, drivers without off-street parking are more likely to rent, earn less and live in concentrated urban areas; they are less likely to switch to an electric vehicle and those who have are generally less confident in electric vehicle ownership and more concerned about the costs. This amendment would help to democratise access to electric vehicles and reduce inequalities.
As I highlighted in Committee, cross-pavement solutions have real potential to help to tackle this challenge, but the current costs of installation can be around £3,000 and it can take 12 to 15 months for a decision from a local authority. Only this month in Northern Ireland, residents can now apply for cross-pavement electric vehicle charging channels. Through just a simple online form, residents can apply for the channels that would allow residents with electric vehicles to reduce charging costs there from £25 at a typical charge point to just £3. We need to make it as simple and easy to access in the rest of the country too. These amendments seek to make the transition to electric fair and easy. I have been encouraged by discussions with the Minister about this issue since Committee and look forward to hearing whether any progress can be made to help people without driveways to transition to electric vehicles more easily and affordably.
While I am on my feet, on the other amendments in this group, Amendment 55 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has come late in the day. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister on this important area of accessibility and charge points. I shall not waste the time of the House on the new amendments that would add more bureaucracy in the transition to green vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 53 and 54 in this group, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, disdains to address—so that leaves it to me to explain what they would do. Amendment 53 would require local authorities to conduct and publish a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charge point works that may displace general use parking to ensure that the wider motoring public is not disproportionately affected by the transition to electric infrastructure. Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that residents and businesses can request a review where proposed EV installations reduce access to conventional parking.
My concern is that the Government do not appear to appreciate the practical and societal risks of their current approach. Across the country, residents, particularly in towns and suburbs, are finding that parking spaces they have relied on for years are being removed or repurposed for electric vehicle charging bays without consideration of local needs. Of course, the argument is that this is all in the service of the transition to electric vehicles, although that transition appears to be stalling, if we take note of the number of electric vehicles being sold and what the take-up is. But for many people—and there is a class element to this—especially those who cannot afford an electric vehicle, dependency on a petrol or diesel-driven vehicle for getting to work, fulfilling the requirements of daily life and making a living is absolutely essential, and provision has to continue for those. We are in danger of pushing out from parking access poor people, on low incomes, who desperately need a car to make space for the better-off family’s second Tesla for the nanny to use. That cannot be equitable, can it?
What is proposed here is an impact assessment—no prohibition—and the opportunity for people to ask for a review. As I say, the benefits flow directly in one direction. The Minister said in Committee that we must ensure that the regulatory framework is enabling rather than encumbering. I agree, but I ask for whom it is enabling, and at what cost. The transition that we are aiming at has to be fair, balanced and practical, and these amendments would simply introduce a modest, reasonable safeguard to ensure that the wider motoring public is not unduly disadvantaged as infrastructure for electrical vehicles is rolled out.
Amendments 52 and 57—I am willing to address the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, even though she cannot be bothered to address mine—raise the same issue that I have highlighted. By allowing private charging points to extend into the public sphere, these measures would in effect reserve and privatise particular road space for the benefit of particular residents and exclude the general public from parking in those bays even when they were free. Perhaps some means could be found whereby the general public could park in them when they were free, but nobody has proposed what this mechanism is.
It is incumbent on the noble Baroness to address this question. In a world where there was limitless parking space, these issues would not arise, but her amendments aim specifically at those places where there is relatively high density. Places where properties do not have their own driveway or on-site parking space tend to be those with higher levels of density—those are the ones she wants to address—and often they are more mixed economically. As I say, that question of equity is important too.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests as a taxi proprietor and driver of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. The reason why it is wheelchair-accessible is that I introduced that feature into the manufacture of taxis when I ran that business. I also introduced bus ramps to make low-floor buses accessible, and for some years ran the powered-wheelchair finance business Motability. I was also an electric vehicle entrepreneur, making an electric delivery vehicle— a business I started in 2004. I also declare that my wife and I have an eldest son who is disabled with learning difficulties.
The reason for my Amendment 55 follows the statistic that, in this country, fewer than 3% of public electric vehicle charging points are considered safe and reliable for drivers with accessibility needs. Without the protective measures I am putting forward, drivers with disabilities will likely see no end to the struggle of charging their car safely and reliably. This is an essential activity; it should not be yet another barrier for disabled individuals to carry out their day-to-day lives.
This amendment is modest in scope but vital in purpose. It would surely give the Government the power, if needed in the future, to make compliance with existing accessibility standards obligatory. It is an enabling measure, not an immediate imposition. Many EV drivers rely on the public network to charge their car. We know that around 40% of UK households do not have a driveway, for instance, and therefore have no easy access to home charging. We also know that disability and poverty are strongly correlated, meaning that drivers with disabilities are even less likely to own a private driveway and a home charger. It is therefore deeply troubling that most of the public network is unable to meet even basic accessibility needs.
According to EVA England, nearly half of all drivers, with or without disabilities, have experienced problems using public charge points. They cite heavy cables, high kerbs, obstructed bays and payment terminals that are too high or awkwardly placed. For many disabled drivers, these are not small irritations but complete barriers to participation. In July, electric vehicles made up around 25% of new sales, but in the Motability scheme, which supports drivers with disabilities, they represented 12%—less than half. Why are disabled people not choosing electric vehicles? It is because they cannot recharge them. Indeed, a full quarter of Motability drivers say that they entirely avoid public chargers because of accessibility issues. That is not a future issue but a crisis of access now.
The Department for Transport took an important step in 2022 by publishing an accessibility standard, PAS 1899, designed to address these issues. However, as of today, hardly any public charge points meet that standard, largely because the parts and design requirements have yet to be fully adopted by industry. A revised version is being developed, with input from consumer groups and manufacturers. It is expected to offer a workable compromise between what industry can deliver and what disabled drivers need but, when it comes, it will again be entirely voluntary.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. I am absolutely delighted that he has tabled it. As a disabled person, I have to say that the guidance on accessible charging is not worth very much, as it has not made an impact on my ability to move to an electric car. I totally agree about the barriers that the noble Lord mentioned of raised kerbs, gravel or, indeed, poorly lit charging stations, or even lack of accessible bays.
To use a charging station, I need to be able to open the door of my car to the widest possible point. My chair comes apart—the wheels come off, and the frame and the wheels sit on my front seat—and I do not want to damage any other cars while I am getting in and out. It does not take me much longer than a non-disabled person to do so, but when I tried, very hard, several times to move to an electric vehicle it proved impossible.
The first time I tried, I was close to signing the paperwork but had a look around my local area. There was no accessible charging station within at least 30 miles of my house, which was not particularly useful. The advice from the garage was that perhaps I should just take someone with me wherever I went, and they could get in and out of the car to charge it for me.
The problems go deeper than that. As we are seeing charging stations develop, they are taking over accessible bays. One time I was sat in a queue at a service station—admittedly, it was at a busy time—and looked at how much longer it would take me to charge my car, because I need a wider bay. It was a significant amount of time, compared to my place in the queue. What I am worried about is the impact this is going to have if we do not do something now for disabled people.
I recognise that there are probably changes coming to the Motability scheme. I do not have a Motability car, but I do receive personal independence payments. There are an increasing number of electric vehicles on Motability’s books, and Motability is removing cars that a lot of disabled people can drive. This is cutting down people’s choices and options. There is also a lack of wheelchair-accessible vehicles that are electric and allow a tailgate lift, so if someone has an electric wheelchair, that policy is shutting down their options and making things really difficult.
I recently visited Newport, and I offer some praise to Newport Council. It has done an amazing job of providing not just accessible charging stations but lots of different options in its car parks. This is a real model that we should take forward. The council has looked at the guidance, recognised that it is not going to help disabled people, and gone above and beyond. But that is one council; sadly, there are gaps all over the rest of the country. Ultimately, I do not want disabled people to be blamed for not caring about the environment, as they were when plastic straws were banned. Disabled people experienced a massive backlash: they were told they were going to be murdering turtles and dolphins, but plastic straws were the only means by which many people could drink. We can already see that disabled people have been accused of not caring about the environment and not making the switch. Rather, they want to but are unable to do so.
With that in mind, I strongly support the amendment. We have to do something to make it possible for disabled people to switch to electric vehicles.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 53, 54 and 55 but express some concern about Amendment 52. My noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right to call for an impact assessment before local authorities go overboard with removing non-electric car spaces in an obsessive drive for electric vehicle charging points. There are 2.6 million plug-in cars in the UK, including hybrids and fully electric— 5% of the total. But there are 33 million petrol and diesel cars in the UK. AutoTrader issued a report in July this year, stating that the current sales trajectory of new electric cars would see just 45% market share by 2030, well below the 80% projected and mandated target set by the Government. Personally, I prefer to trust AutoTrader’s expert analysis rather than government wish-list projections.
What are the Government’s projections? They believe there could be between 8 million and 12 million hybrid vehicles and electric cars by 2030 if uptake aligns with their targets. By 2040, the number could reach 25 million according to the Local Government Association. Some projections, aligned with the UK’s net-zero goals, estimate up to 37.4 million electric vehicles by 2050 if we go flat out on net zero. So we might have 11 million hybrid cars if—I repeat, if—the uptake aligns with government targets. But we see that those targets are 100% out already, just as the Government’s heat pump projections are about 500% out. In the nicest possible way, it is all wishful thinking.
But the big danger here—and this is where my noble friends’ amendments are spot on—is the Local Government Association’s projection of 25 million electric cars by 2040. Where on earth does the LGA get this information from? What does it know about forecasting electric car uptake? The only ones who can do that are car manufacturers, dealers, others in the trade who have their finger on the pulse of buyer motivation, and those who understand battery replacement costs, Chinese cheap car penetration, trade-in values and so on. If local authorities take up the Local Government Association’s projection and take it seriously—as they are likely to do—we will see twice as many non-electric car parking spaces ripped out, and we will have electric car places instead, so that projection will be wrong.
I simply ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to 2020, when everyone thought that electric vehicles were the bee’s knees and would rapidly replace petrol and diesel cars. In 2019, the Department for Transport forecast that there would be 1.5 million electric cars by the end of 2020. In fact, at the end of 2020 there were approximately 431,000 ultra-low emission vehicles, and that includes battery-electric and fully electric. That is one-third of the Government’s projection. What would have happened if local authorities had had the money and resources to implement that flawed projection? Thank goodness they did not have the money to do it; otherwise, they would have removed thousands of conventional car parking spaces and installed three times more electric charging points than there were cars. That is why it is essential that local authorities follow the measure in my noble friend’s amendments.
We must have a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charging points that would replace general use parking, and businesses and residents must have the power to request a review when EV installations reduce conventional parking. We have seen local authorities ride roughshod over local residents, closing roads and imposing ridiculously low speed restrictions, but I have no doubt that many will ignore the needs of petrol car drivers in the fanatical pursuit of electric cars.
I also strongly support my noble friend Lord Borwick’s Amendment 55. I congratulate him on all the work he has done with London cabs over the years to make them accessible. I and thousands of other people in London would not be able to move anywhere around this city were it not for the ramps that he insisted be built into London cabs; the new, longer ramps are just superb. Most charging points that I have seen seem to be about one metre above the payment. Theoretically, they should be accessible for disabled motorists, but many charging points are not usable for motorists with wheelchair-adapted vehicles. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson on her excellent speech setting out many of the deficiencies she has faced.
In 2018, it was calculated that about 400,000 vehicles had been adapted or converted for wheelchair users, but that includes drivers and passengers. It is a relatively small number in comparison to the 30 million other vehicles on the road. However, if you are a wheelchair user, there first needs to be a dropped kerb. Imagine that you are a wheelchair user, a driver, in a car: there are only two ways to use it. You either get a ramp at the back to get out and in, or a little hoist to get out of the driver’s seat. The first decision you have to make if you see an electric charging point is whether to drive up in such a way that you are exiting on to the street and taking a risk there, or whether to turn the vehicle round so that the driver’s seat is next to the kerb. In the latter case, there needs to be a dropped kerb nearby so that you can get out of the vehicle and on to the pavement. I am not suggesting that every charging point must have a dropped kerb, but there needs to be one nearby. Then, the charging plug must not face the street or car, since the wheelchair user cannot get round to that side to use it. It is not rocket science. It is not expensive to make sure that all plug-in points either face the pavement or are at right-angles to it, or at least do not face the street.
While I have no solution for the scenario where the plug for the car is in the middle of the bonnet or the boot and the wheelchair user can plug in okay, but then cannot get on to the pavement to plug in at the other end, the latest statistics show that most plugs on cars are at the rear. Some 37% of electric vehicles in the UK are configured with the plug at the right rear; the left rear is the second most common location, found on 31% of vehicles. The left front is less common still, accounting for 18% of vehicles. The wheelchair user therefore has to get to the left rear, the right rear or the front to plug in, and then has to get on to the pavement to plug into the socket there. I therefore believe that my noble friend Lord Borwick is absolutely right. If the Government do not make this simple concession, I hope that he will push his amendment to the vote.
Finally, I flag my concern at the mention of cross-pavement charging points. Suffice it to say that, in my short journeys to the House of Lords in my trusty chariot, I battle daily with e-bikes and scooters dumped or parked anywhere on the pavement. Then one contends with temporary construction work, which necessitates cables and pipes crossing the pavement. To be fair, in nearly every case, the construction companies cover them up with temporary cable ramps or protectors but, in about 50% of the cases, they are so high, lumpy and protruding that I cannot get a wheelchair over and sometimes get grounded trying to cross them. However, these construction companies know the law and they try to safeguard pedestrians.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for tabling Amendments 52 and 57, which are important. The rollout of public and domestic charge point infrastructure is vital to ensuring a smooth transition to zero-emission vehicles, particularly for those without access to off-street parking.
Amendment 57 seeks to simplify the installation of cross-pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights. The Government have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords on this matter and further support the aim that the noble Baroness intends with this amendment. As such, we will launch a consultation on introducing permitted development in the coming months. It is important that a consultation is undertaken to consider the impacts of such a permitted development right and to develop appropriate mitigations should the proposal be taken forward. Subject to the outcome of the consultations, we will make changes quickly under secondary legislation through the Town and Country Planning Act to simplify cross-pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights.
The second amendment proposes to treat cross-pavement charging solutions as public charge points under Clause 47, allowing installation without a Section 50 street works licence. Section 50 licences provide local authorities with the statutory means to supervise and regulate third-party works on public highways, ensuring that standards of safety, quality and responsibility are upheld. This oversight is especially important in developing areas such as cross-pavement charging to avoid some of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, just outlined.
While the public charge point market is now relatively mature, with over 86,000 installations in the UK, the cross- pavement solution space remains nascent with just a few hundred installations to date. Given this disparity, it is appropriate that Section 50 licences continue to be used for cross-pavement installations. As my department intends to consult on expanded permitted development rights, it would also not be appropriate to remove the need for Section 50 licences at this time, as that would remove those key checks and balances for local authorities.
However, a delivery model that is already available to local authorities is to use their own highways teams. In doing so, they can already access street works permits to directly install cross-pavement solutions and avoid the need for a Section 50 licence. This approach gives local authorities power to make delivery decisions at a local level, while maintaining oversight and the choice of delivery model. Having listened to the noble Baroness’s concerns, my department will write to local authorities in England to highlight that this is an important option that should be considered.
As well as this, the Government are working to improve consistency and accelerate rollout through dedicated funding, clear guidance and sharing best practice. This includes £25 million in grant funding for cross-pavement channels in England, new and additional guidance and the aforementioned consultation on expanding permitted development rights. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
I turn to Amendments 53 and 54 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The purpose of Clause 47 is to support the rollout of essential EV charging infrastructure across England. This clause is an essential measure for simplifying the application and approval measures for public EV charging points in response to increasing demand for charging infrastructure. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord undermines this and adds additional burdens on local authorities, ultimately slowing down rollout.
Only in certain cases does a local authority choose to dedicate a parking bay for EV charging. In such situations, the current framework—such as the use of traffic regulation orders—already enables highway authorities to manage parking on public roads efficiently. Where an EV charging bay is needed, a traffic regulation order can be implemented to allocate the space. The procedure for putting a traffic regulation order in place includes public consultation and the formal announcement of the authority’s intentions. In cases where installation work temporarily disrupts existing parking arrangements, a temporary traffic regulation order may be used. Here, too, authorities must publish their intention to suspend a parking bay in advance. My department also provides statutory guidance: the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street and Road Works, which promotes early engagement and consultation among all relevant parties before works.
It is vital that our regulatory framework supports progress rather than creating unnecessary obstacles. Imposing an additional requirement for impact assessments at this point would place an excessive strain on highway authorities—a challenge that will only intensify as applications for charge point installations continue to increase. Expecting authorities to undertake detailed assessments for every permit application to install a public charge point would not only introduce additional costs and administrative pressure but hinder their ability to meet the timings prescribed in the existing statutory guidance, which sets out the parameters for response times for permit applications.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendment 54 on enabling residents or businesses to request a formal review where electric vehicle installations reduce access to conventional parking. This proposed amendment would require highway authorities to conduct formal reviews of electric vehicle charge point installations at the request of any resident or business, regardless of the scale of concern, within 30 days. This would, again, place unnecessary burdens and costs on authorities, diverting resources away from essential delivery work and risking delays in our drive towards net zero. At a time when we must accelerate electric vehicle deployment, we cannot afford added obstacles. Furthermore, allowing retrospective reviews at the request of individuals risks reopening settled decisions.
The statutory guidance for highway authorities operating permit schemes provides clear powers to assess the impact of street works and to impose conditions aimed at mitigating disruption, including the loss of parking. Authorities are expected to exercise these powers, ensuring that permit conditions are proportionate and aligned with the broader objectives of network management. This amendment would add complexity without delivering meaningful benefit. It would risk slowing the pace of electric vehicle infrastructure deployment and undermining the confidence of delivery partners.
I note the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the future of electric vehicles. The noble Lord is welcome to his views, but the Government do not agree with him. In any event, we need to make provision for electric vehicles that are already on the roads today. The Government’s Bill seeks to do that. Returning to Amendments 53 and 54, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not to press them.
Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, relates to accessible charging. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—indeed, all in your Lordships’ House—that this Government are very mindful of the difficulties faced by drivers with disabilities. The noble Baroness graphically described why we need to take action. Given that there will be an estimated 2.7 million disabled drivers or passengers on the roads by 2035, making public charge points accessible is not just about being fair and inclusive; it is vital.
As a result, the Government are supporting the adoption of accessible electric vehicles—including wheelchair-accessible models—and the infrastructure that supports them by encouraging their production and uptake through regulatory and policy incentives. My department and the Motability Foundation previously co-sponsored the British Standards Institution’s creation of the first global set of standards for accessible charge points—Public Accessibility Standard 1899:2022 —to provide a specification for designing and installing accessible public EV charge points.
However, we acknowledge that the adoption of these standards has not met expectations to date. Given the importance of ensuring an accessible charging network, my department and the Motability Foundation commissioned the British Standards Institution to review the adoption of the standards and any changes needed to accelerate their uptake and to improve accessibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, this review has involved a range of stakeholders, including disability advocacy organisations, consumer bodies, industry, the devolved Governments and others. It has identified challenges with the current standards and will be published shortly.
The review of this standard demonstrated a clear commitment from across the sector to ensure that charging is accessible for all drivers and has recommended changes and revisions to address these challenges. In addition, there are, of course, certain requirements that businesses, including those providing public charging, must follow under the Equality Act. Although the Act sets out these general duties, specific standards, such as PAS 1899:2022, help to ensure charge points are accessible in practice. I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that Newport City Council has done well in this respect; of course, we want all other local authorities and private providers to do the same.
The priority at this stage must therefore be to work with stakeholders across the sector to address the findings of the recent review. We believe that there is clear support for this plan from interested parties and the groups that contributed. Following this, we will monitor the adoption by industry and the impact on accessibility carefully to evaluate whether even further measures may be needed. In the Government’s view, it would therefore be premature to seek legislative measures to mandate the requirements at this stage.
I recognise that these provisions are fundamentally enabling powers, and I am grateful to have been able to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, yesterday afternoon, since he tabled his amendment. Although I cannot currently accept his amendment, and therefore ask him not to press it, the Government will continue to consider this issue. I can assure him that all the groups that I have mentioned will continue to play a vital role in accessibility and taking forward the findings of the review. I will continue to work with him and the noble Baroness on this matter to see what we can do to speed up the process.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister and his team for meeting me a number of times, including during recess, to discuss the amendments that I have tabled. Finding ways to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to move to electric vehicles is so important for our green transition. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a consultation on permitted developments, followed by secondary legislation as soon as possible, and to write to all local authorities to effectively help speed up works to help those seeking cross-pavement solutions. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Borwick
“(10) The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 is amended as set out in subsections (11) and (12).(11) In section 10 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection)—(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points;”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1)(ba) may, for example, require the operator of a public charging or refuelling point to ensure that the point complies with minimum specifications for placement of a charge point display, bay size, and the height and weight of the charging cable for the purpose of ensuring accessibility for disabled people.”.(12) In section 14 (transmission of data relating to charge points), in subsection (2) after “energy consumption” insert “, accessibility”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide extra powers to the Department to enable them to bring forth regulations to enable disabled people to more easily use public charging points. Such regulations may encourage public charging points to be designed with disabled drivers in mind who may be more willing purchase an electric vehicle if they are able to access and use the charging points.
“Deregulation of low hazard reservoirsWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the current regulatory regime for low hazard reservoirs, and set out proposals for the deregulation of such reservoirs to facilitate their construction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to encourage the consideration of measures to facilitate the construction of small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given that the debate was two days ago, I will briefly remind the House why I am pressing this to a vote. The Minister explained clearly that there will be a review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which currently prohibits or sets very strict criteria on the construction of small reservoirs. Given the last two summers we have had, and the difficulty farmers have in accessing water at short notice during the summer months, it is extremely important that this review is brought forward and takes place as soon as possible to make sure that farmers have a regular supply of water to ensure that their stock is fed and their crops are watered. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson
National Lane Rental Scheme: establishment(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Lane Rental Scheme (“the Scheme”).(2) The Scheme must ensure that—(a) local authorities are able to grant lane rental permission to utility companies as standard,(b) the Secretary of State is only involved in the granting of lane rental when utility companies appeal to the Secretary of State about the local authority’s actions under paragraph (a), and(c) any public highway may be subject to lane rental provisions, irrespective of size or level of sensitivity.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) consolidate existing regulations which provide for local authorities to grant permission for lane rental to utility companies for works, and(b) ensure that any orders made under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which may contradict the provisions of the Scheme are repealed.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument vary provisions in the Scheme.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) Any revenues raised through the National Lane Rental Scheme must be ring-fenced by local authorities and used exclusively for—(a) repair and maintenance of highways, including the remediation of potholes, and(b) measures to minimise future disruption from utility works.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a national scheme for Lane Rental during road works with the intention of developing a simpler, less bureaucratic, and more consistent system.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response when I raised this in Committee and his subsequent communication. I am sure he recognises the problem that this amendment seeks to address, but I am afraid that limited tinkering does not solve the problem; we need to do something more meaningful.
As I said in Committee, we are plagued with constant disruption to our roads from roadworks. In the majority of cases, these relate to utilities works. It is a huge frustration to all drivers, often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact. It also affects householders, pedestrians and cyclists caught up in or impacted by the noise and fumes of idling cars. Local businesses suffer, as they lose business when people can no longer come to their pub, shop or whatever because of the excessive journey times. When these delays are on major roads, small country roads are often impacted by excessive traffic as people seek alternative routes.
Drivers are doubly frustrated when we see no work being done by these roadworks. Sometimes that is for a good reason but, often, it is for the convenience of the contractor. Last time, I gave the example of traffic lights being put out on a Friday for work starting on the subsequent Monday. The work is completed on the Thursday, yet the traffic lights are not removed until the subsequent Monday, so we have traffic lights and a closure for 10 days when there is only three or four days’ work. There is also the example of work being done during the day but nothing being done overnight, with the opportunity to move these traffic lights to one side. We recognise that utility work is essential, but it really should be done in a way that minimises disruption and keeps road closures and traffic lights to the absolute minimum.
Councils and the Government have sought to address this issue through measures such as permitting regimes. Many councils do this in a proactive manner, enforcing roadworks being kept to the permitted time, but that does not stop utility companies seeking a two-week gap when they might be able to get away with a five-day or six-day closure. As we discussed last time, there is a lane rental scheme under the 2012 lane rental regulations. As my noble friend Lord Moylan can attest from his time in London, the scheme works well for Transport for London. However, TfL is an exception, as the majority of its significant roads can be covered by the criterion of “highly sensitive roads” and it has the resources to deal with the bureaucracy involved, which includes applying to the Secretary of State for a statutory instrument. Outside London, the scheme can include a maximum of only 10% or 20% of the road network. As such, only four county councils have applied. It does not work in rural areas in particular.
There is a better way. There should be a national scheme, with appropriate protections and so on, that enables a wider range of highways to be included so that councils can simply opt in without the need to apply for a statutory instrument. This amendment seeks to reduce not only the time during which our roads are held up by roadworks but the bureaucracy involved in getting a lane rental scheme. Can the Minister not tinker with the existing scheme but, as the Chancellor has promised, sweep away unnecessary red tape to enable growth by enabling local highways authorities to keep our roads open and our traffic flowing, for the benefit of motorists, residents, the economy and local businesses? I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important issue: the huge frustrations around roadworks, in particular utility works. As mentioned, lane rental schemes exist in places such as London, and other highway authorities are also setting them up in England. For our Benches, though, this is an issue of localism. Although the Government can always share best practice, we think that it is for local and regional areas to develop schemes that suit their locality and their needs. We do not see the need for this amendment at this point, but we await the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. As I said when we discussed this matter in Committee, it seems perfectly obvious that the powers of Transport for London in relation to lane rental should be available to highways authorities in the rest of the country. There is no objection to their operation in London. They work reasonably well; nothing works perfectly, of course, and there will always be roads that are blocked. Speaking from my own experience, I think there have been continuous highways works on Knightsbridge, including the tunnel, for the whole of the past 12 months, including at the moment. None the less, I am sure they would be even worse if we did not have a lane rental scheme in London. It should be available to the rest of the country. My noble friend Lord Jamieson is speaking common sense; I hope the Minister will agree with him and accept the amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving this amendment on a new national lane rental scheme. As the noble Lord says, he and I have exchanged correspondence on this issue, for which I also thank him. This Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks.
Lane rental is a valuable tool that enables highway authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. These charges incentivise quicker completion, off-peak scheduling and alternative locations to minimise disruption. Existing schemes, not only that in London with Transport for London—a scheme I happened to have the privilege of introducing in my time as the commissioner at Transport for London—but those in Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex and other applications that are in train, show that lane rental encourages more thoughtful planning and has proven effective in reducing disruption where congestion is most acute.
However, lane rental is not suitable for every area or every road. Many local authorities do not experience the levels of congestion needed to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. We remain committed to empowering local authorities but we must be mindful that there is a risk that extending lane rental powers universally could lead to an inconsistent and fragmented approach across the country. The Government recognise the value of local leadership. That is why, in our devolution White Paper, we committed—subject to consultation—to devolving approval of local lane rental schemes to mayoral strategic authorities. We have consulted on this proposal and will publish the results and next steps as soon as we can.
In relation to proposed revenue ring-fencing, from January 2026, highway authorities operating lane rental schemes will be required to spend 50% of surplus lane rental charges on highway maintenance, including the remediation of potholes, and the remaining 50% on measures intended to reduce the disruption or other adverse effects arising because of street works. These requirements will be set out in legislation and updated guidance, ensuring a balanced and targeted use of funds. For the reasons outlined, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I think we should have a national scheme that can be opted into—and so would still be very much a local scheme—but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Water infrastructure project licencesOmit sub-paragraph (a) of regulation 4(3) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to remove the “size and complexity” test for the awarding of a licence for a water infrastructure project, meaning that projects would be considered on value for money alone.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this amendment was debated in Committee, led by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who did a marvellous job of it, because I was away representing Parliament in the US. However, I have decided to retable it as I am conscious of the timing of the contributions last time. Only a couple of days beforehand, the Government, or rather Sir John Cunliffe, had published the review. In the response, the Minister referred to the March 2025 report by the Government regarding regulators and felt that it was too soon to be considering this issue. I am also conscious that, if I were to press this amendment, I would have gone further and amended the Water Industry Act 1991, the parent act of these regulations.
Why does this matter? We have just seen a Division on smaller reservoirs, but I am conscious that, particularly with the current financial environment regarding the water industry—which, by the way, will be putting a record amount of capital into fixing things such as sewers over the next five to 10 years, as well as the other work being done—there are still significant needs for reservoirs. We should recognise, as will be said, that a reservoir has not been built in the last 30 years. I remind your Lordships that, in 2015, the expansion of the Abberton Reservoir in Essex was completed, which increased its capacity by about 58%. The water industry has got far more efficient in its use of water and, while there are still leaks, they have also significantly reduced. Nevertheless, the pressure on water resources in this country is acute.
The reason that I seek to encourage the Government to look at this is, frankly, in recognition of how successful the Thames Tideway Tunnel project was—indeed, is. Bearing in mind the amendment passed by the Government on Monday, this amendment would open up opportunities to reduce the cost of consumers’ bills in relation to these significant reservoir projects, and indeed other projects.
That is why I continue to encourage the Government to look back at the 1991 Act and these regulations. A lot of what is happening in this Bill is reportedly being done to try and say to the OBR this is a way of increasing investment. Meanwhile, Part 3 is being used as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That is why looking at some more straightforward aspects of deregulation could go a long way to resolving some of the infrastructure issues that this country faces.
I should be interested to hear from the Minister where the Government’s thinking has moved on this, if at all, but it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. It aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications.
Under existing regulations, a water infrastructure project licence is awarded only if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertaker’s ability to deliver services. The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water company’s competencies, among others, to determine whether specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The amendment’s goal is clear: it is to remove this test.
I have listened to what the noble Baroness said. It is argued that the amendment would allow smaller or less complex projects potentially to be outsourced or treated as specified infrastructure projects, SIPs, and offer better economic efficiency. While we recognise that this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third-party infrastructure projects in the water sector—we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery—we are cautious on this amendment, and I follow the line that we took in Committee. The current regulatory framework, which includes a size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard. Ofwat’s regulations are intended, and the test ensures it, for ambitious projects, if managed by an incumbent company, not to threaten the water company’s fundamental services obligations to its customers.
Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add to this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the Government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector, if crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver.
It is also essential to take note of the Government’s concerns raised in Committee regarding the amendment. They confirmed that they actively resisted this amendment, certainly in Committee. They have already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, SIPR, framework. Our understanding is that Defra intends to amend it to help major water companies to proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The Government stated their concerns that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector’s diversity needs. The Minister assured the Committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe review on water industry modernisation, will be completed in this calendar year.
For those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of Amendment 58A, we believe that the responsible course of action is to allow the Government to complete their committed to and planned regulatory review, so we are unable to support this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 58A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. As we have heard, under the current framework, only projects deemed sufficiently large or complex can be considered for a separate infrastructure licence. This threshold may have made sense at the time that the regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation and investment in the sector, which is already under increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone—a clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models, where they can be demonstrated to give clear public benefit.
Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions and not limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints. This is a modest and targeted amendment that would give Ofwat and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, we support it, and we hope that the Government will think again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to ensure that the specified infrastructure project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.
Two procurement models for delivering infrastructure exist at the moment: SIPR and direct procurement for customers—DPC. I acknowledge that we have to do all we can to make sure that customers get the good value for money that we are all seeking. That is why, in the Government’s response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, we will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models, in the White Paper that will be published shortly. For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am looking forward to the White Paper. I hope, even if it does not come up in the White Paper, that there will be a water Bill coming at some point in the next year or so. If I have not persuaded the Government today, I hope that we will return to this in due course. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“(ba) the requirement for proportionality in the level of the fee or charge, based on the nature and size of the development to which the fee or charge will apply;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations is proportionate to the nature and size of the development it applies to.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased when this amendment was debated in Committee, as there was a very small but warm consensus that it seemed fair and reasonable. We are well aware that SMEs face many challenges, but we believe that this is a small but significant signal to them that we understand their concerns.
The problem could not be clearer: the planning system is, by its very nature, stacked against the little players—small and medium-sized housebuilders, those local and skilled firms that know their communities best. They are operating in a system designed for the big players. They already face headwinds from finance, land supply and market exposure, yet our own planning system makes these headwinds stronger. Planning fees are one of the clearest examples of how policy, unintentionally, financially disadvantages smaller builders that are already struggling to survive. Small builders now deliver only 10% of new homes in the UK, which is down from almost 50% in their 1960s and 1970s heyday. The number of SME housebuilders has fallen from more than 12,000 in the 1980s to around 2,500 today.
When we debated this in Committee, the Minister said that the Bill already provides a clear framework and that local authorities will have the flexibility to vary fees through consultation and benchmarking. This is precisely the framework that has created the problem. Benchmarking, consultation and cost recovery sound absolutely reasonable in theory, but in practice they are the very mechanisms that have produced the current imbalance. SMEs already operate under a national system built on these principles, and it has led directly to them paying far more per home than large developers. This is an evidenced fact. Simply devolving this flawed model to local authorities will not suddenly make it fair.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I find that there is much to commend in her amendment, which I hope gains the favour of the House and, indeed, the Government. I am also very taken by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who will explain it momentarily. I have tabled Amendment 60 on Report to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government that fees will include the cost of enforcement measures.
In Clause 48, the Government recognise that the local planning authority in England may set the level of a fee or a charge. Indeed, Clause 49 goes on to consider the raising of a surcharge on planning fees, which I think is going much further than my modest little Amendment 60. I am deeply concerned about the issues raised by insurance companies such as, in this case, Aviva: that the Government seem to be in denial as to the implications for potential future floods of their commitment to build 1.5 million homes in the course of this Parliament.
We will come on to discuss greater flood resilience measures and, indeed, possibly not building on the most functional flood plains, but at the moment the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has no measures to improve the flood resilience of new homes. We have to accept that these measures are expensive. They include such measures as increased insurance costs and measures to make homes more resilient. Many of them are geared to reducing the impact of climate change, and I think it is generally felt that it would be a small price to pay if these measures were included and recovered in a modest increase to planning fees. I do not think it would be disproportionately high, as the Minister responded when summing up on the amendment in Committee; that is why I have sought to raise this.
I am sure that the Minister, the department and the Government would like to see these resilience measures included. Many of them are now hopefully becoming more affordable than has been the case in the past. Life is about choices. If the Government are going to build on functional flood plains, we have to accept that those future homes have to be flood-proofed and resilient. These measures cost money.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the increased cost of ensuring that those measures are adequately and properly installed will be covered in the cost of a fee. I do not believe that the fee will be disproportionate. Therefore, I have returned with this amendment today to make a plea to the Minister that she will see that this is only a potentially modest increase. It is something that she, her department and her Government are asking householders to do, and I believe that the enforcement cost should be covered in the fee. That is the proposal that I put to the House this afternoon.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 61 in this group is in my name. I will talk to that in a moment, but first I want to say one or two things about the helpful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it points in the right direction, but we need to understand where we would end up if we were to go in that direction.
Some noble Lords will have participated in the debate that we had toward the latter stages of the last Parliament about the new regulations relating to planning fees. One thing that came through quite forcibly from that was that householders—for example, making applications in relation to their own houses—were paying significantly less than the cost of dealing with their application. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there is, and has been subsequently in the Government’s changes to the planning charges, some balancing of that, and that householders are paying more.
If I understand correctly, it is the noble Baroness’s intention that the fees charged should be proportionate to the number of households or the scale of a development—although that is not actually what her amendment says. The amendment simply says that it should be proportionate; it does not say proportionate to what. Basing it on the size of a development could mean basing it in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. I am afraid that when you write legislation, you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his colleagues will take it apart. We do not want that; we want to be very clear about what we are setting out to achieve.
I am sure it is not the noble Baroness’s intention to press the amendment, but it raises an important issue. When Ministers bring forward regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, it is at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble Baroness said and the purposes she was describing.
My amendment is derived from our debate in Committee. I did not have an amendment then, but we had an exchange about Clause 49, which relates to the surcharge that can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. When we reach Clause 49, we see that new Section 303ZZB(6) states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to
“secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons”.
I noticed, in listening to the debate, that new Section 303ZZB(8) says that:
“Regulations …may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.
We therefore have the curious situation where, in the same section, it says that it should not exceed the costs and also that regulations have the specific power to exceed the costs. I have not had a conversation with the Minister, but I have been thinking about this quite carefully. The purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask whether my understanding is correct. If it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly.
New subsection (8), which says that the surcharge could exceed the costs of the listed persons, relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the costs of the work done in relation to any individual application. New subsection (6) tells us that, in effect, it is not just taking one year with another or looking at the costs, but looking at costs across all of these activities and applications, and that, overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. I hope that the explanation of the Bill is precisely that: subsection (8) should only be referenced in relation to an individual application and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur dealing with planning applications.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations be proportionate to the nature and size of the development to which it applies. Proportionate fees are of course vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this amendment as further prescription in the legislation risks reducing flexibility for local authorities and the Secretary of State to respond to changing circumstances. We agree with the principle of proportionality, but we do not think this is the right way. I hope that the Minister will look at our Amendment 103 later today.
Amendment 60 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh would allow the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been properly installed, to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. We are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions, although this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future.
Finally, Amendment 61 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsections (5A) and (5B). I recognise my noble friend’s concerns about the overreach in fee structures and I hope the Government can take the time today to set out the reasons and intentions behind these subsections.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions regarding planning fees. I turn first to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which we had the pleasure of touching on briefly at our meeting last week. I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the type and size of the planning application. However, I respectfully suggest that this amendment is unnecessary and will explain my reasons.
The principle of proportionality already exists in the planning fees regime; in view of the noble Baroness’s comments, I give an example of why I say this. Planning application fees for fewer than 10 new houses are currently £588 per dwelling; for between 10 and 50 dwellings, fees are £635 per dwelling; and, for more than 50 houses, there is a set fee of £31,385, plus £189 for each additional house, up to a maximum fee of £411,885. The fee increases with the number of houses to be built, reflecting the cost to the local planning authority of processing the planning application. This Bill already provides a clear and strong framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate to the type and size of development.
As mentioned in previous debates, the Government plan to introduce a local variation model—I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was not confident of this, but talking to the sector about how we do this will be important—under which a nationally set default fee developed through benchmarking and public consultation will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case with planning fees, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.
To ensure that any locally set fees remain proportionate and reflective of local circumstances, the Bill requires that they must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service and that local communities must be consulted on those proposed changes. Significantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate; this is an important safeguard to uphold consistency and fairness across the system.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is concerned about SMEs. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I had a meeting last week with the APPG for SME House Builders, which raised a number of issues with me. We are all concerned about ensuring that we make things as efficient as possible for SMEs—as well as for those in the charity sector, such as Centrepoint, which the noble Baroness kindly brought to a meeting with me last week—in terms of providing much-needed homes. I assure the noble Baroness that we recognise that SME housebuilders are an indispensable part of the sector. That is why the Government have brought forward a package of financial support for SMEs, including: an extension of £700 million to the home building fund to provide loans and financial support to deliver 12,000 more homes; £2 billion of ENABLE Build guarantees; and a commitment to £100 million of funding for SME accelerator loans. In view of these measures, I am certain that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 60. Well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need. They also safeguard communities from unauthorised or harmful development by ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action where that is necessary. We understand the intention behind this amendment—supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity—but, because planning enforcement serves a much wider public interest, we consider that it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services, rather than for individuals to bear the responsibility.
Additionally, we consider that allowing local planning authorities to set planning fees that included enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees for applicants; indeed, it may have an impact on the very SME builders whom the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, discussed. We are concerned that this may discourage development at a time when we are very committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building. More widely, the Government have committed to a £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will not press her amendment.
Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would remove our ability to introduce a straightforward planning fee surcharge, instead requiring that only the costs incurred in relation to the specific planning application could be recovered. It might be helpful if I elaborated a little more to answer his questions.
We propose to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the planning fee that a developer must pay when submitting an application. We recognise that some applications will require detailed input from half a dozen consultees, while others will require little or no input. As we are not calculating the fee on the basis of application-specific costs, developers may sometimes pay more and sometimes less than the costs incurred by the relevant statutory consultees with regards to that specific application. However, we will be required to set the surcharge so that it does not exceed the relevant costs of the statutory consultees in aggregate. If it costs a certain amount to operate the statutory service, the surcharge must be set so that its income does not exceed that amount. I hope that is helpful.
We fully recognise that direct cost recovery works well for some regimes, such as for NSIPs, where there are relatively few projects. Engagement occurs over a longer period and predominantly takes place prior to the application for development consent being submitted. It also works well for voluntary pre-application engagement. It is important to note that statutory consultation under the Town and Country Planning Act regime is different: it occurs only once the planning application has been submitted. The planning authority must identify which organisations are required to be consulted, and these organisations must respond within statutory timeframes, generally of 21 days.
It is also an issue of high volume. The six largest statutory consultees receive around 50,000 consultations a year, with tens of thousands of unnecessary referrals on top of this. Instituting direct cost recovery by statutory consultees would require a billing mechanism capable of dealing with up to hundreds of thousands of planning application referrals each year, with money and information passing between 300-plus local planning authorities, up to 29 statutory consultees and individual developers. It would significantly increase the complexity of the planning system, increase the administrative infrastructure required and place a substantial pressure on the ability of statutory consultees to deliver within statutory timeframes. Our concern is that instituting this approach would be costly and bureaucratic, create uncertainty for developers over costs and create delays. Just as importantly, it would also remove any incentive for statutory consultees to deliver efficiencies.
The alternative that we are putting forward in the Bill is for a simple, straightforward percentage surcharge on top of the planning fee. This means that, in some cases, as I have said, a developer will pay more through the surcharge than it would cost the statutory consultee, and in some cases the developer will pay less. However, developers will know how much they need to pay upfront, and there will be no unexpected costs. That way we will not be creating more hoops for developers to jump through to get their application considered; they will pay a fee when they submit their application and that is it. Before regulations are introduced, we will consult on proposals to establish the level at which the surcharge will be set and the types of planning application it should apply to.
Lastly, we recognise the risk that charges could be set at inappropriately high levels and that is why our proposed powers make it clear that the surcharge cannot be set at a level which exceeds the relevant cost of the persons, such as the statutory consultees, that the surcharge is intended to cover. That ensures that we limit ourselves to cost recovery in aggregate, even if it does not apply on the basis of individual planning applications. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this amendment but, given the reasons and explanations I have set out, I hope he feels able not to move it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it is of absolutely no surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spotted my drafting omission, which is why we always take his amendments seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board his comments, which I thought were quite pertinent.
I was seeking to make proportionality a clear legal duty rather than a well-intentioned aspiration. So, put very simply, I guess it is about the proof of the pudding and “watch this space”. I hope that we will keep an eye on this, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hampton
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) must require that prescribed training promotes a science-based approach with regard to—(a) climate change and biodiversity; and,(b) ecological surveying including botanical and mycological surveying.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the mandatory training for members of planning committees and planning officers must include climate and biodiversity and enhanced ecological literacy training, in line with the latest scientific guidance.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 62 in the names of my noble friend Lady Boycott—who sends her apologies; she has been unavoidably detained—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
This amendment, which is very similar to one tabled in Committee, would mean that the mandatory training for members of planning committees must include climate and biodiversity, and enhanced ecological literacy training, in line with the latest scientific guidance. It is welcome that the Government recognise how crucial expertise on biodiversity issues is for planning committee members.
This amendment has been revised since Committee to address concerns raised by the Government who did not wish to prescribe a list of the training materials that would need to be included. Instead, Amendment 62 would simply require that the training introduced by the Bill would be delivered such that it promotes a science-based and evidence-led approach on matters related to climate change, biodiversity and botanical, mycological surveying. In so doing, the amendment recognises the importance of retaining flexibility and accommodating the fact that there can be developments in new data that will inform training over time.
The Home Builders Federation, in its 2025 Government Progress Report published in August, points to a number of blockers for new housing developments, such as insufficient resourcing of local planning authorities and support for home ownership. It says:
“However, more broadly, as BNG has bedded in, issues with its implementation have emerged, as outlined in a recent BNG HBF report. Unsurprisingly, one key issue is that local authorities do not have sufficient capacity to process BNG applications, with a shortage of public sector ecologists causing increasing delays home builders face before construction can begin”.
Accepting this moderate amendment would help to unpick this issue, as it would ensure that planning members have the skills and confidence to interpret and apply guidance such as BNG. and have a better understanding of the underlying evidence around climate change and the environment and how their decisions impact on local authorities’ ability to contribute to climate and nature targets.
The problem is that planning committees, and indeed the people supporting them, are stretched. I am afraid that, if this is not a statutory requirement, the status quo will continue. People will be making decisions about applications without any scientific understanding of, arguably, two of the biggest threats facing us, at least on a domestic basis.
This is not to attack the planning committees at all, but a 2022 survey prepared on behalf of the Association of Local Government Ecologists found that only 5% of respondents said that their current ecological resource, including in-house and external sources, was adequate to scrutinise all applications that might affect biodiversity. We do not see how that matches up with what the Minister said in Committee. She said that
“it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 970.]
However, it is unnecessary to stipulate all that in the Bill.
If trained, the planning committee can take informed decisions about the ecological benefits and maintenance requirements of ecological enhancements. This would reduce the risk of enforcement actions against developers in the future and provide people with high-quality, nature-rich spaces in which to live and work.
On the climate side, the Minister did not really respond to that in Committee, so I would like to know what is being done to further this. Giving a duty for a science-based approach on these issues would be future-proof, retain the necessary flexibility and not be overly prescriptive while ensuring that anything built is fit for the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who so ably introduced Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I do not need to say very much, but I will just add a couple of extra perspectives. This amendment would ensure that there is training for members of planning committees and planning officers on climate and biodiversity and an enhanced ecological literacy. I particularly applaud the appearance of mycological surveying here as someone who is very passionate about soil science, but I will not go further down that road at this moment, given the hour. What I will say is that this ties very well with our extensive discussion in Committee on the plans and ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about overall strengthening of the planning process—the idea of a chief planning officer and of strengthening planning committees—namely, that we need to strengthen public and political trust.
I declare here my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, noted the lack of resources that local authorities have. If something is not statutory, it is very likely that it will not get done—that is all that local councils have the money to do. We have a huge problem with lack of trust in politics, lack of faith in politics, concern about the planning system and concern that local voices and concerns are not being heard in the system. This is a way of both strengthening the system itself in technical and scientific terms and helping to strengthen trust in the system, which is so crucial in terms of restoring trust in our overall political system and local government system.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is planning, but I think that this is something on which we should think about testing the opinion of the House. I look forward to hearing the Minister perhaps tell us that the Government will follow along these lines, in which case a vote would not be necessary. It is really important that we put these principles in the Bill and make them statutory. Then we can ensure that they will get done; otherwise, it is very likely that they will not.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, nobody, I believe, would want to disagree with members of planning committees, those decision-makers at all levels, being trained. Noble Lords will remember that I tabled an amendment in Committee on Ministers and the Secretary of State having the equivalent training as that expected of councillors. I have not pressed that on Report.
However, I am concerned because, if we are going to start enumerating all the essential skills that the committee must take into account when weighing all the evidence in the balance, and if we are going to cherry pick climate, quadrats and field trips on mycorrhizal fungi and everything else, how will they rank against the impact on residents, business, the economy and the socioeconomic impacts of development? They are all sort of subjective, but then we get the objective ones: space standards, design, viability and so on. It would be invidious to single out just climate change and mycorrhizal fungi in the Bill. Regulations will come forward and we will have an opportunity to influence those, potentially, at a later date in the Moses Room when we can have this debate all over again.
I have sat on a planning committee, and I have appointed a planning committee. We take our obligations and our own authority for training very seriously and it is right that we do. It costs tens of thousands of pounds—hundreds of thousands in some cases, as we heard in the previous debate—to bring a planning application forward. Members of the planning committee should have the widest experience and training.
That training should be not necessarily in the issues themselves but in the ability to work out, critically, whether what they are being told by officials and quangos is valid scientifically. There are different types of science.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I was not making a suggestion about whether climate science is there. There are different levels of science in all manner of different disciplines in planning. Some of it is contested and others are not so. That is why we have planning officials, quangos and scientists. I cannot support this amendment, and I rise because the noble Baroness indicated that she may want to press it to a vote, so I place my objection on the record.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, contrary to my noble friend, I support Amendment 62—in part. The “in part” is because I do not want climate change to freeze out biodiversity, which is ultimately far more important for local authorities, which have specific biodiversity duties but no legal climate change responsibilities. The other reason that it is in part is that, while some of the training is meritorious, it need not be mandatory.
I was privileged to serve on the board of Natural England for almost seven years and on the extraordinary Joint Nature Conservation Committee—the official adviser to the four Governments of the United Kingdom on all matters of biodiversity, both in the UK and internationally. All the top experts in both organisations said that, if we could go back to the drawing board, there would not be two UN conventions—one on climate change and one on biodiversity—but just one. Our chairman, Tony Juniper, consistently said that they were two sides of the same coin, and I entirely agree with him, even if agreeing with Tony may antagonise some of my noble friends around me. The point is that, if we saved our peat bogs, planted enough of the right trees in the right place and stopped ripping the ocean floor apart, we would save so much carbon that we would not need to put our industries out of business, inflict heat pumps on households and penalise anything that produces carbon.
The consequences of those two conventions are that all NGOs and Governments have focused heavily on climate change and that biodiversity gets a poor look-in, and that is a tragedy. With a tremendous amount of political will and with horrendous expenditure that will impact every person, it is possible to reverse climate change eventually. However, we are losing species in the world at a phenomenal rate and, when a species is gone, it is lost for ever. Forget these gimmicks of restoring mammoths, since most of the species being lost are the unsexy flora and fauna that may be vital to future human existence.
I come to the point of council training. The UK has lost dozens of species; even hedgehogs are critically endangered. Also endangered are water voles, turtle doves and farmland birds. Local authorities need to be aware of that, and training for councillors on biodiversity is quite important, in my opinion.
I cannot find any legal duty on councillors to take climate change into account when making decisions. I researched this in case my memory was failing, and the only law on climate change is the Climate Change Act 2008, which was amended in 2019 to add the net-zero requirement. All the requirements of the Act relate to action by central government not local authorities.
I understand that local councillors need to be trained in the legal matters to be taken into consideration when determining a planning application—nothing more, nothing less. My concern is that more than 300 councils have declared a so-called climate emergency and 85% of them have adopted climate action plans, which are all inconsistent with each other. Many of these plans are showboating; some are meritorious, such as Wirral Council’s tree-planting policy, but it is not a legal requirement. Councillors should receive training in strictly only those matters that are legal requirements to be taken into account in planning applications, not in things like Waltham Forest’s policy to divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies.
We have a completely different scenario with biodiversity, since we have lots of legislation on biodiversity that needs to be taken into account in deciding planning applications. I will not go into it all, but the key elements for councillors are contained in my noble friend Lord Gove’s marvellous Environment Act 2021. It is a watershed Act.
The sections that I will briefly mention now will deliver nature recovery for the first time, provided that the Government do not cut the funding. The key item is local nature recovery strategies, which councils, NGOs, Defra and Natural England consider to be the main vehicle to bring about nature recovery. All 48 designated areas have now completed their LNRS plans, I think, but only five have been published so far. I believe that the rest are due to be finished by the end of this year. The success of the strategies will depend on farmers and landowners doing their bit through ELMS, and it is a tragedy that the Government are cutting ELMS funding.
I suggest that training for local councillors needs to focus on the 2021 Act. The main sections are as follows: Sections 98 to 101 on biodiversity net gain; Sections 102 and 103 on the general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity; Sections 104 to 108 on local nature recovery strategies; Section 109 on species conservation strategies; Section 110 on protected site strategies; Section 111 on wildlife conservation licences; Sections 112 and 113 on habitats regulations amendments, which might possibly be for councillors; and Sections 117 to 139 on conservation covenants, which they might come across. There may be other things, but I suggest to the House that these key issues are what local councillors should be informed of and trained on.
I am intrigued by proposed new subsection (b) in the noble Baroness’s amendment, whereby councillors would be trained in “ecological surveying”. The only training that they need is to be able to read and understand the technical ecological reports they might receive, not to do the surveying.
I turn to the mycological bit. As far as mushrooms are concerned, I initially assumed that this was one of those in-jokes we used to have in government that councillors and Ministers were treated like mushrooms by their civil servants—that is, kept in the dark and fed a lot of bull stuff. Of course, I can understand the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, being interested in mushrooms. If she invites me to dinner, I hope she will not serve me mushrooms, being an Australian.
Seriously, however, I am concerned about the huge increase in the last 12 months of trendy Tik-Tokers deciding that foraging is the latest fad and stripping woodlands of far too many mushrooms. That has happened in just the last 12 months. Many years ago, when I was food Minister, I became friends with the wonderful chef, Antonio Carluccio, and had various meetings with him. He was a mushroom afficionado. After a four-course lunch consisting of a mushroom starter, a mushroom amuse-bouche, a mushroom main course and a delicious mushroom pudding, he presented me with an official Italian mushroom picker’s knife. Italy takes fungi seriously. It had a little curved blade; a centimetre scale, so that no ceps were cut under 4 centimetres and others at no less than 2 centimetres; and a little brush at the end to clean off the dirt. Antonio drummed it into me that mushrooms should never be washed—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Can I ask the noble Lord to stick to the amendment? Italian mushrooms might be a very important issue, but as far as this amendment is concerned, it is very discursive.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I take the Whip’s comment with a slight pinch of salt—albeit not on my mushrooms. The amendment refers to mushrooms, and I am citing an example of mushrooms because it is relevant to the debate. If we were working normal hours, my remarks would probably be shorter, in view of the timescale. Since the Government have deliberately added an extra three hours to this debate, my remarks, which are still only seven minutes’ long, are quite relevant and apposite.
I conclude by saying that there is some merit in what the noble Baroness has suggested in these amendments, particularly on the biodiversity training, but we should leave aside the rest of it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I want to point out, since he addressed me directly, that mushrooms are a tiny fraction of the mycological ecosphere and that what we are talking about here are the fungi that are essential for plants to be able to attract nutrients. I would be very happy to discuss all this with him later.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I hope that in two minutes we will adjourn. Right from the outset of the debate on this Bill, the Liberal Democrats have supported the idea of mandatory training for councillors who serve on planning committees, and I am pleased that this amendment does not challenge that principle, which is a good one.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Although I understand the good intentions behind this amendment, there needs to be a recognition that the planning process is a quasi-judicial process. We also support mandatory training for councillors; we would have supported training for officials and, potentially, for Government Ministers, had my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment arisen, but I will let that pass for now.
Such training must focus on the statutory duties of members, ensuring that those who sit on planning committees are fully aware of their roles; of the legal and regulatory environment; and of the procedures on which they need to make judgment. They need to make decisions based on the legal and regulatory aspects that pertain to the proposals brought to the committee. Climate change, biodiversity, ecology and so on are already embedded in national planning policy. There is guidance on them; that guidance will, and should, be part of the training process.
By expanding the scope of the training beyond the statutory duties—as well as ensuring that consideration of the relevant legislation, planning guidance and local policies occurs in determining an application—the proposals risk adding confusion to the training process and, potentially, undermining the quasi-judicial role of a planning committee. I would have been more sympathetic to proposals around ensuring both that the training is effective and that it covers all aspects of the guidance, policies and legislation—including those highlighted today. However, as I said, having training that is more generic risks confusion. Therefore, I cannot support these proposals.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to noble Lords for providing broad support for the concept of mandatory training for members of local planning authorities.
I turn to Amendment 62, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. As I have set out previously, I am very sympathetic to the issues that were raised by noble Lords in Committee. I reiterate what I said at the time: it would be unthinkable that prescribed training would not include, for example, content on biodiversity net gain. The Government maintain, however, that such specific reference to the content of training should be reserved for secondary legislation. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for once; that is not always the case.
Let me respond to the point about the status quo continuing. This Bill brings mandatory training into force for the first time, so it does move us on from the status quo. Including specific details in the Bill would require the inclusion of an exhaustive list—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, gave some examples of what may or may not be in there—which would have to be kept up to date as we move forward, thus requiring valuable time in Parliament.
I will respond briefly to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on what is being done. The Government are working to bring forward the training package; we consulted on our general approach earlier this year. We will ensure that the training is comprehensive and based on both best practice and ongoing engagement with both industry and local government.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw this amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have learned a lot during the past 15 minutes, some of which I have immediately forgotten. I particularly enjoyed the exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—his stream-of-consciousness, mushroom, anti-Australian cuisine comment —which will live with me for a long time.
I know that my noble friend Lady Boycott did not want to press this amendment. I am optimistic, thanks to what the Minister said about mandatory training being comprehensively in the guidance, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 22nd October 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (22 Oct 2025)
16:46 - Division on Amendment 63 - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 63 agreed.
17:53 - Division on Amendment 64 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 64 disagreed.
Baroness Coffey
“(2A) The regulations must not allow an officer of the authority to approve any planning application which—(a) allows building or development outside the boundaries set out in the local plan, or(b) has a housing density for the area that is below the level prescribed in the local plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent officers to whom decisions have been delegated from approving planning applications which would (1) require land outside of the boundary of a local plan, or (2) build at a lower density of housing than prescribed within a local plan.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. We are at the stage now where we are considering the Government’s significant changes—basically, removing decision-making from councillors on a huge scale, which gives me cause for concern—but I have decided to highlight just a couple of issues.
I shall start with Amendment 87F, which goes to the nub of one of these issues. The Government seem to be proposing, in Part 3, that councillors no longer make decisions and that they be handed over to officials, who are obviously not locally elected. Amendment 87F would require the reporting of planning permission that has been granted but not actually commenced. We already have plenty of homes that have planning approval right around the country, never mind the 700,000 homes that are currently sitting empty. I do not necessarily mean second homes; I am talking about other homes that are sitting there doing nothing. This is important to me when I think of communities around the country that have had huge housing targets imposed on them, when actually, the worst situation is in London, where, sadly, hardly any homes are being built at all. Instead, to be candid, we are seeing this rather Stalinist approach. Amendment 87F is intended to encourage the Government to make sure that at least we have some transparency on what is happening with all the homes for which development permission is being granted, but which are not being built.
Amendment 62A deals with what happens when officials talk about planning applications that do not fit within the boundaries of the plan. We have been told at various stages of the Bill that the real democratic process is in the initial creation of the plan. My experience of various places I have lived in is that communities rarely get involved—councillors do, of course, but there is a lot of consultation—until there is a particular development in their area. Nevertheless, even if the focus will now be put on consideration of where housing can happen—with, we hope, little further argument once that is done—officers should not then be allowed to approve planning applications that sit outside the plan.
The second issue is something I have seen in the Felixstowe area in particular. Land has been set aside for 2,000 new homes on the edge of Felixstowe, but we are already starting to see officers questioning the housing density being proposed, and making recommendations in line with other policies. If the same principle was applied to every single planning application, instead of the land that has been set aside, which is already substantial at a housing density of about 150 per acre or per hectare—I apologise; I cannot remember which—the implication is that three times the amount of land would be needed. That is a huge extension of what communities that have been encouraged to get involved in plans thought they were getting when they signed up to this.
That is why I believe that if councillors want to go beyond the boundaries set out in the local plan and change the density, they should be the ones making that decision, not officers. I am conscious that at this stage, we have not seen any draft regulations or proposals from the Government, and those would be helpful. But my intention today is to press again to make sure that, as and when the regulations come forward—of course, we do not have an opportunity to amend regulations —this issue is covered.
I fully endorse Amendment 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. It makes a lot of sense that this House and the other House at least consider the proposals that are going to be put forward, which will determine the sorts of issues I have just mentioned. I also support Amendment 76 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Again, it seems quite straightforward that if there are valid planning reasons why something should be turned down, the elected councillors should get to say that.
This is a huge change that is coming and we need to make sure that there are safeguards for communities, so that when they vote for their local council, or in the future for their mayor, they have some assurance that these will actually have some powers rather than this being dictated from Whitehall, which has not always proved to be the best way to achieve housing in the past. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will confine my remarks to Amendment 63 in my name. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we had quite a substantial discussion about the national scheme of delegation and the extent to which decisions should automatically be delegated to planning officers rather than going to a committee.
I do not really want to dwell on all that, other than to say that we are continuing to wait—in my case, with optimism—to hear about a national scheme of delegation and how it might assist in the delivery of our planning and housing targets. In my view—and I will just reiterate it because presumably Ministers are still considering how to proceed with the scheme—it was a mistake that the Government’s proposal for the scheme for consultation did not follow through on the original plan, which would have meant that where decisions could be made wholly in accordance with the existing local plan, they should be delegated to planning officers, since the democratic input of the planning committee, as my noble friend Lady Coffey just said, is and should be primarily in establishing the local plan and then we should be guided by that, rather than revisiting every decision under the local plan through the planning committee.
We also continue to wait on the Government consulting on national development management policies. I know it is their intention to do so. But, again, once we have national development management policies, by their nature, if they include policies which would determine how an application for permission should be treated—for example, in relation to planning applications in greenbelt and grey-belt land—those should necessarily go to planning officers because the planning committee would have no discretion not to make a decision in line with the national development management policies.
I say that to reiterate those points I feel strongly about, but also because it illustrates that when the scheme is first brought in, it will make substantial decisions about the framework within which the delegation of planning decisions is to be made. When we debated this in Committee, it was on my amendment which would have meant that such regulations were always to be by an affirmative resolution. I completely understand the Minister’s response that there may be quite detailed aspects of these regulations and that as a consequence there may be regular iterations—almost every time, probably, there is a change in the guidance, particularly the National Planning Policy Framework; we tend to have those as a little present just before Christmas every year—so we are probably going to get new regulations on a frequent basis and they may be quite detailed.
However, the first regulations set up the principles and the framework for how this scheme of delegation will work in the longer term. It is not acceptable for that to be subject to a negative resolution. This House should have the opportunity to see, approve and, as my noble friend says, debate the framework for the national scheme of delegation the first time those regulations are made. That is the purpose of Amendment 63: to provide that when the regulations are made for the first time, it is on an affirmative basis, and subsequently on a negative basis. When the time comes, I hope to have the opportunity to move the amendment and, if it secures support in this debate, I may well look to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are firm and constant supporters of the right of locally elected councillors to make decisions in their area based on clear national policies. The proposals in the Bill for a national diktat of delegation are the backdrop to this group of amendments. The Government are ostensibly in favour of devolution of decision-making. However, there is a tendency within the Bill to centralise decisions on planning by making it virtually impossible for local decisions to reflect local need and nuance.
Amendment 62A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is interesting but could be problematic—actually, I thought it less problematic when I heard the noble Baroness’s explanation of the first part of the amendment. Although there are occasions during the life of a plan when unforeseen events arise which mean the local plan is not sacrosanct, on the whole it ought to be, otherwise it will be nibbled away at during its lifetime through precedent.
I have some sympathy with the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment. Too often, housing sites are assessed as being able to accommodate a large number of units, then along comes the developer—with his eyes on the profit line—who applies for a different balance of houses in which larger, more expensive and more profitable units are to be built. The consequence is that the balance that we need, which is somewhere in between, is not met. The result of allowing developers to determine the density of a site is that more land then has to be allocated for development. I will give one example from my own area. A housing site was allocated in the local plan, under the national rules, for 402 homes. Currently, just over 200 are being built, because of the need—apparently—for five-bed exec homes. The local assessment of housing need shows that what are required are start-up homes and smaller homes with two or three beds. I have a lot of sympathy with that part of the amendment.
Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to seek to put safeguards in place in the rush to take the local out of local democracy. As the noble Lord explained, the amendment is to ensure that the affirmative resolution would be required for the initial changes to the national scheme of delegation. That has got to be right, because it will set the tone for the future of what is accepted as being part of a national scheme of delegation and what is okay for local decision-makers. That is fundamental, and the noble Lord is right to raise it in the amendment. If he wishes to take it to a vote, we on these Benches will support him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has not yet had the opportunity to speak to her Amendment 76, so I hope she does not mind if I comment on it. We on these Benches will support the noble Baroness if she wishes to take it to a vote. This amendment would be another move towards empowering local decision-makers with the right to take planning applications to committee where there is a volume of valid objections to an application, and then to have the debate in a public setting.
Amendment 87F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks a sensible change to help understand where the real problems lie in the failure to build the houses the country needs. As the noble Baroness hinted, it is not with local planning committees or authorities, otherwise there would not be 1.2 million units with full planning permission waiting for construction. Those figures are from the ONS, and I am not going to quarrel with the ONS. If the Government could get the housing developers to start building those 1.2 million units, we would be well on the way to the 1.5 million that the Government reckon they need during the lifetime of this Parliament.
This is an important group because it is about getting the balance between national need and local decision-making, and between a national view of what is acceptable and local elected councillors being able to reflect local need, nuance and requirements in their local setting. I hope that at least the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will put his amendment to the vote. It is fundamental to the democratic process to have local decisions on planning.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 76 in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench. As I have reminded noble Lords before, I have sat on a planning committee many times, I have appointed such a committee as a leader of a council and chosen the chairman, and I know it is a very important quasi-judicial position. Planning exists to arbitrate between the public good and the private interest. I use the word arbitrate purposely because people who sit on the planning committee have a difficult job. They have to weigh up so much conflicting information. It is an adversarial system, because, ultimately, either the proposer wins or the objector wins. There is no grey purpose in the middle.
Much of the Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are the blockers of development and it is only with the ranks of officials that we can get things going. Of course, this is rubbish. Evidence for that assertion was given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which this morning ruled that it was wrong that Governments and quangos had asserted that Ramsar sites had an equivalence to European sites and thus had to have a full environmental assessment, and overturned it on that narrow point. Within an hour, we had officials and Treasury solicitors boasting how this Bill is going to turn that around and reinstall that unnecessary gold-plating—gold-plating that, after four years, the Court of Appeal ruled should not have happened.
The Government’s suggestion that Ministers should usurp planning committees and instead form a national planning committee among themselves in Marsham Street is as fanciful as it is risible. It is a recipe for hurry up and slow down, and it is not fooling anybody that that is going to speed up development.
The premise is that officialdom brings none of its own particular personal or institutional prejudices to bear, but each quango brings its own vetoes. We have Natural England, with a track record of leaving no stone unturned in blocking or delaying development. We have the railways, which ballast every proposal for a new footbridge with £5 million-worth of cost and preposterous delays. We have the highways authorities, which tie themselves in knots over overly precious technical guidance and misdirect themselves that the private motorcar is intrinsically bad, when it is not. And that is before we get to the other bad actors, which time does not permit me to list.
I do not deny the importance of these quango representations, but the problem is that they all claim a veto, and it is from this that we have the £100 million bat bridge or that mitigating trade in great crested newts, which are rare in Europe but commonplace in every pond in my electoral ward in Norfolk. It is the way that planning works: it takes only one of these proverbial blackballs or vetoes from one of the statutory consultees to stymie a proposal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, it is pleasing to hear support for local democracy from around the House, which I can only endorse.
Amendment 63, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concerns the first set of regulations made under the proposed national scheme, which, as drafted, would determine how local planning decisions are to be made in the future. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure that these initial regulations are subject to the stronger form of parliamentary scrutiny, the affirmative procedure. That requirement is important, as the national scheme represents a major structural change in the planning system. It alters fundamentally the balance between decisions taken by elected planning committees and those delegated to officers.
Such a shift in decision-making authority carries significant implications for local accountability, democratic oversight and public confidence in the planning system. Given the scale and significance of these reforms, it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider, debate and explicitly approve the first set of regulations before they take effect. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment seeks not to delay progress but to strengthen legitimacy, to ensure that this House and the other place have a proper role in scrutinising the framework through which these changes will be implemented. In short, the affirmative procedure would provide a vital check and balance at a moment of genuine structural transition in the planning system. I hope that the Government will look favourably on my noble friend’s sensible and proportionate proposal.
Amendment 76, tabled in my name, aims to ensure that the vital role of local democracy in the determination of planning applications continues, while ensuring that spurious call-ins are avoided, by requiring the head of planning and the chair of the planning committee to confirm that the objections are on valid planning grounds. This reflects best practice in many authorities today.
We believe in local democracy because we believe in local people. That means ensuring that the right homes are built in the right places, with the consent and confidence of the communities they affect. Committee chairs and chief planning officers are well placed to judge when wider scrutiny is needed. Retaining their discretion in this way would ensure transparency and trust, without dismantling the efficiency of a national delegation scheme.
Ministers may argue that the amendment would undermine the purpose of national delegation by allowing too many applications to go to committee, but that is simply not the case. It requires the agreement of both the professional planner and the elected chair, and only when the objections rest on valid planning grounds. That is a proportionate safeguard, not a free-for-all. This is about balance and maintaining efficiency in the system, while giving communities the confidence that genuine concerns will be heard and scrutinised. That is how we build trust in planning and how we deliver development that truly has local consent.
Finally, I will briefly speak to Amendments 62A and 87F, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey. Amendment 62A is in a similar vein to my own, as it proposes that an officer should not determine an application outside of an adopted local plan. Amendment 87F looks to the issue of the failure to build out, so can the Minister say why the Government have not moved forward with the parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that sought to address that?
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jamieson was quicker to his feet than I was. I will make a few comments on Amendment 87F, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey.
I served as a councillor for eight years on the unitary Medway Council, working for some of that time on planning, and had the benefit of representing a constituency in Kent in the other place. I am very aware that whenever a substantial planning application is put to the local community there is generally uproar and a lot of concern. There may be a lot of consultation and a lot of money spent by the developer. There are presentations to the local public and local councillors, and everything else that goes with that. It can be quite upsetting for local communities. In my experience, the Liberal Democrats are very adept at exploiting that concern, usually for political advantage.
Having gone through that process, we find that a lot of the planning applications never actually get built out—and at a time when we have a huge demand for housing. Developers then look again at somewhere a bit simpler to develop out. It is not for us in this place to dictate the market—that is obviously for developers—but the terms that my noble friend Lady Coffey has proposed are right. Perhaps we should start to recognise some of the names among the bigger developers that seem to be going for applications and not building them out. We hear, obliquely, about hundreds of thousands of planning applications that have been approved that are yet to be built out. I do not know the exact figure —I do not think that I have ever known it—but we are told that it is in the many hundreds of thousands.
If my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment were to be adopted, it would be very refreshing to know those numbers regularly. It could give local people some pressure to knock on the doors of the developers and ask, “Are you going to do this or not?” In addition, other authorities would be able to look at neighbouring authorities elsewhere in the country and, if they see similar developer names, they might start to wonder what those developers were doing.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. When I looked at the figures last year, I found that 1.1 million homes were approved that were not built. That is quite a few hundreds of thousands.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his clarification. As I said, I was only guessing that the figure was in the hundreds of thousands; I am glad to have the clarity that is 1.1 million. There we have it: there is the potential for the growth that we are looking for and for the supply of housing within a local plan, yet we seem to keep hearing calls for new land and new development. The answer, however, is in our lap. It would be nice for this to be rather more transparent, so that we could consider it more closely.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, that was an interesting debate on these amendments. Believing in local people also means building the homes that they need and the infrastructure to support those homes. This problem with buildout did not commence in July 2024; it has been there for a long time, and this Bill is trying to do something about it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 62A, which would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment; however, it is common for applications to be submitted for development that do not accord with the local plan. That does not mean that all those applications are controversial or that they require committee scrutiny. To bring all such applications to committee would undermine the whole point of Clause 51. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to make initial regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, it is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the Bill and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure.
I recognise that the noble Lord has altered his amendment so that it applies only to the first set of regulations, but I still do not believe that the revised amendment is necessary. We already consulted on our proposed approach in May this year. The Secretary of State, under the Bill’s provisions, will be required to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations and the subsequent changes to them. That means that the Government will conduct another consultation on these very regulations before they are brought into force. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals set out in the regulations to ensure that they will work effectively in practice. They are the practitioners, after all, so I look forward to hearing their comments.
Amendment 76 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seeks to give the chair of a planning committee and the head of planning the discretion to allow any planning application to be determined by committee where there are objections on valid planning grounds. Noble Lords will recall that we debated an identical amendment in Committee, and I can confirm that the Government have not changed their position on this issue. The intention of the amendment undermines the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. Valid planning objections are a frequent occurrence on planning applications—anyone who has ever been on a council will know that only too well. This amendment would therefore mean that almost any application would be capable of being referred to committee. That is clearly something we would not want to support. However, I repeat that the intention behind the national scheme of delegation is not to undermine local democracy. It is simply to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87F relating to the buildout of development, which is a key issue. The amendment seeks to improve the transparency of buildout data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis about the number of planning consents granted where building has not started or completed in each local planning authority. I start by reaffirming to the noble Baroness, as I did in Committee, that I fully support the aim of improving buildout and the rate of residential development. The Government remain committed to making sure that all planning permissions are translated into homes. That said, I remain of the view, as I have previously set out, that we do not need this amendment to achieve that.
When we debated buildout in Committee, I highlighted our publication in May of an important working paper, which sets out a more effective and comprehensive approach to speeding up buildout. It includes greater transparency of buildout rates, new powers for local planning authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort. The working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We have also set up our new homes accelerator, which will help to unblock some of those stalled sites and find out what is causing the problem that is slowing down buildout. We are now analysing the responses to that working paper, and we will set out our next steps in due course. I reiterate that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Therefore, given our strategy to support faster buildout, I hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Can I ask for clarification? I asked a specific question regarding the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and its sections saying that a planning authority does not need to determine an application where the applicant has not built out elsewhere. I think the Minister was hinting that this is what the Government are doing, but will they implement that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We did consult on that very issue. We are still analysing the responses to the working paper. As soon as we have done that, I will inform the House of the outcome.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Are the Government not prepared to implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act sections as they stand now, despite having the power to do so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can only repeat that, on the powers on which we consulted in the working paper, we want to look at the responses and then implement them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed on this group. It has been a useful discussion.
I say candidly to the Minister that these are the powers of transparency that, if I had served as a Minister in her department, I would have wanted to know of, so that I could go after those developers, hold their feet to the fire and enact what my noble friend has just said from LURA 2023. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(3) In section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations and orders), after subsection (3ZAA), insert—“(3ZAB) The first regulations under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3ZAC) Regulations made under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (except for the first such regulations).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that when regulations for a national scheme of delegation of planning decisions are made for the first time, these should be made by an affirmative resolution procedure.
“Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in EnglandIn section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications), in subsection (1)(a), after “grant” insert “or, in the case of an authority in England, the refusal,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission or permission in principle by a local planning authority in England.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 64 and 259 are in my name. They seek to amend the Town and Country Planning Act to address an anomaly in the Secretary of State’s existing powers, allowing him to issue holding directions to local planning authorities.
Currently, powers under the Act allow the Secretary of State to make a provision in the development order that allows him to issue a holding direction to a local planning authority, restricting it from granting planning permission. Such holding directions are used to allow the Secretary of State to consider whether to use his powers to call in the application for his own consideration under powers in Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
This amendment addresses an anomaly. It will enable the Secretary of State to issue a holding direction to prevent local planning authorities refusing an application for planning permission. I should make it clear that this does not significantly change the way in which call-in currently operates. The Secretary of State can already call in any application, provided the local planning authority has not issued a formal decision notice. It merely prevents the local planning authority issuing a refusal and allows the Secretary of State to consider whether to determine the application himself.
It is a well-established part of the planning system that the Secretary of State can intervene in planning decisions. This has been in statute since the inception of the modern planning system. The Written Ministerial Statement of October 2012 set out the Government’s existing policy on call-in. Under this policy, in general, the Secretary of State considers the use of his call-in powers only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Even when an application is called in, it does not mean that planning permission will be granted. The Secretary of State is bound by the same duties as local planning authorities.
To conclude, government Amendments 64 and 259 are minor, but they are no less important in enabling the more effective use of the Secretary of State’s call- in powers. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley
“(2) After section 74(1)(a) of that Act insert—“(aa) for authorising the local planning authority, in relation to a direction restricting the grant or refusal of planning permission or permission in principle under paragraph (a), to grant planning permission or permission in principle insofar as the planning application is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan if the latter is up-to-date;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This addition to the amendment tabled would provide an incentive to a local planning authority to adopt an up-to-date Local Plan and, in consequence, to regain control over the grant of planning permission in accordance with the Plan.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 64 relates to a subject that we did not discuss in Committee. It was tabled only at the beginning of last week. Although the Minister said there was just an anomaly, as though it was some sort of gap, I have to confess that, when I looked at it, I found it quite difficult to work out what this gap was. Under the existing powers, if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority is not intending to grant planning permission but wishes that planning permission to be granted, they can issue a direction for that purpose. If the Secretary of State sees that a local planning authority is likely to refuse a planning application, leaving aside the fact that the applicant might choose to appeal such a refusal, the Secretary of State could, if they sought to move quickly, make a direction for the purpose of granting planning permission, or simply call it in, which I would have thought would be the obvious thing to do.
The purpose of my amendment is to test the use case a bit. What worries me is that, on the face of it, the ostensible purpose here might be to give the Secretary of State much clearer power to issue a direction to stop a local authority refusing planning permission for an application that is not in accordance with the development plan. Clearly, the Secretary of State already has the power to grant planning permission not in accordance with the development plan. That is in Section 74, in a later subsection. The Secretary of State can still do that, but it looks to me as if what this actually adds is the ability to stop local authorities refusing permission in circumstances where an application is not in accordance with the development plan. We have spent a lot of time, especially those of us who remember the debates on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, emphasising the importance of local authorities having up-to-date local plans and that decisions should be made in accordance with those plans.
My Amendment 65, as an amendment to Amendment 64, would add into Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act a specific provision that the Secretary of State may issue directions in effect to grant planning permission or to refuse planning permission in accordance with the development plan. That seems to me to be the best way of guaranteeing democratic input into planning and, indeed, that the delivery of planning happens in ways that are relatively predictable and successful from the point of view of local communities. I commend Amendment 65 as an alternative approach, but, in the absence of Amendment 65, it seems to me that Amendment 64 adds risk to the system rather than substantial benefit. I beg to move Amendment 65.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 87A and 87D in this group. Amendment 87D is a bit of an outlier, so I will come to that later in my contribution. In essence, Amendment 87A is supposed to be a bit of a helping hand to the Government in achieving the outcome that they are intending, whereas the Government’s Amendment 64 really is a huge overreach. I should start by thanking Alexa Culver for helping draft Amendment 87A.
Government Amendment 64 would allow the Secretary of State, in effect, to force through planning permissions, even when material considerations such as failing EDPs, water shortages and insufficient infrastructure would normally warrant planning refusal. In the press release that was put out, although it did not directly mention the amendment, the closest explanation that could be found was:
“Ministers will be able to issue ‘holding directions’ to stop councils refusing planning permission whilst they consider using their ‘call-in’ powers. Under existing rules, they can only issue these holds when councils are set to approve applications”.
The suggestion is that this amendment would allow the Government properly to use their call-in powers.
It is possible that this explanation is a red herring and does not match the much broader powers contained in Amendment 64. At the moment, Written Ministerial Statements can govern the procedure for call-in; there is no need for legislation to improve or refine the process. I have suggested an alternative to the Government through Amendment 87A. Planning authorities are allowed to refuse planning permission only when there are justified grounds to do so. If that refusal is appealed, of course, the Secretary of State can call in that appeal, known as recovering the appeal. Therefore, the Government’s stated concern around obstructive or hair-trigger refusal is a fairly minor one to legislate for.
The challenge here is that we need to try to make sure that we improve other parts of the Bill. To give a bit more detail, the clause would permit the Secretary of State to pass a new type of development order that prevents local planning authorities refusing to grant planning permission, for example where there is insufficient water supply or the like. Up until now, development orders have been used only to govern or constrain how planning authorities positively grant consent. This amendment turns that around for the first time and allows the Secretary of State to prevent refusals of planning permission.
Development orders have to be made by statutory instrument—although I believe it is through the negative procedure—but there are no obvious constraints on how the power can be used. The bars to refusal can be used to override local, real-world, on-the-ground constraints to development, and planning authorities may be forced to consent, for example, where EDPs are failing or unimplemented.
On the speed of impact, there are widely publicised water shortage issues in many parts of the country and I am very concerned that, given that this clause is expected to come into force on the day, we could see a flurry of directions being issued. Amendment 87A—by the good help of Alexa Culver, as I say—would not have entire overreach but would potentially help the Minister achieve their aim.
Amendment 87D is on something very close to my heart: considering local communities. They go to a lot of effort to register assets of community value, but at the moment the regulations are such that there are very few examples of buildings being protected from demolition under existing permitted development rights. Those are a pub and, I think, two other examples of some social issues. I think a theatre is a good example. I have seen this at first hand when a community came together. Registering an asset of community value is not the most straightforward of processes, but they did. When the owner of said community assets was starting to get fed up, they literally just pulled the buildings down, not even allowing the local community the chance to buy those assets from the developer.
I am conscious that the Government will have legislation later this year about local communities. I really do not want to have to return at that stage to press the case; I want to get these changes made now. When we bring in legislation to empower communities, which happened in the Localism Act and which I know the Government say they support, let us not continue to have legislation where the rug can be pulled away from those local communities. In the particular case it was a sports centre and a theatre, both much cherished and both used in marketing for housebuilding in that area and as reasons for people to move there. We are talking about all these new communities. Unfortunately, those things could be built and within a day they could be pulled down to make space for more houses—exactly what happened in that community in Suffolk. It may be the only example. I have not investigated right around the country, but I feel so strongly about it and this Bill has been my first opportunity to try to rectify what I genuinely believe is a wrong. I hope that the House will support that later tonight.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the outlier Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I have Amendment 102, likely to be heard on Monday, which seeks to extend the current assets of community value scheme to include cultural assets, so I have a particular interest in how the scheme as it stands at present does and should work.
The noble Baroness’s amendment and mine were considered in the same group in Committee; she pointed out that, as she said just now, some if not all cultural buildings had already been added to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This has been a move in the right direction, but I certainly agree that assets of community value should be added. Strangely, we have a situation where, through the 2015 order, certain cultural venues such as concert halls and theatres are protected but community assets as such are not, which feels incredibly inconsistent, certainly in relation to the community asset scheme as it stands now.
I find what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has described today, and in considerable detail in Committee —about how a new owner can ride roughshod over a community—not just wrong but, frankly, outrageous. Legislation is not always the right thing, as the Minister points out quite a lot, but I think this is a perfect instance of where a gap in the law ought to be plugged and ought to be addressed in the community’s interest. I will certainly vote for Amendment 87D if the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, takes it to a vote.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 64 has been packaged in the media, and even in the Marshalled List, as augmenting the Secretary of State’s power to call in an application, but, as the Minister made clear in opening, in fact it does not do that. It leaves Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the call-in power, unchanged. What it actually does is augment the holding power, under Section 74 of the 1990 Act, so that the Secretary of State can issue restrictions on the refusal of planning permission to facilitate consideration of the call-in power. In that context, I seek some clarification from the Minister as to what is intended procedurally, were this amendment to become law.
Currently, there are procedural safeguards in place in relation to called-in planning applications: there is a statutory safeguard in Section 77(5), which gives either the applicant or the local planning authority the right to be heard before an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. That, plainly, will not be changed, because there is no proposal to amend Section 77, but the obligation for the Secretary of State to cause a hearing to be heard is also the subject of a policy that exists in the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance on call-in proceedings. The policy in the Planning Inspectorate guidance is that the right of a local authority or an applicant to be heard under Section 77(5) is to be exercised by means of the inquiry procedure. The public inquiry procedure, of course, allows for greater scrutiny of the evidence and greater public participation than a mere one-day informal hearing.
Is the Minister prepared to offer a commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no dilution of the procedural safeguard in the Planning Inspectorate’s published policy and that the right of a local planning authority to insist on an inquiry and to exercise its statutory right to be heard through the inquiry procedure, as opposed to a lesser procedure, will not be diluted and will remain?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 64 was billed by the Minister, in the letter that she wrote to all Peers laying it out, as seeking to address a minor gap. I am not sure about that. I think other noble Lords have also expressed different concerns from mine. I take this opportunity to seek reassurances from the Minister. I am grateful for the way in which she presented the circumstances in which call-in takes place, and the safeguards, in her introduction to the amendment, but the amendment could be read as a considerable change in tone on the Government’s intentions and role in the planning system.
I am probably caricaturing it but, under the current arrangements, the Government used to be regarded almost as a knight on a white horse. They would come in at the last minute on planning decisions where the local authority was getting it wrong in granting permission, often in cases which were going to be to the detriment of the environment. That was a rather fine thing, in my view.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, in the last group your Lordships’ House gave a pretty strong steer when it felt that the role of councillors and councils in determining local planning applications locally, based on a plan—not acting capriciously but on balance, with all the material considerations taken into account—was a very important principle, not just for the way that we run things in the country but for the fact that decisions are made by accountable people in a democratic way.
I am astonished that government Amendment 64 has come forward—although I am not surprised that the Government’s Back Benches are so sparsely populated. What this amendment would do is emasculate the principle of a proper local planning process. It raises the spectre of political interference, at very short timescales, in what is a quasi-judicial process. Clearly—and this is the reason I will ask for reassurance in a moment—it demonstrates a prematurity that is likely to slow down the process of development, rather than speed it up.
My evidence for the slowing down was given by my noble friend Lord Banner. I did not take down all the different sections and stages, but there are clearly statutory safeguard overrides, as well as practice guidance, procedures and statute, so that when development processes come forward, everybody has their say, in the right way, with the appropriate process. While there will always be a winner and a loser, at least people can say that it was done properly.
My concern with this is what the process will be whereby a Minister may call in a decision for stalling it. What intelligence will be relied on, and on what timescale? Planning committee agendas are normally published seven days in advance of the meeting. So within five working days of a recommendation for refusal from the officers, what is the process by which Ministers will be advised, “You’d better jump in on this one; this one might go wrong”?
What happens if there is a recommendation for approval but, on the basis of hearsay, rumour or possibly a letter in the local newspaper, there is a suggestion that the committee might decide to go the other way? I cannot quite understand how that would normally happen, because, as anyone who sits on a planning committee knows, they keep their mouths shut for risk of predetermination. This is where I am concerned about party-political interference in planning. There may be nods and winks and comments such as, “We think that so and so on the other side might be going this way”.
It all belies the fact that, as we all know, because the planning committee meets regularly and because it is quite an onerous thing and other people have different responsibilities, there is a series of substitutions, which are quite proper, with trained substitutes on that committee. With all those moving parts, I wonder, with a week to go, on what basis would the Secretary of State jump in?
I play to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about a quango report. At what stage are we going to prematurely judge that, of all the different material considerations, one report may be more important than another, when we all know that it is the role of the committee to balance all of them in the round and take in all the material considerations? Are we going to sleepwalk into a situation where Ministers give an additional vicarious respectability to one set of reports over another, with only half the evidence to hand and without seeing in the round the benefit of all the objections, proposals and debate in the chamber? We understand that the purpose of the Bill is to speed up planning, but it seems that its consequence is to slow it right down. How on earth would we end up in a situation where Ministers could be properly advised?
In this House, and in Parliament, there is a proper 12-stage process. We are at stage 10 of 12. For the reasons that my noble friend Lord Banner gave—about the interplay of all the complexity and detail here—this should have been brought forward in Committee or at a much earlier stage. But here we are, at the 11th hour, in Parliament’s revising Chamber, trying to work this out on the hoof. I cannot support this. It rides a coach and horses through established process, principles and democracy. It is half-baked, and it should be thrown out.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to speak in strong support of Amendment 87D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It seeks to address a clear gap in our planning framework: the ease with which valued community buildings can be demolished under permitted development rights.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for reminding us in Committee that, since 2017, it has not been possible to demolish a pub under permitted development rights and that, since 2020, the same protection has rightly been extended to theatres, live music venues and concert halls. But every other community building—from sports halls to scout huts, youth clubs, village halls, arts centres, community hubs, social clubs, rehearsal rooms, day centres and faith spaces—can legally be demolished through permitted development under class B, in Part 11 of the general permitted development order, usually via only a prior approval notice to the council. In other words, a community can spend months achieving an asset of community value status, believing it has secured protection, yet the owner can still flatten the building with no full planning process, and the opportunity to save it is lost for ever.
The Minister suggested in response to the noble Baroness in Committee that local authorities can already protect such assets by issuing Article 4 directions. Although that may sound reassuring, in practice it is neither adequate nor realistic. Article 4 powers are slow, complex and discretionary. They require public consultation, ministerial approval and significant resources that many councils simply do not have. They are rarely used pre-emptively, and too often they are invoked after buildings have already been lost.
This amendment would provide a far simpler and fairer solution: an automatic national safeguard for assets that communities have already demonstrated to be of real social value. These are not sentimental relics but the social infrastructure of everyday life: the places where children learn to play sport, where community choirs rehearse, where food banks and lunch clubs operate and where amateur dramatic societies, after-school classes and local support groups meet. Once demolished, these spaces are almost never replaced.
As has been referenced, the London Nightlife Taskforce, which offers strategic advice to the mayor and will publish a major action plan later this year, has already underlined the urgency of this issue. Its early findings show that demolition and redevelopment continue to erode London’s community and cultural infrastructure, despite existing local powers. The task force, supported by the Night Time Industries Association, the Music Venue Trust and UKHospitality, is calling for stronger statutory safeguards to prevent the loss of spaces that sustain local life and creativity. Although its recommendations are directed at London, the same challenge exists nationwide. Communities in Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow and countless smaller towns face the same slow erosion of shared civic space, too often replaced by development that contributes little to social cohesion.
If we accept that pubs, theatres and music venues deserve protection from demolition, surely the same logic must apply to any building formally recognised by its community as an asset of value. This modest reform would give communities a genuine say before their most valued spaces disappeared.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who is one of the House’s great champions of the arts and cultural life. Briefly, I will express the Green group’s support for Amendment 87D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. This would ensure that assets of community value cannot be demolished. It is worth going back to where the assets of community value started, in 2011. Creating that category of buildings and structures was so hard fought for, and it could, in effect, be lost under permitted development rights. The noble Baroness has identified a really important issue, and I hope the House will back that.
I rise chiefly to speak against government Amendment 64. We have already heard some important points. Both the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fuller, pointed out just how late this is coming in the process and how we have not had the chance to have proper scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is right about a considerable change in tone, but I would go further and say that it is a considerable change in the direction of the entire law, and that should surely not be done this late in the process.
More than that—like other noble Lords, I am sure— I have received a pleas from the Better Planning Coalition, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts to reject this government amendment. If we look at the situation and the arguments they make, absolutely rightly, we see that this amendment embeds into the law a concerning narrative about development at any cost. It does not acknowledge, and it pushes aside, the fact that economic activity and human life are dependent on the environment —the economy is a complete subset of the environment.
The core purpose of planning policy is supposed to be to ensure that developments do not happen in the wrong place or destroy nature gratuitously or without adequate consideration. It really feels, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, that this would open up decisions to politics. Well, this is purely politics: it seems to have been put in to drive headlines that say that the Government are taking a hard line with councils that oppose new housing.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, once more, the Government have chosen to add a new clause, through Amendment 64, at this very late stage in the Bill’s progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It really is not acceptable practice, for the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave, which is that we have not been able to give this new clause proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. The new clause has only four lines, and that includes its title. The other two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning decision-making.
When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought that I had perhaps got it wrong. However, we have now heard from across the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Banner, our expert in this House on planning matters, questioning the Minister on the meaning of what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Young, have all raised considerable concerns about the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. In her own inimitable way, the Minister has been able to underplay the clause by saying, “It is just an anomaly. It’s not going to make any difference really”. If it is not going to make any difference really, do not bring it in at this late stage. If it were so important, I am sure the Government would have noticed it, either in the discussions at the other end of the Parliament or at least in Committee here, so I have a feeling that it may not be as unimportant a clause as the Minister has been making out.
Where does that leave us? All noble Lords who have had experience, as many of us have, of the process of planning applications will know that planning committees are rightly required to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework, all relevant national policies and their local plan, which includes local planning policies.
If a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so, as others have said, with valid planning reasons. Failure to do so means that the applicant, rightly, takes that to the Planning Inspectorate for an appeal against that decision. If the planning committee has made a foolish decision, not giving valid reasons for refusal, the Planning Inspectorate, rightly, awards costs against the council, which is why there are not many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils because planning officers in a local planning authority will advise their members accordingly.
Then you ask yourself: if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution of it, why is it necessary to call it in before a refusal has been given? The only reason I can come up with is that the Government wish to push through applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, hit the nail on the head: it substantially changes the tone and direction of planning, so that it becomes more of a national rather than a local decision-making process.
For somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision-making, who wants proper devolution, who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do —as do many other parts of western Europe, which have successful governance as a consequence—to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. We on these Benches will strongly oppose government Amendment 64. I have explained to the Minister, out of due courtesy, that we will be doing so. This is overreach and will not do.
I turn to Amendment 87D. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have referred to it. The noble Baroness and I had a brief discussion the other day. She knows that I support Amendment 87D. If she wishes to take it to a decision of the House, we will support her. But, fundamentally, the balance between local and national decision-making is being tipped too far in the direction of national decision-making on policies, and that is not acceptable. As I have said, we will oppose Amendment 64.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?
The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.
I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.
Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hear the strength of feeling in the House on this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way the Section 31 direction works. It is important to note that a Section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise call-in powers. It is exactly what it says on the tin: a holding direction to enable that process to go through.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helps to prevent exactly the circumstances he described by restricting the issuing of a decision on a planning application—whether it be to grant or to refuse—to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, and to help prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I have dealt with a number of these call-ins of applications since becoming a Minister. Every time we look at a called-in application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call-in of a local application. I hope it will be helpful if I very quickly go through those.
Compliance with the local development plan is not the question here; it is whether the Secretary of State will use the call-in powers, and they will use them only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, may conflict with national policies.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am confused. The Minister referred to Section 31 directions, but surely, we are talking about Section 74 directions. Section 31 is to do with grants for local authorities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies: I got my numbers mixed up there. I am talking about the call-in power.
Such cases could include, for example, those which may conflict with national policies on important matters, may have a significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, could give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy, raise significant architectural and urban design issues, or may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments. However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.
Lord Banner (Con)
I appreciate that this amendment would not change the procedures, but the question I was seeking the Government’s clarification on is: will the Government commit to not diluting the policy commitment that the right to be heard in a call-in process is exercised through the rigorous public inquiry process, which allows for public participation, rather than the lesser process of a hearing? Will the Government commit not to diluting that policy requirement for an inquiry?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Of course we keep the procedures under review in order to ensure they are fit for purpose. It is very important that we would inform the House in the proper way if we were to make any procedural changes in regard to the issues he raises.
Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as an amendment to government Amendment 64, seeks to incentivise local planning authorities getting up-to-date local plans in place and to allow them to determine applications subject to a holding direction where an up-to-date plan is in place and the proposal accords with this plan. I assure the noble Lord that we appreciate the sentiment behind his amendment. As I have often said, we too want to ensure that local planning authorities make positive decisions and grant planning permission for development which is in accordance with up-to-date local plans. However, we are not convinced that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to restrict refusal of planning permission or permission in principle. Where the Secretary of State has not also restricted the local planning authority from approving the application, they will be free to reconsider the application and grant it if they wish. We believe that this addresses the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 87A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would amend secondary legislation to enact government Amendment 64. I assure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not needed, as we will bring forward the necessary changes to secondary legislation shortly following Royal Assent of the Bill.
Amendment 87D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove assets of community value from the permitted development right which grants planning permission for the demolition of certain buildings. I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments, so I understand her issue about where this has been grouped, but we will debate it as it is in the group before us. I very much appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, and I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that local communities do not lose the community assets which are so important to them. We do not have many old houses in our town, because it is a new town, by its very nature. However, I have relayed before my story of a beautiful old farmhouse in my own ward of Symonds Green. An application came in for that property, and we tried very hard to get it listed before the application was considered. Unfortunately, the inside of the property had been amended; so much work had been done to it internally that we could not get a listing for it and, unfortunately, it was, sadly, demolished. The reason I am saying that is because there are a number of routes that local communities can take to protect properties, which I will come on to in a minute.
It is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings which are particularly valued by local communities. We know how important these buildings are, and Members across the House have stated this both this afternoon and in previous debates. These include pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and many other buildings of local value.
Local planning authorities, as I have stated before and as I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, can use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area, where it is appropriate to do so. While I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about Article 4 and the possible complexities of dealing with that, it is possible for local authorities to apply for these in advance.
There is also another route that local authorities can go down, which is to set up a register of buildings of local community interest, which, while it does not carry the weight of statutory protection that Article 4 does, provides a checklist for communities and planners for buildings that cannot be listed, against which they can be checked, should proposed development come forward.
We believe that the current approach is the right one. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep permitted development under review, and this and other matters related to that are always under review. With these assurances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think we are debating Amendment 65, which I moved.
The debate has illustrated that, in effect, this is the debate we ought to have had in Committee. There is one set of people—I count myself among them—who cannot understand what the Government are trying to achieve, and why the amendment is necessary, and another set who are saying that it gives the Government powers to do things that might be objectionable.
Actually, of course, the Government have all those powers. If they wanted, for example, to grant planning permission to all data centres, they could issue guidance for that purpose. They could issue national development management policies, for which they have powers. The question I keep coming back to, which is where I started, is: what is this trying to achieve? Calling it an “anomaly” seems to be completely misleading. If you put it alongside a holding direction to stop the granting of planning permission, that stops a local authority giving planning permission because, once it is given, you cannot take it away. Having a holding direction to stop the refusal of planning permission simply stops the local authority saying no, and then the applicant has the opportunity for appeal or a further application, and many other routes—and the Secretary of State has many routes to deal with it. I am afraid that I cannot see the benefit.
The Minister was kind enough to say that my amendment was not necessary, as she wants to do the things that my amendment calls for, so that is fine. So I do not need to proceed with my amendment and will beg leave to withdraw it, in expectation that we will focus on Amendment 64 itself.
“Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets(1) In section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions deeming planning permission to be granted for certain development with government authorisation), after subsection (2A) insert—“(2B) Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (special regard to listed buildings) applies to a government department or the Secretary of State in considering whether to make a direction under this section as it applies to the Secretary of State in considering whether to grant planning permission.”(2) In section 90(2B) of that Act (inserted by subsection (1))—(a) for “applies”, in the first place it appears, substitute “and section 58B of this Act (special regard to other heritage assets) apply”;(b) for “it applies” substitute “they apply”.” Member’s explanatory statement
There is currently a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and their features of special architectural or historic interest when deciding whether to grant planning permission. This new Clause would apply that duty to certain powers to put in place deemed planning permission (including in relation to a Transport and Works Act project).
“Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 91 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), for subsections (3A) and (3B) substitute—“(3A) In subsections (3B) to (3BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which a development to which a planning permission relates must be begun (see subsections (1) and (3));“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of a grant of planning permission or of a deemed grant of planning permission.(3B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(3BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (3B), (3BA) or (3BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(3BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BF) The references in subsections (3BA) and (3BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(3) After section 92 insert—“92A Extension of outline planning permission etc in event of legal challenge(1) This section applies where a person is given permission by a court to bring proceedings challenging the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of—(a) a grant (or deemed grant) of outline planning permission, or(b) the approval of reserved matters under such a permission. (2) Any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running when the court gives permission to bring the proceedings is extended by one year.(3) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by one year.(4) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by two years.(5) Any extension of a period under subsection (2), (3) or (4) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(6) Any extension of a period under subsection (3) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) (if they would otherwise overlap).(7) Any extension of a period under subsection (4) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3) (if they would otherwise overlap).(8) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (4), an implementation period that is determined by reference to an approval of a reserved matter starts to run when the reserved matters application is made (and the reserved matters application period ceases to run at that point).(9) Subsection (10) applies if a reserved matters application is made without taking advantage of an extension under this section.(10) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of days by which the reserved matter application period is extended under this section.(11) Subsection (12) applies if a reserved matters application period is extended (or further extended) under this section and the reserved matter application is made taking advantage of the extension but before the end of the period as extended.(12) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of whole days remaining in the reserved matters application period (as extended) when the reserved matters application is made.(13) In this section—“implementation period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which development to which the permission relates must be begun (see section 92(2)(b), (4) and (5));“outline planning permission” has the same meaning as in section 92;“reserved matters application” means an application for the approval of a reserved matter in pursuance of section 92;“reserved matters application period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which a reserved matters application relating to the permission is required to be made (see section 92(2)(a), (4) and (5)).(14) In this section, references to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).” (4) In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in section 18 (limit of duration of listed buildings consent), for subsections (2A) and (2B) substitute—“(2A) In subsections (2A) to (2BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which works to which a listed building consent relates are required to be begun in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2);“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity of a grant of listed building consent or of a deemed grant of listed building consent.(2B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(2BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (2B), (2BA) or (2BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(2BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (2BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BF) The references in subsections (2BA) and (2BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(5) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not operate to extend any implementation period that has already expired.(6) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (2) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 91(3B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected;(b) subsections (3B) to (3BB) of section 91 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (2)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.(7) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (3) comes into force, section 92A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by subsection (3)) applies so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under that section occurs on or after that day, but not otherwise.(8) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (4) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 18(2B) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected; (b) subsections (2B) to (2BB) of section 18 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (4)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the time for implementing a planning permission or listed building consent where the permission or consent is challenged in legal proceedings. There would be an extension of one year in all cases, with a further year where the case goes to the Court of Appeal and a further two years where the case goes to the Supreme Court.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 67 and 261.
The Government listened carefully to the persuasive arguments made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, about the unfairness that occurs when planning permissions lapse simply because they are caught up in lengthy judicial or statutory review proceedings. We agree that the current provisions are too limited and do not reflect the realities of modern litigation.
At present, Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides only a single one-year extension when proceedings are begun to challenge a grant of permission or consent. This is narrow in scope; it does not apply to outline permissions or reserved matters approvals, and it does not cater for cases that progress through the appellate courts. In practice, this means that permissions can expire during prolonged legal challenges, forcing applicants to reapply and causing unnecessary cost and delay.
Our amendment introduces a more comprehensive and predictable approach. Where a court grants permission to bring judicial review or statutory challenge proceedings, the commencement period will be extended by one year. If the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal, there will be a further one-year extension, and if it reaches the Supreme Court, an additional two years will be added. These provisions will apply to all types of planning permissions and listed building consents, including outline permissions and reserved matters approvals. They will also apply to existing permissions subject to legal proceedings.
This approach provides clarity and certainty for applicants and developers. It avoids permissions expiring due to delays entirely outside their control, reducing the need for costly and time-consuming repeat applications. It also ensures that the planning system remains fair and proportionate, supporting investment and the delivery of development while respecting the judicial process.
We considered the “stop the clock” proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. While we agreed with the principle, that approach would have required complex calculations based on the start and end dates of proceedings, creating irregular and unpredictable timeframes. Our tiered system offers a simpler, more transparent solution that achieves the same objective without introducing administrative complexity. The amendment strengthens the Bill’s overall purpose: to streamline planning processes and to remove unnecessary barriers to development. It balances the right to challenge decisions with the imperative to deliver homes and infrastructure efficiently. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for all the meetings we have had to discuss this and for his constructive approach to this matter.
I will come to the other amendments in this group when they have been spoken to. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 77 to 79 propose to limit applications for judicial reviews that are without merit. It is proposed that they may be blocked by a judgment of the High Court. The amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and me. In the likely absence of the noble Lord, I have undertaken to speak in support of them.
On Monday, the first day on Report, I spoke to Amendment 83, which describes a means of circumventing lengthy and costly judicial reviews that can affect infrastructure projects of national significance by giving the associated development consent orders—DCOs—the status of Acts of Parliament, which would be legally incontestable. There was no intention in that amendment to curtail meaningful processes of scrutiny and consultation. The purpose was to protect projects from costly and dilatory legal reviews initiated by tendentious factions that are liable to promote their own interests at the expense of those of the wider community or the national interest.
In recent years, the planning system has become increasingly sclerotic. The average time it takes to obtain planning permission for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. A judicial review with a minor or frivolous justification may occasion a resubmission of an application for a development order. The revised application might become subject, in turn, to a further judicial review. Despite the eventual dismissal of these appeals, the legal processes can be so costly and cause such delays that the infrastructure project goes into abeyance. Then the contestants have effectively won their case, despite its lack of legal merit.
I should say that I am not averse in principle to judicial reviews. Many of them do have merit. However, a very large and increasing number of requests for judicial reviews are rising nowadays, and hearings are granted in 75% of the cases. They form a lengthy queue and pre-empt the legal resources.
The fashion for judicial views may have been greatly stimulated by the experience of the Archway Road protests, which took place over a period of 20 years from the early 1970s to the 1990s. These protests were prompted by a proposal to develop a motorway dual carriageway in Archway, where the A1 trunk road effectively begins. It was said the purpose of the scheme was to expedite the escape from the centre of London of politicians, senior civil servants and a body of secretaries in the case of the threat of a nuclear missile strike. They were to be conveyed to a secret nuclear bunker in Kelvedon Hatch in Essex, where they might continue to govern the country, while the rest of us perished. It was said that they might have the task of regenerating the population that had been obliterated.
The road scheme would have destroyed 170 houses, for the loss of which the residents would have been given very meagre compensation. It was said that they would have been given no more compensation than would have enabled them to purchase a one-bedroom flat in Tottenham Marshes. A question has to be asked about whether compensation tends nowadays to be more generous. Does its inadequacy continue to provide an incentive to resist infrastructure developments and to resort to judicial procedures to block them? This unpopular scheme has had a long legacy. It established a precedent for judicial reviews that has been followed ever since, for good and for bad reasons.
Amendment 83 did not receive favour from the Government, and in withdrawing it I was clear that I was somewhat disappointed by their response, because we are facing a crisis caused by the wilful delay and obstruction of virtually every important infrastructure project. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming from the Government that will address the crisis adequately. We are left with nothing more than the present group of amendments which propose that, in various circumstances pertaining to the Town and Country Planning Act, the listed buildings and conservation Act and the hazardous substances Act, the High Court may deem an appeal to be unworthy of further consideration. I believe that the Court of Appeal already has this prerogative, so there may be very little substance in these amendments, but nevertheless they serve to highlight the problem.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 104 and the government Amendments 67 and 261, which would extend the time for commencing a planning commission which is subject to judicial review.
I start by saying to the Minister that the feelings are entirely reciprocated. I am very grateful to the Government for the continuous engagement on this issue over quite a long period recently. The Government’s amendments, although differently worded to mine, would have essentially the same effect and would make a significant difference, as would my amendment, to mitigating the prejudice to developers whose planning permissions are subject to challenge, and indeed land promoters and landowners too, and to reducing the incentive on claimants to bring and perpetuate meritless challenges. So I support the government amendments and I do not need to press mine.
However, this amendment was not the most impactful of my package of amendments. The planning world is watching what the Government will do on Hillside; it is going to be debated next week, and I reiterate my encouragement to the Minister and her colleagues to roll out the same level of engagement and co-operation as we have had in relation to “stop the clock” for JR to the Hillside amendment, because that is the one that will really make a massive difference.
In the interests of time, I do not want to say very much about the other amendments in relation to totally without merit judicial reviews for non-NSIP judicial reviews other than this. I supported the sentiment and principle of those amendments in Committee. The difficulty I have with them on reflection is that, given that to be workable and constitutionally appropriate, the striking out of any right of appeal for totally without merit cases would need a hearing, the problem with extending it to all planning judicial reviews is that it would eat up the very limited bandwidth of the planning court. The planning court simply does not have the resources to deal with the proliferation of hearings that apply the Clause 12 procedure to all planning judicial reviews as opposed to the NSIP judicial reviews, which are much narrower. There have been only about 40 NSIP judicial reviews ever, whereas in the planning context it is a lot greater. So reluctantly, I do not think those amendments are workable at present stage, but if there were to be a new planning Bill in future, it should be looked at.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, briefly, I have a simple question about government Amendment 67, which would allow an extension of time to implement a planning permission or a listed building consent where there has been a legal challenge. This returns to the ecological surveys which got such a discussion in the group before lunch. Ecological surveys are taken at a particular point in time, and, particularly in this era of the climate emergency, species are moving and appear and disappear. How are the Government planning to deal with the fact that the ecological survey may become profoundly out of date and so, if this goes on for a long period, the grounds on which the decision was made initially may need to be redone? Is there some plan to deal with that issue?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I point out that this is yet another late-in-the-day government amendment. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that this time I am in agreement with Amendment 67.
To extend the time limits from implementing a planning consent where there has been a legal challenge seems right and fair. I did not quite catch whether the Minister explained the full extent of it, but I assume that it means that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review it will be a one-year extension, a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal, and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court. The noble Baroness nods. So that is right and fair. That is a balanced approach, which is one of my ways of judging things: “Is it right, fair and balanced?” I think that is fair to the applicants. So, with the nod that I had from the Minister, I agree with Amendment 67 and with Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which is very similar.
The other amendments in this group, Amendments 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would make serious changes to the ability of citizens to go to law where they feel that due process has failed them. Restricting those rights does not feel to me acceptable without further and full consideration by those who are expert in these matters—which is not me. With those comments, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.
These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.
The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.
Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is not here, I shall put on the record that there is work ongoing on the Hillside issue, as he is very aware. We continue to engage with him on that issue.
I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, off the top of my head, but I will provide a written answer. I appreciate that two years is quite a long time. If surveys have been done, they may need to be done again. I will come back to her on that issue.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendments 77, 78 and 79, introduced by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. These seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed as totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects the intention of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008. The measures being taken forward in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence, which made clear the case for change in relation to major infrastructure projects. We do not currently have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore, we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of changes made in Clause 12 would be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.
Amendment 77 seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court. As mentioned in Committee, this is not necessary as it is already clearly set out in the existing relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. In light of these points, while I agree with the intent behind the amendments, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not move them.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I am happy not to move the amendments. However, I observe that the government amendments are occasioned by the very problems that I have been describing.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities(1) The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 4 (advice)—(a) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Natural England is not required by subsection (1) to give advice in response to a request to which subsection (1B) applies that is made by a public authority other than a Minister of the Crown.(1B) This subsection applies to a request for advice relating to—(a) a specific development that requires, but has not been granted, planning permission under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”),(b) an application for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition imposed on a grant of planning permission required under that section,(c) permission in principle for a specific development under section 58A of the 1990 Act, and(d) the approval of a reserved matter within the meaning of section 92 of the 1990 Act.(1C) Natural England may give advice in response to a request to which it is not required to respond as a result of subsection (1A).”;(b) in subsection (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1C)”.(3) After section 4 insert— “4A Supplementary provision(1) Natural England must prepare and publish a statement setting out how it intends to deal with requests for advice which it is not required to give as a result of section 4(1A).(2) Natural England must review the statement before the end of—(a) the period of five years beginning with the day on which it is first published, and(b) each successive period of five years.(3) Natural England may review the statement more than once during any of those periods.(4) Natural England may revise the statement following a review.(5) Natural England must publish any revised statement.(6) Before publishing a statement (including a revised statement) under this section, Natural England must—(a) consult the Secretary of State, and(b) make any changes to the statement that the Secretary of State may require in response.(7) But the duty in subsection (6) does not apply in relation to the publication of a revised statement which, in the opinion of Natural England, contains no substantial revisions.(8) The Secretary of State may require a change as mentioned in subsection (6)(b) only if the Secretary of State considers that the change would promote Natural England’s general purpose.”(4) The duties imposed by section 4A(6) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as inserted by subsection (3), may be satisfied by consultation carried out, and changes made, before this section comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would permit Natural England not to respond certain to requests for advice under section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and require it to publish a statement about how it intends to deal with requests to which it would no longer be required to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, there are two government amendments in this group. I will introduce government Amendments 68 and 262 and respond to the other two amendments at the end of this debate.
Government Amendments 68 and 262 seek to provide Natural England with discretion when considering how best to deal with requests for advice from public authorities relating to planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Currently, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires that Natural England must provide advice to all requests from public authorities, regardless of the level of environmental opportunities or environmental risk related to the project. This requirement exists despite the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 already setting out a narrower scope for when Natural England should be consulted on planning applications for Town and Country Planning Act casework.
Amendment 68 removes this “must” requirement and provides that Natural England must produce an operational statement setting out how it intends to deal with such requests for advice in relation to Town and Country Planning Act casework. This approach will avoid Natural England having to provide advice to routine and duplicative casework and instead allow it to prioritise higher-risk and higher-opportunity casework. This will help to resolve issues up front, which will speed up decision-making and embed opportunities for nature recovery within plans and projects. It will also allow growth and nature to be delivered together.
In parallel, Natural England will continue to expand its suite of standing advice, providing local planning authorities with easier access to guidance from the outset. This helps to avoid unnecessary consultations and ensures that engagement is focused where bespoke advice is most valuable. It also brings the requirements on Natural England in line with those on other statutory consultees, which are not required to provide advice to all queries.
In 2024, Natural England wrote to all local planning authorities setting out its aim to focus effort on higher- risk and higher-opportunity planning casework. This amendment supports this strategic shift, which Natural England welcomes. Crucially, this does not remove Natural England’s advisory role but refocuses it from handling large volumes of low-risk casework to more strategic engagement that can deliver greater environmental impact. This aligns with government ambitions as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by Matthew Pennycook MP in March. This stated a need to reconsider the means of engagement and provision of expert advice, and that in some cases this could be done through undertaking more effective strategic engagement at local and strategic level, reducing the need for comments on individual planning applications. This corresponds with recommendations made by Dan Corry in his independent review of Defra’s regulatory landscape.
To provide clarity for local planning authorities, the amendment would require Natural England to produce an operational statement that sets out how it intends to deal with requests for advice relating to Town and Country Planning Act casework. This will make it clear to local planning officers and authorities how they can expect to receive Natural England advice. This operational statement would be produced in consultation with the Defra Secretary of State. Natural England will provide further information to local planning authorities on the implementation of this change in due course.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the premise on which the amendment she moved is based. My Amendment 194 seems to be a little out of place. I should have asked for it to be taken with the rest of Part 3, because it seeks to amend Clause 86 in Part 3 to insist that the power to designate a person to exercise functions under this Act should indeed belong to a public body.
Clause 83 provides the power to acquire land compulsorily, including new rights over land, to Natural England, subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides that the power can be exercised only if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an EDP. This came as a surprise to many, not least, as the Minister will be aware, the NFU, which is deeply anxious about the purport of Clause 86, in particular the definition of a “designated person”. It is alarmed that Clause 83 gives Natural England the compulsory purchase powers set out in that clause. It is further exasperated by Clause 86 allowing the Secretary of State to designate “another person” to exercise Natural England’s functions, potentially giving another party compulsory purchase powers. On what basis would those powers be given and who would these people be?
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for lending her support to this amendment. I am grateful to her, and indeed to the Ministers, for agreeing to meet us to discuss this amendment last week. I would like to understand what bodies the Government have in mind. Are they individuals? Are they organisations? Can the Ministers name them this evening, so that we have an idea who they are? Is it an indication that, as I understand it, Natural England is losing staff over the coming months and therefore the Government are accepting that, possibly, Natural England will not have the capacity to cope with the volume of work set out in Part 3?
We will go on to consider the whole remit of compulsory powers in Clause 83 onwards. I think that will be next week, unless we are here all night. I would just like to understand the basis on which it will not be Natural England, when these powers are being given to Natural England for the first time, who the other bodies or individuals might be, and to make a plea that, for the purposes of that clause, a “designated person” must be a public body.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group. Government Amendment 68 would permit Natural England to not respond to requests for advice under Section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, so that it can prioritise more important cases. That reflects pretty well what is happening at the moment, if the truth were known, because the reality is that Natural England’s resources are very thinly stretched and, in many cases, it provides advice simply on the basis of standing guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. I want to probe the Minister a bit further on this and I apologise for giving her grief when she is clearly beset with some affliction.
I have three questions. The first is, it is my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice. Should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions?
The second question is: has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities when we know that only one in three local planning authorities now has in-house ecological advice? We are facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I know that they can buy that in, but it is less flexible and less readily available.
My third question is: should we perhaps wait for this change to happen once the Government’s forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place? This is a consultation about consultation—this is the sort of world we live in these days.
Noble Lords are being asked to approve this change, which it is intended will come in immediately on the passing of the Bill, and there is a specific clause that effects that, without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of prioritisation would sit. If a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England is supposed to produce were placed in the Bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled. So I think that hastening rather more slowly on this would make for a much better decision.
I support Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State of Natural England’s role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body. In talking to the Minister—I was pleased to be able to talk directly to both Ministers about this issue—the only examples that so far have been put forward for this power of delegation have been either to National Parks England or the Marine Management Organisation, in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP. That is entirely appropriate. If a reliable public body is publicly accountable and has the right sort of expertise to draw up and implement an EDP, it is appropriate that that happens. But, if it is normally going to be a public body, why do we not just say “a public body” in the Bill rather than “another person”?
There needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to “another person” to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships that I am sure most EDPs will involve, where Natural England can partner with or delegate the delivery but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners, including businesses, including some of the natural resources businesses that are growing up, NGOs, landowners and farmers. I am sure that there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs and that that will happen widely. But that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, co-ordinating the delivery by partners in line with the EDP.
That partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision. Clause 86 is, in reality, about taking the development and/or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the body that is the Government’s statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation and potentially giving extensive responsibilities and powers to a person or persons as yet unidentified. If they are to be public bodies, why not state that in the Bill? If they are not, can the Minister help us understand a bit more who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue from doing these things successively over time, and which they will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.
If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might, in the future, have all these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs; not knowing their background and expertise; not knowing the extent of the powers they are to be given, and their stance on and approach towards compulsory purchase. Public bodies are, to a large extent, known quantities; another person or persons unknown are not. If public bodies screw up, the Government can sack the chairman. I know all about that. The Government have no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. Can the Minister tell us how they will hold them accountable? Can she reassure landowners about their concerns? If Ministers are pretty clear that, in reality, they would delegate these important duties and powers only to a public body, I would suggest that the safest way forward is simply to reassure everybody by saying in the Bill that it will be a public body.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to speak to all the amendments in this group. I want to speak to Amendment 200 and make just one remark about Amendment 194.
I am not persuaded by Amendment 194. Our day- by-day experience of working with organisations which provide environmental impact assessments and environmental outcome reports, and that have all the expertise we might need in this context, is not to be found exclusively in public bodies, so I would not support this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 200, in Committee we had a short debate about the relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Clearly, as we noted then, Natural England has to have regard to these. The sooner Natural England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. They do not necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity. The pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. My Amendment 200 is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England when they have potential sites for development. I interpret this as being at Regulation 19 stage. If they are coming forward with the development sites they are proposing for consultation, they should tell Natural England. Natural England can then factor into the thinking about environmental development plans what might emerge, typically a year or more after that point, as the adoption of a development plan. It gives them access and time.
I completely understand if the Minister says that this is not necessary because they can already do this. We are talking about statutory processes and local planning authorities who are so pressed that they will not do what they are not required to do. In order to make this system work, a Regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to inform the process of EDP making would be a helpful addition.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a very important, practical point.
I shall speak chiefly against government Amendment 68. I shall also briefly reflect on Amendment 194, following the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about these powers being delegated to another person. I hope the Minister can reassure me that this is not in the Government’s mind. I hope she can guarantee that there will not be the outsourcing to giant multinational companies that are expert in bidding for contracts but terrible at delivering on them that we have seen in so many areas of government, and that we will not see another outsourcing disaster follow the many other outsourcing disasters. When we think about what has happened, for example, with building control, it is really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who then end up marking their own homework.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in view of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, saying that she is opposed to the measure, I feel it is my turn to stand up and say that this is a very sensible amendment. Based on my time in Natural England, I strongly support it.
Generally, it was my experience that local authorities bounced over to Natural England tens of thousands of planning applications, most of which were irrelevant to us, in that we had no real reason to give a view. If the application affected an SSSI, a national nature reserve, a national park or AONB as they were they called, something protected by the habitats regulations, or developments on the finest agricultural land, then Natural England was duty bound to respond, and always did so—in complex cases sometimes not as quickly as some would have liked. However, we had to get it right, or as right as possible, since it could result in the rejection of the application by the council, leading to appeals and judicial reviews and possibly the loss of a good infrastructure project.
What are the statistics to justify this change? In its 2023-24 annual report to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Natural England reported that it had received 24,664 planning application consultations; 20,503 consultations—91.7%—were responded to within 21 days or to an otherwise agreed deadline. Some 754 deadline extensions to planning application consultations were granted—that is 3.7%. Natural England sent 20,370 responses to customers, with the average time taken to provide a substantive response being 11.9 days. In addition, Natural England received 1,096 pre-application consultations, either directly from developers or via local planning authorities. They responded to 68.9% of these within 21 days or to otherwise agreed deadlines.
Natural England now deals with a high proportion of complex cases, mostly relating to impacts on habitat sites or protected landscapes such as national parks and national landscapes. In 2023-24, this included receiving 161 consultations for nationally significant infra- structure projects, or NSIPs, 895 local plan consultations and 96 environmental impact assessment requests relating to screening and/or scoping.
In the past few years, there has been a 40% increase in NSIPs, and they require a lot of work and, in some cases, site visits and meetings. However, as the Minister said, Natural England is legally bound to respond to all requests. All told, in that year, Natural England had more than 32,000 planning consultations, and in 47% of them, it had no statutory remit, since they were very low risk. That is 15,000 cases where Natural England had to spend time writing back, saying that it had nothing to comment on. I got the clear impression, and I am not that cynical, that many local authorities bunged applications to Natural England to tick a box and show their local representatives that they were investigating every avenue before granting permission and that even Natural England was happy because it did not object.
Therefore, I was very keen for Natural England to move to this new strategic approach and shift to focusing on high-risk and high-opportunity casework, with an emphasis on strategic engagement and delivering solutions up front. Natural England also wants to emphasise the importance of high-quality applications as well as the need to reduce the level of unnecessary consultations that it receives. It can do that by signposting local planning authorities to its new impact risk zones delivery advice service.
This is an exciting and long overdue shift. I have no time to dig into the details tonight, but there are three main thrusts in my opinion. First, low-risk, routine applications must be put on what I would call autopilot so that Natural England can concentrate on planning advice work and moving on to a more strategic place. There need to be standard responses for lower-risk work, and the supplementary provisions that the Minister has outlined in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment 68 will set out how local authorities can determine these applications themselves based on criteria published by Natural England and approved by the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tremendous experience of this from her time at Natural England, but I assure her that this is very low-risk stuff. My shelves are full of books called, “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Work Your Mac”, “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Work Your iPad” and “The Idiot’s Guide to Switching on Your Mobile Phone”. I am not making an insinuation about local councils, but I can see the Natural England advice being something like “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Grant Planning Permission in Local Councils for Low-Risk Applications”, and I hope the guidance will be that simple.
The second thrust is that Natural England needs to concentrate on the big strategic stuff. This is where it can make the biggest impact for nature recovery, recognising that nature and economic growth co-exist and need to thrive together. Thirdly, Natural England is keen to do much more upfront, pre-application engagement and sees the importance of securing opportunities and mitigation for nature within development policies. It needs to focus its efforts on where the opportunities are greatest as well as addressing significant environmental risks. This means having as much time as possible to advise on high-risk and high-opportunity casework. If it can take that approach now, it will secure lasting environmental outcomes and create wider economic and social benefits for communities.
I must tell noble Lords what justifies doing this upfront work. It was just before I joined, but I understand that Natural England reached out to HS2 as soon as it got the original Bill passed to say, “Come to us as soon as possible with any and all the plans you’ve got which may impact on protected sites or habitats along the route, and we’ll work on mitigation measures to head off the problems”. I understand the answer that came back was, “We are HS2; we do not need your input, so just butt out”. Then, when it was too late, HS2 came along to say that it had hit a problem with protected bats and to ask what it should do about it. It was HS2’s plan to build that £100 million tunnel, not Natural England’s, but we had to approve it, since HS2’s arrogance meant it had run out of options.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his place. He might agree that we would all say that £100 million for a bat tunnel is obscene, but to HS2 it was just pocket money that it was spending. I must say to some of my noble friends that Natural England’s decision on this and other things was not an out-of-control quango doing it for the hell of it or doing it because it thought it could do it. It was following United Kingdom habitats regulations. I say United Kingdom habitats regulations because we incorporated them all into UK law. I said to Conservative Ministers at the time, “If you don’t like Natural England implementing the law, then change the law”.
Finally, nearly every official I spoke to was certain that if HS2 had involved Natural England eight years ago, the problem of the route and the bats would have been headed off and it would have solved it without that expense. That is why pre-planning engagement is so important: it speeds up planning and avoids crises arising at the last minute because organisations have found that they have hit an environmental problem. Natural England must be freed from the 15,000 irrelevant low-risk cases so that it has time to deal early on with the big strategic stuff that will make a difference and promote growth while safeguarding our biodiversity. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and it reflects well the view that there are differences of opinion on this late Government amendment, Amendment 68, around the House. It also reinforces the point that it is disappointing that at this late stage in the Bill a significant shift in policy is being introduced by this Government. This is not tidying up, this is not in response to anything that anybody raised in Committee; it is clearly something that is driven by political aims, as was made very clear in the press release that accompanied the indication of the Government’s new amendments at this stage of the Bill.
It is very disappointing that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, a large consultation by the department on statutory consultees is upcoming, and if there was going to be a detailed look at the role of Natural England as a statutory consultee, it could have fitted into that. There could have been a proper consultation with those most affected, local authorities, whereas instead it is just foisted on us at this late stage with no consultation in the meantime with the LGA. I have spoken to the LGA, so I would be delighted if the Minister could tell me that she has any views from it. She was very keen to tell us what the view of Natural England was, as was the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but what are the views of those most affected, which is hard-pushed local authorities? The absence of planning advice is not going to speed up planning. They are still going to have to make the decisions. It is not going to do what the press release said, which is,
“helping to accelerate approvals for new homes and infrastructure”.
They are going to be struggling around to find the advice that they have previously had.
I have a couple of questions to put to the Minister. First, in her opening remarks, she talked about the fact that, last August, Natural England sent a letter to all local authorities telling them that there would be a cutting back in planning services. Given that Natural England already has an established modus operandi from last year, which was about cutting back in a progressive way, what is the problem since then that needs solving? Why do we need legislation given that there was a perfectly reasonable non-legislative means for Natural England to prioritise cases?
Secondly, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, and looking at the wording of the amendment, the only person that Natural England has to consult in determining the statement on dealing with requests for advice is the Secretary of State. For a Labour Government—a Labour Government—to be saying that Natural England will do a consultation on something that will fundamentally change the resources available to local authorities, which are in the vanguard of protecting our countryside and building the homes we need, and the only people it is going to talk to are people in the department is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace that new Section 4A(6) just says:
“Before publishing a statement … Natural England must … consult the Secretary of State”.
It does not have to talk to local authorities, and yet they will have to live with these decisions.
I go back to my central point. I do not see why this is needed, given that a perfectly reasonable process was put in place by Natural England to streamline the advice that it gives to local authorities. It leads me to believe that there is something more lurking behind this amendment that we cannot quite see. It is absolutely wrong that a Labour Government are putting this forward without consulting the very people at the heart of our communities who are responsible for doing this.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a landowner and a housing developer. Before addressing this group of amendments, I would like to ask the Minister whether her Government have considered the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case that was released today. This question is relevant to this and other debates we will have today and in later days on Report in your Lordships’ Chamber. For the benefit of the House, the judgment found that Ramsar sites impacted by development do not have the protection in law previously assumed to derive from the habitats regulations.
From that I have several questions. If the Minister does not yet have answers, I wonder whether she would be able to write to me before the next day of Report or perhaps comment in a later group. We know that this decision releases 18,000 housing units in the Somerset Levels alone. Of the 160,000 units currently blocked nationally by Natural England advice on nutrient and other neutrality, how many are due to Ramsar and how many to European designations, where the rules still apply? In other words, how many houses nationally have now been released from blockage by nutrient neutrality rules?
The Bill, as drafted, imposes the legal obligations of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Therefore, the effect of the Bill now becomes to block housing development rather than allow it. We on these Benches will seek to amend the Bill to remove this effect. My Amendment 208 would take Clause 90 out of the Bill, and I will table further amendments as needed. Have the Government’s intentions towards Clause 90 and Schedule 6 now changed as a result of this ruling? On these Benches, we are delighted with this ruling as it releases much-needed supply into the housing market. I hope the Government are equally delighted as it is a step towards their target of 1.5 million houses. It also highlights the issue that the small nut that is being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 of this Bill has just been shrunk even further, and we will return next week to the many questions around Part 3.
I turn to the amendments in this group and begin with government Amendments 68 and 262. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to reduce the obligations of Natural England as a welcome streamlining of the planning process.
Amendment 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is important, and we would welcome clarity from the Minister in her response that the intent is that Natural England’s powers can be delegated only to public bodies and which bodies those might be. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it should say public bodies in the Bill. We will oppose the powers being given to Natural England in this Bill as they risk creating an authoritarian empire. The idea that these can then be delegated to private sector entities or potentially unsuitable bodies really is intolerable, and we will return to this later, if necessary, in my Amendment 195.
Amendment 200 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley is a sensible amendment that would allow for better planning of EDP requirements. I look forward to the responses from the Minister.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will first go through the responses to the government amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his support.
My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked why we feel this amendment is needed now. I remind noble Lords that Natural England currently receives around 22,500 town and country planning consultations every year. Many are low to medium risk and about 30% of them do not actually need Natural England’s input because they either fall outside the statutory remit under the development management procedure order or do not relate to its general purpose as set out in the NERC Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, specifically asked what problem this was trying to solve. It is mainly because, over the last decade, the volume of planning casework received by Natural England has increased by 75%. There is nothing lurking behind it—it is just the huge amount of extra work that Natural England now has to deal with. Because of this, there is less time available for the work that makes the most impact, such as shaping local plans, advising on major infrastructure and protecting nature where the risks are greatest.
My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked about local authorities. We are looking to work with LPAs in advance of any change coming through and work through the details of exactly how it is going to work and what it is going to mean for them, so we are involving local authorities.
Regarding access to sufficient ecological advice, Natural England will continue to provide advice to local planning authorities in cases where bespoke advice is necessary, which will include any high-risk and high-opportunity casework. In addition, Natural England will still be required to provide a response under the development management procedure order, which is not affected by this amendment. This includes where a development is likely to affect a SSSI or would involve the loss of more than 20 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, local planning authorities are ultimately responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of individual planning applications in line with relevant planning policy and legislation, and this will remain unchanged.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked specifically about the Supreme Court judgment in the Fry case, which was handed down this morning. We are very grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarification. We will continue to drive the delivery of the homes and infrastructure the country needs but, as we move forward with the Bill we are debating today, we are clear that the planning system has to do everything it can to support sustainable development. On his more detailed questions, the judgment was only this morning so we need time to analyse the decision; I am sure we will be coming back to this.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would provide that only a public body could be designated to exercise the functions of Natural England under this part. Obviously, we have discussed this previously and debated it in Committee. While I absolutely recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns, I reassure her that the policy expectation is that this power would only be ever used to designate a public body to carry out such functions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, sometimes there could be unforeseen circumstances where it could be appropriate for a private body to take on some functions under this part. My noble friend Lady Young and others asked about examples. As I said in Committee, it could be national parks, the MMO and others as appropriate. The noble Baroness reminded us of the examples I had given earlier. This is not to do with shifting decision-making away from Natural England and has nothing to do with it not having the capacity. It is entirely to do with expertise and having the most appropriate body making these very important decisions. That is why we do not want to remove the possibility of it going to a private body. However, our expectation is that it would always be a public body because it would be unusual for a private body to have an expertise that a public body did not.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The reason for bringing the amendment back is that we do not seem to have moved on from Committee stage. If the expectation is that it will be a public body, then I go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that it should be in the Bill. I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that there are circumstances in which it would be entirely inappropriate for it to be given to a private company.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is why the delegated powers are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation. It is not just Natural England’s decision; it is subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and the use of the powers is subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. That is why I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the ongoing role of Parliament will be sufficient and allow her not to press her amendment. This is not just about a Natural England decision; it is really important that that is clear.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I know this is against the rules on Report, but I think this is such an important issue. I do not understand what the Government are saying now because the Bill is very clear. It actually says that the Secretary of State will make decisions about who the powers will be delegated to, not Natural England. If it was Natural England doing it, I would be entirely content. That is not what the Bill says at the moment, so I am unclear as to exactly what the Minister’s last couple of sentences mean.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I was trying to clarify that it is the Secretary of State.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State will consult on this and that Parliament will be given an opportunity to comment?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
What I am saying is that any delegated powers from Natural England are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and that the use of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. I hope that is clear.
I will now turn briefly to Amendment 200 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would add a duty on local authorities to inform Natural England, when making development plans, of potential sites for development that may require an EDP. As we mentioned in Committee, Natural England is already required to have regard to relevant development plans when producing an EDP. We have also ensured that local authorities will be required to co-operate with Natural England during the process of preparing an EDP, which will ensure that information on site allocation can feed into the design of EDPs. We share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that EDPs dovetail into the wider planning system, and I understand where he is coming from with this amendment, but we believe that placing a further duty on local authorities to provide such information is unnecessary, given that the Bill requires Natural England to proactively consider such plans when designing an EDP. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord is content not to press his amendment.
Earl Russell
“Promotion and use of mediation etc(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 323A insert—“323B Promotion and use of mediation etc.(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance in relation to the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique in relation to the following—(a) the preparation of local development plans and related evidence reports under Part 2,(b) a prospective applicant’s compliance with any requirements in respect of pre-application consultation imposed under or by virtue of sections 61W or 61Z, (c) assisting in the determination of an application for planning permission, including related planning obligations or their variation under sections 106 and 106A, and(d) any other matter related to planning that they consider appropriate.(2) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision about—(a) the form of mediation or other ADR technique that is to be used in a particular circumstance, and(b) the procedure to be followed in any such mediation.(3) Local authorities must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1).(4) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) planning authorities, and(b) such other persons that they consider appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must make any guidance issued under subsection (1) publicly available.(6) The power under subsection (1) to issue guidance includes power to—(a) issue guidance that varies guidance issued under that subsection, and(b) revoke guidance issued under that subsection.(7) For the purposes of this section, “mediation” and “ADR technique” includes any means of exploring, resolving or reducing disagreement between persons involving an impartial person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under subsection (1) within the period of two years beginning with the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that guidance must be issued on the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of ADR in the planning process. It is intended to engender a culture of informal resolution of disputes, in order to reduce the risk of the delay and expense caused by litigation.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group is on the principles of planning. I speak to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to which I have added my name; I also added my name to this amendment in Committee. This amendment seeks to place mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution at the core of our planning system. It represents a vital opportunity to transform a process that is all too often adversarial and cumbersome into one that resolves disputes quickly, locally and constructively. Indeed, I might dare to say that the power of mediation has brought us together on this amendment, which otherwise might be unlikely.
As a local councillor, I have sat on a planning committee and witnessed at first hand how adversarial planning can be and how complex it is—a zero-sum game. More importantly, I have worked as a community mediator and a caseworker for a number of years, specialising in neighbour disputes. That has taught me a lot, which I continue into my politics to this day. The first thing I learned as a mediator is that the problem is never what people tell you it is.
Our current planning processes revolve around conflict, often forcing developers, residents and authorities into these zero-sum games. It can be very difficult for those involved to escape from those processes themselves. This, ultimately, can lead to long legal battles, rising costs, delayed homes, immense frustration and broken systems. These are exactly the kinds of problem that this Bill is intended—and the Government state that they want—to resolve. This amendment is here to try to offer a way forward. My wish in speaking again to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is that I really want this Government to be open to considering a large-scale trial of mediation so that adequate data can be found and the Government can make an assessment as to the true usefulness of mediation in the English planning system.
In Committee, the Minister rejected this amendment on a number of grounds. The first was that it was not new and that the Government had explored it before. That might be true, but I believe that, when it was explored before, it was not done fully and properly. Mediation is embedded in the Scottish system and has been since 1997, with updated planning guidance in 2020-21. There it is a voluntary process, and the Scottish authorities have found that it has been very useful at all stages of planning, including in complex cases and developer-community discussions.
Research conducted by the University of Strathclyde has found that 65% of mediated Scottish cases were settled successfully in 2024, saving vast amounts of money for the courts, avoiding delays and helping to get infrastructure and homes built. Equally, the Scottish Government have commissioned independent research that found that mediation, where it was used, fostered trust, reduced conflict and helped to achieve earlier agreements compared with traditional legal routes.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as time is short, I will simply focus on the lifeblood of local communities: small enterprises, or SMEs as we call them. A journey of a thousand leagues starts with a single step, we are told. Equally, major corporations driving economic growth did not start as large enterprises. That is why I always seek to “think small first” in regulating, and indeed why I supported the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on planning fees. I trust that the Government will deliver on the lowest possible fees for SMEs.
My Amendment 119, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has kindly supported, seeks to build on the constructive discussions we all had with the Bill Ministers, in which they expressed their wish to support SMEs and small developments in the planning system. The fact is that such enterprises are at a disadvantage in our system. We need to do something about it and to bring about a culture change in the attitude to SMEs. It is a chilling fact that, according to the Government’s SME plan, SME housebuilders’ share of the market has declined from 39% in 1988 to 10% in 2020, yet they contribute disproportionately to local communities and local employment, helping to fill the skills gap in construction.
My amendment in Committee focused on giving new guidance to Natural England, because I want it to support smaller players and to take a more balanced view than its current remit permits. On reflection, I thought Ministers might prefer a more general duty that would give SMEs a special role in the whole planning system. This would require all involved to “have regard”—not the strongest of words—to the fact that SMEs
“may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process”,
and to “consider”, again a gentle word,
“whether such barriers can be removed or reduced”.
It is derived from a similar duty that we introduced to the Procurement Bill, in which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, were involved. This was widely welcomed by businesses and charities. In my amendment I have kept the definition of such enterprises modest to make it more acceptable—
“between one and nine residential dwellings”—
but I would be happy for the Government to amend this at Third Reading or ping-pong.
The role of SMEs in development is a serious omission from the Bill. This is bad for community cohesion and a lost opportunity for growth. The Government said in their own small business plan that accelerating the growth of SMEs could boost growth by 1% a year. Unfortunately, what we heard from the Minister in Committee does not cut the mustard. An example would be the requirement to consider the viability of development in making levy regulations. I cannot see how this would make a big difference to SMEs. The truth is that none of the considerations, nor the financial support she has mentioned, have any chance of reversing the adverse trend in SME housebuilding or changing the culture in local authorities and agencies, let alone in Marsham Street.
Unless the Minister can give an undertaking to bring forward a suitable proposal on SMEs in the planning process itself, I will want to test the opinion of the House when we reach that clause.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 119 and agree with the excellent case set out by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. My support comes from two cases in my constituency some years ago, caused by the forerunner of Natural England. I think it was the Countryside Commission at the time, and then it was the Countryside Agency, before being amalgamated into Natural England. These two cases simply demonstrate the point that my noble friend has been making. They were a couple of years apart, but the issues were the same, and they have annoyed me to this day because I was absolutely powerless to help small businesses in my constituency.
The first was on creating the Pennine Bridleway, and later a national trail alongside Hadrian’s Wall, both of which had many miles in my constituency. Some of that opened in 2002, some in 2006, and some is not opened yet, but the approval process in principle started either in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The plan was to make these national trails and encourage thousands more people to use them—no bad thing in itself, and I liked the idea. Local farmers were generally not opposed, since they thought they could get involved in providing services to the walkers and riders.
Farmers and householders along Hadrian’s Wall said that, without toilet facilities en route, their stone walls—or behind them—had become toilets. With no cafeterias for miles, sandwich wrappers and uneaten food were dumped in their fields and were a hazard to sheep. They said it would be good for them if they could convert a barn into a coffee shop or toilets, as a quid pro quo for letting thousands of people march over their land. It seemed a very good idea to me at the time to assist small farmers in this way. This was in the wilds of northern Cumbria, near the Scottish border, where some farms had more rushes than grass. It used to be called marginal land but the EU terminology is “severely disadvantaged area”. The lush land of East Anglia it is not. They need every opportunity there to make money and survive.
Farmers on the route of the proposed Pennine Bridleway also wanted to convert some barns into tack rooms, providing food and water for people and horses, and parking space for their trailers. Only a few riders would want to traverse its whole length, or at least the stretches which were open; most wanted to park up and ride a loop of about 15 miles or so. Again, that was a reasonable suggestion which I thought would benefit everyone: walker and riders, the local farmers who would have them on their land, and the environment, which would not be desecrated with rubbish. But that was not to be.
The Countryside Commission said, “Nothing to do with us”. Its job was the trails and bridleway, and it did not care about helping the rural businesses along the route. It was purely a local planning matter. To hear that from a body set up with a remit of helping rural businesses, I was appalled and angered. It would not even publish a statement suggesting to local councils that it might be a jolly good idea to support planning applications which would provide those small infrastructure developments. I approached the local councils, which said they could not comment until an official planning application was received and would not bend the rules to look favourably on them in principle.
I ended up opposing something that I thought was a good thing because of the recalcitrance of government bodies and local councils that would do absolutely nothing to help small businesses in their own patch. I may be wrong but to this day I do not think that a single farm or private building on either of those routes has been given planning permission for even a simple tearoom. That is why I support my noble friend.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 103, in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner, who I see is now in his place, on proportionality in planning. In Committee, his amendment was rejected out of hand.
This is a Bill promoted by several departments. We have spent the last hour with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, from Defra, justifying government Amendment 68 strictly on the grounds of proportionality between good governance, effective value for money and so forth. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, from the other department, that the Government cannot have it both ways. Government Amendment 68 having been pressed so hard on the positive angle of proportionality, I now challenge her to accept Amendment 103, which makes exactly the same grounds, but of course from my noble friend Lord Banner’s perspective rather than the other.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I wish briefly to support Amendment 69, for the reasons advanced by the noble Earl. I just want to raise one question. The amendment would provide for guidance promoting the use of mediation. I would like to know whether the expectation of that amendment, if agreed, is that mediation should become mandatory, as is really the case in much civil litigation. If it is to be mandatory, what would be the sanctions for non-compliance with a direction for mediation?
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome that question. It is not that mediation would be mandatory. I strongly believe that mediation should be a voluntary process. The idea is to have guidance to make sure it is available and consistent where it is required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jamieson and me. At present, planning processes have become anything but proportionate. The precautionary principle is too often applied as though it requires zero risk. Environmental statements run to thousands of pages; inspectors demand reams of questions; statutory consultees require unnecessary detail, even at outline stage; and consultants, fearful of liability, produce overlong reports that few people will ever read. None of this improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence.
This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle; it would preserve it in its proper sense by ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It would help to strip out duplication, shorten an unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future-proofing. In Committee, the Minister conceded the main point. She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and that the system has become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable. If we agree that the system is disproportionate, we should act to correct it.
This amendment does exactly that. It would embed proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way. When the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment.
I turn to Amendment 119, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this Act give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This amendment seeks to introduce statutory guidance on mediation and dispute resolution into the planning system.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his continued engagement with us on this matter since Committee. I have had a meeting with him this week on this subject. He is a passionate advocate for mediation and I appreciate the insights he has shared on this issue. I think we both want the same thing: fewer disputes on matters of planning. There are certainly areas where mediation and alternative dispute resolution can play a valuable role in the planning system—for example, on the compulsory purchase and Section 106 agreements, where negotiating and reaching consensus is required.
However, we feel that third-party mediation would not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. For example, it would not be applicable to planning decisions, as planning law requires the decision-maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development plan and weigh them with other material planning considerations. Furthermore, a statutory approach to mediation may add a further layer to an already complex planning framework.
Much of what we are both seeking to achieve can be done through national planning policy and guidance. Our National Planning Policy Framework actively encourages proactive and positive engagement between applicants and local planning authorities, including pre-application consultation. This is a well-established part of the system and only 4% of all planning decisions lead to an appeal. On larger-scale schemes, planning performance agreements have also played an increasingly valuable role, and we actively encourage them as a tool to assist co-operation between all parties.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted the example of the way that Scotland deals with mediation. Section 286A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 enables Scottish Ministers to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation. Planning Circular 2/2021 sets out this guidance. Importantly, this guidance promotes the use of mediation rather than requiring its use. It clearly states that the use of mediation is not a requirement on local planning authorities. We do not need legislation to encourage the use of mediation, especially for all planning activities. As I said, there are examples of where we have used guidance to encourage the use of mediation, particularly on compulsory purchase orders.
Amendment 103 from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the courts confidence that less can be more in the planning system. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter. He will know that we are taking forward regulatory reforms to this regime, removing the need for mandatory pre-application consultation and overhauling the permission stage for judicial review, which we discussed earlier.
Elsewhere, we are introducing the new nature restoration fund, reviewing the role of statutory consultees, removing the statutory consultation requirements relating to preliminary environmental information within the environmental impact assessment regulations for infra- structure planning and examining regulatory and policy requirements for small and medium-sized sites.
I again reassure the noble Lord that we agree with the sentiment of this amendment to remove unnecessary layers of duplication, and our actions show this. However, as I said in Committee, we still do not think that this amendment, though well intentioned, would provide the remedy for the lack of proportionality in our planning system. It would create a new legal test for decision-makers that risks more opportunities for legal challenge and more grounds for disagreements. It is better to promote proportionality through regulatory and policy reforms, which I know the noble Lord is aware we are committed to. It will be a key principle driving our new National Planning Policy Framework, which we are committed to publishing for consultation later this year.
Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under the Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am sure she will know that we appreciate the intention of the amendment and recognise the crucial role that small and medium-sized businesses play in driving up housebuilding rates, particularly by supporting a diverse housing market, responding to local housing needs and supporting faster build-out rates.
We also recognise that this part of the sector has faced incredibly significant challenges in recent years and that the planning system has become disproportionate, contributing to delays, costs and uncertainty. However, this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates the emerging reforms to the planning system.
The amendment would create a statutory obligation for public bodies to have regard to SME-specific issues. This approach is neither necessary nor proportionate. It would impose a legal duty on authorities to demonstrate how they have considered SME concerns and barriers when exercising their planning and development functions. This would create a new burden for local planning authorities and other public bodies. It would also further complicate our complex planning system and create a new avenue by which legal challenges to decisions could be brought.
That said, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving the experience of SMEs in the planning system. In May this year, we published a site thresholds working paper, seeking views on how we might better support small-site development and enable SME housebuilders to grow. This paper proposed introducing a medium-site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process.
For applications within this new medium threshold, we are considering simplifying BNG requirements, exploring exempting these sites from the proposed building safety levy; exempting them from build-out transparency proposals; maintaining a 13-week statutory time period for determination; including the delegation of some of these developments to officers as part of the national scheme of delegation; ensuring that referrals to statutory consultees are proportionate and rely on general guidance that is readily available online where possible; uplifting the permission-in-principle threshold; and minimising validation and statutory information requirements. We are currently analysing all the comments received on this working paper, which will inform a consultation on more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach.
An amendment seeking to define SMEs in an alternative way and adding further steps to the process risks adding further complexity to the planning system and undermining the efforts to support proportionality. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This has been an interesting and, dare I say, different group of amendments. It is always important to look at principles, particularly first principles, that underline and guide what we do and why we do it. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I take her points about mediation and that we all want fewer disputes. We share all those things in common. I will go away and think about what more could be done with guidance. We want the Government to go a little bit further and support trials and rollouts to see what more can be done to better incorporate this as a tool within our planning system.
On Amendment 119, it is important that we raise these issues. The need to do more for small and medium-sized developers is widely felt among all parties across the House. I recognise what the Government have done on the site threshold paper, and it is welcome that they are looking at the results that have come back from that. I think the House as a whole would welcome further developments from that.
On Amendment 103, obviously the principle of proportionality is important. Less can indeed be more. We wonder what more can be done in this space on regulatory and policy reforms going forward.
With that, I reserve the right of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to bring back his amendment, should he wish to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 22nd October 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (22 Oct 2025)
22:07 - Division on Amendment 73 - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 73 disagreed.
22:18 - Division on Amendment 74 - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 74 disagreed.
“Property flood resilience measures: planning permission(1) Planning permission for the building of new homes at higher risk of flooding can only be granted if property flood resilience measures are implemented as part of the construction.(2) For the purposes of implementing subsection (1) and within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that property flood resilience measures are included in any new homes at higher risk of flooding.(3) Property flood resilience measures under this section may include—(a) raised electrical sockets;(b) non-return valves on utility pipes;(c) airbrick covers;(d) resilient wall plaster;(e) any other measure as the Secretary of State may specify.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 70 and 81. I also say in passing how appealing I find the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There was a much-ignored review by Anna Walker on water efficiency, and the amendments that the noble Baroness has proposed encapsulate the recommendations, so I look forward to hearing her and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, speak to them.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for supporting both these amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for supporting Amendment 70. These amendments are flip sides of the same coin. The Government have a choice. If they are going to build on flood plains, particularly on the most hazardous, the riskiest and the most prone to flooding, they must take the precautions of introducing property flood resilience measures, as I have set out in Amendment 70. These are very practical: raised electrical sockets and non-return valves, among other specifications that I have set out.
In fact, I am sure that many of these could be introduced through building regulations, so would take the form of secondary legislation. I do not believe that we necessarily need to have the detail. But I would like the Government either to make a commitment to increasing property flood resilience measures where we are building on functional flood plains or to desist from building on functional flood plains completely.
When I tabled a similar amendment to Amendment 81 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—now Act— I was very encouraged to have the support of the then Opposition for the proposition now contained in Amendment 81, so I hope that this support can be repeated and that the Government will now support the contents of that amendment. It is very clear. It just seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on flood plains or in areas at a high risk of flooding.
In particular, I have focused on zones 3a and 3b. Why is that important? Some 6.3 million homes in the UK are currently at risk of flooding and this will increase to 8 million, or one in every four homes, by 2050. If the Government continue that trend, 115,000 of the planned 1.5 million homes would be in higher-risk flood areas. Perhaps the core reason it is inappropriate to build on flood plains which are zone 3a or 3b is that, as we know, since the Flood Re scheme came into effect, any house built on a flood plain since 2009 will not be insured under the scheme. They may be able to have insurance, but it will be very expensive indeed. It seems mind-boggling that we would even consider building on those most at-risk flood plains. If the Government persist with their desire to build on these particular flood plains then I am asking that we make them resilient through these measures.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as noted in the register as a non-executive director of NatCap Research. This declaration is particularly appropriate as I stand to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in bringing back this sensible amendment—indeed, I support all the amendments in this group—because this company, along with many others, provides a scientific evidence base for nature and climate-based risks for companies that are concerned about the changing environmental landscape in which they find themselves, not least because of the costs to their businesses, stocks and shares, and the bottom line if they do not bring in mitigation measures.
I am therefore struggling to understand why the Government feel unable to support such a sensible amendment, which would ensure the same sort of mitigation approach for individual homeowners, especially those in the lower socioeconomic bands who may not be able to afford the high costs of flood risk or have any insurance. We must acknowledge that flood risk is real. We hear many examples, and I could give more— I will not, because of time. It is a rapidly increasing risk. It is not something that might happen; it is something that will happen, and we are seeing yearly changes occurring now. What is being suggested here are simple and low-cost measures that can be taken by developers to ensure that the homes they sell in areas of higher flood risk are future-proofed.
In Committee, the Minister responded that:
“Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice, which includes installing flood-resilient features”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1024.]
What happens when designers decide not to follow this and the burden of repairing homes damaged by flooding falls to the owners and their insurers? Strengthening planning rules to encourage low-cost property resilience measures, such as those proposed in this amendment, means that the risk to individual homeowners can be reduced from the outset, and the costs of flooding—not just financial but to mental well- being—can be avoided.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken, demonstrating the breadth of support for this set of amendments around the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, to paraphrase, this is a common-sense set of measures which are not big-P “political” at all—it just something that obviously needs to be done.
I am speaking to Amendments 70 and 81, to which I attached my name, and for my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who tabled Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B. Briefly, on the first two, we have to set the context. A week ago, the Committee on Climate Change told the Government that we have to be preparing for 2 degrees of warming by 2050. Even more critically perhaps, in the context of this Bill, the Government and the country have not yet adapted to the levels of warming that we already have.
As in so many other areas—not just flooding but heat and cold—we are building homes that immediately need to be retrofitted, or homes that are setting people up for months, if not years, of misery. If a home was flooded and we had the kind of measures proposed by Amendment 70, it would be possible to clean the home up and, potentially, for people to move back in quite quickly. Without those measures, there are issues around the cost of insurance and months or even years of misery before there is any way that the home is occupiable again. We should not be building homes in that condition, and where homes are being retrofitted it should be to prepare them for that.
Those are my views on Amendments 70 and 81. I spoke extensively in Committee on Amendment 81, so I shall just repeat: the flood plain is not beside the river; the flood plain is part of the river.
My noble friend’s amendments are about the other side of this issue. They do not deal with the flood-water rushing down the river, the surface water that is rushing off the hard surfaces that is so typical of many areas, or the impounded soils that reflect so much of our land management now. This is saying that we should catch that water and use it in the right kind of way. It is talking about having infrastructure systems that have sustainable harvesting—we talked a lot about water butts in Committee—in order to distribute fit-for-purpose water among residents. It makes no sense at all that we still use massive quantities of expensive—in both financial and energy terms—treated drinking water for purposes where we do not need anything like that quality.
These amendments are also about reducing costs. We have a cost of living crisis, so if we can use free water rather than water that we have to pay for, that would be a win-win all round. Similarly, Amendment 120 is about water efficiency and making sure that the design minimises the amount of water use. These are all practical things and it is hard to see any reason why anyone could argue that they should not be in the Bill.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests, particularly that I chair a company that advises people on sustainability, and water is central to that.
I want to encourage the Government to move on this subject. I hope that they will allow me to do so by pointing out that the previous Government still have to explain how they managed to get rid of the regulations that would have meant that, instead of building 1.5 million homes that are not fit for the future and that have to be retrofitted, we reduced the opportunities to make our building code insist that, when people sell a house, it is fit for the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for the present Government to show that they have changed that way of looking at things and I am very surprised that they have not done so on this central issue of water.
We know what will happen. There are not many things in life that are certain, but one is that we will have too little water at some times of the year and far too much water at other times of the year. Therefore, I wonder why the Government have not jumped up to say how good these amendments are and that this is exactly what we should have. I do not always agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I agree with her comment that this is obvious: this is what we should be doing and there should not be any argument about it. So why are we not doing it?
When I was chairman of the Climate Change Committee, one of the problems we faced was that the adaptation side did not have the same statutory role that the mitigation part had. There is no doubt that, historically, we have not adapted fast enough, so we need to adapt very much faster.
I say to the Minister: if we do not start putting right the new houses, when we have such a long history of old houses that will have to be done, all we will do is build a greater problem for ourselves and our children, and that is unacceptable. It is much more unacceptable for the Government to say that designers “may” use the best advice. The problem is that, if they do not use the best advice, people will sell houses to others who will have to pay the cost of retrofitting. The housebuilders are therefore making profits by taking the money and not building houses that are suitable. It is the duty of the Government to insist that the standards are such that, when you buy a house, you can rely—at least for some reasonable time—on it being proper and fit for the future.
I hope that the Minister will be extremely generous in her acceptance of these amendments and, if not, that she will promise to come back with amendments that will do what—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said—everybody needs and knows needs to be done.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Willis, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, for resuming this all-important discussion we held in Committee. Indeed, many of the amendments aim to define whether the Bill meets the climate reality of what is happening today or continues to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Amendment 70 strengthens the requirement that planning decisions consider cumulative flood risk. Too many developments are still approved on already saturated land, leaving new residents vulnerable and the taxpayer to pick up the cost of recurring floods. As our colleague in the Commons, Gideon Amos, argued:
“Nobody should have to deal with that raw sewage coming into their home and garden”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/25; col. 416WH.]
when flood-waters surge. However, this remains a lived experience for thousands today, because sustainable drainage rules have not been made mandatory. Amendment 70 ensures that flood plain development decisions properly account for these realities.
Amendment 81 would require local plans to align with catchment-wide flood mitigation strategies. That is long overdue. After all, flooding has no respect for, or understanding of, council boundaries, so planning policies must be equally joined up to match that. The amendment would prevent the patchwork approach that critics have warned has left entire communities at risk.
Amendment 86 focuses on sustainable drainage systems —SUDS—echoing the unfulfilled recommendations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, of the Pitt Review from 2008; and on our own Benches there is a long-standing call to commence Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. These systems manage rainfall where it lands, reduce sewage overload and help alleviate combined sewer overflows, reducing the unacceptable discharge of sewage which has been witnessed so often in flood events.
Amendments 120 and 120A shift focus from drainage to water efficiency and the long-term supply. They would require the Secretary of State to issue national guidance promoting water reuse, rainwater harvesting, greywater systems and distributed storage at development scale. These are pragmatic, tried and tested approaches to reducing both flooding and water scarcity—two sides of the same crisis which increasingly confronts so many of our UK communities.
Taken together, all these amendments turn abstract sustainability pledges into enforceable planning duties, at a time when the Government’s own reviews have concluded that the current policy is simply not working. We on these Benches believe that these fixes are essential, not optional. Our planning system must no longer treat flooding as an afterthought but as a central test of responsible design. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these very useful amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her commitment to this flooding issue, which impacts far too many households in this country and which, as our climate changes, is likely to impact far more.
New housing built on flood plains since 2009 is not able to be reinsured under Flood Re, supposedly because that housing does not need it. However, as my noble friend points out, that is not the case. Her Amendment 70 requires greater flood resilience measures if we are not to rule out building on flood plains entirely. It seems eminently sensible to help protect homeowners and ensure that insurance is available at an affordable price, and so we support this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, makes strong points in Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clean drinking water in our country is a finite resource, and measures to improve efficiency, analyse demand and increase reuse are sensible. I will welcome any comments from the Minister that show what the Government are already doing and plan to do to address these matters. However, we would not be in support of adding this to our already overburdened planning process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
I will first address Amendments 70 and 81, concerning flood risk and resilience within the planning system. They draw attention to the important matter of how we prepare for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in light of the growing challenges posed by climate change. The Government treat these concerns with the utmost seriousness. We are aware of the distress, disruption and financial cost that flooding brings—so ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender; of the heightened risks associated with a changing climate; and of the necessity to maintain a robust but proportionate framework for managing these risks.
Amendment 70 seeks to require property flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk. As has been made clear in previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House. In support of this, building regulations already promote flood-resilient construction in flood-prone areas through approved document C, while ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens.
Amendment 81 seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in flood zone 3. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas such as Hull and central London, which, although within flood zone 3, are protected by robust engineered flood defences. Such a blanket ban would prevent development coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safeguards, directing development away from the most flood-prone areas, including flood plains, and makes it clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided.
Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted in functional flood plains—flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime, with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear: in 2024-25, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time.
Finally, I highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a 10-year period and unlocking further investment from public, private and charitable sources.
Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am sorry that she is not in her place because it would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the Chamber. The amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, concern sustainable water management and draw attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The Government fully acknowledge the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.
To address that issue, in September the Government launched a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the Building Regulations 2010. This will ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water-stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Reuse of grey water or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration, as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health incident. In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December 2024, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage but helps regulate flow rates from sites.
In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through Amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case-by-case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one-size-fits-all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and home owners, and may slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.
On Amendment 120, planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations. Duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements, could impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities.
On Amendment 121A, planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments, while water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process. We should not duplicate existing planning guidance and building control processes.
Regarding Amendment 121B, the Government support sustainable water management and water efficiency and are already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and wastewater pressures on growth where they are needed—for example, through the current consultation on Building Regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems in new development. In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater.
The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees such as the Environment Agency and sewerage and water undertakers when developing local plans is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy-making authorities and water and sewerage companies. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke in favour of my amendment, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Deben. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister’s response because, actually, she made the case for precisely why these amendments are needed. I hope that, at the behest of my noble friend Lord Deben, the Minister might agree to come back with amendments in her own name at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 91 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle. (3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for lending his support, and his considerable knowledge and expertise, to Amendment 71. In moving Amendment 71, I will also speak to Amendment 82.
Amendment 82 is a consequential amendment, which would follow on from Amendment 71 if that amendment finds favour with the Government and your Lordships. I draw particular attention to the part of my amendment that says that a
“local authority must have special regard to the desirability of preventing unreasonable restrictions”
for a
“business or facility resulting from the implementation of the development”.
This goes to the argument set out in Amendment 71 as to why the agent of change principle needs to be adopted on a statutory basis.
When I brought forward this issue in the Committee debate, the Minister replied that she felt it was already in the planning framework and that we did not need a statutory footing. I thank her for having a meeting with me in which we briefly touched on the agent of change principle. I draw her attention to the excellent letter from the Music Venue Trust, in which it expressed its concern about the agent of change principle not being on a statutory basis. As many noble Lords will be aware—I spent so longer preparing for my professional qualifications that I never experienced being a raver, but perhaps it is not too late—of the 366 small music venues in which Ed Sheeran played while learning his trade, over 150 have now closed. Of the 34 venues in which Oasis played to launch its members’ careers, only 11 remain. The figures speak for themselves.
One concern at the moment is that the right noises are being made by the various departments, but they are not joined up. The Home Office, which is responsible for licensing, issued updated Section 182 guidance in February, which it went on to say should not be too onerous. I repeat that that guidance is not statutory. The Department of Business and Trade’s licensing task force,
“made up of representatives from government, industry, police and local government”,
published its policy paper report to government for consideration on 31 July 2025, updated on 14 August 2025, calling for reform and wide-ranging proposals, titled, Licensing Policy Sprint: Joint Industry and HM Government Taskforce Report—“sprint” is an odd word to use but is apparently the expression being used—recommendation 10 of which was to
“Make the agent of change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions”.
Then, of course, we have the Treasury which we understand is important in moving this Bill at pace through both Houses in order that it can be on the statute book as soon as possible. We also have the Department for Business and Trade policy paper.
If the Minister is responsible for planning law; if the Government are hoping to have growth, and if we are trying to protect as many of the remaining live music venues as we are, what is the status of the policy? We were very fortunate to have a licensing practitioner advise the ad hoc committee of this House on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. She was firmly of the view, as are all those like-minded practitioners, that where the agent of change is already embedded in the Section 182 guidance, following the 2003 Act, this needs to be put on a strong, statutory basis. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I have added my name. I support Amendment 82 as well.
First, I briefly pay tribute to those who have argued for the agent of change principle for much longer than I have, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Spellar, among others—some of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out in Committee, are sadly no longer with us. I am not going to repeat the arguments for the agent of change principle that I made then. Suffice it to say, as I have been making clear, it has been widely supported on a cross-party basis across the whole of Parliament. It has the backing of the music industry, in particular many household names including Paul McCartney. I thank UK Music and the Music Venue Trust among others for their briefings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said in Committee, the committee led by the noble Baroness looking at the 2003 licensing legislation was delighted—that was the word it used—that the then Government agreed with it. However, experience has since then proved—and it is now widely understood—that the guidance that has been in place is simply not enough. It is not working.
My main point is to take issue with the Minister’s statement in Committee that embedding these principles in law
“risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1031.]
In disagreeing with this conclusion, it is worth quoting fully what the Music Venue Trust says in response to that statement by the Minister. It states:
“In terms of legal challenges, we believe the opposite. The Music Venue Trust mostly makes planning objections because developers do not have to abide by agent of change, and therefore do not. If they had to abide from the off, we think this would greatly reduce the number of objections we would put in … in cases where objections did have to be placed, they would be resolved much more quickly because the objector would have legislation to point to, which would empower the local authority to respond emphatically”.
The Music Venue Trust points in particular to the significant distinction between Scotland, where the agent of change is statutory, and England, where it is not. In comparative terms, the process in Scotland is straightforward and open; in England, it is characterised by avoidance and prevarication.
I want to make just a couple of other points. First, the Government’s consultation that is currently out on pubs, many of which are also live music venues, makes it even more imperative that the agent of change is legislated for to create the certainty which is now required. Secondly, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the London Nightlife Taskforce report, which my noble friend Lord Freyberg referenced earlier today and which will certainly address planning regulations in relation to the current concerns and live music venues. Whatever happens to this amendment, I hope the Minister will look carefully at the recommendations contained within that report, which will have relevance also to the country as a whole.
Finally, this is an important amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wished to take it to a vote, I would certainly support her.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, live music events and things like that improve people’s lives and the quality of life. You are going down there. You may annoy one or two people, but most people will benefit from them. They are an important part of community involvement, and making sure that they remain is something that this House should be taking seriously.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who have expressed their support for this amendment as well as to colleagues in another place who raised similar arguments when the Bill was considered there, not least Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in another place.
As noble Lords have said, these venues are vital parts of our cultural infrastructure. They are the reason that we can look forward with excitement to the musicians, artists and talented cultural figures of the future. They are also vital components in building not just houses and housing estates but communities where people want to live with things to do, things that bring joy to their lives. If the Government want the communities that are being built, with the commendable focus on new building that they have, to be vital living and attractive places, it is important that we encourage space for those who are going to brighten our lives with cultural output. We have also seen in the regeneration of coastal communities and many other places how important it is to have those important bits of cultural infrastructure to help revitalise local areas.
Like others, I commend the work of the Music Venue Trust in this regard. It has campaigned long and hard about the plight of live music venues at grass-roots level. My noble friend mentioned Ed Sheeran and Oasis, whose careers were built on these grass-roots venues. I would like to mention Sam Fender, who, like me, hails from North Shields and last week won the Mercury Music Prize and was spotted in the Low Lights Tavern in North Shields. So many of the artists that we like and enjoy today would not be here were it not for those grass-roots venues.
The Music Venue Trust has pointed out how many venues we are losing through all the many challenges. Some 43% of live music grass-roots venues did not make a profit last year. They operate on very tiny margins. There are obviously contending with the rise in national insurance contributions that the Government have set, and last year’s Budget cut rate relief from 75% to 40%, adding a £7 million tax burden on them. Anything we can do to make it easier for the number of grass-roots music venues and bits of cultural infrastructure to grow rather than diminish is worth supporting, and I add my voice in support of those who have spoken up for this amendment.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and my noble friend Lord Clancarty. As has been said, this is a long-standing issue and it lies at the heart of how new development coexists with existing businesses and community facilities. It concerns fairness and foresight in the planning system, ensuring that when new homes are built near established venues and facilities, the newcomers, not those already there, bear the responsibility for mitigating any resulting conflicts.
The crisis facing grass-roots music venues is now acute. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, according to the Music Venue Trust, the UK lost one grass-roots music venue every fortnight in 2024 and almost half of them—43.8%—now operate at a loss, with a quarter facing imminent closure. This follows the loss of 16% of all such venues in 2023, with 125 spaces for live music gone in a single year. The pattern is sadly familiar. A venue thrives for decades, new flats are built nearby, residents complain, and the venue faces crippling restrictions or closure. The iconic Night & Day Cafe in Manchester and the Ministry of Sound in London have fought costly, protracted battles simply to continue existing.
The agent of change principle is meant to prevent exactly this. After years of campaigning led by the Music Venue Trust and supported, as my noble friend said, by Sir Paul McCartney, Brian Eno, and many others, it was finally incorporated into the national policy framework in 2018, yet seven years on, that policy has fallen short. Why is that? It is because guidance alone cannot override statutory duties under environmental health law. Local authorities must still investigate noise complaints and issue abatement notices, even when the source of that noise long predates the new development. The principle exists in spirit but lacks legal force.
This amendment would put that right. It establishes a statutory duty spanning both planning and licensing functions. It requires developers to submit proper noise impact assessments to mitigate the impact of the schemes on existing venues and, crucially, requires decision-makers to consider chronology. Who was there first must matter in law, not just in principle. This is not only about nightclubs or music venues; the same logic protects churches from complaints about bells, pubs from garden noise and sports clubs from cheering crowds. Indeed, it protects any established community use threatened by incompatible new development. This is a modest but essential reform that will help stem the loss of venues that make our towns and cities vibrant and give local authorities the clarity they need to balance growth with cultural sustainability. I urge the Government to support it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be extraordinarily brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has explained explicitly what this is about and why it is desperately needed. I add my name to all those who have spoken so passionately in favour of it and look forward to the Minister, with equal passion, agreeing to it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am going to try to be brief, but I am afraid I am going to be beaten by the Liberal Democrats—just occasionally one has to accept this. I offer our support for Amendments 71 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you are the one bringing change, you should be responsible for managing its impact. Yet, time and again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in the live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threatened or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation and proper regard to the context within which they are being introduced. If you build a house on the edge of a cricket pitch, do not be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden.
The reality is that guidance, however well intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold the agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to a licensing regime we would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures. We on these Benches are pleased to support this principle and hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving it a clear statutory footing. I ask the Minister for an assurance that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate on this topic. Next July, I will have the benefit of five days of Oasis concerts in the fantastic venue of Knebworth House, which is just about a mile away from my house, and this summer we enjoyed Old Town Live, a day-long festival for local bands including, I hope, some of the successors to Oasis—we never know. I can hear and enjoy both of these from my house, and they represent the important cultural role of music venues and their place in the ladder of musical talent that not only contributes so much to our culture in this country but makes an enormous contribution to our economy as well. I say that to show that I understand the issue here and the Government share the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long-established businesses in their local area, be they music or other cultural venues.
The agent of change principle is embedded into the planning system. Where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change to put suitable mitigation in place, whether that is engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision.
We are exploring how we can make the agent of change policy in planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision-making, which we will consult on this year. We have recently launched a call for evidence, which seeks views on how we can better apply the principle in licensing. This will reduce inconsistent decisions, while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Why will the Government not make it statutory? This is a very simple question.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I have explained several times during the course of the Bill that I do not think it is correct to say that the National Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework in itself: it is not. It sits within the statutory framework of planning. We need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, so it can change as times change. When we bring in these policies, they will not be coming through as pieces of law. They will be planning policies, so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as it changes. That is a very important part of planning. The National Planning Policy Framework must maintain that degree of flexibility: otherwise, every time we want to change it, we will have to come back through Parliament. That would not be agile enough to deal with the changing situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It is very seldom I am lost for words, but I am hugely disappointed by that response to this short debate. I am grateful to all those who spoke in support of my amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, expressed the considerable cost that is incurred by those who have to take mitigation measures; the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, set out why it is currently not working. To repeat what he said, it cannot override the noise abatement laws. That is why I think that we are failing both developers and residents at this time. I do not believe we are giving the clarity to licensing practitioners that they request. That is precisely what Sarah Clover, who was the expert specialist adviser to the committee looking at the Licensing Act 2003, has pointed out on successive occasions. So, while I will not press to a vote and test the opinion of the House at this stage, I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at Third Reading.
Lord Best
“Delivery of affordable housing(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for ensuring that when planning permission is granted subject to requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes on the relevant site, such requirements are fully implemented.(2) The requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes referred to in subsection (1) shall be satisfied only if the percentage of the total housing constructed let as social rent housing exceeds the percentage set out in the authority’s affordable housing threshold or twenty per cent, whichever is higher.(3) In subsection (2) “social rent housing” has the meaning given in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 together with paragraph 4 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023, as modified by paragraph 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is intended to ensure affordable housing is actually delivered where this is the subject of planning consent, and the proportion of social rent housing is at least 20 per cent.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 72, which addresses the issue of affordable housing delivery. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, wanted to add his name to this amendment. I declare interests as vice-president of the LGA and the Town and Country Planning Association, honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I pay tribute to Shelter for championing this amendment.
The amendment introduces a new clause providing for regulations to ensure that affordable housing actually gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called Section 106 agreement. In Committee, I noted the problem—only too familiar for many of us—that housebuilders agree to provide a quota of affordable homes for local people, but these homes fail to materialise in the developments that actually get built. The housebuilders back out of delivering some or all of the affordable homes they promised, with the excuse of “changed viability”. They say they have encountered unexpected problems, choosing from a long list of possibilities, from increased interest rates to unexpected site conditions. They claim it is no longer possible for them to make a clear profit of 20% or more, and it is the affordable housing element that they insist must take the hit, despite that having been a condition of planning permission.
The Minister may say that this is a matter for local authorities to handle but, as a report from the National Audit Office set out in June this year, negotiations between local planning departments and well-resourced developers are hopelessly unbalanced, with the latter employing expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down. Cash-strapped councils are unwilling to fight expensive legal battles and feel obliged to give in.
This amendment would bolster the position of the planners by ending the arguments and making the agreed affordable housing element non-negotiable. It aims to ensure that developers actually deliver the affordable homes that were a fundamental reason for planning consent being granted in the first place. The amendment adds a safety net by obliging the house- builder to provide a minimum of 20% of new homes in relevant developments to be for social rent, or the percentage set out in the local authority’s policy framework—the local plan, where it has one—if that is higher. Importantly, the definition of social rent housing is that used by the Regulator of Social Housing in its rent standard. Although planners may also require some other forms of affordable housing, such as shared ownership and near-market renting, the baseline of no less than 20% for the all-important social rented housing is secured by this amendment.
The 20% minimum for social rent is also a figure recommended by the New Towns Taskforce, which reported last month. Its report recommends a total of 40% for all the various kinds of affordable housing put together, with at least half of that—20%—for social rent. This important requirement could be applied not just to new towns but to all major developments; this amendment provides for that outcome. Nearly half the nation’s current programme of affordable homes comes from these planning obligations on the house- builders but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, noted in Committee, the CPRE has found that, despite agreements by the housebuilders to produce an average of 34% of relevant developments as affordable housing, the actual figure has turned out to be just 18%.
Shelter’s research has also shown that, in relation to the core social rent product, rather than the more upmarket versions of affordable housing, over the last 20 years less than 3% of developers’ housebuilding has been for social rent. This is despite the fact that, in most parts of the country, only the social rent accommodation is within the means of households in the lower half of income distribution.
The constant reneging by housebuilders on the contributions they agreed to make at the outset makes this amendment an urgent one. Indeed, I wonder whether it is worth all the time, money and effort to achieve so many new homes if so few of them can meet the acute needs of those suffering most from the nation’s housing shortages. Instead, enforcement of an obligation that delivers at least 20% social rented housing would substantially enhance the value to the nation of building 1.5 million homes by 2030. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment, at least in principle, and I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Best has given an empirical and quantitative justification for this amendment, which I support, and I will not repeat what he said. What I will say, however, is what social rent housing does and why it is a necessity.
It is a living instrument that improves our society in many ways. It creates the opportunity for stability for young families, and for continuing education for young people in those families. It also creates loyalty to the town where they live, and a history that is developed into the future by those who live in social housing. These days we often hear people commenting on the fact that they are the first person who went to university in their family. Many of those people went to university because they lived in social rent housing with the stability that enabled them, with the support of their parents, of course, to be educated to go to university. I believe that in this Parliament there are many people who fall into that category. This is a living instrument that we are trying to create—a system of social rent housing that produces the growth that creates the flowers of our society, or at least many of them, and gives our society a future we can be proud of.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Carlile, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who is unable to be here this evening—she has been got by the lurgy that everyone is coming down with. I will make some of the arguments that my noble friend would have made.
At its core, this is about trust between developers, local authorities and communities to deliver what the developers have said they would. Does it not make your blood boil to hear and learn how often social housing has been promised and how often it has failed to be delivered? Research from Shelter shows that, in some parts of England, as many as 40% of the affordable homes initially promised are never delivered. The Local Government Association has estimated that, over the past decade alone, more than 100,000 affordable homes have been lost because of renegotiations and that absolute panto villain, the viability assessment, which is used and prayed in aid to stop the delivery of social homes for rent, which are so critical and important to society.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would bring much-needed transparency and restore faith in a promise that has been broken again and again over successive Governments. It would give councils the confidence that when they negotiate for affordable homes, the homes will actually materialise.
I know it is late, but if the noble Lord, Lord Best, moves to a vote, we will be there with him, and I am very hopeful that the Conservative Benches will join him as well. This is an absolute scandal that has gone on for too long. We need to restrict developers to deliver on their promise of social homes for rent.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise for gazumping the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. For the record, I am always happy to take my name off amendments in a case where we can demonstrate political breadth, but I was very happy to sign Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best.
I will give one example. In July this year, Rother District Council received an application from Brookworth Homes to amend its permission for a 20-residence project in Battle, East Sussex, to, of course, zero homes for social rent. That is just one example of a place that desperately needs social housing. I will stop there, because I want to get to a vote if the Government do not give way.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 85 in this group concerns an issue that I first raised in Committee. At the national level, there is much talk of the urgent need to build 1.5 million new homes. They are even promoted with rather empty, Trump-like slogans. Mere numbers of new units will not provide a solution to many families and individuals in our country. What is urgently required is a national debate about the type of housing unit that is most needed, and how these will be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has rightly focused on one area of desperate need: homes for social rent. Amendment 85 throws a beam of light —maybe even hope, if the Minister responds as I hope she will—on those families, and especially the children, living in temporary accommodation.
The numbers should shame us all. Over 170,000 children in our country—one of the wealthiest in the world—are living in temporary accommodation. Some 50% of all those experiencing homelessness are children. This could be a result of domestic violence, family breakdowns, debt or receiving a Section 25 eviction notice—at least, and at last, the Government have outlawed Section 21 evictions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we support the intentions behind Amendments 72 and 85 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pinnock, and others for bringing them forward.
There is no doubt that we need more affordable housing and more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through and that, too often, affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. Amendment 72 puts forward a clear principle that, if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered, and that social rent should form a meaningful part of that. This is right and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we would want to ensure that any new duty works effectively within existing planning and viability frameworks.
However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities. This is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentages or mix, specialist but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. That is how I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people—freeing up family homes as a consequence—and for those with significant disabilities, as well as short-term accommodation. I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let us make this absolutely clear: we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability for developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission.
Amendment 85 rightly highlights the needs of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation, a group whose experiences are often invisible in planning policy. Ensuring that local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step and we support it, but I refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. Again, I am going to refer to my own experience, and to one of the proudest things I did when I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council. We had about 125 households in bread and breakfast; 10 years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. There were two key reasons for it. One was that we built specialist temporary accommodation and converted some buildings for that; but the second is that we built homes they could move into. So, we also need to consider that we must build the quantum of homes that is needed if we are truly to address the issue of homelessness.
Both amendments speak to the same wider truth: housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the Government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 72. I have to say that the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, when we are trying to sort out a housing crisis that his party created, are a bit rich. But I will park that for the moment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am pleased that the last Government delivered 1 million homes over the last five years. I will be delighted if this Government deliver 1.5 million, but at the moment, they are on track to deliver considerably fewer, increasing that crisis.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord’s Government left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation.
As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent, but we take a different view from the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local authorities greater flexibility to deliver the right tenure mix to suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.
I understand the frustrations around the issue of viability, so the Government are also reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure that the system works to optimise developer contributions, and that negotiation or renegotiation of Section 106 agreements takes place only when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under Section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, so they can be enforced by the local planning authority. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing.
Turning to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, while we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we cannot support this approach. The planning system is already complex, and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how laudable, are not required in statute, given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of the people placed there. On World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for Amendment 72. I thank my noble friend Lord Carlile for his eloquent words, and I offer the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, sincere thanks for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is unfortunately unable to support this amendment, which, without his help and that of his colleagues, I fear would not achieve the majority it needs.
I do not accept the noble Lord’s point that having a 20% baseline below which we would not go in terms of affordable housing, and social rented housing in particular, is necessarily a blockage to flexibility. The baseline of 20% at social rents—the typical housing association and council rents—would not put a great burden on the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I do not think it would entail an additional burden.
Sometimes the older people’s housing of the kind that the noble Lord has produced in his own borough—and I strongly congratulate him, as council leader, on achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people; he has done a great job—will be social housing and would count towards the affordable housing quota that I am talking about; sometimes it will be housing for outright sale, which would not be part of this equation so we would not worry about it. Having a baseline of 20% social housing as an absolute minimum is not going to impede—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
If I may just be clear, I apologise but I meant affordable housing that was for older people; I did not mean housing for private sale, when I talked about flexibility. I apologise if that was not clear.
Lord Best (CB)
Yes, well, I am sorry that we differ on this because it means that it would be pointless me taking this to a vote.
What I will say is that I am deeply grateful to the Minister for explaining that the issue of viability advice is now under consideration and that we will be getting new advice, which I hope will be much stronger and more positive than in the past. So I am grateful to her, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a hotel has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is a hotel proposed for use as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 87E tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation.
Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities—divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice.
The principle is straightforward: changing the use of a hotel or a house in multiple occupation—HMO—to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, ensuring proper consultation and clarity for councils, residents and local businesses. At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This is not about the approach of the current or the previous Government; it is about what is right for the British people.
Protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout the Bill. It is a terrible shame that, when the same principle arises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our local communities, people such as the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue. We had hoped that all noble Lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question of asylum policy; this is simply a question of giving communities a voice. The country is watching, and it is vital that we act. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of hotels for asylum seekers, pending assessment of their applications. Amendment 87E in my name offers a different solution to those challenging issues. On these Benches, we recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. I note that the Government have also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, there is a danger that this subject tends to generate more heat than light, as I think we have heard just now, so I thought I would—from the perspective of a planning silk—explain what these amendments would and would not do, so that we are all clear about that.
These amendments are not about the principle of asylum hotels, nor are they about the principle of small boats. They are about providing clarity and certainty to the planning regime, which needs clarity and certainty in order to operate effectively. Currently, the position in law under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act is that a change of use of premises requires planning permission only if that change of use is material. There is case law—most recently the Epping judgment, but there are other judgments over the last few years, including cases in Great Yarmouth—to the effect of whether a change of use is material is an evaluative judgment on the facts of the case.
In the context of asylum hotels, that can be a very difficult and unpredictable evaluative judgment, made even more difficult by the mission creep of some of these hotels. They can start off with families, then the nature of their use can change. That uncertainty is disadvantageous to all participants in the planning system. It is disadvantageous to the commercial hotel operators, because they are being asked to invest money to fit out the hotel for asylum seekers, without knowing whether that investment may come back to bite them if it later turns out they needed planning permission and did not have it, and they are enforced against. It creates uncertainty for communities, because they do not know whether particular operations in their neighbourhood require planning permission and are something to which they should be given a right to participate in the decision-making on.
Fundamentally, it creates uncertainty for local planning authorities, which are on the horns of a dilemma. They have to choose whether to turn a blind eye and let a potential breach of planning control continue, or to bring enforcement proceedings, which, if brought in court, can cost hundreds of thousands—sometimes millions—of pounds, putting them and the local taxpayer at risk of significant adverse costs. It is very hard to tell in advance what the prospects of success in such proceedings will be, given the very delicate, nuanced nature of the decision, and the evaluative judgment on whether a particular change of use is material or not.
Fundamentally, the clue is in the name. Planning is meant to be predictable in all forms and all manifestations of the regime. If you cannot plan, the system does not work. Therefore, this amendment would make it very straightforward and provide a clear line in the sand that any change of use to an asylum hotel or an HMO would be deemed a material change of use. Every protagonist in the planning system would then know where they stand: that this needs planning permission.
These amendments do not constrain the decision whether to grant planning permission, and nor do they in any way affect the merits or prospects of an application for planning permission. All they do is let everybody know where they stand. I urge the House, and particularly the Liberal Democrats: let us focus on the real issue that these amendments put into play and cut the rhetoric.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on these amendments. The Government may say that if you stop these conversions of hotels, where will we put the people? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked the same question. That is a fair question. The answer is to use all spare military accommodation, recently used by servicemen and women. From what I read, the Government want to do that, and they must have the guts to stick to it, because they will have public support, even though left-wing immigration lawyers will mount judicial reviews against it.
So, His Majesty’s Government, do not be terrified into closing RAF Wethersfield, but increase numbers there to the maximum possible and reopen Napier barracks. I stayed there 50 years ago, and it is 100 times better now than it was then. Many noble Lords will have experience of military accommodation in the past, including officer accommodation, and it was not up to the standards now available for illegal migrants.
It was deplorable that some lawyers and immigration groups took action to close Napier, which was used only for single men. How did these single men get here? They walked hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles through Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, Romania and other European countries, and lived in appalling conditions near the beach at Calais, before crowding into a little boat. Others have come from Eritrea, Somalia and up through Egypt, Libya, Italy and on to Calais. I am sure they had premium accommodation en route.
How dare anyone suggest that the accommodation in any of our former military bases is not good enough for single men of fighting age, when it was good enough for British men and women of fighting age? If they had to stay in Barry Buddon, stuck out in the coast in Fife next to Carnoustie, where 30 of us were in a nissen hut with one big cast iron potbelly stove, they might have something to complain about, but not in the current accommodation. So, His Majesty’s Government, please do not back down on the use of former military accommodation, or any other spare government accommodation, and that can take the pressure off unsuitable hotels.
On Amendment 87E, I do not trust any Government to use this power anywhere in the country, and put up temporary accommodation all around the land, but if some of the military bases are not big enough, or are regarded as not having quality accommodation, then move in temporary accommodation—caravans, chalets, portable homes, portakabins—and put them on these bases or other military land. That is a better solution and answers some of the question, “If you close these hotels, where will you put them?”. I have suggested it in my comments tonight.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I first turn to Amendments 73 to 75, 263 and 264 brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I thank the noble Baroness for once again raising an important issue but I point out that it relates to ongoing legal proceedings, which I am sure that she appreciates I cannot comment on.
The asylum accommodation system is under significant pressure. While the priority is to end the use of asylum hotels as soon as possible, the Government need to be able to control the number of such hotels and retain the ability to open new asylum hotels—only if and when it is necessary—to manage fluctuations in demand. The amendments would remove the ability to do so.
The Home Office is under a legal obligation to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers while their application for asylum is being considered. We know that this has led to concerns among some people about the use of hotels for this purpose. We are conscious that the use of hotels for the purpose of housing asylum seekers has caused understandable concern. That is why we have an ambition to resolve it in a controlled and orderly way.
Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I was frankly astonished to hear her words about giving local people a voice. Under her Government, as a council leader I pressed over and over again for our hotels in Stevenage not to be used for this purpose by agents of the Home Office, not least because international businesses in my town needed them. Her Government did not listen to our community, its elected representatives or our businesses; they overruled us and ploughed ahead regardless.
This Government have made clear our intention to stop the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. This is borne out by the fact that the number of hotels so used has almost halved since its peak under the previous Government. More broadly, the Home Office is working on a future strategy for asylum accommodation. The department is working in collaboration with local authorities to develop several potential accommodation models that could test a more sustainable, flexible and collaborative outcome. The department is also working at pace to deliver a range of alternative sites, including—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—military sites, that would contribute to a more flexible estate.
Restricting the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation would have the perverse effect of making it even more difficult to end the use of asylum hotels. While we understand why these amendments have been brought forward—I will not comment on why, but we understand it—they would nevertheless result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation, and prevent us proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to.
Amendment 87E, brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to deal with applications for planning permission where temporary asylum application processing facilities were proposed. The amendment is unnecessary, as these powers would be duplicative of existing powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, Section 59 allows the Secretary of State to make a development order that can either itself grant planning permission or make for the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. That includes timescales, publicity and consultation. Section 70 allows local planning authorities to grant planning permission for development, including conditional planning permission, and Section 77 makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State being able to call in applications for planning permission to determine them himself.
In addition, it would also not be appropriate to take such powers for a specific type of development in primary legislation. We are committed to progressing asylum cases in an efficient and cost-effective way. The Home Office’s programme of transformation and business improvement is speeding up decision-making, reducing the time people spend in the system and reducing the numbers who are awaiting an interview or decision and remain in hotels.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will speak as Leader of the Opposition; I do not wish to interfere with this debate. I have no intention of moving the adjournment of the House, which has been suggested might happen. We will proceed to the end of the debate and my noble friend Lady Scott will respond to the Minister.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is now past 10 pm, the normal hour when the House rises according to the Companion. We had a discussion last Tuesday, on my initiative, about the sitting times of the House. We were told that it would be to the advantage of the House to meet at 11 am. That was not agreed by the opposition parties or the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. We find ourselves here at 10 pm, having sat in the morning for three hours, still with many groups to consider.
With all due respect to the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, this is not the proper way to conduct the business of this House. We have had Ministers here on duty since 11 am and we have had members of the staff here on duty for 11 hours. If the House chooses, as it chose last Tuesday, to meet at 11 am, we must end at the time when the Companion says that we should end. There is a better way of proceeding, which has to be done by agreement in the usual channels.
I have no doubt that, after my noble friend Lady Scott responds, we will move to a Division in the proper way of your Lordships’ House. However, I expect—and I think many other Members of your Lordships’ House would expect—the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms to come to the Dispatch Box after the Division to explain quite how long he expects the House to continue this evening. It would be to the improvement of us all if we could return to our normal ways of doing things. I therefore give him notice of that.
Let us proceed with and conclude the debate, and let us have our Division. Please let us then, outside this Chamber if need be, reach an agreement on drawing stumps at an appropriate time. Ministers have done enough; my colleagues have done enough; the House has done enough; and the staff have done enough.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I can very briefly come to the Dispatch Box now. Can I first say how much I respect the noble Lord? We are very clear: I know that the noble Lord and his party did not support the suggestion of starting at 11 am, but that was a decision of the House. My intention is that, when these votes are finished, we will rise. We have three votes, so after about 30 minutes we will be rising; I have no intention of going beyond that. We will have the votes and then go home.
I am also always very happy to discuss things in the usual channels, and obviously we will discuss things in the coming days and weeks. But we will have our votes and then we will adjourn the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, going back to the debate, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the Government’s record on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy; it is not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people: the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Will the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, explain to the House why it has taken five years for her party to come to the conclusion that planning permission for a change of use is needed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We did—and the party opposite voted against it. We had a plan and we were bringing down numbers quite considerably in asylum hotels. In fact, we would not have any open now if we were still in government.
At its heart, this debate is about fairness and local accountability. Time and again, communities feel that decisions are being made over their heads and imposed without notice, consultation or trust. This is precisely what this amendment seeks to put right. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to distract from the substance of this issue. The Government’s record on asylum hotels is neither here nor there. What matters is whether local voices are heard and respected in the decision-making process.
On Report, the Minister suggested that I tabled these amendments for a different purpose. She knows me well enough to know that, when I say something, I mean it. The purpose is clear and principled: to ensure that local communities are not treated as bystanders in decisions that reshape their neighbourhoods. Time and again, the pattern emerges: decisions are made from the centre, delivered without dialogue and defended without accountability. This cannot continue. This amendment is about restoring the balance between national necessity and local democracy, and we on these Benches are determined to stand up for local people and local communities. Now I wish to test the opinion of the House, first on hotels and then on houses of multiple occupation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a house in multiple occupation has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is proposed for use as a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the Question should be that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I was just too keen, after sitting on the Bench since 11 o’clock this morning.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 27th October 2025
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (24 Oct 2025)
17:11 - Division on Amendment 86 - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 86 disagreed.
17:53 - Division on Amendment 87D - Ayes: 243 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 87D agreed.
18:43 - Division on Amendment 87FD - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 87FD disagreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the first group, I remind the House, as I did last week, of important guidance on Report, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly.
First, I note paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:
“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.
While debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, while allowing us to make good progress in good time.
Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the Companion guidance in paragraph 8.82:
“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”
or pressing an amendment. Speeches appear to be getting longer, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we would be able to get on in a more timely manner.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify that 67 government amendments, I think, came in very late to the Bill? They have therefore not had a Committee stage. I hope he and the Minister will accept that some of those will need Committee, as well as Report, discussions.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
It is Report and all I would say is that, as long as the debate is relevant, we have no problem with that.
Amendment 84
Lord Inglewood
“Gardens Trust to be statutory consultee for planning proposals(1) The Gardens Trust must be considered for planning proposals as a statutory amenity society.(2) All procedures which apply to statutory amenity societies as planning proposal consultees shall apply to the Gardens Trust.(3) Powers conferred to the Secretary of State by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 may not be exercised to remove the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee in regard to any planning application.”
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, in rising to move Amendment 84, I ought first to declare my interest. Most unusually, it has been my lot in life to have lived in a listed building, in the midst of a listed park, for all of it. I am also president of Historic Buildings & Places, which used to be known as the Ancient Monuments Society, and a member of the Gardens Trust. Just to give more context to my comments, I am a member of the Bar, a chartered surveyor, and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. I point out to Members that, according to many authorities, landscape is probably England’s greatest contribution to 18th-century European culture.
Your Lordships will recall considerable discussion in Committee about the education of planners. This is important because, in addition to what might be described as the core disciplines, there is a huge range of what you could say are very important and perhaps slightly esoteric, more peripheral matters which cannot really be considered part of the core knowledge or syllabus. I am thinking, for example, about listed buildings—we all know there is a crisis in the number of conservation officers in this country—and about manmade planned landscapes, battlefields, theatres, and so on.
The required expertise to deal properly with these things is not widely, easily and quickly available, either necessarily in local authorities or in other public bodies. We know that it is for this reason that a process of consultation with outside expert, specialised and respected organisations is embedded in the system to give access to often specialist, but very relevant, skill and knowledge.
The detailed system for doing this is not identical in each case, but that is not relevant to my argument. For my part, I am especially interested in—among other things in the context of this debate—the work of the Gardens Trust, previously the Garden History Society. Its focus is on manmade planned landscape, which includes public parks, but also the British versions of Versailles and, in a different direction, outstanding domestic gardens. These things can be quite extensive and are a crucial aspect of place, which is now becoming recognised as an important contributor to our general well-being and economic prosperity—something I became very aware of when I was a member of the Northern Powerhouse 11 for six years.
This is a specialist, discrete academic discipline, and the Gardens Trust is at its centre in this country. Many of the places it is concerned with are very fragile. After all, plants die and are easily lost. For example, if any of your Lordships wanted to go to look at Eastbury Park in Dorset—which was one of the great architect Vanbrugh’s most important commissions—they will find that when they get there and look over a farm gate, they will see a green field. It is all gone but it is still the site of it, and all the foundations and everything are there. As Thomas Browne, the 17th-century writer, aptly commented,
“green grass grows where Troy-town stood”.
I should add to what I said about my interest that my home has always been the focus of a listed park for over 300 years. However, due to abandonment and the planting of an epidemic of rhododendrons, supplemented by almost no family records because of disputes and problems with treason, almost all knowledge of everything has been lost. Despite inspections by English Heritage over the years and many other experts visiting the place, the knowledge of the place has more or less completely vanished.
Now, however, its full extent is becoming uncovered again, and it appears to be a large-scale, more or less intact, significant, albeit battered, very rare survival of a complete pre-Capability Brown park from about 1700-10. They are very rare, and it was completely lost. I mention this not to pat myself on the back or to tell noble Lords how perspicacious I may have been, but to make the point that important things do get easily lost and require genuine expertise to be identified and revived.
We all know that the theme of this legislation is growth—goodness knows, we urgently need it—and I support that. As part of this wider process, the Government have issued a consultation on the role of statutory consultees. Unhappily, that consultation appears to have been stained by the triumphalism of a notion of growth at all costs, everywhere, for anything, regardless of everything else—conveniently overlooking that in places such as Cumbria, where I come from, the environment is one of the most important aspects of promoting long-term growth, as I discovered when I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. If this is destroyed, the goose that lays the golden egg ends up as Christmas dinner. It has happened in many places all round the world, to nobody’s benefit.
The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the value placed on the “non-growth” aspects of the planning system is in no way diminished by the proposed procedural and process changes under way, which seem to be essential and of which, in very general terms, I am a strong supporter. On occasions, though, something else other than growth is more important than growth; otherwise, what is the point of the town and country planning system? The involvement of amenity societies harnesses a great deal of real expertise for more or less no money and takes pressure off some of our overworked and often underresourced public agencies that are having difficulty already in fulfilling their roles. Let us not argue about that point, because it is self-evidently the case now.
The purpose of the amendment is to focus on this general but very real problem in the context of the wider reforms being proposed, specifically in respect of the Gardens Trust, of which I said I am a member, and I know it and support it. I very much hope the Minister can confirm that the importance ascribed to what I might describe—I hope, without any disparagement—as some of the essential fringe disciplines in planning will not be eroded further.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendment 84, to which I have added my name, although I support many of the amendments in this group.
We know how important public green spaces are to communities, and for nature, and that there is widespread public support for their protection. That is why, as I understand it, registered parks and gardens, along with battlefields, were given protection in the town and country planning order 2015. I thank the Gardens Trust for its briefings on this, and the Minister and her office for a helpful meeting and correspondence about it.
At the moment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, registered parks and gardens are not considered statutory heritage assets, which would make them part of the same process as listed buildings. Instead, they have their own process of consultation, with Historic England as the statutory consultee for battlefields and grade 1 and grade 2* parks and gardens, and the Gardens Trust dealing with grade 2 parks and gardens, which is 65% of them. Importantly, three-quarters of registered public parks are grade 2, so the Gardens Trust is tasked with looking after most of our public parks.
The Gardens Trust appears to do this very efficiently. From its statistics, we see that it was consulted 1,842 times last year, and that 99% of the time it responded within the agreed deadline. It voiced an objection to planning in only 6.6% of its responses. Its government grant for fulfilling this consultee role—for giving bespoke responses to planning inquiries, on time and with expertise—was £43,963.
Clearly, there is no way that anyone else within the planning system could deliver this expertise for less money and with any greater time efficiency, and there is no evidence that it is causing a major blockage to housebuilding. Actually, not having heard of the Gardens Trust before this matter arose, I thank the charity for its service to this country and its public parks.
I understand that the Government are considering removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee role—the slightly bespoke role that was created for registered parks, gardens and battlefields. We all, however, appreciate the work that it does, so this amendment aims to protect this service while making the administrative process simpler. It would put registered parks and gardens into the same planning process as other heritage assets, where there is an existing and well-understood statutory consent process, whereby the Gardens Trust would be the amenity society that would be notified if there were planning proposals that might affect registered parks and gardens, or, importantly, their settings.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has Amendment 109 coming up, which I believe would have a similar effect by commencing Section 102 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, in which this area of planning was already tidied up. That might be an alternative to this amendment. None the less, it would be very helpful if the Minister, in her response to this group, could indicate the Government’s intentions on making best use of the efficient role that the Gardens Trust plays in helping give advice on our much-loved grade 2 parks and gardens and their settings.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 107 in this group—I appreciate that I am jumping a little down the line.
I tabled the amendment because, at the moment, we are removing consultation from the planning process—or removing as much of it as possible—for the sake of efficiency. Sports fields are the most attractive things for a planner to see: a piece of reasonably flat and well-drained land. What better to put a house on? If we are to lose our sports fields, we will lose an asset that keeps on giving.
I thank both Ministers on the Front Bench for meeting me privately to try to convince me that I did not have much to worry about—but for all their courtesy and time, I have failed to be convinced. As I said, it is just so tempting for local authorities—or for anyone else involved—to say, “Let’s put a house on this sports field”. Some are, of course, owned by councils or schools, and schools can get rid of them as they have more independence now.
Can we protect sports fields? If we do not have somewhere to play a sport, that sport dies or becomes unavailable to a particular group. If some sports clubs own their own pitches, they may not own enough space to have a second or a third team. If you get rid of your second or third team, the first team is under threat and thus the existence of the entire club. It is that simple. There is that much pressure. If they do not get people involved every week, those people will do something else—they will leave—and we will lose this asset.
Community sport is one of the best community builders, because members are involved not just in exercise but in a community of its own that feeds into other communities. Let us remember that people who want to make sure that they can play the game will sit on committees and take on the legal responsibility of being a secretary or a treasurer for these groups. Everybody who has run a political party will know that people are just dying to do these roles all the time—are they not? Everybody really wants to have the legal responsibilities and the bank accounts—do they not? People do this willingly—well, they do it—to make sure they can get out there and play the game. These sports facilities allow that to happen. If we take away the defence of sports fields, which allow such a key activity, we will put that under threat.
Not every sports field will disappear overnight but some will—they will be moved and they will not be replaced. My amendment suggests that, if we go ahead with this, something must be put in its place. That is not too much to ask. I would like to vote on the amendment, unless the Government provide some great revelation, in which case I shall say, “Hallelujah!” and sit down.
In this country, these community activities are largely conducted without much government intervention. Private groups get involved and bring their own time and often money, but they need to be supported to allow these activities to take place. I suggest that my amendment—or at least something like it—would not be too much to ensure that something as important as community, grass-roots sports have their pitches defended, to give them a chance to continue to function as they currently do.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 88 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their support in adding their names to the amendment.
The amendment very much builds on the amendment just discussed. It simply aims to ensure that spatial development strategies include provision for publicly accessible green and blue spaces for local communities. This would empower planning authorities at the strategic level to make accessible green and blue spaces routine rather than coincidental. Communities currently face a postcode lottery in being able to benefit from access to nature and sports fields. The reasons for access to nature and blue and green spaces in cities are well rehearsed. We know that they provide myriad social, economic and health upsides for people, as well as strengthening urban climate resilience and creating opportunities for wildlife.
In Committee, the Government made it clear that they recognise the importance of blue and green spaces, the benefits they bring and their intent to maximise them in cities, all of which is extremely welcome. However, in all responses in Committee, the Minister concluded that provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework and the yet-to-be-published national development planning policies are sufficient to provide green and blue spaces, therefore making a statutory footing unnecessary. But Peers made the point that it is not just about any green space; it is its accessibility to people that is critical. This is the point that is made in the Government’s own, really quite excellent accessible green space standard, published by Natural England in 2025. In this standard, Natural England—and the Government through it—made the point that it committed to providing access to good-quality blue and green spaces for every citizen within walking distance of their home.
The reality is, however, that without these strong provisions, developers often see the delivery and placement—and it is the placement I really want to emphasise here—of blue and green space as optional, with the voluntary provisions of the green infrastructure framework not leading to consistent delivery of quality spaces in the right places. In fact, Natural England’s own data shows that 87% of the UK population have no accessible local green space within 300 metres of their home.
In many cities, the emerging evidence indicates that the location of new green space provision is occurring, but it is making the inequalities in access to green space worse. Looking at the mapped evidence from the most populated English cities outside London—Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, for example—over the past four years, between 2020 and 2024, and using the most up-to-date land cover information, it is clear that significantly more areas of blue and green space have been created in rich parts of the cities. Up to 9% more have been created in categories 9 and 10 as measured by the index of multiple deprivation—the wealthiest parts—than in areas of high deprivation, categories 1 and 2. This is making already large inequalities in access to green space in these cities even greater. To put it bluntly, without a strategic steer in legislation, developers and local authorities are prioritising, intentionally or unintentionally, the delivery of green space in wealthier areas.
On such an important issue, we need to understand where the results from the Government’s own green infrastructure mapping database support the evidence and show us that the NPPF is actually working to protect and enhance access to green and blue spaces in the right places. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could write to me, having asked her team to query this database to examine the change in doorstep, local and neighbourhood standards for green space over the past five years for the most populated cities in the UK: London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. According to the answer, I will then decide whether to bring this back at Third Reading to test the opinion of the House.
I hope the Government agree that this amendment is pragmatically worded: it continues to allow flexibility for local authorities to do what is best for their area and their communities. This simple amendment would cost the Government nothing, but it would provide a clear mechanism to deliver a commitment for accessible green space, ensuring, not least, that the Government’s own priorities for access to green space can be met.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I declare that I am chair of Sport Wales and president of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about those who volunteer for sports clubs. It is a tough job, but people do it because they know the impact that it has on people’s lives. It is a very sensible amendment.
We have to accept that we are living in an inactivity crisis. The World Health Organization has said that a third of adults worldwide do not reach the necessary levels of physical activity. Slightly closer to home, the Sport England active survey from last year shows, specifically around young people, that while the levels of participation are stable, without significant and sustained action we are going to hit a much bigger physical activity crisis.
Currently, between 5% and 6% of children have difficulty with movement skills, which impacts their ability to engage in physical activity. About 80% of women in this country are not fit enough to be healthy, which should raise a number of red flags. Playing fields are just part of the jigsaw of physical inactivity and how we should try to tackle it. We have to do everything we can to protect what we have. We also have to understand that we are in a cost of living crisis. Some sport participation has got much harder to be involved in. For a lot of people, this is a really cheap and easy solution for them to be active. If the noble Lord decides to take this to a Division, I will support him.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 118. I am slightly at a loss, because I expected the Conservative Front Bench to do a blinding speech on Amendment 96, to which my amendment is more or less similar. Obviously, I think mine is better because I mention biodiversity, reuse and such things, but I suspect that my amendment, which I had hoped to put to a vote, probably would not beat the Conservative Amendment 96. Both amendments are supported by the Better Planning Coalition as an obvious step forward on improving what we have already.
While I am on my feet, I will just say that I refute the concept of a grey belt. A grey belt is green belt that has been left to rot, and we should be recovering that grey belt and making it green belt again. The green belt is absolutely necessary for our health, as other noble Lords have said.
We need to protect the well-being of land, ecosystems, people, towns and villages, and we really have to remember that this is something—including farmland—that we rely on for ourselves. I am hearing from farmers all over the country that they are losing good farming land. Given climate change, we could potentially face some huge challenges in feeding ourselves, and the loss of farmland will be a disaster. I think my Amendment 118 is a great amendment, but I am prepared not to put it to a vote if Amendment 96 is moved.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 95 and 98. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support for the protection of good agricultural land. Amendment 95 is a broader application of the principle that was debated and rejected by Government and Liberal Democrat Benches in this House last week. We on these Benches believe that food security is national security and, unlike for this Government, these are not empty words: we intend to put that into practice.
We remain concerned that the principle of protecting the best and most versatile land—grades 1, 2 and 3A—appears to be trampled at will, for not just solar farms under NSIP but other developments. We must do better. This land is responsible for supplying the lowest-cost, highest-quality food produced in our country and is far more productive than weaker grades of land. Building without due consideration on the land that we need to feed us is, frankly, short-sighted.
Amendment 98 asks the Government to report annually on how much of our land is being converted from agriculture to tarmac, steel, photovoltaic panels and concrete, and provides the basis for a more informed national debate on how we treat our productive land. I will not test the will of the House on these amendments. However, I would be most grateful to receive an assurance from the Minister that the Government take this issue as seriously as they should. This was not entirely clear from the response to the debate on solar farms and BMV last week.
I also support of the concept of Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. Well-planned development needs to take into consideration access to green and blue open space, but also how this space can contribute to nature connectivity.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 121 is a vital step towards bringing clarity and scrutiny to the Government’s grey-belt policy. This amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish a clear framework for grey-belt designation within six months of Royal Assent and to lay it before both Houses. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that this policy is defined, transparent and subject to oversight. This concept has received remarkably little scrutiny or discussion during the passage of the Bill.
The concept of the grey belt has shifted since it was introduced in the Labour Party’s manifesto. It was first presented as previously developed land and disused car parks—which is largely brownfield land already. Since then, it has expanded in ways that raise serious concerns. Our party is not opposed to using grey-belt land sensibly, but we share the concerns of the Lords Built Environment Committee, which described the rollout as “rushed and incoherent” and unlikely to have
“any significant or lasting impact”
on planning or housing delivery, suggesting that the concept might be “largely redundant”. The current definition includes land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that does not strongly contribute to green-belt purposes.
The Local Government Association and many councillors, including in my home town of Solihull and my former constituency, Redditch, warn that this vague language contributes little and could invite subjective judgments and threaten green-belt protection in places such as Solihull and Redditch, with no other surrounding towns. The entire green belt could be vulnerable. Small housebuilders have warned that it will not help them, especially given under-resourced planning departments.
The risks are clear. Inconsistent criteria and monitoring could lead to uneven treatment and uncertainty. There is no plan to measure progress or success. In short, this policy has shifted without sufficient clarity or scrutiny. My amendment offers Parliament the chance to correct that, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 88, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for all her work on this, and the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for meeting us to talk about this amendment.
Without this amendment putting green and blue spaces on a statutory basis, this will be a planning Bill for the privileged. We have heard evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, this afternoon as to why this might be. There is also further evidence discovered by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which conducted regression model analysis, using official ONS datasets, for first-time buyers by local authority area in 2023. It compared this with the ONS data on the number of adults in each authority who were first-time buyers. First-time buyers are the people who will need green and blue space the most; they will have young families. Wildlife and Countryside Link analysed and mapped the percentage rate for those first-time buyers with in-depth green-space data. It found a direct, statistically significant correlation between lack of green space and higher numbers of first-time buyers. In other words, the first-time buyers are going somewhere because it is cheap: it lacks green space, it lacks amenities, so of course, things are cheaper. That is exactly what this Bill should be resisting.
When we met, the Minister said that she did not like this amendment because it was too prescriptive. She is right that local development plans should decide what green and blue spaces there should be; I do not have a problem with that. However, if there is no statutory requirement for a network of easily accessible green spaces, there will be far fewer of those spaces. This amendment is absolutely in line with Defra’s stated aims, and it would contribute substantially to sustainable urban drainage delivery. It would not tie the hands of local or regional planning authorities; it just points them in the right direction and makes sure they head in that direction. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his colleagues will bear in mind that swift bricks and other nature-friendly construction methods will not result in more swifts unless the network of green and blue spaces exists to provide food sources.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 88 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and various other Peers. I also very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson about sports fields. I just wanted to make a few points that somehow often do not come up about green spaces.
In 2008, when I worked for the then Mayor of London, Mr Johnson, we started a project called Capital Growth. It was a simple and madly ambitious idea to create 2,012 new community vegetable gardens in London by the time of the Olympic Games. It was a steal entirely from Vancouver, which had done something similar, but we counted each garden as one garden, whereas they counted each plot as a garden, so I think we won. In four years, we created 2,500 gardens, and all of them are still there. Supporting the notion that a lot of these spaces do end up in much more wealthy areas, once communities were given the chance and a tiny bit of money, in fact, 78% of our gardens ended up in the most deprived areas of London, because that is what people wanted. Very many things happened that we did not anticipate. One was that all the local police came and said that the gardens had transformed the area.
To give an example, you would be in a place where there was a high-rise block and an area designed back in the 50s where mums could walk with their babies in the midday sun; but it would be full of needles and beer cans, and people would not go there. They would stay in their tower blocks because they were frightened to come down. However, you took over the space and created a garden, and then, people got pride and came down. It altered things dramatically, and we saw that over and over again. The police were pleased, the doctors were pleased, the community was pleased, and people started to take ownership of their public space.
We set up a system whereby we challenged every borough in London to create 60 spaces. They all rose to the challenge, but my point in supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment is that, if we do not make this happen, nobody has a chance. It is not something that should be the privilege of people with money; this should be accessible to all, not just because it is healthy and makes you eat better. We had wonderful groups selling to local restaurants; we were having barbecues; they were feeding kids. The knock-ons are amazing, so please do not think of it simply in terms of one single thing. The point about plants and gardens and gardening is that it spreads dramatically.
I have one final point before I sit down. I was reading an extraordinary book the other day about heat in urban areas. During the heat dome over the west coast of America, the researcher had measured the heat in the middle-class areas in Portland, Oregon, where there were lots of trees, and in the poorer areas, where there was just concrete. The difference was 20 degrees. So we must have these spaces as the world’s climate changes, because they really work a lot better than practically anything else.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have put my name. This is a time of huge opportunity. We are going to be building an unprecedented number of houses and creating 10 new towns, and the value that can be added to that effort by open green spaces and blue spaces, delivering some of the benefits that have already been spoken of around the Chamber, is tremendous. It really is an opportunity we must not miss.
It is true to say that, at the moment, deprived communities do not get as good a deal on this as richer communities, and work that the Woodland Trust has done on tree equity has shown that the poorer communities have far less access to open spaces with trees. These are vital for health, mental health, well-being and air quality; we heard about heat, natural flood risk management and the huge range of things that, apart from allowing people to have room to enjoy open spaces, are also going to be delivered by these open spaces.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Before speaking to it, I have just two brief comments. First, in declaring my interest as chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through to the London Olympic Games in 2012 and being a member of the London Organising Committee for those Olympic and Paralympic Games, I have to say that what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said today is absolutely right. The work that she did at the time was exemplary and really important for the success of those Games, and the emphasis on environmental protection and the environmental work that went on in green spaces and the gardens were commendable. I hope that that is taken very much into consideration by the Minister when she comes to reply to that amendment.
I also want to offer the apologies of my noble friend Lady Sater who was two minutes late in arriving for this set of amendments and came from another important meeting. She is passionate about this subject, and has just whispered in my ear that she was strongly supportive of what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said in her speech, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in speaking to Amendment 107, and if he moves that to a vote I am sure she will be supporting him as strongly as I will.
In Committee—and here I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—we concentrated on a number of facts, which are not worthy of repetition because they were so well-made at the time. We looked at the importance of playing fields as crucial for children and young people, and we recognised that, once the playing field is lost to development, it is generally lost for ever. We also looked at the active communities that were supported by playing fields, which can reduce healthcare costs.
To my brief contributions there, I just want to add to the points that were made about Sport England a number of facts which were not before the Committee at that stage, which I hope are taken into consideration by the Minister in her response. The Bill before us threatens to weaken the statutory protection for playing fields by potentially removing Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting these spaces.
These changes would reduce independent oversight. Independent oversight is vitally important regarding these playing fields. The change would reduce independent oversight and advocacy for safeguarding playing fields, increasing the risk of their loss to development, especially in areas already underserved for sports provision. If removed, local authorities would not be required to consult Sport England when considering planning applications that affect playing fields, removing a critical safeguard that has protected over 1,000 playing fields in the past year alone. Statements from the chief executive of Sport England emphasise that removing this statutory role would leave a huge hole in the protection system, as Sport England’s involvement in planning has led to improved or safeguarded conditions in 90% of recent cases.
School playing fields are particularly vulnerable. Over half of UK playing fields are within school grounds. The Bill introduces more flexibility for local authorities to sell such land for capital generation. Concerns remain that weakening Sport England’s oversight could make these disposals more likely, and it is for that reason that I support Amendment 107.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 88 and congratulate noble Lords on all the excellent speeches we have heard so far in support of it. The provision of green space is terribly important when building homes. I am in despair to see so many developments of little houses packed tightly together with little or no garden space and no small green spaces in the public areas.
I urge the Minister to dig out the excellent 2020 report, commissioned by her department, Living With Beauty; Promoting Health, Well-being and Sustainable Growth, which inter alia made the point that communities were more likely to approve of new housing if it was of a beautiful design and harmonious with the local architecture. It was written by the urban design expert Nicholas Boys Smith, the founder and chairman of Create Streets. He was also chair of the advisory board of the Government’s Office for Place and is an academician of the Academy of Urbanism.
Chapter 10 is called “Neighbourhoods: create places not just houses” and says:
“the research is remarkably consistent. Most of us prefer places we can walk in, where there is greenery frequently present and where we find the streets and squares beautiful to look at and be in. We prefer places that do not cost the earth but can help us live in harmony with it”.
I urge the Minister to read and implement the report, especially Chapter 11, which is called “Nature: re-green our towns and cities”. I make no apologies for quoting the first few paragraphs of this chapter since it makes the point better and more succinctly than I can. It says:
“Sustainability and beauty are not in conflict. Rather they are in symbiosis. This is true at all three scales of building, place, and settlement and has been evident on our visits. It is also reflected in polling and well-being data. Much of the evidence we received … stressed this point.
‘There is a considerable body of evidence that shows green spaces in rural and urban areas are highly beneficial to health and well-being and also provide space for people to meet. The perception of beauty is an important factor for realising these benefits’.
Put simply, green is good for us, as Natural England argued in their evidence to us. The presence of greenery in the urban environment normally has a positive impact on our mental and our physical health. Street trees seem particularly important. They are associated with cleaner air, slower cars, fewer accidents. They provide shade in hot summers. And, perhaps astonishingly given the complexity of human life, street trees have a measurable effect on human health even taking into account income, age and education.
At all three scales, we therefore believe that it is necessary to ‘re-green’ our lives. It is important not to be naïve, however. Many essentially very poor development proposals attempt to cover up their shortcomings with some token tree planting. A strip of grass or a couple of trees cannot rescue a polluted, ugly and profoundly inhumane place”.
I agree entirely with those words. If we cannot rescue those places that are currently built, at least we should stop building new ones in the future. The London National Park City briefed me a few years ago that its research suggested that people would not walk more than about 250 metres to a park or a green space. Therefore, I say to the Minister, the answer is in these amendments—build the green space into the gardens in the streets and little parks or accessible green space in all housing developments. If people will not go to the parks and green spaces, bring the parks and green spaces to them.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in speaking in support of Amendment 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown, I reiterate in particular the point she made in her introduction to the amendment that if, as we have heard on many occasions, the Government’s view is that this amendment is unnecessary because the matter is covered by the NPPF, please could they show us the workings? Can they demonstrate to us with firm data that the NPPF is indeed working to protect green space in our towns, cities and villages? If we do not have the data, how can we believe what the Government tell us?
We then tend to fall back on anecdotes. We have heard a number of anecdotes already this afternoon, and I will add my own. One of my penances in life is that I support Oxford United. I live in Oxford and, as one of my friends said, when you support Oxford United, you support them through thin and thin. Near the Kassam Stadium—which is in a more deprived part of Oxford, the Blackbird Leys estate—there used to be a very nice little green park. It was small, but it was a bit of greenery where children could run around and kick a ball. Just in the last year or so, that green space has been completely covered wall-to-wall with houses—they are packed in and there is no green space left. Anecdotes like that make us anxious. We do not see where green and blue space is being protected.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my noble friend Lady Willis’s request and, probably not at this moment but in writing, send us all the data that shows that the NPPF is delivering what the Government claim it delivers.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support by noble friend’s Amendment 96, which we will likely hear about in due course. This is really important for the harmonious development of communities and them working well for people. But if we are going to have that then we absolutely need Amendment 88 too. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has just pointed out, if we do not make a clear requirement for green space then it gets swallowed up.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak chiefly to Amendment 121E in my name. It has not been addressed yet, but it is very much a package with two amendments that have already been widely addressed: Amendment 107 on playing fields, from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 88 on blue and green spaces, from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. These three amendments fit together.
My amendment, which is the same as the one that I tabled in Committee, seeks to ensure that planning authorities take all practicable steps to ensure a sufficiency of play opportunities for children. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just said, we desperately need playing fields for organised sport and we need green and blue spaces, but somewhere to just kick a ball around is not necessarily a playing field and yet it is a crucial space for children to develop their physical skills—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke about—and social skills, by getting together to play.
I spoke quite extensively in Committee and I do not intend to repeat everything I said. I will pick up and take forward a couple of points that were raised then. I begin by apologising to the Minister, who made great efforts to reach out and have a meeting with me before Report. I am afraid his emails arrived just beforehand. I was in Ukraine, with limited communications, and it is entirely my fault that that meeting did not happen; I apologise for that. Those were the circumstances.
This is not really my amendment at all. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked where it had come from and I said that it came from Play England. It is worth tracing through this a little. The 2024 manifesto from Play England was the first to call for play sufficiency legislation. In Committee, the Minister referred to the NPPF change that came in December 2024, but, as we have heard from multiple noble Lords, there is no evidence that it is working. Further, that is a policy, which could be changed, which is very different from having it written into law—which is much harder to change—that planning authorities must consider play sufficiency.
As I said in Committee, this was debated quite extensively by the standards of the other place, and there were broad expressions of support. I am afraid that nothing the Minister said in Committee convinced me that there was any argument against this. I note that the noble Lord asked in Committee if I was aware that there is an APPG on Play. I am—I am a member of the APPG on Play, together with eight other Members of your Lordships’ House, including several from the Government Benches, and 32 MPs. By the standards of these things, that makes it a significant all-party group, which is a recognition of the importance in which this issue is held.
A number of noble Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, among them, referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Link study which came out this morning about the lack of green spaces where first-time buyers make their first homes. Of course, many of those first-time buyers may well have or be going to have children, who desperately need these play spaces. I note that the paper edition of the Times this morning put beside that the report from the House of Lords environment committee, which I think is out this morning and which talks about how, if the Government are to build new towns, they need to be built as communities, with infrastructure in place. Part of that infrastructure must be play infrastructure.
I referred in Committee to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and to the fact that Wales and Scotland already have comparable legislation to this. It is worth noting that Wales has the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, which almost demands that you have something like a play sufficiency duty.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and her Amendment 88, to which I added my name. I refer to my interests, including my involvement in Peers for the Planet, and flag to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I chair the Built Environment Select Committee, whose report was in the Times. For those who are interested in it, watch this space. We will have that debate in due course and I look forward to it.
I do not wish to prolong the debate because I think we are coming to the end, but I will raise one point, building on everything that everyone has said so far, about vision and where we ultimately see nature in development. We have covered a lot already, today and in Committee. As was mentioned, the NPPF references aspects, but it is open to interpretation and vague. Again, as we have discussed before and today, there are real issues for some people in the country.
Some may query, and therefore object to, the amendment on the basis of the word “network”. Ultimately, it is for those on the ground to decide what “network” means, be it large or small. It would allow for pragmatism, in an effort to seek to do as much as possible, but, ultimately, it is about having more than one space. Therefore, it is about what more can be done with an entire site, rather than just looking through the lens of trying to do the minimum.
The amendment is not onerous. It is pragmatic. It does not stipulate the quantum of nature that is needed. Both my party and, I think, the Government still honour the concept of the 15-minute walk to nature, but this amendment does not go anywhere near that. Therefore, it is not as onerous and prescriptive.
I have just one final point. It is an anecdote, although I cannot compete with the fine words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and her story about the fantastic work she did in London. There is a piece of land near where I live in Surrey. I was driving past it about a year ago and I saw some school kids planting bulbs, in miserable weather. I thought how absolutely amazing it was to see them putting bulbs in on this plot of land.
Last Wednesday, when we sat earlier to debate the Bill, I charged in valiantly to make my train, thinking we were going to have a vote. I walked past the same bit of land. For clarity, it is just a piece of grass, with a few trees and a path through the middle, surrounded by roads and residential properties, with some shops nearby. It is nothing special, but it is special in itself because it is unique and pleasant for those who live nearby—for the dog walkers and the shoppers, it is something to enjoy. I cannot imagine that the upkeep is too onerous but it is enjoyed by those nearby.
As I ran past, I saw those school kids yet again, one year on, planting more bulbs and I thought, “I’ve got to get in; I must get in”, and I sort of smiled as I charged past. Then I thought, “You know what? I’m going to forget the vote”. I backed up and went to speak to those kids. I spoke to someone called Doug from the council who has been involved in that project over the past few years, and I met my own councillor—a Lib Dem, I hasten to add, but we will forget that—called Kirsty, who has been driving this idea with the council and the school kids, getting them involved. A little later, some local businesses came along too.
The point is that this small endeavour showed exactly why, to me, nature is important. Not only is it important from a biodiversity point of view but it brings people together and improves that area, and it brings people of all ages together to do something. That is why I care about nature; that is why we support this amendment. I pay tribute to those behind it.
I was flicking through what was said the last time we debated this. There is no finer quote than from the Minister, who said:
“There is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these alongside new homes”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1298.]
Therefore, I hope that the Government can find a way through on this issue.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 96 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, to which I have added my name and which requires the prioritisation of brownfield and other sites, and to speak to my noble friend’s Amendment 239, to which I have also added my name, about the protection of villages, which I raised in Committee.
On Amendment 96 and brownfield sites, your Lordships know that I spoke about this in Committee. It is a no-brainer, a double win that saves our countryside and green spaces that are rich in nature—we have heard much about the importance of green spaces this afternoon—while improving areas blighted by uncared for, dilapidated and sometimes poisonous brownfield sites in the heart of our communities. The Minister responded in Committee, saying:
“The Government are clear that the first port of call for development should be brownfield land”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1457.]
She suggested that the NPPF already covered this point and that my noble friend Lord Jameson’s amendment and mine in Committee were not needed. If this is what the Government support, what is the harm of applying belt and braces and having it spelled out here too? Would it not demonstrate their true commitment to this principle? Either way, it still feels as if there is a long way to go.
I shall reiterate the stats that I shared from the CPRE—I hope your Lordships will forgive me; I have not been able to find more recent ones yet. It reported that in 2022 a record-breaking number of brownfields sites identified for redevelopment were lying dormant, enough for 1.2 million homes on 23,000 sites adding up to 27,000 hectares. The CPRE highlighted that the majority of brownfield sites are in town and city centres, where there is both the need and scope for new homes and regeneration. Indeed, it will also fit with the travel aspect of proposed new subsection (9B) in this amendment.
As many of us have said throughout the progress of this Bill, it is not simply a question of more homes; we need the right homes in the right places. Much current urban brownfield land is known to blight the communities where it exists, leading to poorer socio-economic indicators. It is much better to reuse already developed urban land and buildings, as the carbon emissions are lower per capita than for greenfield development. I understand that for developers there can be a problem that cleaning up land before building can increase costs, but perhaps there is a way that the Government can help with this. Hence, I hope Government will think again on this issue and accept what I consider to be a sensible amendment.
On Amendment 239, I feel passionately about the protection of our villages, their identity and the way of life, and I am delighted that my noble friends decided that they wanted to run this from the Front Bench. Villages and their communities, as I have said before, have been hewn over centuries of rural life and are a key part of the UK’s reputation as a green and pleasant land. This amendment would insert a much-needed protection to match that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework and would level the playing field to help preserve the special character of individual and historic villages which would be lost if one village spread into another or if a town spread out into a village.
The practicalities and perhaps unintended consequences of implementing this Bill pose a significant risk that, by opening up development, we will lose those village gems or, in the worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless urban sprawl. In Committee, the Minister argued that villages were already protected by current guidance for local planning authorities on the restriction of village development and by green belt provisions, but surely it is clear from the debate we had that this is not necessarily the case in practice.
I am about to cite some green belt statistics, but it is not simply about that. The Government’s own statistics on the green belt state that around 12.5% of the land area of England is currently designated as green belt, focusing around 16 urban cores. With national parks included, this would take the percentage up to around 37% of land protected by one or more types of protection. Overall, however, there was a decrease in green belt of around 660 hectares between March 2024 and March 2025, the bulk of which was due to six local authorities adopting local plans with changes to the green belt. That is just it: the green belt can be changed. There are large, more rural areas of the country further away from urban centres that do not fall under any protections and could be impacted by newly planned development or new towns under this Government. Such villages should have the same protection currently afforded to towns across the country.
The Government said that an amendment along these lines would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies. I am afraid I disagree. This amendment is about creating guidance or updating current guidance. Local authorities make their decisions using guidance already. This should only aid that process.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments on green spaces, the green belt and playing fields is one of the largest groups of amendments that we will debate today, which reflects how important these issues are held to be in your Lordships’ House.
Wild places have always played an important part in my life. In the past, I have been very involved with promoting outdoor education, so these matters are also important to me personally.
Across this House, I think there is recognition that we need new homes and that the quality of those new homes, the communities they create and the places they become will be dependent on having access to really good green and blue spaces. The impacts of merely being near to good-quality green and blue spaces are still not properly understood, but this is an ever-growing area. Research shows that such access reduces stress, improves overall well-being, increases the level of physical activity, enhances social interaction, gives people a greater sense of community and has direct economic impacts and particular benefits for those in the most deprived sections of our communities.
The Minister has spoken throughout different parts of this debate about how important the new town that she grew up in is. I put it to her that new towns are held in such high regard because they had green and blue spaces designed into them from the start. These are not just nice to have; they are fundamental issues for the well-being of our communities, and they go on to save millions of pounds in unnecessary societal costs from inequality, depression and poor health that result from not having such facilities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for making an extremely important point about climate change. As our climate heats up, the urban heat island effect causes misery and health impacts, particularly for the poorest, who suffer the most, so the need for green and blue spaces in our towns is growing ever more important.
One statistic that I want to give to the House is that the amount of time our children spend playing outside has declined by 50% in the space of one generation alone. We need to reverse that. We need a cross-sector, strategic approach to these things, and we need to ensure that big housebuilders do not squeeze out these essential requirements for human existence.
Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require strategic planning authorities to include a network of green and blue spaces in the statement of policies that will relate to the development and use of land in the area. This amendment is one that we very much support; it is also supported by the National Trust and the Better Planning Coalition. It is also vital for our new towns.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the intent behind this important group of amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions around green infrastructure, heritage protection, sustainable land use and, importantly, play and sports areas, as in Amendments 170 and 121E.
Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would recognise the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic gardens and designed landscapes are a vital part of our cultural and national heritage, and their protection must not be left to chance. Giving the Gardens Trust formal status in the planning process is a logical and proportionate step, in our opinion.
On Amendment 88, we strongly support the call for a strategic approach to green and blue infrastructure—that is, parks, waterways and green spaces that are publicly accessible and which protect biodiversity and enhance well-being. These provisions would help to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of nature or public access to it. However, this amendment includes “network”, which carries a significant implication from a strategic planning perspective. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities could be required not only to safeguard individual sites but to consider the functional and spatial connections between those sites. That raises questions of the maintenance, responsibilities and resources required to deliver a genuinely joined-up approach. We therefore could not support the amendment as drafted but there is another amendment, later on in our debates, about new towns. It is a different issue in new towns than it is strategically, which could be across three or even four counties or areas.
There is also clear cross-party consensus behind prioritising brownfield development and protecting our most valuable farmland and greenfield sites. Amendments such as Amendments 95, 96 and 118 rightly push for a sequential, sustainable approach to land use, beginning with sites already in use or disused, and protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land for food production and environmental benefit.
Amendment 96 in my name would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield land and urban densification, and to promote sustainable mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs and services. It underpins the widely supported “brownfield first” principle, which already commands public support and political consensus, but it goes further, linking that principle directly to community building, sustainability and the protection of the villages and open spaces that give our places their character. As Conservatives, we are passionate about protecting our green belt and safeguarding the countryside from inappropriate development. This Government have often relied on guidance rather than firm statutory safeguards, leaving too much to shifting policy documents and not enough to clear legal safeguards.
This is about a joined-up approach, encouraging regeneration where infrastructure already exists, reducing needless commuting and making sure that the new development creates mixed, vibrant communities rather than those isolated housing estates we see too often on the edges of our towns. It is about putting what is already in the NPPF—brownfield first, compact growth and protection of the countryside—into statute. I anticipate that the Minister may say, as the Minister said in Committee:
“I agree with the intent behind this amendment; however, it is already comprehensively covered in the National Planning Policy Framework”,—[Official Report, 9/9/25; cols. 1455-56.]
but if we all agree that brownfield first is the right principle, then why leave it only to guidance, which can be changed at will? If it truly is covered, then legislating to secure it should cause no difficulty. If it is not, then this amendment is precisely what is needed.
This is a proportionate and pragmatic step. It strengthens what the Government claim they already believe in, gives local communities greater confidence that brownfield will be prioritised and protects our green belts and villages from unnecessary pressure, and I will be pushing this to a vote when the time comes.
Finally, on Amendment 239, in my name but spoken to by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, I do not want to say any more, because she said it all and I do not want to take time repeating it. But this is so important, and again we may divide on this one when the time comes, because this concerns the protection of our villages in this beautiful land.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this very interesting debate for the very valuable contributions we have heard this afternoon. I have engaged with many noble Lords on these matters in the preceding weeks and our debate has focused on something on which I think we all agree, which is the need to ensure that, as we deliver the housing we need, we recognise the importance of green and blue space, sustainability, heritage and the important uses that allow our communities and the people that constitute them to thrive and succeed.
First, I remind noble Lords of my letter regarding the strength and influence that planning policy bears on the protection of vital green and blue spaces across the country, the power it exerts in practice and the degree of flexibility it allows for sensible choices to be made at a local level. The benefits of green space are not in doubt as far as I can see, for all the reasons set out in our debate. That is why there are such strong protections within the NPPF and in the planning system.
I turn now to the amendments we have debated. Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that the Gardens Trust is retained as a statutory consultee for planning proposals and that it is considered as a statutory amenity society. The Government have set out their intention to reform the system of statutory consultation. We want a streamlined, effective system of consultation that avoids uncertainty and delay. We will shortly consult on these reforms, including on the impacts of removing the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee. Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens, so this consultation will help us to deliver a streamlined system and address duplication.
As part of our consultation, we will be very keen to test mitigations to ensure they continue to play a valuable role in protecting our heritage. Planning policy remains key. Registered parks and gardens are defined as designated heritage assets, and they will remain subject to the strong heritage policies protecting these assets in the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies require local planning authorities to carefully consider the impact of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset, and, if the development proposal would cause substantial harm, to refuse such applications.
I note the noble Lord’s proposal about amenity society status with great interest. Amenity societies are not subject to the full requirements of statutory consultation but are notified of relevant development. The Government really value the work of amenity societies, and I will add my own anecdote here about the level of volunteering. I was at our local community awards on Saturday, and I was delighted to see our amazing green space volunteers—across our gardens, green spaces and parks—getting awards. These kinds of volunteers who look after our green spaces—whether in committee rooms or out in the parks themselves—are incredibly valued, as are those who enable and encourage sport and physical activity, which we will come to later. I pay tribute to those who won those local awards on Saturday.
The Government are keen to explore whether this model would be suitable for certain types of development through our consultation. We believe there is an important, ongoing role for the Gardens Trust, working with local authorities and developers. No decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts from the consultation. My department will continue to engage with the Gardens Trust to understand the impacts of these proposals over the coming months.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has tabled Amendment 88, and I thank her for our meeting last week to discuss the importance of networks of green and blue spaces to communities all around the country. I was very grateful for the information and research that she provided both to me and to officials from my department.
The NPPF, which will guide the development of new spatial development strategies, already highlights the need for plans to support healthy communities. I agree with the noble Baroness about equality in the provision of green space. I am grateful to her for agreeing to share the research she talked about, and I am happy to respond in writing to her on that.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on the amazing work she did during the London Olympics. When I was on one of my visits, I went to see a fantastic project on balcony gardens in Walthamstow, which has also invigorated that community. In my own area, we started a community orchard project. I completely understand the benefits of these types of projects.
Strategic planning authorities already have the ability to set policies that reflect the value of these spaces. Under new Section 12D(4)(c), a spatial development strategy may specify infrastructure that promotes or improves the social or environmental well-being of an area; this could include networks of green and blue spaces.
We should also remember that strategic development strategies will not be site-specific; instead, they will relate to broad locations. Some of the noble Lords who have had meetings with me will be aware that my noble friend Lady Hayman, the Defra Minister, is currently working on a comprehensive access strategy, which will come forward from Defra, to indicate how that meshes in with the planning process. While an SDS may consider green and blue networks at the strategic level, detailed site-specific matters relating to them are likely to be best dealt with through local plans.
Amendment 95 seeks to protect best and most versatile land, and Amendments 96 and 118 seek to encourage a brownfield first principle. I absolutely agree that we need to protect our best agricultural land. To that end, strategic authorities will need to have regard to ensuring consistency with national policy when preparing their spatial development strategies. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural. Planning policy recognises the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land, and if development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land—not in the top three grades that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned—should be prioritised. Furthermore, the forthcoming land use framework will set out the evidence and tools needed to protect our most productive agricultural land and identify areas with the biggest potential for nature recovery.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to think that my amendment has led to such a wide discussion that has shown more or less complete unanimity across the House about the importance of green space in place-making in this country. Where we can get unanimity like that, there is the potential to make progress.
I thank the Minister for her remarks on the Gardens Trust; as the saying goes, I shall think on them.
As I was sitting in my place, I thought that what we are all trying to do is to change policies and law. However, are we not perhaps creating a hydra that will make it, in general terms, more difficult for the planning process to work well? At the end of the day, planning is about physical specifics, not abstract generalities. The key to establishing whether this debate has been worth while will be seeing whether the country is a better place because of it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Promotion of distributed water supply(1) When exercising functions under this Act in relation to planning applications, local planning authorities must have regard to how a proposed development could implement distributed water infrastructures and technologies for development-scale water reuse.(2) When discharging the duty in subsection (1), planning authorities must seek to secure, where viable and appropriate, the incorporation of —(a) distributed water storage solutions for individual buildings, and (b) shared water storage infrastructure at community and development scale,into developments seeking planning permission.(3) The water storage technology in section (2) includes but is not limited to—(a) distributed schemes for local storage and supply of rainwater and surface water,(b) rainwater harvesting of the largest sizes possible relative to building size, occupancy, and current and projected future water consumption,(c) greywater and blackwater recycling, and(d) water storage systems operated, co-managed or co-owned by local communities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, requires planning authorities to support the inclusion of distributed and alternative water storage infrastructure projects in developments. This is to ensure the sustainable harvesting, use, or distribution of fit-for-purpose water by residents, communities, government services, and private businesses to reduce additional demand on catchment water resources and mitigate flood risk and water pollution.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this amendment was debated last week, but I would like to remind the House what it was about. Basically, it is about not losing—[Interruption.] Am I not allowed to say that? The Whip is shaking his head at me. I will rattle on until he stands up and shouts. In essence, this is about the recovery of storm-water, surface water and flood-water that otherwise rushes into our systems and is then totally gone. What we could do is catch that water and use it—instead of using extremely expensive tap-water—to wash cars, fill up paddling pools and so on.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that we debated this amendment last week. The Front Bench does not have the right of reply at this stage. We ask her whether she is pushing the amendment to a vote or withdrawing.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord the Whip. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this incredibly important issue.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning decisions: consideration of an EDPIn section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations), after paragraph (2)(aa) insert—“(ab) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, so far as material to the application,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when making a planning decision, the local planning authority must take into account any EDP applying to the land in question.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is about consideration of an EDP by a local council. As I referred to on a previous group of amendments including an amendment in my name, because we have not gone to the full consideration of an EDP, it is not my intention to press this amendment later. This is effectively giving substance to what the chief executive of Natural England said to the Commons Committee considering this Bill, which was that if a council was not content with how an EDP was delivering, it would not have to give planning permission, but that is not expressed anywhere else in the Bill. That said, as we are yet to get properly to Part 3, I will reserve my judgment about whether to return to this another time. I beg to move.
Lord Banner (Con)
I shall speak to Amendments 163A and 163B, tabled in my name. These seek to ensure that the nature restoration fund is properly aligned with the planning process and, in particular, that it is capable of supporting the larger and more complex developments. It is my view that the current drafting of Clause 66 risks preventing some of the larger, more complicated schemes from using an environmental delivery plan. These kinds of larger, more complicated developments often evolve after the development has started. We will hear more about this on Hillside, at whatever ungodly hour we get to it. For example, outline permission may be granted, but a developer may subsequently seek to change the planning conditions attached to the permission. There may be amendments to other aspects of the development under Section 96A or otherwise. It may also be the case that larger developments need to apply for retrospective planning permission after development has commenced to regularise the development when it has been built differently to the permission.
In its current form, Clause 66 allows developers to request to use an EDP only before development has commenced—a single snapshot in time. While I can understand why it was drafted in that way, inadvertently, it seems to me, it risks limiting the NRF by failing to accommodate the possibility of ever-evolving development schemes. If the Government are going to deliver their growth and housing targets, I assume that they would want to ensure that the NRF could support the full range of development projects, particularly given that the larger ones tend to have the greatest tendency to evolve during their often decades-long and certainly years-long lifetimes.
Amendment 163A would not require Natural England to accept such a development but would allow the design of EDPs to accommodate these scenarios where appropriate. Amendment 163B similarly does not require Natural England to accept a request from a promoter of such development to pay the levy, but it makes clear that deciding whether to accept it is guided by the Secretary of State’s policy on the matter. I encourage the Government to consider this amendment in the spirit in which it is tabled, to ensure the proper functioning of legislation and help the nature restoration fund to navigate the complexities of the planning system.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in this group of amendments on the EDP consultation process, we are broadly in support of Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. We appreciate Amendments 163 and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but we have rather more care in relation to these and will ask some questions about them.
Amendment 87 strikes us as a sensible and necessary clarification, seeking to require local planning authorities to have regard to an EDP relevant to the land in question. It closes an important procedural loop between the Bill’s new environmental mechanisms and the Town and Country Planning Act. I will move on to the other amendments, as I do not think that Amendment 87 will be pushed to a vote.
With Amendment 163A, we are entering more complex territory. Having listened to the noble Lord’s speech, I know that his amendment is intended in relation only to large developments. However, this amendment seeks to allow developers to use an EDP after development has commenced. This is a fundamental change to how the Bill was originally drafted. Although this amendment and the next one are short, they would have profound impacts on the nature of the Bill and the reasoning behind it. Given the late stage that we find ourselves in, it is worth treating these amendments with a degree of cautious scepticism. I have a number of questions on these amendments, particularly as I understand that the Minister might be intending to support them to some extent.
I understand the reasoning behind them. Projects evolve, impacts manifest late in the process and developers may wish to regularise matters through this pathway. Indeed, in principle, a degree of flexibility can be helpful for all concerned in the planning process. This could also help to speed things up, which is one of the core intentions of the Bill. However, flexibility, if poorly secured and accounted for, risks turning things instead into loopholes and could give the Government much more direct power and say over matters of importance. EDPs were created precisely to ensure that environmental protection is front-loaded, assessed, integrated and approved before the first spade hits the ground. If we are now to permit post-commencement plans, we are blurring that critical line. The Government clearly set that out in the original drafting of the Bill, so this is a very fundamental change.
Might this invite retrospective justification of impacts that should have been avoided or evaluated in advance, and what is the mechanism that will stop deliberate misuse of this new clause should a developer be so minded to do that? How will post-commencement EDPs preserve the same environmental rigour as those agreed at the outset of the drafting of this Bill? What safeguards will ensure that the flexibility serves better compliance, not convenient regularisation after the fact? How will this affect the deterrent from starting work without proper authorisation? The credibility of EDPs and public trust depend on certainty that environmental obligations cannot be adjusted once the bulldozers roll in. This could increase uncertainty for developers themselves. For all the talk of streamlining, shifting assessments mid-project can introduce delay, legal risk and even greater reputational exposure.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will not make extensive comments on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87, as we will return to EDPs in future groups on Report. However, this amendment does have merit in that EDPs should be a relevant matter for making planning decisions.
My noble friend Lord Banner has expertly introduced Amendments 163A and 163B, and I have nothing to add except my support. I very much look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87, which would require decision-makers to take account of the environmental delivery plans when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. I agree, of course, that it is crucial that EDPs are integrated into the planning system. I hope I can provide the noble Baroness with the necessary assurance that her amendment is not necessary.
At its heart, an EDP enables a developer to discharge a relevant environmental obligation by making a commitment to pay the appropriate nature restoration levy. Once this commitment is made, the legislation removes the requirement to consider that specific environmental impact as part of any wider assessment, as the impact will be materially outweighed by the actions taken under the EDP. Therefore, while the planning decision-maker will need to consider a wide variety of matters when making individual planning decisions, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to consider the EDP itself. I therefore hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to Amendments 163A and 163B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which would help ensure that the nature restoration fund works effectively for large-scale development. It has always been our intention that Part 3 of the Bill should support development as much as possible. As we have repeatedly said, the nature restoration fund will benefit both development and nature. Therefore, we want to maximise its scope and consequently the benefits it will deliver. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling his amendments and I have looked at them very closely. As has been pointed out, the restriction in Clause 66 may in fact preclude a proportion of development from being able to come within scope of an EDP at all. Where, as is often the case, a large development needs to vary planning permission, for example, or apply for retrospective planning permission following changes outside of the developer’s control, we need to ensure the NRF can support such development, as failing to do so could significantly reduce the ability of the NRF to deliver the win-win that we all want to see for nature and for development.
While, of course, there will be complexities in how to manage large and complex development, this can be addressed through the design of EDPs and supported with government guidance. As with any development, it will be for Natural England to consider requests, having regard to that guidance. I hope I can reassure the noble Earl that this is not a way of skirting around the planning procedures in any way whatsoever; this is about access to the nature restoration fund, so all of the normal things that apply to planning permission would still apply—this is just about providing that access to the NRF once the development has started. With that explanation, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling the amendments, for all the work he has done on this and for the meetings I had with him on it. I hope the House will join the Government in supporting his amendments.
Lord Lucas
“Planning permission: biodiversity information(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, require all biodiversity information generated in the course of a planning application to be submitted, free of charges and restrictions on use, to the local environmental record centre for the area in which planning permission is requested, in the format required by that organisation.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that biodiversity information generated in the course of planning activities is contributed to the national store of such knowledge.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in the course of the planning system, we gather a great deal of high-quality biodiversity data. By and large, we then throw it away. We should not be doing this. We should be keeping it, making sure it is accessible, so that we can really plot what we are doing in 30 by 30 and in our campaign to restore nature to this country. It is ridiculous that we throw it away.
The Minister very kindly wrote me a letter after Committee saying, among other things, that when discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental records centres, and many are already choosing to do so. I organised a ring-round; it is not happening—it is not true—so we must have some very clear regulation that this data should not be lost. If this cannot be done in this Bill, then please may I sit down with the Minister in preparation for the next planning Bill? This cannot go on. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 87BA. The most important vehicle for nature recovery in this country is via the local nature recovery strategies being developed by the 48 local authorities in charge. One can design a recovery strategy only if one knows what is there in the first place, or rather what is not there, what is lacking and needs to be recovered. My noble friend’s amendment is wise and right, but I would urge the Government to go further, since many organisations collect species information, often working collaboratively to pool data and make it available for research and conservation purposes.
The primary network for this collaboration is the National Biodiversity Network, the NBN, which brings together government bodies, charities, volunteer-led recording schemes, data aggregators and networks. The NBN is a charity that oversees the UK-wide partnership for gathering and sharing biodiversity data.
Then we have the Biological Records Centre, the BRC, which was established in 1964. The BRC co-ordinates and supports wildlife recording schemes and societies across the UK, working with volunteer recorders. It manages the online recording tools called iRecord and iNaturalistUK, and its data is published on the NBN Atlas.
Then we come to the local environmental records centres, the LERCs, the organisation mentioned in my noble friend’s amendment. Natural England has divided England into 159 distinct national character areas, or NCAs. Each NCA is defined by a unique combination of natural and human factors, including landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity—that is geology and land forms—history, and cultural and economic activity.
That information is invaluable in helping authorities develop their LNRS but so is all available data, government and private. My noble friend’s amendment asks that the biodiversity information collected in the course of a planning application should be given to the LERCS—I would add that it should be given to the NBN and the BRC also. We cannot have enough data available for decision-making.
Where I depart from my noble friend’s amendment is that he wants to make it compulsory and legal; I would hope that is not necessary and that exhortation from the Government to the local authorities would ensure that this information is sent to the three organisations we have mentioned in our amendments.
I hope that they will not use the excuse that this is all confidential in the planning application and they cannot send it. That is nonsense; it should not be deemed confidential, and it should be passed on to those organisations. If the Secretary of State wants another new slogan in addition to “Build, baby, build”, I would suggest “Data, baby, data, data, data”.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group, starting with Amendment 87FB. These are about bats, which I will come on to in a minute.
In the meantime, I would like to say that His Majesty’s Government have made a number of statements complaining about the obstructive planning laws which impede building. The Government are to be applauded in taking this sensible viewpoint, and I am very happy to help them by putting down these amendments, which will, I hope, alleviate one of the expensive and absurd difficulties that come in the way of those seeking to build. As I said at Second Reading, bats are an example of good intention being taken over by those concerned with the implementation of the legislation extending their remit to an absurd degree.
I quoted at Second Reading the £100 million bat tunnel—as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out at the time, that is 10 doors to this House. There was also my own case of having a house demolished, which the bat people had confirmed was bat-free. Nevertheless, they insisted on each tile being removed one by one, which meant I had to employ six people for four weeks, removing tiles one by one for inspection by a bat person. This cost £30,000, as opposed to one man and a machine taking half a day, which would have cost £500.
The legislation initiated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 goes through Natural England to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management which sets the competency standards and that inspectors are registered with them. It has become an industry of its own. Local authorities, in order to avoid criticism for not complying with the Wildlife and Countryside Act, go for the easy life and automatically demand an inspection for bats even where it may not be a sensible or reasonable request. This is then carried out by the registered bat inspectors, which would be fine, but it is abused, as in my case, where, with no evidence of bats, an extra £30,000 had to be paid to confirm their inspection.
I recently came across the case of a young couple wishing to alter their attic to add needed extra accommodation. They were required by the local authority to have a preliminary bat inspection at a cost of £1,000. Without this inspection, the local authority would not permit them to even apply for planning consent, which might not have been granted. Why could they not put in for planning and, if it was approved, carry out a survey where at least they would be putting some money towards something positive?
Amendments 203B, 203C and 87FC seek to ensure that there is some comeback to unreasonable requests so that the system is not allowed to run wild, as it does at the present time. My Amendment 87FB would enable some form of discipline to be imposed on local authorities in respect of the demands for bat inspections. This is in line with government policy. It would assist in the development of housing, which the Government are keen on.
It gives me great pleasure to assist His Majesty’s Government by introducing what I hope will be a first step in implementing their expressed wish to bring some kind of sense to the planning process.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 87B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. My noble friend is calling for better recording and storage of biodiversity information, which is a noble aim. We agree with him that increasing our understanding of biodiversity in the UK is a good thing. We would support measures from government to support this, so can the Minister please outline some of the steps Ministers are taking to record biodiversity?
Amendments 87FB, 87FC, 203B and 203C in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising combine to form a constructive proposal for ensuring that bats are appropriately and pragmatically protected, while removing the time and cost burden on everyone in society from the unnecessarily prescriptive and arduous regulations that we currently suffer. Bat protections are a significant hindrance to everything, from loft conversions and roof repairs through to the largest developments.
My noble friend is not suggesting that protection for those species of bats that are endangered or rare in the UK should be weakened, simply that protections should focus on those. We need to accept that our activities are going to have some impact on nature and ensure that our response to that is proportionate. Bats in buildings are an unusual issue in that they do little or no harm to the buildings or inhabitants and are creating their own dependence on our activities. The fact that we provide this habitat should not be a cause for inappropriate encumbrance on the property owner for doing so. We are creating a perverse incentive to remove that habitat for bats wherever possible in order to ensure that we have reasonable freedom to enjoy our property. Surely that is not the outcome we want or desire for bats themselves. I hope the Minister is grateful for my noble friend’s constructive amendments, and I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving Amendment 87B, which would require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted free of charge to local environmental record centres. I was very pleased to be able to provide the noble Lord with further information on this matter during Recess.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 87BA, which clarifies this amendment to require all biodiversity information generated during a planning application to be submitted to the National Biodiversity Network and the Biological Records Centre, in addition to local environmental record centres. The Government fully recognise the importance of robust biodiversity data in planning applications, although the idea of having a new slogan, “Data, baby, data”, would mean I might have to get a new hat with that on it, which may not be such a good idea.
Although we share the intention of improving access to biodiversity data, we do not believe the amendment is necessary. The statutory framework under the Environment Act 2021 already requires developers to provide a baseline assessment of biodiversity value using the statutory metric published by the Secretary of State. This ensures consistency and transparency without prescribing how data should be shared or stored. When discharging the biodiversity gain condition, applicants can choose to share their data with local environmental record centres, and many are already choosing to do so—I will come to the noble Lord’s point about how many in a moment.
Introducing a legal requirement to submit data would add administrative burdens and technical requirements without improving biodiversity outcomes. However, I will take back to officials the noble Lord’s point that this is not happening as intended to consider what further encouragement we might give to help speed that data on its way. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lords will not press their amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for Amendments 87FB and 87FC, and for his concern in supporting the Government in what we are trying to do; I am grateful for that. Those amendments concern bat inspections during planning applications and the quality of those inspections. I also thank him for Amendments 203B and 203C, which concern legal protections for bats in planning decisions. The Government are committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment, including bats. However, we recognise that people can experience the kinds of costs and delays that the noble Lord has outlined associated with the existing system of bat protections, such as survey requirements.
The Government recognise that measures to protect bats should be efficient and proportionate. That is why we have already begun work to improve the bat surveying processes. Natural England’s earned recognition scheme for bat licences provides a streamlined route to securing a licence. Under this scheme, appropriately qualified bat ecologists with membership of an approved professional body can act more independently of Natural England. Through earned recognition, permissions are secured on average three to four times more quickly, and it also aims to improve survey quality to deliver better outcomes for bats. We are expanding this scheme.
In line with recommendations from the Corry review, Natural England has already updated its standing advice for local planning authorities on bats to remove complexity and duplication. In November, Natural England will publish a bat regulation reform road map, which will set out further plans to work more closely with planning authorities and to streamline licensing—for instance, expanding its pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys, as well as developing pilots to test quicker and cheaper survey options.
The Government are already acting on this issue. The additional reviews and regulations that the noble Lord’s Amendments 87FB and 87FC would require are therefore unnecessary and would create significant new bureaucracy. Furthermore, Amendments 203B and 203C would result in likely non-compliance with international law, including the Bern convention. Given the explanations I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I shall not drop this issue but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2 (permitted development rights: heritage and demolition), after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that buildings which have been designated as assets of community value cannot be demolished through permitted development rights.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that currently, an owner of a building has permitted development rights to demolish it unless it is a pub, live music venue, theatre or concert hall. I wish to add assets of community value to that list of exemptions, so I beg to move this amendment and wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Applications for development consent: consultation for water and sewerage undertakers(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1) of section 42 (duty to consult), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) water and sewerage undertakers,””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakings are consulted by applicants for a development consent order in the same way as the Environment Agency currently is.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak briefly to this short but perfectly formed amendment. I hope to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government on the question of making water and sewerage undertakings statutory consultees on a development consent order, as the Environment Agency currently is.
Things have changed since Committee, and there is a reason why I have tabled this amendment on Report. We have already had the report from the Cunliffe review, commissioned by Defra, which now has a new Secretary of State. Recommendation 72 of the Cunliffe report states:
“The role of water companies in the planning process in England should be strengthened to ensure they have sufficient sight and influence over upcoming developments”.
The report goes on to say that the Cunliffe review believes that water companies should have a clear ability
“to comment on planning applications above a certain threshold in England”.
The review is asking the Government to consider making water companies statutory consultees or to introduce a requirement to notify, and I am hoping that the Government will confirm this. This would ensure that water companies can deploy site-specific technical advice and avoid delays. It would also save the Government time. For example, if it was inappropriate to build a major development of, say, 300 new houses in an area of water stress, making water companies statutory consultees would expedite the planning application.
On 13 October, the Environmental Audit Committee published its report on flood resilience in England, which made a similar recommendation. Recommendation 25 of the report states:
“The Government should initiate consultation on statutory requirements for assessing the cumulative impact of development on flood risk within local and regional plans by the end of 2025”.
It goes on to say that
“water companies should be made statutory consultees on major planning applications”.
The Cunliffe review was set up at the behest of the Government, so I presume that they will follow the recommendations in its report. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report looks at how the current system is failing to prepare residents in this country for future flooding.
With those few remarks, I hope this evening to extract a commitment from the Minister that the Government will proceed on this as a matter of urgency and that we will see it as part of the Bill. If they wish to bring forward an amendment of their own, that would be ideal. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment, which seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are formally consulted by applicants for a development consent order. The amendment is similar to the Environment Agency system and would help to avoid significant problems downstream.
Far too often, we have seen developments progress without any consideration of water supply, drainage or wastewater infrastructure, leading to unnecessary strain, additional cost and, of course, the human consequence of flood risk, which is worst of all. By ensuring that the relevant utilities are engaged early in the process, the amendment would promote better planning and ultimately save time, money and, above all, anguish for so many people.
The amendment aligns with some of the longstanding commitments we have worked on together in some of the APPGs. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, although I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment is brought forward and the specific issues it raises, it would introduce a level of prescription that may not be necessary. The planning system already provides mechanisms for consultation with relevant bodies, and it is important that we maintain a balance between thorough engagement and procedural efficiencies. We must be cautious not to overextend statutory requirements in ways that could complicate or even delay the development consent process. Flexibility and proportionality are key. As ever, my noble friend Lady McIntosh raises important issues. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 87FA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are consulted by applicants for development consent orders. I begin by acknowledging her long-standing interest in ensuring that infrastructure development is undertaken responsibly, with due regard to environmental and public health concerns.
The importance of early engagement with key stakeholders in the planning process is definitely not in dispute. Indeed, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that meaningful engagement takes place at the formative stages of project development and where stakeholders are able to meaningfully influence, where appropriate.
As has been made clear in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Government have already taken steps to streamline the statutory consultation process under the Planning Act. Section 42, which this amendment seeks to modify, will be repealed via Clause 4. This reflects a broader concern that the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation were not functioning as intended, leading to delays, excessive rounds of engagement and an ever-growing volume of documentation.
That said, I want to reassure noble Lords that this does not mean that issues relevant to stakeholders will be ignored—quite the contrary. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to assist applicants with the steps they might take in relation to submitting an application. The Government acknowledge that stakeholders play a vital role in safeguarding public health and environmental standards, and the importance of their input and engagement will be made clear in guidance. The guidance will include expectations of who the applicant should consider engaging with and would positively contribute to a scheme focused on delivering the best outcomes for projects, and its impact on the environment and communities. This may include engaging with relevant statutory undertakers, such as water and sewerage undertakers, where it is beneficial to do so.
To be clear, the removal of statutory consultation at the pre-application stage does not remove various organisations’ ability to actively participate and influence an application through registering as an interested party. Statutory bodies will still be notified if an application is accepted and will be provided with the opportunity to make representations under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.
This amendment risks re-adding statutory complexity after the Government have responded to calls to simplify the system through Clause 4, which repeals statutory pre-application consultation. This has already been agreed and is not under debate.
In this context, although I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to strengthen the role of water and sewerage undertakers in the planning process, I must respectfully resist the amendment in the light of the planned changes to pre-application consultation associated with applications for development consent. I hope that, with these assurances and noting the inconsistency with Clause 4, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken and in particular for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I omitted to declare my interests: I am co-chair of the Water APPG and an officer of the Flooding and Flooded Communities APPG.
I am a little disheartened by the Minister’s response because it sounds like a retrograde step, and one that is not in keeping either with the conclusions set out in the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee’s report or with the Cunliffe report. The Water APPG met Sir Jon Cunliffe last week, and he is under the clear understanding that a water Bill—not a water bill as in water rates but another piece of legislation—will be coming down the track to implement many of his recommendations. I will watch this very carefully and consider how to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“Planning permission: Responsible Actors Scheme members(1) No member of the Responsible Actors Scheme may be granted planning permission or carry out major development of land in England through any agent or contractor or any other person acting for or on their behalf until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that—(a) all buildings developed by Responsible Actors Scheme members with relevant defects are remediated at no cost to leaseholders or commonhold unit owners, and(b) where a relevant defect arises from a failure to comply with building regulations or relevant approved documents in force at the time of the construction of a building by a Responsible Actors Scheme member, that defect must be corrected by remediating the building to current building regulations.(2) In this section—“building” means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building, in England that contains at least two dwellings;“major development” has the meaning given by article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595);“member of the Responsible Actors Scheme” means a member of the Scheme established under The Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023/753);“relevant defect” has the same means as in section 120 of the Building Safety Act 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause prevents members of the Responsible Actors Scheme (the UK’s large developers) from applying for or undertaking major development until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the purpose of tabling this amendment is twofold. First, it is to shine a beacon of light on a building scandal that has recently fallen out of the national spotlight. Secondly, it is to urge the Government to use this Bill to exert further pressure on those who caused the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where, I remind the House, 72 people lost their lives.
This amendment is not about pointing the finger of blame at this or past Governments. It is about seeking to put more pressure on those who created the conditions in which people died and which many leaseholders now have to endure, consequent on building safety failure.
What are the facts? The MHCLG estimates—I note that there is no current definitive figure—that between 5,900 and 9,000 buildings over 11 metres have unsafe cladding. This means that over a quarter of a million individual flats and perhaps nearly half a million people are affected, and that is just for those blocks over 11 metres, which are the subject of the Building Safety Act.
According to government figures for August this year, 1,927 blocks have had their remediation completed and a further 750 have started, but that leaves many thousands of leaseholders in limbo. I accept that the Government have attempted to improve this position with the remediation acceleration plan, alongside a promise for a remediation Bill. Can the Minister tell the House when that Bill is likely to be introduced?
The action plan commits to completing all remediation of blocks over 11 metres by 2029. That is a full 12 years after the Grenfell Tower fire. Meanwhile, leaseholders are paying the price for a situation that in no part is of their making. They are paying for it in extortionate insurance bills, in ever-rising service charges, and in knowing that they have no way out as their flats do not sell. For some, this has had very tragic consequences. The mother of one of those who ended their life as a direct result of this enormously stressful situation is sitting in the Gallery today and listening to this debate.
This Bill is an opportunity further to address the building safety scandal by putting more pressure on those who created these dangerous living conditions. Amendment 87FD in my name and co-signed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to require that construction companies that have signed up to the responsible actors scheme agree to the full remediation of all buildings—that includes those under 11 metres—before they are able to proceed with further major developments. This must be achieved at no cost to leaseholders. For those living in blocks of under 11 metres, currently the costs fall on them, despite their not having created the building scandal in any way. The major housebuilders are well able to afford to pay for the crisis they created, with annual operating profits being in the high hundreds of millions of pounds.
The noble Lord Young of Cookham wished to speak in support of this amendment, but, unfortunately, he is currently speaking in Grand Committee. He has asked me to say that he is in complete support of the amendment and will vote in the Lobby in support of it if a vote is called. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if I am not satisfied that more can be extracted from those who created the crisis that is putting lives at risk, I will test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I have added my name. We have both spent many years trying to persuade the Government that a clearer and more comprehensive solution is needed to protect everyone affected by the building safety crisis. Noble Lords will know of my professional insights into this matter as a chartered surveyor and of my previous attempts to get fair treatment for innocent homeowners. .
I continue to receive mail from home owners, small investors, property managers and conveyancers who are utterly dismayed at the complexity, uncertainty and capricious nature of the funding under government schemes, which involve matters of building height, cladding combustibility and unseen and previously unknowable compartmentation issues, with funding applying differentially to various classes of ownership or being dependent on the freeholder’s assets, plus identification of the person responsible and whether that person has effective agency in relation to remediation. In addition, there are two parallel standards of remediation at work.
Some noble Lords will recall that during the deliberations on the Building Safety Bill, I convened a briefing for Peers. We were addressed by the late Amanda Walker, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was, I think, making reference. She told us how her life and world had been turned upside down. Her experience fits entirely with what others have told me of a living hell of unsellable property, unaffordable interim safety costs, insurance hikes and unknowable liabilities going forward—in short, what they thought was a safe and secure home being turned into a financial prison—and of the stress, ruined lives and total inequality of the exclusions from protection.
I joined Amanda’s mother and brother earlier today in a meeting with Minister Samantha Dixon. She gave the impression of listening very carefully to what we said. Mrs Walker’s recent email, which I paraphrase, says this: “My precious daughter was a very ardent campaigner on behalf of thousands of leaseholders who suffered because of loopholes in the Building Safety Act. This amendment”—she is referring to the amendment before us now—“will not help her but may help many others. The anxiety levels in so many people were painful to watch, and in my view ruined many lives”.
As the Minister knows, around 1.7 million leaseholders do not have full or even, in some cases, partial protection from the costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Those living in buildings below 11 metres have no protection at all, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Enfranchised leaseholders and those owning more than three properties are liable for any non-cladding remediation costs. Other leaseholders may have to contribute up to £15,000 to cover non-cladding costs—depending on the wealth of their freeholder, if you please. All these people are completely innocent of the causes that led to defects in their building, not just cladding but basic disregard of the building regulations in force at the time of construction.
The assumption is that lower rise buildings are safe because it is easier to mitigate risks, to escape from them and for fire and rescue services to attend to emergencies, but we do not actually know that they are safe. The proportionate standard under PAS 9980, which is the remediation standard frequently used, admits that spread of fire may be more rapid given the greater prevalence of combustible materials in the construction, and the capacity of many construction products to generate impenetrable choking smoke when burning, impeding escape. And who pays for any mitigation? Ultimately, it is the leaseholders.
According to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the current Building Safety Act’s three-tier approach—fully protected, partial or capped protection, and totally unprotected— is delaying remediation and leaving leaseholders in limbo. That funding is fragmented, and occupiers are left in unsafe buildings or are among the growing number, currently totalling more than 14,000, of those mandatorily evacuated, sometimes having to leave very modern buildings. The National Audit Office has found that the PAS 9980 risk-based approach to remediation is a cause of delays as different stakeholders argue over what constitutes “proportionate” remediation and “tolerable” risk, both of which terms appear in that document. Some 52 flat developers have signed up to the responsible actors scheme. Their remediation responsibility is to this proportionate standard only—never mind failure to build to the relevant building standards applicable at the time of construction.
Markets need transparency, and the Government need to be upfront about the general quality of buildings and building regulation compliance over past 30 years. It has long been an offence not to comply with building regulations. Market sentiment depends on clarity, but beyond the scope of the Government’s remediation portfolio, it is unclear what the reality actually is. So long as this doubt sloshes around the market, the insurance and lending sectors and, indeed, purchaser keenness, will remain febrile. All these may predispose a wider malaise the longer this persists, particularly in the lending markets, where the impact of new solvency regulations means that such uncertainties will have to be factored into securitisation risks, loan book management and consumer costs.
For evidence of the effects today, I point to flagging new flat construction, rising costs, schemes being mothballed and softening sales markets. Wagging fingers at insurers will not get rid of risk awareness and sentiment. Once you understand that something is a risk, it is there for ever. While I understand why the Government might not want to garner a lot of non-compliance data, if, despite consumers’ and the markets’ need to know, they choose not to do so, what I set out is the inevitable outcome, with implications for urban redevelopment and densification, homebuilding targets and, ultimately, stable communities.
This amendment would sweep up all building types, all tenures, and both cladding and non-cladding defects. It would tighten standards and encompass product manufacturers. Any planning delays under the amendment would be no more than the minimum necessary to process regulations immediately on Royal Assent, and I believe very few projects would be held up in practice. If the Government agree the principle that innocent people should not foot the bill for bad building practices or even for preserving the Government’s own policy objectives, they need at least to indicate to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that they propose to take this forward with serious intent. This amendment would give the Secretary of State the tools to do this and to end the two-tier remediation standard, the basic inequity and uncertainty of the current protections, and the market disruption that has accompanied them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 87FD, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to prevent larger developers applying for or undertaking major developments until the Secretary of State has revised the responsible actors scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated. We urgently need the remediation of unsafe blocks of flats. We recently debated this in Grand Committee, and we sought and received assurances from the Minister that remediation work will be completed as per the Government’s deadlines of 2029 and 2031. We on this side of the House are committed to holding the Government to account on delivering this remediation, but with a housing crisis and over 350,000 people living in temporary accommodation, we also need to build the safe homes we desperately need.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these important issues with their Amendment 87FD on the remediation of buildings by developers and I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their tireless support for residents since the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I understand that the amendment is intended to protect residents and leaseholders. Unfortunately, its effect would be to slow remediation and risk stopping essential housebuilding.
I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there has been no relaxing of the Government’s determination to deal with the significant remediation actions outstanding from Grenfell. I spoke to my honourable friend Minister Dixon just last week. She has now picked up the urgent action needed to accelerate remediation. She has already visited the Grenfell site, and I am pleased to hear that she has met Mrs Walker and other members of the Grenfell community. I know she takes her responsibility extremely seriously and she will continue the work of Minister Norris in dealing with this as quickly as possible. There will be a further opportunity in the very near future for this House to debate the issues of building safety and remediation, including their interaction with this Government’s bold ambitions on housing supply.
Amendment 87FD is intended to prevent members of the responsible actors scheme receiving new planning permissions or building new housing developments until the Government make fundamental changes to the scheme to require developers to remediate additional types of defect and apply a different approach to the remediation of external walls. In practice, this would mean that over 40 of the largest housebuilders in England would have to stop building new homes until the Government made changes to an essential remediation scheme that we assess would delay and undermine progress.
This landmark Bill is intended to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve the ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament. It is simply not compatible with the aims of the Bill to include a measure which would stop the largest housebuilders in this country building new homes. It would lead to major market uncertainty and disruption. Nor would the proposed changes to the responsible actors scheme serve the interests of residents and leaseholders, as they would delay remediation of their buildings for years.
Over 50 major developers have signed developer remediation contracts with the Government and committed to fix life-critical fire safety defects in over 2,370 buildings, at a cost of approximately £4.7 billion. This is supported by the statutory responsible actors scheme, which enables the Secretary of State to impose severe commercial consequences on any eligible developer who fails to follow through on their remediation obligations. Since signing the contracts, developers have assessed over 90% of relevant buildings and have started or completed works on 44% of buildings known to require works. This amendment would require fundamental changes in the responsible actors scheme by requiring developers to identify a different set of defects and require remediation to a different standard. Attempting to make those changes to the statutory scheme would undermine the remediation contracts that developers have signed with government. The result would be disastrous for residents and leaseholders, leading to long delays, operational and legal confusion, and uncertainty. Essential works to protect people could be set back by years.
The current approach to remediation under the developer remediation contract is proportionate and appropriate and uses PAS 9980, the same standard for external wall remediation as the Government’s wider remediation programme. The PAS 9980 standard is used for external wall system remediation because we are focused on mitigating risks to life safety, taking an evidence-based and proportionate approach. External wall remediation is assessed based on a fire risk appraisal of external walls which suggests remedial work or mitigation to improve a building’s risk rating through a holistic and fact-based assessment of its construction. Removal of combustible materials is often recommended but is not always necessary, including when other mitigating measures are taken. This proportionate approach to cladding remediation aims to manage fire risks and make sure that residents are safe, while preventing the kind of unnecessary works that can also be incredibly disruptive for residents.
To pick up the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about insurance, we are clear that more needs to be done to protect leaseholders from very high insurance premiums. The fire safety reinsurance facility led by the Association of British Insurers and reinsurance broker McGill and Partners launched in April 2024. The facility aims to increase capacity in the market and may reduce high premiums for some of the most affected multi-occupancy buildings with fire safety issues. The facility has been renewed for a second year and is a viable option for building owners trying to find the best deal for their residents. In the first 12 months, over 760 buildings have been supported by the facility and now more buildings may benefit from the cover available, as the claims limit has increased to £75 million. In the remediation acceleration plan announced, we would work with the insurance industry to consider options for possible government support. We are currently engaging with industry and will provide an update on all this in due course.
This amendment has raised important technical issues about the remediation process. We cannot do full justice to them tonight, but there will be further opportunities for this House to debate the remediation of buildings at much greater length during the passage of the upcoming remediation Bill. I look forward to that opportunity. What is already clear, however, is that the amendment we are looking at tonight would undermine the core purpose of the Bill by greatly delaying work to remediate buildings, as well as putting at serious risk critical work to build new homes. Given these very serious concerns, I urge noble Lords to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the Conservative Front Bench for taking part in this debate, but I am thoroughly disappointed by the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. It is not an either/or. How can it be an either/or? According to the Minister’s response, either we enable housebuilders to build more homes or we accelerate even further the remediation of flats that are in a dangerous condition. It should not be either/or; it should be both/and. There is capacity within the housebuilding industry to do that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I made it clear that the danger in the amendment is in doing just what the noble Baroness has spoken against. We want to move the remediation acceleration forward as quickly as possible, at the same time as building new homes. The danger with this amendment is that it slows the whole thing down and means that neither the remediation nor the building of new homes gets done quickly.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Unfortunately, I do not accept the Minister’s argument because, under the Government’s own remediation acceleration scheme, it will take another six or seven years for people to have their homes made safe. How is that right? We heard the compelling arguments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the 1.7 million leaseholders who will be required to pay many thousands of pounds to make their own homes safe when it is not their fault. It is not acceptable that we are still here, all these years after that awful fire at Grenfell Tower, trying to debate yet again what is going on.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am hugely in sympathy with the noble Baroness in her aim but, as the author when I was in ministerial office of the responsible actors scheme, which was stoutly resisted by housing developers, I had to strike a balance between putting the squeeze on them—by making it clear that unless they acted to remediate, they would receive no planning permission whatever—and making sure that they could continue to build the houses we need. Have the noble Baroness and the supporters of this amendment looked at what the impact on the balance sheets of individual housebuilders might be, and what impact that would have on our current rate of buildout? Also, is it not the case that many of those who do not qualify at the moment for support for remediation—the so-called non-qualifying leaseholders—are people with extensive property portfolios? A line has to be drawn somewhere to ensure that those with significant wealth do not benefit, while those who do need support receive it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gove, for his intervention. He is right that when the scheme was established, it was on the basis of squeezing the housebuilders as far as they could go. However, if I remember the figure correctly, one of the major housebuilders has made an operating profit in the last year of £870 million. Call me a curmudgeon if you like, but if some of that could be used to fund making the dangerous flats they built safe for people to live in, I think that is not a bad call.
We have had the argument but I am not content with the answers I have got, so I wish to test the opinion of the House. I hope that those on the Conservative Benches will support those who have spoken strong and hard in favour of remediation schemes, and in favour of leaseholders, through the Lobby.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure coherent planning through extending the Secretary of State’s powers to establish a joint committee of authorities where a national park is present in the spatial development strategy area.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for writing to me on my amendment in Committee. I apologise for revisiting this question, but I really think we need to be clear about this. The idea that national park authorities should be in some way a subsidiary and junior part of this process is something that I really feel will not work.
National park authorities are sole local planning authorities for almost 10% of England. They are statutory local planning authorities, charged with balancing development and economic growth. They operate across local authority boundaries and routinely co-ordinate with multiple councils, agencies and communities. In short, they already do strategic planning. The idea that the new spatial development strategies should in some way be senior, should start to completely alter the planning process within the national park so that it becomes subsidiary, is something that really goes against the purpose of national parks, as I understand it. Yet, as things stand, the Bill gives national park authorities a limited role in shaping spatial development strategies: they will be informed after the event rather than engaged from the outset, and I cannot see how that leads to good planning.
Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, national park authorities were recognised as key partners in preparing regional spatial strategies. That statutory status worked well. It gave clarity and accountability without burdening national parks with inappropriate new powers or undue weight. It is precisely that kind of formal consultative and advisory role that I would like to see the Government restoring in the Bill. Spatial development strategies created in partnership with national parks are far more likely to be better balanced and more coherent, to engage with growth in all its guises and to be more deliverable. I therefore urge the Minister to rethink government policy on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for this amendment. I apologise for not being able to take part in Committee, due to hip surgery. I welcome the inclusion of spatial development strategies as a particularly useful tool for ensuring that larger areas participate in planning for the future. They remind me of the regional development strategies previously in place during my days on the South West of England RDA. Sometimes they worked, sometimes they left much to be desired, but they were a step in the right direction.
When looking at spatial planning on a more holistic basis, it is important to ensure that all those organisations with an interest are consulted. This includes the national parks, which are guardians of environmentally sensitive land across the country. I lived in Somerset for over 50 years and regularly visited Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks. Without proper environmental planning, both these parks would be the poorer, and species often depleted. I now live on the edge of the South Downs National Park and, again, I am extremely concerned that those who manage and look after their beautiful area should have a say in the spatial planning that affects them.
I know from my frequent visits to the Peak District—my husband comes from Derbyshire—that millions of visitors come to the national parks; many of them are overseas visitors. The parks are a vital part of the recreational activities for those who visit, especially for residents of nearby cities and urban constrained areas. The balance between ensuring free access and enjoyment for all visitors who contribute to the green economy and ensuring the survival of the environment and the species that depend on the parks for their survival is vital. Each park will have its own ecosystem, whether that be based on open moorland, peatland, ancient woodland or marshland. Each will have animal and insect species that are indigenous to their area, and the plant life that sustains them. It is therefore vital that the national parks should, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, have a seat at the spatial planning table. At a time when species that the countryside supports are in devastating decline, it is unthinkable for the voice of local national parks not to be heard. I fully support Amendment 87G.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 87G. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests, in particular as a landowner in the Dartmoor National Park.
My noble friend is right to say that national park authorities should be considered fully in the planning process to underpin the importance of protecting national parks. I would be most grateful if the Minister could be very clear on the current role of national parks in the planning process, and I hope she can reassure my noble friends that will continue to be the case in spatial development strategies. I look forward to hearing her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 87G tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can establish strategic planning boards in areas that include a national park. As I explained in Committee, an SDS area is defined in new Section 12A which the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as the area of the strategic planning authority preparing the spatial development strategy. The strategy area encompasses all local authorities, including local planning authorities, such as national park authorities. Therefore, the Secretary of State could already use the power in new Section 12B to establish a strategic planning board covering an area with a national park or part of a national park.
In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the role of the national park authorities, I say that while national park authorities will not sit on boards, they will have a very important role to play in the preparation of spatial development strategies. We will expect boards and other authorities with national parks in their areas to engage closely with national park authorities to ensure these valued areas remain protected. National park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas which will set out policies on the use and development of land. There is no change to the role of the national park authorities in preparing those local plans for their areas.
The strategic planning boards will be established through statutory instruments after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The constituent authorities will be formally consulted on the draft statutory instruments ahead of them coming into force, as is required by new Section 12B(4).
With these explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I see I have not won the argument, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(4A) A spatial development strategy must meet the needs of older and disabled people, through a requirement for new homes to meet the Building Regulations Part M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard or the Part M4(3) wheelchair user dwelling standard, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2214).”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment introduces a requirement for all new homes to comply with the Part M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard, as defined in the Building Regulations 2010, or the higher M4(3) wheelchair user dwelling standard. The amendment aims to ensure that all new housing is inclusive, age-friendly, and suitable for people with varying mobility needs.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 89 and to speak to Amendment 97, which both cover the content of the new spatial development strategies introduced by this Bill.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who moved these amendments in my absence after 2 am during the Committee stage of the Bill. At that time of the night, I do not think full justice could be done to the two amendments which I brought back in this group, again with the support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Young of Cookham.
Amendment 89 would lead to spatial development strategies requiring all new homes to meet Part M4(2) or M4(3) of the building regulations. These building regulations cover accessibility for all new homes—for example, wider doorways and better planned bathrooms—with some of the homes provided at the highest standard necessary for wheelchair users. The campaign for improved accessibility has been led by Habinteg and by the Centre for Ageing Better, supported by the HoME coalition—Housing Made for Everyone. They have championed the need for the 1.5 million new homes planned for this Parliament to be accessible and adaptable, both to meet the very real current needs of 11.6 million people with disabilities of all ages and to create more satisfactory homes—lifetime homes—for all occupiers.
The good news is that the battle for adoption of these building regulations standards was won three years ago when the then Government committed to mandating M4(2) for all new homes, but the bad news is that this commitment has not yet been delivered. There was talk of further technical consultation, but this seems unnecessary now that several authorities have voluntarily adopted M4(2) without encountering problems. If Ministers worry that the higher standard could impede the achievement of the Government’s housing target, it is worth noting that the campaign for all new homes to meet M4(2) and M4(3) simply means more careful design rather than any noticeable increase in cost. This has been demonstrated over many years in London, where the higher standards were introduced a decade ago, but every month that passes, more new homes are built elsewhere that fail to meet accessibility standards, and many of them will require expensive retrofitting later.
In February last year, the Minister asked the then Minister what the likely cost to the public purse would be from the necessity for future adaptations of homes because these improved standards were not built in. She drew attention to increased care costs that will result from
“a lack of the decent, accessible homes”—[Official Report, 5/2/24; col. 1446.]
that, she said, the then Government knew to be needed.
I feel sure the leadership on both the Government and the Opposition Benches will not have changed their minds; no U-turns have been announced. Rather, all concerned have been waiting for the right moment to mandate the long-awaited M4(2) and M4(3). This amendment takes advantage of the opportunity to achieve this by including these standards in all the new spatial development strategies.
The housebuilding industry is already well prepared for this improved accessibility standard, having expected it for some time. Housebuilders have their revised house plans ready to go. From the Dispatch Box, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, told the Bill Committee that
“we will soon outline our approach to accessible new-build housing”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1436.]
I note the word “soon”.
Successive Governments have pledged to change the building regulations and make M4(2) standard, but we have waited in vain so far. The prize remains: if new homes met this standard, there would be payback in reducing numbers of people who cannot be discharged from hospital, in helping those using wheelchairs to have a place of their own, and in making it easier for many older people with mobility problems to get around in their own homes. Can we now take the opportunity before us to make hundreds of thousands of new homes properly accessible at last?
I turn to Amendment 97, with the same cross-party support as for Amendment 89. This amendment would place a requirement on a strategic planning authority when it prepared its spatial development strategy to have regard to the housing needs of our ageing population. This amendment was also moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in Committee, and I am most grateful to her.
The ministerial response in Committee suggested that national guidance should enable spatial development strategies to incorporate this element, but the reality is that for many years, despite general guidance from government, the housing needs of our ageing population have frequently been ignored in planning policies. Precious few local authorities have undertaken full assessments of the housing needs of older people, followed by provision in their local plans, where these plans exist.
I fear this blindness to the importance of planning for older people’s needs may now be replicated at the level of the strategic planning authority. Conversely, since local plans will have to be in conformity with the new spatial development strategies, if the strategies require recognition of the housing needs of older people, this will translate into local plans too.
With no change, supply of accommodation specifically for older people will struggle to reach even the 7,000 to 8,000 new homes per annum of recent years, despite the governmental older people’s housing taskforce estimating that over 30,000 new homes per annum are needed. The APPG on Housing and Care for Older People—I declare my interest as co-chair of that APPG—has recommended that local planning authorities should plan for 10% of new homes supply to be specifically for older people. This amendment would encourage this approach when spatial development strategies were being prepared.
Building homes for older age groups may look like a distraction from meeting the acute needs of young families, but by providing for the older generation, they can right-size to somewhere better for their own health and well-being and release a much-needed home for the next generation. In the social sector, with its ageing tenant population, the building of fully accessible, affordable developments for older people is very likely to mean that precious social rented council and housing association homes immediately become available. This housing for families directly addresses problems of homelessness, saving both families and councils the outrageous costs of temporary accommodation and rescuing families living in grossly overcrowded conditions. Meanwhile, in the owner-occupied sector, one elderly home owner moving to a new retirement apartment can stimulate a chain effect that provides a more suitable home for a long line of movers, leading to a first-time buyer starting on the home ownership ladder. Housing for older people has a multiplier effect that hugely increases its value.
Moreover, the Government have a target of building 1.5 million homes this Parliament; if planners demanded a stream of housing specifically for older people, the buildout of major new developments would be accelerated by enabling parallel construction on the site for the two separate markets. Adding the building of new homes for older people in simultaneous construction means the Government will hit their ambitious housebuilding target sooner.
I am optimistic that there is understanding within government of the need to assess and cater for our ageing population. Hopefully, the forthcoming national housing strategy has something positive to say on this issue. The Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, recently replied encouragingly to a Question on this matter. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassuring news on the guidance that is due on this very important theme. I beg to move Amendment 89.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 91 in my name, which would insert a new subsection in Clause 52, “Spatial development strategies”, which amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
According to the House of Commons Library paper on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, LURB was meant to introduce
“a statutory requirement for LPAs to prepare design codes, in which they set out design requirements for developments in their area”,
but this has not been commenced. At the moment, there is no requirement for a spatial development strategy that specifies an amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing to include a design code for the specified housing development. This seemed an opportune moment to kick-start this part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 into process.
In Committee, I shared Churchill’s quote:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]
Design is so important. Buildings can be beautiful or ugly; they can enhance communities or destroy them. We need quality homes that are sustainable and that, in 200 or 300 years, people will still think are beautiful. Thus, upholding architectural standards and considering aesthetic standards is essential. Our environment has a dramatic impact on our lives, affecting our outlook, our well-being and, most importantly, our mental and general health.
This amendment seeks to rectify these issues by including a design vision into the spatial development strategy. It is vital for high-quality design to be prioritised in the strategic planning process to ensure that new developments meet the practical and visual needs of residents and enhance communities. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, stated in Committee that,
“National planning policy already makes it clear that poor-quality design should not be allowed. Yet the general quality and design standard of much volume housebuilding in this country continues to be poor”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1328.]
While there was lots of discussion about the variety of initiatives and more reviews to come, the Government failed to give an adequate response in Committee on why this section of the LURB has not yet been commenced.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 112. I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Pinnock for pitching in on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the wee small hours as I attempted to get my last train. I was very pleased to support both of the noble Lord’s amendments. I know from experience that housing for older people is still the Cinderella of the sector. I also publicly thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his persistence on the issue to improve homes as we age. Never before has the need for building standard M4(2) been more necessary. It is very short-sighted of successive Governments not to grasp this nettle, because retrofitting, as has been said, is difficult and expensive. I would therefore quote the chant “Why are we waiting?”, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Amendment 91, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, recognises the need for design in spatial development strategies, so I hope that she will support my amendment in the next group.
On Amendment 112, which I also submitted in Committee, I am very pleased to say that we have had some productive meetings with the Minister, who has been generous, as ever, with her time. I truly believe that she understands the key issues, and I hope that she will be able to give us some assurance that the requirements within this amendment can be taken forward somehow. I look forward to her response.
Amendment 112 is a fairly simple amendment, brought to us from Centrepoint, the amazing charity for young homeless people. It is basically saying that, where a particular housing type is being set up for homeless youngsters, it should be permissible to deviate from the nationally described space standards so that the finances stack up and the total model works. Put simply, this new model, which is being called stepping-stone accommodation, provides for smaller accommodation than what would be prescribed, but it is very much more than okay for youngsters leaving care, those who have been sofa surfing or those who are trying to get off the streets. It is their own home, with their own front door. I waxed lyrical about the quality of this accommodation from my visit, and I will not repeat myself. However, it is important to say that it was designed with young people and that they love living there.
The Minister said, in her response to me, that councils, in their plans, can already do this; it is permissible. She is right, and while it is acknowledged that nationally described space standards are not in themselves mandatory, the practical reality has proved to be rather different. Local planning authorities, as a matter of course, look to these standards as the primary point of reference when formulating policy. Consequently, where discretion is left to local interpretation, planning determinations become protracted, frequently extending over a number of years. In Committee, I described cases that involved anything between two and four years of additional time and costs for these charities, which can ill afford to have to pay that extra money.
These are not isolated occurrences. Rather, they reveal a systemic problem in which essential provision for vulnerable young people is stalled by prolonged and often unnecessary debate over standards.
This amendment would allow planning officers and committees to move these applications forward, at speed and with confidence. Estimates indicate that as many as 30,000 of these homes will be required in England alone. It is for this reason that the amendment remains indispensable. By establishing a clear and immediate exemption, it would provide certainty to local authorities, prevent unnecessary obstruction and expedite the delivery of much-needed accommodation.
We hope that the Minister can give Centrepoint and other homelessness charities—which are watching this—some real incentive to continue their excellent work and feel confident when approaching council officers for the exemption from the prescribed national space standards, and to be listened to and supported for this very specific and narrow course. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to make a quick point. If you are trying to build a lot of houses, you have to sell them. The rate of sale determines the rate of building: if you do not sell the houses, the builder goes bankrupt because houses are very expensive to build. As a result, it would open up the market much wider if we incorporated these standards for access, because more people would be in the market who could buy them. It must help the rate of sales, because there is a bigger market. Why not do it? I cannot see why not. We are assured that it does not cost any more to do it, so it seems silly not to.
On smaller houses, people who travel live in caravans and motor homes and are very happy doing that. Why are we trying to be so prescriptive about the size of houses? If you build a house of a size that is going to sell, why not?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, not for the first time in this House, I will strike a slightly contrary note. I believe Amendment 89 is well intentioned but goes a bit too far in calling for all housing to meet the standards set out in M4(2) and M4(3).
M4(2) sets a standard for new homes to be accessible and adaptable, meaning they are designed to be easily adapted for future needs, such as those of an elderly person or those with a temporary disability. It is not a standard for full wheelchair accessibility, which is covered in the much more stringent M4(3) standard. M4(2) requires the dwelling to have features such as the provision for a future stairlift or lift, and may require certain features such as low-level windows.
The regulations were naive in believing that one could build homes that could be easily adapted for wheelchair users. All of us on all sides happily voted these through. It is like motherhood and apple pie: we thought we were doing something helpful for the disabled, and I do not think we took into account the practicalities and the cost. I simply do not believe that you can build these homes to be easily converted for the disabled at the same cost as current homes.
It is not just a matter of level access; it is a whole host of different features. You need wider doors everywhere. Kitchens may have to be ripped out and built at a much lower level for wheelchair users. You cannot have any wall cabinets; there will never be enough space in a kitchen designed for wheelchair users.
As for bathrooms, it is not just a matter of extra grab handles; the whole bathroom needs to be twice to three times the size to fit a wheelchair user. If a wheelchair user is not ambulatory at all and has to be stuck in the wheelchair, you need an absolutely level access shower. That means ripping out the standard shower and putting in a flat one when you might not have the drainage to do it. These are just some of the practical problems I see day to day if one tries to design that in at the beginning. As for space to install a lift—forget it. That would require a massive redesign at potentially enormous cost.
The point is that there are an estimated 1.2 million wheelchair users in the UK. This number includes permanent users and the 400,000 ambulatory users, which includes people like me who can walk a bit, provided we have our chariot wheelchair to help us. Wheelchair users make up roughly 11% of the disabled population. That is why I think it is over the top to call for all housing to be suitable or adapted for wheelchair users when only 11% of the population needs it. Perhaps local authorities should be under an obligation to deliver 15% of wheelchair-accessible or adaptable housing in all new buildings.
Turning briefly to the housing needs of an older generation, I have a simple, one-word solution: bungalows, either detached, semi-detached or even a single-storey terrace. It is believed that about 2 million bungalows were built in the last century, before builders stopped building them, since they take up more space and they can now cram a dozen rabbit hutches of about three storeys high into the same space taken up by one bungalow. In 1987, there were 26,000 new bungalows registered. In 2017, there were only 2,210.
I do not have a solution to that. If builders will not build them, I am loathe to demand that there should be a compulsory quota. Perhaps another slogan for the Secretary of State, in addition to “Build, baby, build”, should be “Bring back bungalows”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 89 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would mean that the homes we build must reflect the needs of our population. In an ageing society and one where the nature of disability is changing, this becomes ever more urgent. Accessibility and adaptability are not luxuries; they are the foundations of a fair and future-proof housing system. We are therefore grateful to the noble Lord for bringing back this important debate on Report and thank him for his tireless work on these issues.
On Amendment 91, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, more homes are important—of course they are—but homes that respect local character, reflect vernacular and are, quite frankly, pleasant to look at are important too. Having scrapped the Office for Place and having not implemented the LURA requirements for design statements alongside local plans in local planning authorities, the Government appear to be riding roughshod over the very principles of good design and placemaking that Parliament sought to embed in legislation.
What are the Government going to do to uphold and protect the principles of design quality, to ensure that places we build are not only affordable and efficient but beautiful, sustainable and built to last? I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, shares this sentiment. She will speak to her Amendment 92 in the next group, which seeks to strengthen the same call.
On Amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, as we said in Committee, stepping-stone accommodation is an idea with real potential and one that speaks to a compassionate and practical approach to housing need. But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of this amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our existing space standards were developed for good reason. They exist to prevent a return to poor-quality housing—the rabbit hutch flats of the past—homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability.
If we are to disapply or adapt such standards in specific cases, we need to do so with clear safeguards in place. The noble Baroness has helpfully proposed a specific minimum size and has begun to flesh out the practicalities of this proposal—that is a constructive way forward. But before we enshrine such figures in legislation, there should be a proper consultation both with the sector and, crucially, with those we seek to serve.
Stepping-stone accommodation could play a valuable role in tackling housing need, but it must be done right. It must offer dignity, not just a stopgap. Above all, it must serve the people it is designed to help, not simply the pressures we have in the system at this time.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments relating to housing design, accessibility and homelessness solutions.
Amendment 89 would require spatial development strategies to ensure that new housing meets the needs of older and disabled people. While I cannot pre-empt the forthcoming national housing strategy, I am sure the Minister in the other place has listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, on the growing importance of ensuring we provide sufficient suitable housing for older people and those with disabilities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not know about bungalows, but at this rate I am going to be given a whole wardrobe of hats to wear, which I look forward to.
The Government firmly believe that providing suitable housing for older adults and people with disabilities is essential to supporting their safety and independence. However, I do not agree that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed to achieve that outcome. Local planning authorities already have the tools to support the delivery of homes that are accessible and adaptable. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that authorities should assess the size, type and tenure of housing required by different groups—including older and disabled people—and set clear policies to address these needs. That is why I spoke earlier about having a sufficient quantity of housing, and local authorities are best placed to assess that need.
Authorities can also apply enhanced technical standards from the building regulations through planning conditions. Where there is clear evidence of local demand, authorities are expected to use these standards to help ensure a sufficient supply of accessible homes. That may include specifying the proportion of new housing built to M4(2) and M4(3) standards. The Bill also already enables strategic planning authorities to address this issue, where it is considered to be of strategic importance to the area. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I absolutely understand those points; as a localism person, obviously I agree with that. However, the key issue is that planning officers are playing “safety first”. Their immediate response is, “No”, for the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, set out earlier. Is there any way we can strengthen the guidance to refer to “stepping stone” accommodation as something that the Government might look favourably on or permit? The current experience is that planning officers are hitting a brick wall each time. I totally understand why it cannot be in the Bill, but I do not see why we cannot put something into guidance that strengthens their arm when they sit down at the first meeting to discuss the matter.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for making those points. The best thing might be to have another meeting outside the Chamber to discuss what we might do. I understand the point she is making; perhaps planning officers are being overly cautious because they do not recognise that they already have such a power. I am happy to meet her outside the Chamber to discuss how we might move forward on that issue. I am very keen that this does not go into the Bill, because if it did, it would risk undermining the work that has been done over many years to improve the space standards that we already have for our homes. They were hard fought for and hard won, so I do not want this proposed provision to undermine them.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support, including from the Minister, both for the extension of M4(2) standards to all homes and for a handful of them to be for full-wheelchair use, such as the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke of.
I say to the noble Lord, however, that we are not talking about ripping out kitchens or showers but about putting in showers or other amenities that work for everybody. This is about having accessible standards for new builds only; this is not about retrofitting existing properties. Just a minority will comply with the M4(3)—full wheelchair—standards, but all homes would be built at least to M4(2). I have been responsible for building a large number of these homes and the use of these standards has not broken the bank, so I know that it is possible. I am grateful for the support for this happening.
The Minister said that the national housing strategy may say something about both accessible housing and housing for older people. I look forward to seeing that and hope that it is entirely positive. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 27th October 2025
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (24 Oct 2025)
21:08 - Division on Amendment 94 - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 137 - Amendment 94 agreed.
21:20 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 139 - Amendment 96 agreed.
22:37 - Division on Amendment 103 - Ayes: 46 / Noes: 133 - Amendment 103 disagreed.
23:16 - Division on Amendment 105 - Ayes: 49 / Noes: 110 - Amendment 105 disagreed.
23:41 - Division on Amendment 107 - Ayes: 24 / Noes: 93 - Amendment 107 disagreed.
Lord Lansley
“(za) an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would secure that a spatial development strategy must include a description of the amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes, which are instrumental in determining the land use and requirements for housing in the strategy area.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 90 relates to the content of the spatial development strategy and seeks to insert into the Bill the requirement that the strategy should include
“an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.
This is alongside the amount or distribution of housing and the amount or distribution of affordable housing. We had this debate in Committee, so I will not dwell at length on the reasons why I think it is necessary. The Committee debate demonstrated that there was widespread support among Members of the Committee for the inclusion of this in a spatial development strategy.
I want to just focus on one issue and one question to the Minister. We have agreed substantially on these issues, not least on the question of joint spatial development strategies back in the debate on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The issue, which I do not think was really raised properly in Committee, is that the spatial development strategy must be, by definition, about a broader area than local plans, and it gives us an opportunity to look in a strategic way at the relationship of travel to work areas, the sites for employment, the transport infrastructure that supports travel to work and the consequences from that of where people will be living, as well as working, which will lead into exactly the questions of the housing need and housing requirements that local plans must allow for in the future.
The Government have completely recognised the case for travel to work areas and the economic geography to be a basis for strategic planning. The English Devolution White Paper talks about strategic authorities being based on that kind of reasonable and functional economic geography, so I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is exactly how strategic development strategies should be compiled.
Anybody who has put together this kind of document in the past—I had something to do with these things when we were working on the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities 20 years ago—knows that that is exactly how one goes about thinking. Even at local plan level, understanding the broader questions of what the prospects look like for employment, industry and logistics is a sound basis for determining the amount and distribution of housing.
The consequential from that is a question to the Minister. Can she tell the House that we do not need to add this to the Bill because the guidance on the spatial development strategy will be explicit and make it very clear that that is the process and that is the way in which spatial development strategies must be constructed? I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as we did in Committee, and in particular to talk about this broader area. My Amendment 92 is similar to that from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, but takes it up to a greater level.
Having grappled with an attempt to do the whole of Hertfordshire, which the Minister will remember—where each district was asking, “What are we for, and what do you want us to do and to be?”—I remember that Stevenage was very much the place for incubator businesses, and an exemplar of that, and we were very much grade-A office. We recognised the need to have that across an area or we would be competing with one another, which was ridiculous.
The key point of my amendment mirrors that and complements it, because we are trying to create sustainable communities, and we all know that that means jobs. There is no point in building shedloads of houses stretching for miles when people have to get in their car even to buy a newspaper and certainly go miles in their car to commute to a job. So, we are on board with that.
I too brought my amendment before this House previously and it is supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The basic principle that the amendment embodies is to require development strategies to include a design vision for the whole area and, as such, it would have to include the things that were mentioned in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. A design vision, as laid out in the amendment, is a clear articulation of what a place should be like in the future, developed with and to meet the needs of the local community. I will not repeat the reasons why this is vital, because I am sure that we all know.
The Minister knows that I have been very clear and vocal in my support for the Government’s move towards strategic planning. It has been missing from planning in any meaningful way for many years. However, I want to address their response when I first brought the amendment before the House—namely, and this will sound like a broken record, that there was no need for the amendment because the guidance already exists through the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code. The reason I want to press my case again is that guidance is incredibly valuable, but it is just that—guidance. I am sure that many noble Lords here today can give countless examples of where poor-quality development has come forward contrary to a development plan. To be absolutely blunt, the pressure on planning officers to grant housing schemes is great. We should not underestimate that. I am sure that we will have all seen, despite officers’ best efforts, some pretty mediocre schemes getting approval or, worse still, agreed on appeal.
The Government have quite rightly been very vocal in their support for good design. The amendment would mean that a vision for good design must be considered throughout the development process. Setting such a precedent can only be a good thing if we want to actively create and shape the places that work for people and contribute positively to their quality of life. For me and these Benches, this is non-negotiable.
Meeting housing need is an urgent task and one that we completely agree with, but doing so in a way that serves people both now and in the future—with design quality at the heart and the forefront of placemaking—is no less than we all deserve. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, because we cannot see good design as a “nice to have”; it has to be something that we accept. It is a “must have”.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, very briefly and without the eloquence of the last two speakers, I want to support Amendment 90 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I live near Magna Park and the junction of the M1 and M6 motorways. I believe that Magna Park is the largest distribution centre in Europe. It seems obvious that a spatial strategy must include infrastructure and distribution. I therefore look forward to the Minister giving the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the assurances that he seeks.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 90, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, speaks to the theme that has run through many of our recent discussions in your Lordships’ House: the importance of how we plan and distribute development for employment, industrial, logistics and commercial purposes, along with housing.
We agree that this is instrumental in determining the appropriate land use and, in turn, the housing requirements across an area. It is vital that the Government set out clearly how they intend to ensure proper alignment between infrastructure provision, job creation, housing developments and the facilities that those residents will need. Without that alignment, we risk producing plans that are unbalanced: areas with homes but no employment, and economic zones with no housing or supporting transport that would make them viable.
I am therefore thankful that this sentiment was shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, when she spoke to her own Amendment 92. She said that a spatial development strategy should have a clear vision for an area and rightly highlighted the importance of design, both at the more strategic level and—as my noble friend Lady Hodgson said earlier—of the individual properties and the area within which they occur. It sounds like we are very much in agreement.
We talk about housing and infrastructure on the face of the Bill. The Minister may say, “Oh, don’t worry, this is all in planning guidance”, but if the Bill is good enough to mention housing and infrastructure then why not also that key component of distribution, industry and commercial space that goes hand in hand with the need for housing?
As I have made clear, we cannot look at housing and infrastructure in isolation. It would be absurd not to look at the distribution of industrial, logistics, commercial, leisure and retail facilities. I ask the Minister for an assurance that these will be included in the spatial development strategies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I address the amendments, I should say that I circulated a diagram of the respective responsibilities of, and links between, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans that I hope was helpful to noble Lords in our consideration of the Bill.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, proposes to expressly allow a spatial development strategy to set out an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistics or commercial purposes. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, but it is not necessary. That is because new Section 12D(1) already requires spatial development strategies to include a statement of the strategic planning authority’s policies, however expressed, on land use and development that are of strategic importance to the strategy area. In fulfilling this requirement, I would expect strategic planning authorities to address employment, industrial, logistics and commercial development needs. That has been demonstrated in, for example, the London Plan, which operates under comparable legislative provisions.
To respond to the noble Lord, I add that our intention is for the National Planning Policy Framework, which we will consult on this year, to set out explicit policies for how employment, industrial, logistics, commercial and other issues are intended to be addressed, including through spatial development strategies. I hope that is helpful.
Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes that spatial development strategies include a design vision for the strategy area developed in collaboration with both the local community and other stakeholders. I have outlined previously in our debates the importance that the Government place on good design of new homes. We would expect any detailed design requirements to be set by local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups through their local and neighbourhood plans, as these will allocate specific sites. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise: I should when I first rose, as it was the first time I spoke on Report today, have drawn attention to my registered interests relating to the chairmanship of development forums in both Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank noble Lords for their support for the amendment. I am very grateful for the additional points that were made.
I am grateful for what the Minister said. I do not doubt that it is possible to put the necessary guidance into the National Planning Policy Framework. Indeed, I hope that when we see the revision of the NPPF before the end of the year we will see something akin to the guidance relating to plan-making but related to the making of spatial development strategies. I humbly say to the Minister what I said previously, along with my noble friend Lord Jamieson, about the importance of relating the question of the amount and distribution of housing to the spatial strategy in relation to employment, industry, logistics and the opportunities for inward investment, frankly. I cannot see any reason why that should not be quite explicit in the NPPF and therefore carried forward into requirements on SDS authorities. It is absolutely in the Government’s interest to do that. If growth is their number one priority, and planning reform is essential to that, then getting spatial development strategies up and running in ways that focus on this would be absolutely at the heart of it.
With those further requests to the Minister for future action, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 93, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, aims to secure the future of England’s chalk streams by enshrining specific protections and standards into our planning regime. As we made clear in Committee, these globally rare ecosystems—there are only 200 in the world—are often referred to as our country’s rainforests in terms of biodiversity and they face genuine risk from piecemeal development and inadequate water management. These are risks that will only intensify without a robust and specific legislative lever.
Relatively recently, I went for a customary walk in a beautiful green space in south-west London, only to discover that the beautiful River Wandle, home to brown trout and kingfishers, had been destroyed by a devastating diesel leak. The Government intend to streamline housebuilding and environmental measures in tandem, but the practical reality is stark.
Chalk streams are uniquely vulnerable. Abstraction of water, chronic pollution and unchecked development have led to tangible declines in many local areas. In 2023, the Liberal Democrats collected data through freedom of information requests, which revealed that one in 10 chalk stream sewage monitors were faulty, with some water companies having much higher rates of broken or uninstalled equipment.
Amendment 93 delivers a targeted solution: a statutory driver for sustainable drainage standards before any development interfaces with public sewers, closing a loophole that currently exists and has allowed cumulative harm to chalk streams. This amendment would ensure that developers are compelled to apply national standards for drainage and water treatment ahead of any permissions, rather than leaving mitigation as an afterthought.
Amendment 94 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich complements this approach, and I thank him for the work he has done on this issue and his environmental expertise, which he has brought to this debate. Amendment 94 tightens oversight and demands full transparency in environmental impact reviews on watercourses at risk, an essential safeguard for communities whose local rivers are too often treated as collateral damage by the planning system’s inertia.
None of us should accept that cleaner, safer waterways are an optional extra and a nice to have. By adopting an amendment on chalk streams and supporting, out of these two amendments, Amendment 94, this House will signal that nature restoration, water quality and sustainable infrastructure are not in competition but can be advanced through co-ordinated and legally binding steps. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments for the sake of our streams and the communities they sustain.
If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich moves to a vote, these Benches will support him. It is right that, with something as crucial as our unique chalk streams, we ask our colleagues in the House of Commons to think again and strengthen and protect in law this ecosystem that is almost unique to England. I hope that this House will unite in voting for Amendment 94 and protecting this rare heritage for future generations.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 94, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for their support. I am most grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who has just spoken so powerfully about her amendment, as well as offering her support for this amendment. Amendment 94 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
Chalk streams, as we have heard, are a very special type of river. Some 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are fed primarily by spring water from the chalk aquifer, not rain, which means that they have clear, cold water and very stable flows. These globally rare habitats are found in a broad sweep from Yorkshire and the Lincolnshire Wolds through Norfolk, the Chilterns, Hampshire and Dorset. The Bure, Glaven, Wensum, Test, Itchen and Meon are river names that come to mind flowing, as they do, through the tapestry of English history and in our literature, such as the River Pang-based Wind in the Willows. They are rich in minerals, especially calcium, and this “base rich” environment supports a distinctive and rich ecology.
It is no wonder that this amendment and a similar one in the other place have received such positive support, including in your Lordships’ Committee. What it seeks to do is such an obvious thing, for what we love, we should desire to protect; what we value, we should safeguard; what is of global significance, we should be deeply proud of.
I am grateful that the Minister responded to my letter to her about my amendment. However, her response was far from reassuring in two ways. First, the Government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as a way of protecting chalk streams. These could, of course, in future be capable of considering, avoiding and otherwise mitigating for direct damage to these habitats, such as occurs from the footprint of a development near a chalk stream. However, to do so, LNRSs will need more bite in the planning system than they currently have. We are still waiting for the regulations designed to do precisely that, placing a duty on local planning authorities to take account of the nature strategy when making planning decisions. We are still waiting for that to be commenced, and it is now a full two years after these regulations were promised in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
Even once the regulations are passed, LNRSs will not be well placed to map, quantify and avoid or mitigate for the offsite impacts of development such as downstream pollution or the additional water that will be abstracted from chalk streams or their aquifers to serve new homes. These very real threats to our chalk streams, over areas much larger than are covered by strategies, cannot be addressed by LNRSs.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I am pleased to add my name to the important amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and to Amendment 92 in this group, because, let us be honest, we are not starting from a good place with chalk streams. As mentioned by my noble friend, the current status of these unique and extremely rare habitats in the UK is poor, with more than three-quarters failing to meet good ecological health standards. This is precisely why the chalk streams became such an important issue for debate in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I remember only too well the same Front Bench colleagues debating long and hard for their protection.
The chalk stream recovery plan, announced by the previous Government, was seen by many, including me, as a good step in the right direction. But here we are again, with chalk streams back in the firing line and, despite the reassurance from the Minister on Report that local nature recovery strategies could propose priorities for their protection,
the problem with our planning system is that it requires local authorities only to have regard to our LNRSs, which is not strong enough to protect these vulnerable habitats. We came across this a number of times in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Those words are etched in my memory.
Also, although the NPPF recognises the importance of irreplaceable habitats, chalk streams, much to my alarm—and, I am sure, to that of many in this House—are not specifically listed as protected habitats. Therefore, they do not have the overarching level of protection in the Bill, through the spatial development strategies, in the same way other protected habitats do. The only hope left, therefore, is the chalk stream nature recovery plan, launched by the previous Government. However, in reply to the question on this asked in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who sadly cannot be here today, the Minister stated that even this is now on hold because it is out of step with the ambitious programme of water reforms proposed by the Government. Perhaps the Minister can say for how long it will be on hold, as a result permitting further damage to occur in these unique freshwater habitats.
I say this because time is of the essence here. As an ecologist, I went back to look at the literature. Research on chalk streams has demonstrated that while removing pollution can result in the improvement of water quality within a month to a few years, ecological recovery can take between 10 and 20 years. The more damage we do, the longer it will take for them to recover.
Lastly, surely there must be some no-go habitats in some of our river catchments, and these chalk streams should be one of them. I therefore urge the Minister to agree to this amendment, within which the spatial development strategy would mandate the sort of responsibilities that lead to the protection and enhancement of these unique and rare chalk stream habitats.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support both amendments. I made a speech in Committee in which I laid out very similar arguments to those put by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I will not repeat them now, except to say that the right reverend Prelate referred to a number of chalk streams in my old constituency of North West Norfolk. These incredible assets—these unique and precious assets—are at risk as we speak. I say to the Minister that neither amendment is particularly demanding. They are quite modest in their overall fabric and intent. If the Government are serious about their environmental credentials, and about trying to do something for the countryside, I urge them, please, to accept these amendments.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the right reverend Prelate’s amendment. I am delighted to see him back in the Chamber; we missed him in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Roborough was absolutely right when he said in Committee that all rivers are important. Yes, that is true, but chalk streams are that bit more important. The reason for that is that we have 85% of the world’s chalk streams. We are custodians for that majority, but 83% of those chalk streams do not meet good ecological standards. We have handled the whole situation very badly. I think we have taken a retrograde step with this Government, who have dispensed with the chalk stream recovery pack, which the noble Baroness just referred to.
I have written to the Minister and told her that I will ask her a number of questions. I have given her forewarning, so I expect replies. In what respect did that chalk stream recovery pack fall short? It was nearly ready to go when the Labour Government took over after winning the election. They could have pressed the button; that chalk stream pack focused on some difficult questions that nobody had fully addressed before, so why have they torpedoed it? What do they propose to do that will be better than that pack had proposed?
Let us go down to some specifics of the pack. It had time-bound commitments to reduce groundwater abstraction on numerous chalk streams which, according to the Environment Agency’s own data, are unsustainably extracted: for example, the Darent in Kent, where over half the rainfall that feeds the river is taken away for public water supply. There was a timescale for getting that right. Will the Government stick with that timescale or will there be something longer? Do the Government have plans to move water abstraction further downstream, rather than at the headwaters of these rivers?
The chalk stream pack also had a timebound commitment to address the hundreds of small sewage works in chalk streams that do not remove phosphorus in the treatment process and where there is currently no policy or incentive to drive investment. What are the Government going to do better to give a good timescale to get all those water treatment plants in good order? The pack also addressed run-off from highways and local roads, which I have spoken about before in your Lordships’ House, and how damaging it can be to chalk streams in particular because of the added silt. The CaBA chalk stream strategy recommends revised best practice guidelines for local councils that give more protection to chalk streams. Do the Government have better plans than that? The pack also put forward solutions to reform the farming rules for water, which are currently ineffective. What are the Government going to do to replace that recommendation?
I did not mention this question when I wrote to the Minister, but I will add it now: how do the Government intend to address the physical dysfunctionality of many chalk streams moved, straightened, dredged or dammed over the centuries and put them back to their natural state? In destroying the hard work of some very good, able and committed people who produced the chalk stream pack, the Government have alienated some potential friends in their effort to improve the environment. How are they going to get friends back onside when, after all that work, they have just dismissed it as though it did not matter? What plans do they have to include such people in the future to try to improve the whole river system for chalk streams? It is no good taking just one little area in one district or county council, because chalk streams do not understand those borders; they flow through lot of different councils. The whole thing has to be tackled on a holistic basis, and the only way to do that is by supporting the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am grateful for their excellent, informative introductions. We on these Benches tabled similar amendments in Committee. The amendments share a vital purpose: to ensure that our planning system gives proper recognition and protection to chalk streams, one of our most distinct and rarest natural habitats. These streams help define our landscapes, support unique biodiversity and supply water to many communities. The amendments would require spatial development strategies to identify and protect chalk streams, setting out the responsibilities for planning authorities in their stewardship.
These are sensible, constructive proposals and I am grateful to those who have tabled and supported them. We will support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich if he divides on his amendment this evening. Will the Minister say whether she considers chalk streams to be irreplaceable habitats, like ancient woodlands, and therefore deserving of similar policy protection? The case for stronger recognition of chalk streams within our planning system is compelling. They are an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage and a globally important asset, and the way we plan for growth must reflect that.
I hope the Minister has heard the House and will be able to accept these amendments, and explain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and my noble friend Lord Caithness have asked, why our chalk stream restoration strategy is on hold.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for Amendments 93 and 94, which propose additional statutory obligations for strategic planning authorities in relation to the identification and safeguarding of chalk streams. With 85% of the world’s chalk streams found in England, these unique water bodies are not just vital ecosystems but are indeed a symbol of our national heritage. The Government are committed to restoring them, which is why we are taking a strategic approach to restoring chalk streams. Working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, the Government will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system so that it is fit for purpose for decades to come. This is essential to restoring chalk streams to better ecological health and addressing the multiple pressures facing these habitats.
Alongside the programme of ambitious reforms, the Government are continuing to deliver vital improvements and investment for chalk streams, including £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream projects. Over the next five years, water companies will spend over £2 billion on chalk stream restoration.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. It is very clear there is a strong feeling within this House that there is a need for something to shift and be enshrined in law. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment in order to hand over and support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich if he decides to press his.
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this important debate and the Minister for her response. However, I am not convinced by her arguments; we cannot wait for a water reform Bill and have these arguments again at that stage. Amendment 94 seeks to protect chalk streams, this precious habitat which we are the custodians of. It aims to restore biodiversity and create a planning system that works with nature, not against it. At present, I am afraid, the Bill before us fails to do this for chalk streams. Thus, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(9A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise development on brownfield land and urban densification.(9B) A spatial development strategy must seek to increase sustainability and community building by minimising travel distances between places of employment, residence and commercial or leisure activities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield and urban densification, and to promote sustainable, mixed communities by reducing travel distances between homes, jobs, and services.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have tried every way possible over a number of years to ensure that brownfield sites are used for development, over and above our precious agricultural land. This is not working, so something addressing it needs to be put in statute. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 96.
Lord Lansley
“12OA Effect of local government organisational changes affecting principal authorities(1) This section applies in the event of any changes to the local government organisational structure made under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that amend— (a) the composition of a strategic planning authority under 12A(2) by means of changes in the structure of a principal authority (as defined in 12A (7)), or(b) the constituent authorities (as defined in 12B (2)) to a strategic planning board.(2) Any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by a strategic planning authority" (under 12A(1)), remains in operation for the strategy area as defined in 12A (4) before the organisational change took effect under subsection (1).(3) Any spatial development strategy that remains in operation under subsection (2) may not be replaced or substantially altered before the expiry of five years after the date of its adoption, subject to subsection (4).(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State issues a direction authorising the alteration or replacement of the existing spatial development strategy.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 97A relates to the situation where local government reorganisation leads to changes in the authorities which constitute the strategic planning authority that is making spatial development strategies in the upcoming months or perhaps years. We did not discuss this in Committee, and in my view time does not permit us to have the substantial discussion that is necessary this evening, as we want to make progress towards other important issues. But I just want to say that there is an issue here that I hope the Government will consider, not least between now and Third Reading, although time is short.
We want spatial development strategies to be strategic. They cannot be strategic if they are made one day and replaced the next. We want the strategic planning authorities to be able to establish a spatial development strategy that subsists for a considerable period. Otherwise, people will have no confidence that they will be able to proceed in local plan making that is, necessarily, statutorily consistent with the spatial development strategy, if the spatial development strategy could be changed at a moment’s notice.
This problem emerges essentially from the prospect of the upper-tier authorities which may well be combined to make strategic authorities or, perhaps more often, divided into unitaries. When they become unitaries, the question of who the strategic planning authority is might be taken to a completely different level. For example, Norfolk and Suffolk, close to me, will be a combined authority next year, so they may be able to make a spatial development strategy. However, in Oxfordshire, which I know well, Oxford County Council may proceed with a spatial development strategy next year, but the county council might be divided into two or even three unitaries in the course of local government reorganisation. What the spatial development strategy is, what the strategic planning authority area is, we do not know.
I am presenting to the Government a problem which has emerged. I am grateful to the County Councils Network for highlighting the nature of the potential problem and the necessity of a solution. The solution is to make it very clear that spatial development strategies, having been adopted, should subsist for five years, as we would normally expect local plans to, unless the Secretary of State makes a direction. The Secretary of State could make a direction where there is an expectation of, for example, a change of political control or something of that kind that necessitates a review of the spatial development strategy.
Having presented the nature of the problem, I hope that the Minister will say that the Government recognise the problem and will find means by which the spatial development strategies, once adopted, can remain in place for a period of time, unless there is a compelling reason for them to be altered or replaced. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very important issue that the Government need to think about, but, as the noble Lord explained, the issue relates not only to the new combined county authorities with a mayor that will be created following reorganisation; it will also affect the metropolitan mayoral authorities, where the mayors will be given the new power for a spatial development strategy but where the constituent local authorities will inevitably have their own local plan, which will not necessarily have any coterminosity in terms of their duration. There is a dual issue for the Government to consider, which is: which has primacy—a constituent authority’s local plan until its term ends, or the spatial development strategy, which might override the local plan, which would then require, presumably, an amended local plan and all the effort that would have to go into that? An important issue has been raised, and I suspect that the Government need to come up with a solution.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on these Benches, we are actually engaging with the industry about this to understand its concerns. I do not want to say anything further on it this evening, apart from expressing my full support for my noble friend Lord Lansley. We will return to this issue for a much fuller discussion in a later group of amendments that we have tabled.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 97A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to ensure that any spatial development strategy that had been prepared by an authority remains in place for the strategy area following the restructure of the strategic planning authority; the strategy could not be replaced or substantially altered within five years of its adoption unless the Secretary of State authorised a strategic planning authority to do so. Given that the Government are currently undertaking an ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in England, I understand why the noble Lord seeks to make provision to account for this and ensure a degree of continuity for an operative spatial development strategy.
However, new Section 12T empowers the Secretary of State to include transitional provisions in strategic planning board regulations. This power complements existing powers to make transitional provision in regulations to reflect changes to local government organisation. If a local government reorganisation leads to uncertainty over the boundaries of a spatial development strategy or its applicability to an area, it is more suitable to address this through tailored transitional provision in regulations rather than through primary legislation. This means that the effects of local government reorganisation can be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Preventing a strategic planning authority from replacing or significantly revising its spatial development strategy until five years after its adoption following local government reorganisation would restrict its ability to respond to major national policy changes or new major investment in its area. Strategic planning authorities are well placed to determine when updates to their strategies are necessary and should retain the discretion to do so. Given this, I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—for their support, and to the Minister for her response. I completely understand that the Minister does not want to close down the possibility of alterations to spatial development strategies, which this might do. I hope that we might look at the transitional provisions, and I hold in my head the thought that if we can see those—in relation to the making of spatial development strategies and the impact of local government reorganisation—and if we have a problem, even if we do not deal with it in this Bill, it would be within the scope of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to be able to deal with it at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 97A.
Lord Lansley
“Neighbourhood priorities statements
12Y Neighbourhood priorities statements(1) Any qualifying body may make a statement, to be known as a “neighbourhood priorities statement”, which summarises what the body considers to be the principal needs and prevailing views, of the community in the neighbourhood area in relation to which the body is authorised, in respect of local development and infrastructure.(2) “Local matters” are such matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe, relating to—(a) development, or the management or use of land, in or affecting the neighbourhood area,(b) the development of housing in the neighbourhood area,(c) the natural environment in the neighbourhood area,(d) development of public spaces in the neighbourhood area, or(e) the infrastructure or facilities available in the neighbourhood area.(3) A qualifying body may modify or revoke a neighbourhood priorities statement that has effect, for the time being, for the neighbourhood area in relation to which the body is authorised.(4) A neighbourhood priorities statement has effect from the time it is published by a relevant local planning authority and ceases to have effect upon such an authority publishing a notice stating that it has been revoked by a qualifying body. (5) A modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement has effect from the time the modification, or modified statement, is published by a relevant local planning authority.(6) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may impose requirements which must be met for a neighbourhood priorities statement, or any modification or revocation of such a statement, to be made or published.(7) Regulations under subsection (6) or section 15LE(2)(k) may provide that a requirement may be met, or (as the case may be) procedure may be complied with, by virtue of things done by a parish council, or other organisation or body, before it becomes a qualifying body.(8) Regulations under subsection (6) and section 15LE must (between them)—(a) require a qualifying body to publish any proposed neighbourhood priorities statement, so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates can comment on the proposed statement before the body makes the statement,(b) require a qualifying body to publish any proposed material modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement, so that people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates can comment on the proposed modification before the body makes the modification,(c) require a relevant local planning authority to publish a neighbourhood priorities statement, if the statement is made in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part,(d) require a relevant local planning authority to publish a notice of the revocation of a neighbourhood priorities statement, if the statement has been revoked in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part, and(e) require a relevant local planning authority, if a modification of a neighbourhood priorities statement is made in accordance with this section and any regulations made under this Part, to publish the modification or a modified statement.(9) Subsection (10) applies if, as a result of a modification of a neighbourhood area under section 61G(6) of the principal Act, a neighbourhood priorities statement relates to more than one neighbourhood area.(10) Any modification, or revocation, of the neighbourhood priorities statement as it has effect for one of those areas does not affect the statement as it has effect in relation to the other area or areas.(11) Regulations under section 61G(11) of the principal Act (designation of areas as neighbourhood areas) may include provision about the consequences of the modification of designations—(a) on proposals for neighbourhood priorities statements, or on neighbourhood priorities statements, that have already been made, or(b) on proposals for the modification of neighbourhood priorities statements, or on modifications of neighbourhood priorities statements, that have already been made.(12) A authority mentioned in subsection (13) is a “relevant local planning authority”, in relation to a neighbourhood priorities statement, if some or all of the neighbourhood area to which the statement relates falls within the area of the authority.(13) The authorities are—(a) a district council,(b) a London borough council, (c) a metropolitan district council,(d) a county council in relation to an area in England for which there is no district council, or(e) the Broads Authority.(14) In this section—“material modification” , in relation to a neighbourhood priorities statement, means a modification which a relevant local planning authority considers—(a) materially affects a summary, in the statement, of any needs or views, of the community in the neighbourhood area, in relation to a local matter, and(b) does not only correct an obvious error or omission;“neighbourhood area” has the meaning given by sections 61G and 61I(1) of the principal Act;“qualifying body” means a parish council or an organisation or body designated as a neighbourhood forum, which is authorised to act in relation to a neighbourhood area as a result of section 61F of the principal Act (whether or not as applied by section 38C of this Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reproduces some of the provision in Schedule 7 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 , not currently in force, creating a power for local councils to produce a neighbourhood priorities statement to inform plan-making and infrastructure provision affecting their neighbourhood.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I hope we can be equally quick about Amendment 99. It is grouped with Amendment 127, on which I am looking forward to hearing, I hope, complementary thoughts about the importance of neighbourhood planning. I do not think we need to debate the importance of neighbourhood planning; we did that in Committee. What we need to do is to find out what the Government are going to do.
Since the Government in relation to their White Paper on English devolution made it clear that they want “effective neighbourhood governance” and since we are going to see unitaries creating what might otherwise be regarded as distance between local communities and the plan-making process, it seems to me that that heightens the importance of neighbourhood development planning and what are called neighbourhood priorities statements, which were included in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act inserting new Section 15K into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
As things stand, the neighbourhood priorities statements have not been brought into force. My first request to the Minister is: will the Government do that? Secondly, can she confirm that the valuable Section 98 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which clarified what should form part of the contents of a neighbourhood development plan, should also be brought into force? I hope that that is not something that Ministers are neglecting to do but are simply trying to bring into force alongside other planning reform changes before we get to the next iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework.
There is a reference in Amendment 108 to Section 100 of the levelling-up Act, which is about the power to require assistance with plan-making, but it is quite clear from paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill that it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act into force, otherwise that part of this Bill would be redundant. So, I have two questions: will the neighbourhood priorities statement be brought into force and when will the neighbourhood development plan be brought into force from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 127 in this group of amendments about neighbourhood planning. It makes, in a much simpler way, the same detailed and principled point about neighbourhood plans as do the detailed amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. My amendment seeks that the Secretary of State
“may only … grant a development consent order where the Secretary of State believes that the application for consent gives due consideration to any relevant neighbourhood plan”.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just pointed to the importance given to neighbourhood governance in the English devolution Bill that has started at the other end of Parliament. He referred also to the debates we had in consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill about the importance of listening to neighbourhood priorities and setting them out, as well as of accepting neighbourhood plans within local plans. I hope that will apply, in a wider way, with development consent orders and strategic plans.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, of the value and importance of neighbourhood plans. They are not blockers to development; they allow local communities to determine their priorities. In many cases, as we have seen since their introduction under the Localism Act 2011, we have seen more rather than less housing, which suggests that, when working with communities, we can deliver better outcomes.
My noble friend Lord Lansley is, once again, right to highlight the value of local councils’ provisions within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. They were designed not only to deliver more homes but to empower local people. I am still none the wiser as to which parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act the Government are in favour of and which they are not. I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten this House.
On Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we have already spoken of the value of local and neighbourhood plans. The sentiment she raised is, once again, of real value to this debate. We on these Benches consider this an important topic. I am conscious of the limited time available on Report to scrutinise these matters further, but I hope that the Minister will set out the Government’s broader views on them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 99 and 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, return to measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. As your Lordships will recall, in Committee, I advised the House that the Government consider that the best time to commence the provisions of Sections 98 and 100 of that Act is alongside our wider reforms to the local plan-making system, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned.
Amendment 108 would advance the date of commencement ahead of those connected reforms, bringing them into force on the day on which the Bill is finally enacted. However, we continue to believe that a co-ordinated approach to commencement will be most helpful to planning authorities and we do not consider there is a case for advancing these provisions ahead of our wider timetable.
Amendment 99 deals with neighbourhood priorities statements. This is another measure provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, so this amendment is not required if we want to bring them into force. However, at this stage, we want to ensure our new local plan-making system is working as it should before considering adding the introduction of neighbourhood priorities statements.
Neighbourhood planning groups are welcome and are encouraged to contribute their views during the preparation of local plans. The expertise developed through the preparation of neighbourhood plans already allows them to make thoughtful and constructive contributions that local authorities should consider carefully. In common with the noble Lord, the Government continue to believe that neighbourhood planning groups can make a valuable contribution across the planning system. However, we are not yet convinced that a statutory approach is required to enable that contribution. As such, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127, which seeks to introduce a requirement into the development consent order process for the Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when determining nationally significant infrastructure projects, and to empower her to limit variations to those plans. Neighbourhood plans are indeed a vital part of the planning system, giving communities a voice in shaping development in their areas. I fully recognise that the spirit of this amendment is rooted in a desire to strengthen that voice, particularly in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects that, as we all know, can have significant local consequences. It reflects a genuine concern that local priorities should not be overlooked in the pursuit of national objectives. However, as I sought to set out during earlier debates, the Government maintain their position that this amendment is unnecessary. The DCO process has been carefully designed to ensure that decisions on NSIPs can balance national priorities with local impacts and be made in a timely manner.
Neighbourhood plans form part of the development plan, which is the starting point in making decisions on planning applications in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. This is well established and, although there are occasions where departures from neighbourhood plans are warranted, it is part of the planning balance with which local planning authorities and planning inspectors are familiar. We recognise that, where a departure from a neighbourhood plan occurs, it can be frustrating for the community. I understand that, but this is part of the planning system working as it should.
For NSIPs, the primary policy framework remains the national policy statements, which set out the need for such projects and provide guidance for both promoters and decision-makers. As noble Lords know, national policy statements are subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I am very confident that the Planning Act 2008 already embeds a sufficient number of safeguards to ensure that local views are considered.
Local communities and authorities can participate in the examination process, submit representations as part of this and provide local impact reports. These processes ensure that information about local concerns, including impacts of the proposed NSIP, is available to the examining authority and the Secretary of State. Local impact reports, along with any other matters deemed important and relevant, including neighbourhood plans, must be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of decision-making.
Where a relevant NPS is in effect, the Secretary of State is legally required to determine applications in accordance with it, unless specific statutory exceptions apply. Introducing an additional requirement, as proposed in this amendment, risks undermining the clear operation of the decision-making obligation on the Secretary of State and could prevent the Government’s objective of building more infrastructure that the country desperately needs.
This amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State be able to make variations to neighbourhood plans. Under the existing process, the Secretary of State does not play any role in approving neighbourhood plans; they are a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of local authorities. This fundamentally underpins local democracy in the planning system. It would therefore not be appropriate to confer powers on the Secretary of State to vary them, as this rightly remains a matter for local communities.
The Government’s position on this matter remains unchanged from Committee. The existing statutory framework already provides the necessary mechanisms to ensure that neighbourhood plans are considered where appropriate. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this short debate. The effect of Amendment 108 on neighbourhood development plans would be to commence them when this Act is passed. I suspect that means it would be commenced in November. I hope the Minister is saying that the Government intend that these provisions commence alongside the new revision of the National Planning Policy Framework that we normally receive as a Christmas present, just before Christmas. There might only be a matter of weeks between those two dates, so I will not stress about that at this stage.
As far as Amendment 99 is concerned, there is still a role for neighbourhood priority statements, but this is absolutely something we can come back to under the English devolution Bill. When we see what effective neighbourhood governance is, that will include an ability to make these statements in relation to development and planning in the area of a given neighbourhood. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Local plans and planning applications: flooding(1) Local plans prepared by local authorities must apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development, taking into account all sources of flood risk and the current and future impacts of climate change, so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property.(2) Local authorities must fulfil their obligations under subsection (1) by—(a) applying the sequential test and then, if necessary, the exception test under subsection (7);(b) safeguarding land from development that is required, or likely to be required, for current or future flood management;(c) using opportunities provided by new development and improvements in green and other infrastructure to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding, (making as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management);(d) where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so that some existing development may not be sustainable in the long-term, seeking opportunities to relocate development, including housing, to more sustainable locations.(3) A sequential risk-based approach should also be taken to individual planning applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding.(4) The sequential test must be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).(5) Applications for some minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the sequential test, nor the exception test, but should still meet the requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments.(6) Having applied the sequential test, if it is not possible for development to be located in areas with a lower risk of flooding (taking into account wider sustainable development objectives), the exception test may have to be applied.(7) To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that—(a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and(b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.(8) Where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in the development plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential test again, but the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposal had not been considered when the test was applied at the plan-making stage, or if more recent information about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account.(9) When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.(10) Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that—(a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location;(b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment;(c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate;(d) any residual risk can be safely managed;(e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Sequential and Exception Tests are planning tools that help (a) ensure new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and (b) make development that is necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. However, these tests are currently only guidance. A statutory basis would help ensure that Local Planning Authorities place due regard on them when preparing Local Plans and considering individual planning applications.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 100 and 101. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for lending her support to Amendment 101.
Amendment 100 sets out a very simple request that the sequential and exception tests be recognised as planning tools that help to
“ensure new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and … make development that is necessary in areas of flood risk safe throughout its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.
Currently, however, these tests are only guidance and are not always being carried out. A statutory basis would help to ensure that local planning authorities placed due regard on them when preparing local plans and considering individual planning applications.
In Amendment 100, I ask the Government to provide clearer statutory guidance on how and when to undertake the sequential and exception tests so that they can be applied by developers and local planning authorities more robustly. In particular, proposed new subsection (7) says:
“To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that … the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and … the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall”.
The reason for bringing this back on Report is very genially to prod the Minister a little bit further. We produced a number of bricks and mortar reports through the auspices of Westminster Sustainable Business Forum. The evidence we took in our third report was, very specifically, repeated accounts of developers providing unsatisfactory site-specific flood risk assessments, and sometimes not performing the sequential or exception tests at all. Therefore, I urge the Minister to ensure that the sequential and exception tests be placed on a statutory footing to make sure that they are carried out.
To give an anecdotal example, a planning application in Yatton, north Somerset, was recently refused by North Somerset Council on the basis that it had failed the sequential test. However, the application was later granted on appeal as the planning inspector concluded that the failure of the test was not a strong enough reason for refusing the application, citing local housing need. I argue to the Minister that there is a very clear and pressing need to place the guidance on a statutory footing.
Amendment 101 states specifically that local planning authorities should
“ensure that the maps included in their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments are based on the most up-to-date flood risk assessments provided by the Environment Agency”.
In 2007, when surface water flooding became an issue for the first time, it was generally considered and concluded by Sir Michael Pitt’s review in 2008 that there was insufficient mapping. There have been developments since then. In particular, I applaud the opening of the joint forecasting centre in Exeter—a joint venture, as I understand it, between the Met Office and the Environment Agency—but much more could be done and drilled down to local street level to assess and give a strategic flood risk as to where the flooding is likely to appear.
The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, Flood Resilience in England, of 13 October states in paragraph 14 that the Floods Resilience Taskforce should begin to implement, no later than 2026, a mechanism to provide
“strategic oversight across all sources of flood risk, fluvial, surface water, coastal, and groundwater, and set national priorities for risk management authorities”.
That is even more important now than before.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I want to say a few words in support of another very sensible flooding-related amendment, Amendment 101 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which I was pleased to add my name. I find it alarming that we seem currently to have a situation where some local authorities are using out-of-date maps that do not reflect the current risk of flooding. For example, in a recent report on flood resilience, the Environmental Audit Committee found that:
“Surface water flooding … remains … often underestimated in development decisions”,
and recognised that in spite of surface water flooding being the most common source of flooding in England, it remains “poorly quantified” and “inconsistently planned for”.
We have an opportunity in this Bill to try to address this gap by strengthening requirements on local authorities to ensure that flood risk assessment maps are updated as soon as reasonably practical after the publication of updated Environment Agency flood risk assessments. In Committee, the Minister said that keeping flood risk assessments up up-to-date is “already expected practice”, but with so many properties still being built in areas of high flood risk, perhaps the Minister can assure us about what more can and will be done to ensure that local authorities are updating their flood risk assessments more regularly to reflect the current risks.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for yet again raising the flag on flooding—all strength to her— and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for adding her name. These amendments are clearly designed to address the escalating risks of flooding by embedding precise statutory safeguards into local planning.
Amendment 100 would convert the existing sequential test and the exception test from mere guidance into a legal requirement for local plans. The effect would be direct. Local authorities would be obliged to locate development according to robust risk-based criteria. Our colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos MP, talked in Committee there at some length on this issue and highlighted the dangers where planning permission is still granted for homes on functional flood plains and high-risk areas, often with households left uninsured and exposed to the heartbreak and terrible experience that we discussed a great deal in Committee. Amendment 100 would also mandate the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems, SUDS, except where demonstrably unsuitable. A lack of statutory backing for SUDS, as the APPG on flooded communities has made clear, continues to compromise local flood resilience.
Amendment 101 speaks to the need for reliable current evidence in planning and stipulates that strategic flood risk assessments, SFRAs, must be based on the latest available data from the Environment Agency. On these Benches, the one question we have about it is the level of burden and expectation on local authorities, which already have so many burdens and expectations, but the further burden on households and families of flood risks and living in homes that are built on flood plains without due care is obviously so significant that we cannot ignore it. These amendments establish enforceable statutory standards and require some practical action, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are sensible and pragmatic proposals. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the risk of flooding is increasing rapidly, and it is happening now. It is therefore entirely right that our planning framework should embed flood risk prevention and resilience more firmly at every stage, from local plans to individual applications, and I hope the Minister will give these amendments serious consideration and can reassure the House that stronger statutory safeguards against flood risk could still be part of this Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 100 proposes placing the sequential and exception tests on a statutory footing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her amendment. We share the view that these policies play a fundamental role in directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, but it is equally fundamental that we retain our ability to adapt the position in response to emerging evidence and changing circumstances. National planning policy already plays a critical role in the planning system, being a framework which both plan-makers and decision-makers must have regard to. Enshrining these tests in statute would not only unnecessarily duplicate the policy but also make it harder to adapt and refine our approach over time. Our policy and guidance do not stand still. Guidance on the flood risk sequential test was updated only last month, and we have committed to publishing an even clearer set of national decision-making policies for consultation by the end of this year. This will include updated policies on flood risk.
Amendment 101, on strategic flood-risk assessment maps, would require local authorities to base their assessments on the most current data from the Environment Agency. As previously outlined to the House, this is already established practice. The Environment Agency updated the national flood risk assessment in 2024 and the flood map for planning in 2025, based on the latest national flood risk assessment data. For the first time, the flood map displays surface-water risk and information on how climate change may affect future flood risk from rivers and seas.
The new national flood risk assessment also allows for continuous improvement of data quality. The Environment Agency intends to update flood risk data quarterly and coastal erosion data annually, as well as refining its modelling to increase data and mapping coverage from 90% to 100%. The Environment Agency also has a long-term strategic partnership with the Met Office, called the Flood Forecasting Centre, which forecasts all natural forms of flooding, including from rivers, surface water, groundwater and the sea, to support national flood resilience in a changing climate. Local authorities must use the latest available data when preparing their assessments, and the Environment Agency routinely updates its flood-mapping tools.
Nevertheless, I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that these concerns are being listened to. The Government are committed to reviewing whether further changes are needed to better manage flood risk and coastal change through the planning system as part of the forthcoming consultation on wider planning reform later this year. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to all those who have spoken, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Grender. I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for her support. I have some reassurance from what the Minister said, but I think she will accept my concern that a sequential test is not carried out in every case. That is why I would prefer a statutory footing, but I heard what she said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, put her finger on it when she said that surface water is the most common source of flooding, yet it is underestimated. There is one question still on the table that I shall keep under review. If there is another water Bill coming down the road, we can return to this to make sure that local authorities have access to the best possible data— I think the Minister in her reply said they do—right down to street level. I welcomed the Flood Forecasting Centre; that has made a huge difference, and I hope that that the quarterly and annual reporting will make a difference. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Amendments to the Localism Act 2011: assets of cultural value(1) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 87 (list of assets of community value)—(a) in subsection (1), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(b) in subsection (2), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(c) in subsection (3), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(d) in subsection (5), after “community” insert “and cultural”, and(e) in subsection (6), after “community” insert “and cultural”.(3) After section 88 (land of community value), insert—“88A Land of cultural value(1) For the purposes of this Chapter but subject to regulations under subsection (2), a building or other land in a local authority's area is land of cultural value if in the opinion of the authority the primary use of that building or land—(a) substantially furthers the cultural well-being or cultural interests of a local community or the nation, or(b) provides a necessary venue for the furthering of specialist cultural skills, including (but not limited to) music venues, recording studios, rehearsal spaces, visual artists’ studios and other creative spaces.(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations—(a) provide that a building or other land is not land of cultural value if the building or other land is specified in the regulations or is of a description specified in the regulations;(b) provide that a building or other land in a local authority's area is not land of cultural value if the local authority or some other person specified in the regulations considers that the building or other land is of a description specified in the regulations.(3) A description specified under subsection (2) may be framed by reference to such matters as the appropriate authority considers appropriate.(4) In relation to any land, those matters include (in particular)—(a) the owner of any estate or interest in any of the land or in other land;(b) any occupier of any of the land or of other land;(c) the nature of any estate or interest in any of the land or in other land;(d) any use to which any of the land or other land has been, is being or could be put;(e) statutory provisions, or things done under statutory provisions, that have effect (or do not have effect) in relation to—(i) any of the land or other land, or(ii) any of the matters within paragraphs (a) to (d);(f) any price, or value for any purpose, of any of the land or other land.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the existing assets of community value scheme to also include assets of cultural value.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 102 would add cultural assets to the existing scheme of assets of community value. We addressed that scheme earlier in Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg. I am grateful too for the supportive correspondence on this from UK Music and the Music Venue Trust. I declare an interest as an officer for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Visual Arts and Artists.
I have made a significant change to this amendment since Committee. Instead of running a separate and parallel scheme, as I previously proposed, cultural assets are more simply added to the community asset scheme, so that it becomes a scheme of assets of community and cultural value. This is then a more modest amendment in terms of cost and administration, but would nevertheless still achieve the intended outcome: to help protect the spaces or buildings where our arts take place and which are so important to local people and the locality, as much as to the country as a whole.
These are also spaces which are presently so much under threat for a variety of reasons. Such spaces include grassroots music venues, 125 of which—16% of England’s total—closed in 2023. We are also talking about rehearsal spaces, recording studios suffering under the pressures of energy costs and business rates, theatres, arts centres and visual artists’ studios, which are becoming increasingly unaffordable to artists at the beginning of their careers.
It can be argued, of course, that “community assets” might include cultural assets. But while there is clearly overlap, cultural spaces are not what the community asset scheme was primarily set up for. There is then a strong argument that the addition of cultural assets to the scheme would considerably strengthen the protection of these spaces, if such spaces are in reality considered to be as much part of the local community fabric as community spaces in the narrower sense.
Of course, needs change for both community and cultural spaces. It therefore needs to be borne in mind that the existing community asset scheme is not a forever scheme. A timescale and flexibility is built into it. The importance of the scheme lies in two things: first, the power to local people that the scheme enables and, secondly, the chance to say, “Hold on, we continue to need this space”. It is the chance to protect something that is in danger of being lost without being replaced, and that chance ought to be demonstrably afforded to cultural spaces as much as to a pub or community hall. Also, the specific addition of cultural assets to the scheme would inevitably draw on other parts of the local community, who would otherwise not be engaged with the powers that the scheme enables. That, surely, is what localism is all about.
Many of your Lordships will have heard the Prime Minister talk yesterday on “Private Passions” on Radio 3 about his love of music and support for the arts, although the action required to protect and develop the arts does not yet match the rhetoric we have now been hearing for some while. In some cases—for instance, with the cuts to DCMS funding—we seem to be going in the opposite direction. The creative industries themselves are identified by this Government as a growth area, and growth is what the Bill is all about. What I propose in this amendment is not a silver bullet but another test of the Government’s commitment— specifically here, to the arts at the local level. It would therefore be a significant step in the right direction. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing his Amendment 102 in the way he did. I was pleased that Amendment 87D, which he signed with my noble friend Lady Coffey, was passed earlier, giving further protections to assets of community value. As the noble Earl says, spelling out the cultural value of assets in our communities is important, not just to protect them for the future but to galvanise enthusiasm while they are there in the community at the moment and to encourage people to use them. I very much support everything that he said in his introduction.
I have the other amendments in this group. Amendments 109 and 110 seek to commence provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that were passed but which have not yet been commenced. At this late hour in our deliberations, it may be rather dispiriting to remind your Lordships that often we spend many hours debating things that we put on the statute book to give the Government powers which they do not yet use. These would be very valuable in the context of the Bill that we are debating today.
One of those powers relates to historic environment records. The Bill, as Ministers keep rightly telling us, intends to usher in a faster, more informed process of granting planning permission and other consents, but that aim will be hard to deliver if the Government do not take advantage of some of the things that were put on the statute book in the last Parliament, including Section 230 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Those provisions set out the requirement on local authorities to provide the historic environment record which underpins a heritage service, including the necessary supplementary regulations by the Secretary of State, so I would welcome an acknowledgement from the Government of the value to what they are trying to achieve in this Bill of supporting the provisions relating to historic environment records found in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It would be good to hear when they might start to take advantage of those powers.
The other amendment in my name, Amendment 111, is about national listed building consent orders. The resourcing for most local planning authorities is notoriously inadequate; it has been for many years under successive Governments, and that is particularly true when it comes to heritage services. Part of the reason for this is that listed building consent has no equivalent of the permitted development, which sets out clear guidelines and expectations and greatly reduces workloads in the rest of the planning system. Every change, major or minor, to any listed building which affects it positively or negatively requires a full listed building consent application. That contributes to a national workload of up to 30,000 applications every year.
A solution to this was proposed by heritage organisations and adopted in primary legislation under the coalition Government in 2013, building on the Penfold review, which was commissioned by the last Labour Government, through the introduction of national listed building consent orders. Those are designed to grant consent for specific, carefully scoped and conditional categories of routine and low-impact interventions, such as repainting, repointing and draught-proofing, which nobody wants to see languishing in the current and cumbersome processes. The concept has been tested, the idea has cross-party support, and one important potential national consent order has been oven-ready for some time now, having been drafted and consulted on by Historic England and the Minister’s own department. That is the one drawn up by the Canal & River Trust, which manages one of the largest collections of listed buildings in the country, essential to the safe operation of our waterways.
For many years, the Canal & River Trust has worked with Historic England and the Government to work on what could be the first national listed building consent operation. But, rather like a canal boat waiting for the lock-keeper to level the waters, it cannot proceed without some assistance, namely from the Government, to provide time for Parliament to consider it. The only barrier here has been procedure. The current requirement in law for measures such as this to receive affirmative resolution has prevented progress, as securing parliamentary time has proved impossible. My Amendment 111 would replace that affirmative procedure with the negative one, ensuring that there is still parliamentary scrutiny while allowing long-prepared consent orders such as this one to move forward.
It is worth noting that listed building consent orders could technically be signed off by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government under Section 60 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act without any parliamentary oversight. My amendment would therefore provide more, not less, scrutiny while unlocking the practical benefits of the system. That is why many across the heritage sector besides the Canal & River Trust consider this amendment essential, not just to deliver the order that has been waiting in the wings for so long but to enable others in future, reducing burdens on local authorities and ensuring efficient management of our heritage.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give clear assurance and a clear date by which we might see that long-prepared consent order from the Canal & River Trust. If she was able to give us assurance that it is going to come before us, I would not need to test the House’s opinion on this and seek to change the law. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to follow two of your Lordships’ House’s leaders in the culture and heritage space and I find myself in a position I am quite often—modestly backing up the excellent work of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has already set out Amendment 102 very clearly. In essence, it fills a gap in terribly important legislation, the Localism Act, in respect of assets of community value. I have gone up and down England and visited many communities where they have saved pubs, they have saved shops, and they have saved places that are terribly important to them, but there is not that explicit recognition of cultural assets, which clearly needs to be there.
Many of the places where this is going to be most important are rural areas, small towns, market towns and coastal towns—places that are really struggling. Those community cultural assets are, as the noble Earl said, of crucial economic value and crucial to quality of life, mental health and the sense of community.
There is a lot of crossover. This is a logical grouping, particularly alongside Amendment 110 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Often, heritage and cultural assets will be one and the same thing in these kinds of communities—the old theatre, the old cinema and places such as that which will now be used in all kinds of different ways. I want to put on the record a really interesting report from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, published on 25 September this year, on the impacts of changes to local authority funding on small to medium heritage organisations. As I said, heritage and culture very often will be the same place.
I should declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association at this point. Local authorities, still the main providers of heritage services, have seen a 49% cut in central government grants and we are seeing a massive overall cut in the form of closures, reduced opening hours and scaling down of public programmes. This is where the community can step in when all else fails—when the local authority simply no longer has any money, which is increasingly the case. The amendment would allow the community to step in very clearly in that cultural space. I know the hour is late, but if the noble Earl wishes to test the opinion of House, we will certainly be behind him.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches wholeheartedly support Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. It is quite sad, if we reflect, that local government formerly would be in a position to support those assets of community value, including those of cultural value, in the days before, say, 2010. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has reminded us, there were very large cuts in funding for local government, so it is no longer able to be what it used to be.
Local government used to be the governance of a community which enabled and encouraged all aspects of community life, as far as it could, to flourish—economically, socially and in community values. That helped communities to come together and stay together. We would not have some of the problems that are raising their ugly head currently if that had not happened. Therefore, we on these Benches support adding buildings of cultural value in the same section as those of community value.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is always the torch-bearer for heritage, and I am right behind him in what he proposes. As we have said on other occasions, heritage makes us as a nation and as a community. Currently, I am helping to fight a local battle about a 325 year-old monument to a woman that has been disregarded, taken down and stored in a highways depot—I might speak to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about it. It is important to me, and it matters to that community because it stands for their heritage and history. These things are very important and we support all of them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, again, we appear to have quite a lot of consensus across the House on these issues of culture and heritage. There is a theme running through these proposals: how our planning system recognises and safeguards that which makes our places special and gives them their identity—our cultural life, our heritage and our historic environment. These are not peripheral concerns; they are central to the quality and distinctiveness of the communities we build.
On Amendment 102 from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, we understand and share the impulse to protect cultural venues and creative spaces, which so often lie at the heart of local cultural economies. These places are cherished by local people, local families and local businesses. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered reviewing the existing scheme under the Localism Act to examine how cultural uses can be better supported within it?
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on the commencement of heritage provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and on the role of historic environment records, are sensible and timely. The heritage clauses of the Act were hard won, and it is only right that they should now be brought into effect without delay. Will the Minister assure the House that this will be the case?
We also agree that there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny of listed building consent orders. We again support the view that existing legislation should be progressed, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Our planning system must enable growth, investment and the delivery of infrastructure, but it must also safeguard that which makes places worth living in.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to mention any international superstar bands this evening for fear of getting myself into any more hot water with the Guardian. However, though it is probably a bit late at night to score political points, I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that her party was in government after 2010 when those funding cuts were made. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, of the same issue. Our Government are committed—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I remind the Minister of the state that her party left the economy in.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does my noble friend recollect that we left an economy growing by 2%; they crashed it with their ludicrous austerity drive in 2010?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It was the austerity programme that kicked the stuffing out of local government’s ability to support the cultural life of our country. I was there, so I remember that happening.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
I thank the Minister for that actually very interesting reply. I would be very grateful if she could write to me about the scheme she mentioned. I re-emphasise that this is about community assets; it is not about cultural assets as such. The whole intention of my amendment was to put them on an equal footing.
I thank everyone who participated in the debate, and for the support for my amendment. I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which seem eminently sensible.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her support, too. I say to her that I do not consider my amendment to be a substitute for the proper funding of our local authorities; I think of them as occupying two completely different parts of the brain, if you like. It is important to re-fund our local authorities, and I hope that this Government will do that in earnest, including funding our regional arts. Our local authorities are our most important funder of the arts in this country, but their funding has been diminished hugely—and not just in recent times.
The hour is late, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Banner
“Principle of proportionality in planning(1) The principle of proportionality in planning shall apply to—(a) applications for any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, including the supporting evidence base,(b) environmental impact assessment and habitats assessment,(c) the exercise of any functions within the scope of the Planning Acts, including but not limited to procedural and substantive decision-making (by local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State), and the preparation and provision of consultation responses (by statutory and non-statutory consultees), and(d) the determination by the Courts of claims for judicial and statutory review.(2) Applications for any permission, consent or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, and appeals against the refusal or non-determination of such applications, must be determined in accordance with the principle of proportionality in planning.(3) So far as it is possible to do so, the Planning Acts and any secondary legislation enacted pursuant to them must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the principle of proportionality in planning.(4) The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made (whether in the plan-making or development control context) and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation (whether by way of planning conditions and obligations, or other regulation whether or not pursuant to the Planning Acts).(5) The Secretary of State may publish guidance on how the principle of proportionality in planning is to be applied.(6) The principle of proportionality in planning must not be interpreted as affecting existing requirements for local planning authorities to justify the refusal or withholding of planning permission.(7) In this section the term “Planning Acts” includes—(a) all primary legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions; and(b) any secondary legislation relating to planning, environmental impact assessment or habitats assessment.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a principle of proportionality in planning to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that less can be more, so as to facilitate more focused decision-making and more effective public participation.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 103 concerns the principle of proportionality in planning. It was debated last week, and I have considered carefully the Minister’s comments. Notwithstanding those, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Banner
“Relationship between overlapping permissionsAfter section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission for development already carried out), insert—“73AA Relationship between overlapping permissions(1) Where there is more than one planning permission which relates to some or all of the same land, the lawfulness of both past and future development carried out pursuant to one of those planning permissions shall be unaffected by the carrying out of development pursuant to another of those planning permissions, except to the extent expressly stated in any of those permissions or in any obligation under section 106 of this Act (planning obligations) related to any of those permissions.(2) Subsection (1) applies only where one of the relevant planning permissions was granted after the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.(3) In this section “planning permission” means—(a) a planning permission under Part 3 of this Act, and(b) a planning permission granted by article 3 (permitted development) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment addresses the potentially deleterious implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, as I said in Committee, there is a compelling and universally acknowledged need for a legislative solution to address the difficulties that large, multi-phase development projects face in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case. This is a technical issue of such fundamental importance that—dare I say it?—it should not be being debated at this time of the evening. The Supreme Court held in Hillside that where there were one or more overlapping permissions relating to the same site, the implementation of the later permission could jeopardise the ability to rely on the earlier permission, even when the later permission was designed and granted on the basis that it would operate in conjunction with the earlier permission. I make no criticism of the Supreme Court’s analysis of the existing legal position, but it is a deeply unsatisfactory position that is recognised as such by everybody in the development sector.
Large multi-stage developments almost always evolve during their build-out, which typically takes several years and sometimes decades. For example, in a large urban regeneration scheme the site-wide permission might envisage offices coming forward on one of the later phases, only for there to be no demand for new offices by the time we get to that phase because of a change in working patterns due, say, to Covid. Reapplying for planning permission for the whole development is impractical for a variety of reasons, such as the need to re-appraise the whole scheme—even the bits that are already built and the bits that are not proposed to be changed—new ecological surveys, new environmental assessment, reassessment of Section 106 contributions, et cetera. This is all incredibly cumbersome and can take years.
It has therefore long been industry practice for developers in this situation to make a localised application, typically called a standalone or drop-in planning permission, seeking the local planning authority’s consent to change one aspect of development—for example, in the illustration that I gave, swapping out the offices for a hotel. The hotel would then come forward under the drop-in permission and the rest of the development would continue to be built out under the original site-wide permission.
The effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment is to introduce very considerable risk and uncertainty in such circumstances because it can mean that implementing the drop-in on the focused area where it is intended to take effect can invalidate the site-wide permission, even though the drop-in has been granted on the basis that it would operate as an amendment to the original scheme. As I explained in Committee, this issue affects huge numbers of developments across the country. While there are sometimes workarounds, they are incomplete, risky, costly, time-consuming and cumbersome.
I know from what was said in Committee and from discussions that the Government accept the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside. It is a no-brainer. They have indicated that officials have expressed some concern with the wording of my original Amendment 105, although they have not articulated what that concern is. This is despite the amendment being drafted largely by Catherine Howard, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer who is now the Chancellor’s planning adviser. As a result, I tabled a new amendment, Amendment 113, which seeks to confer an enabling power on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to deal with this issue. The regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to avoid any concerns about lack of parliamentary scrutiny over the final form of words. It would enshrine the principle, which everybody accepts, and leave the wording to be worked out later with parliamentary scrutiny. What is not to like about that? The two have been packaged together, so one vote will resolve the two.
There has been ongoing engagement with the Minister and her colleagues on this issue, but the Government’s stance has been to say that they will work towards a future legislative solution and in the meantime bring into effect Section 73B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 under the last Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. That is simply not good enough. Addressing Hillside is the single most pressing unresolved issue that the development sector would like to see resolved by this Bill. Speaking as somebody who works day to day in the planning and development sector, this is the amendment everybody is watching. There are people here in this Chamber tonight watching, and people watching online. This is the one that matters.
Section 73B is no panacea; it is far from that. It would allow only quite limited amendments to planning permissions. Its scope is narrow, and it would assist in no more than a third of cases currently affected by Hillside. More is needed. In saying that it will be looked at in a future legislative solution—whenever that would be—beyond Section 73B, the Government clearly accept that further legislation beyond Section 73B is required; otherwise, they would stop at that. No, we are told that it will be looked at in the future—but just not now. An enabling provision would allow for the detailed drafting to be worked up. Therefore, any concerns about the drafting of Amendment 105 do not affect the principle of these amendments.
This is the second piece of planning legislation since the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2022. There was LURA in 2023, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose name is also on this amendment, sought to persuade the House on that occasion that a fuller amendment to deal with Hillside should be brought forward. The industry expects Parliament to step up on this second time of asking and not kick the can down the road again. The industry also expects proper consideration of this amendment. It is a late hour, and about 15% of the House is here right now. I respectfully invite the Minister to provide an assurance that we can bring this back at Third Reading as an alternative to a Division at this late hour, when many people who have a legitimate interest in this matter are not able to be here. Mañana is not an option: we need to do much better than that. Unless I have the assurance that I request, I am inclined to test the opinion of the House, despite this late hour.
I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this, because the Hillside case arose in Merioneth in 1967, where I happened to be the parliamentary candidate in the 1970 election. I remember the considerable controversy there was about the application for 400 houses to be built in the vicinity of Aberdyfi, a scheme that was totally out of proportion to the nature of the community and the village there. It is not surprising that the thing did not go ahead, and it should not have gone ahead.
I assume that what the noble Lord who moved this amendment is seeking is clarity for the sake of the development industry for the future, not any revisiting of the Hillside case itself. In fact, what happened there was that some 41 houses were built, but the rest of the 400 houses were not pursued. The 41 houses that were built were built to planning specifications different to those that had been in the original case. In other words, there were all sorts of complications arising in the Hillside case.
There is also the fact that the Welsh Senedd has powers over planning and has its own rules in the 2015 legislation that it brought through, which brings another dimension in. Therefore, all I seek tonight is to know that, in moving this amendment, the intention is not to be revisiting the Aberdyfi case, which would cause an outrage, but rather to get clarity in the light of the court case, which, of course, I perfectly well understand.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, in the early 1970s when I was a very young barrister practising from chambers in Chester, I had the good fortune to do a lot of planning cases around north Wales and Cheshire. I have not done anything like the number of planning cases done by the very distinguished noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I remember them well and I would have been with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, personally, in being totally opposed to the Hillside development. However, these amendments are not about the Hillside development; they are about a legal principle that emerged in connection with the Hillside development.
In his speech in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, enjoyed a moment of self-sacrifice characteristic of his profession and mine when he revealed that, if these amendments were passed, they would actually remove a very large amount of work from him. He is very distinguished, but he is not the only planning Silk in the country by any means, and he told your Lordships that, between 2022 and 2025, he had written between 200 and 300 opinions on this principle. Many barristers do not write such a number of opinions in the whole of their careers on a whole range of subjects. So it illustrates, because there are many other planning Silks, that this has become an enormously difficult and challenging issue. The noble Lord gave the example of what could have been extremely disruptive to the Liverpool Waters development, which is where the new Everton football stadium is.
I must say that I am very surprised that the Government have not come forward at this stage with an amendment of their own to deal with this situation, because if they do not deal with this now, then they are looking a gift horse in the mouth in the form of, particularly, the second of these amendments, which was drafted to meet whatever objections there were—not very well explained—in relation to Amendment 105.
Hillside has to be dealt with as soon as possible because it is reducing the pace of growth, it is resulting in fewer homes, it is reducing urban quality and it is diminishing neighbourhoods. To refuse to accept these amendments or give an undertaking before the end of Report to produce their own amendment to deal with this issue seems to me to fly in the face of government policy for growth, and I do not begin to understand why. For reasons that were given just now by the noble Lord, using other and existing legislation just will not do the trick.
The Government having accepted the principle of a legislative solution to Hillside, and having been given one that is an improvement even upon Amendment 105, the original version, that the noble Lord said was drafted by the Chancellor’s own planning adviser, it seems to me that this is a total no-brainer. We should not have to vote on this. We should not be here at 11 o’clock discussing this; it should be resolved, and it could be resolved with the assent of the whole House.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have signed my noble friend’s Amendments 105 and 113, and he very kindly referred to the previous debates, before he joined your Lordships’ House, on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill when we looked at the issue and the consequences of Hillside and did so, I think, on the basis of amendments that I tabled at that time. The Government responded to my amendments then by bringing forward their own amendment, which is now Section 73B—Section 73 was inserted by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—as inserted by Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which is about material variations in planning permission.
My original amendment that I tabled—back in 2022, I think—tried to resolve Hillside and say, effectively, that subsequent applications for planning permission would not invalidate an existing planning permission, even though they related to the same area of land, so long as the subsequent planning permission, if permitted, would not make the original permission physically incapable. This is done by reference to what is known as the Pilkington judgment.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook may well recall these debates, and the advice that she received was to try to tackle what I would describe as the least of the problems emerging from Hillside, which is that you arrive at a position where you have got an existing planning permission for a site of the kind my noble friend was describing and you want to vary it but not in a way which is significantly different from the existing permission. That is what Section 73B in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act says: the local planning authority can do this so long as it is not significantly different.
As it happens, that has not been brought into force. On the basis of the helpful discussions I have had with the Minister, it is my expectation that the Government will bring Section 73B into force. If I am incorrect in that, I am sure the Minister would tell me, but I am hoping I am not incorrect about that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, Amendment 105 sets out to deal with all the problems that emerged and, if I may say so, it is ambitious; I have signed it and agree with it, but it is ambitious. It is ambitious to be able to say that, if a local planning authority accepts this new permission in relation to the same area of land as an existing permission, subject to Section 106 obligations et cetera, that is all well and good; they can make that decision, and it does not invalidate the existing permission. If there are difficulties with the wording of Amendment 105, Amendment 113 is a basis for the Government to make further regulations to deal with any of the remaining issues that might emerge from it.
I have to say it is ambitious because it goes beyond Pilkington. Technically, there is an issue, in my view, about a new permission which would make the existing permission no longer physically able to be implemented. However, Amendment 105 seems to me none the less to be right, and we should proceed with it because it deals with a later problem than the Hillside judgment, which is about whether existing planning permissions are severable in relation to a new application for planning permission.
Amendment 105 would put beyond doubt that planning permissions would be severable for this purpose, because the existing planning permission would not be invalidated by the new planning permission, which, clearly, even if it made the original one physically impossible, would do so in relation only to part of the existing permission.
When I first discussed this with Ministers some weeks back, I was told, “It’s not so urgent because they are many workarounds”. I am afraid that the workarounds are deeply costly and difficult. They are such things as breaking down a master plan into a whole series of phases, each phase having to secure planning permission in its own right, without any certainty as to later planning permissions. One needs a master plan with outline planning permission that gives one assurance and certainty about the nature of the overall development. Even if one has to make what are, in effect, material changes to that, at least one has the existing permission. My noble friend’s Amendment 105 would enable developers under those circumstances to have that degree of assurance about the sustainability of the planning permission that they have received, so I strongly support it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will respond to this interesting amendment by saying that there are some technical issues that the Government need to reflect upon, and that there will be a future vehicle. I just ask her to be sympathetic to having a look at this, perhaps between now and Third Reading. I do not think there is any doubt that the Hillside judgment will inevitably have an impact on the objectives of the Bill, which, despite the many amendments we have been debating, is about planning and infrastructure and getting the process through much more quickly than we have in the past.
Clearly, there has been a lot of discussion about a second planning Bill, and no doubt the Hillside judgment could be dealt with in it. I would have thought that, if the Government could deal with it now and in the next few weeks, and between Report and Third Reading, it would benefit the ultimate objectives of what we are seeking to do here.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have now sat through four discussions about the Hillside judgment. I am not sure that I am any the wiser for having done so, except to acknowledge that there is an issue of significant proportions, that it needs to be resolved and that those who have put forward solutions, who know the planning law considerably better than I do, suggest that it needs to be resolved.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about a master plan for a big site—I thought that everybody did master plans for big sites, but maybe not—and that that would be part of a solution to this discussion. My plea to the Minister is that we have a final resolution for the Hillside issue, so that those of us who have sat through it four times already do not have to sit through it again.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Hear, hear to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I had a lot to say but I do not think I need to say it. My noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Lansley, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hunt, have said everything that can be said about this.
The amendments just seek to restore clarity and flexibility, ensuring that large schemes are not paralysed by legal technicalities. They would allow practical adjustments to be made, while fully preserving the principle of proper planning control. Surely that is what we want to deliver. We are not wedded to a precise drafting at this time—the Government are free to bring forward their own version—but I urge the Minister to please get on with it.
Without a clear mechanism to adapt site-wide permissions, investment is stalling and will continue to stall, projects will be abandoned, as they are being abandoned now, and the planning system itself will be discredited by outcomes that make very little sense on the ground. Down on the ground is where they are building houses—there will be fewer houses built, and more houses are needed. We need to get on with it. I urge the Government to commit to a good solution in this Bill and not to push it down the road.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to step into this very knotty lawyer’s wrangle, but it is necessary to do so because our common aim across the House is to sort out Hillside. We all know why we need to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, said, it is symbolic of all the issues that we are trying to get out of the way so that we can get on with the development that this country needs.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for tabling Amendment 105—a repeat of his amendment from Committee that seeks to overturn the Hillside judgment—and for his new Amendment 113, which responds to some very constructive discussions we have had since Committee.
As I said in Committee, we recognise that the Hillside judgment, which confirmed long-established planning case law, has caused real issues with the development industry. In particular, it has cast doubt on the informal practice of using “drop in” permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments that could build out over quite long periods—10 to 20 years.
We have listened carefully to views across the House on this matter, and I appreciate the thoughts of all noble Lords who have spoken in this useful debate. One seasoned planning law commentator—I do not think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banner, or the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—called Hillside a “gnarly issue”, and it has attracted a lot of legal attention. It is very important that we tread carefully but also that we move as quickly as we can on this.
Therefore, in response to the concerns, the Government propose a two-step approach to dealing with Hillside. First, we will implement the provisions from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for a new, more comprehensive route to vary planning permissions—Section 73B. In practice, we want this new route to replace Section 73 as the key means for varying permissions, given that Section 73 has its own limitations, which case law has also highlighted. The use of Section 73B will provide an alternative mechanism to drop-in permissions for many large-scale developments—although we recognise not all.
Secondly, we will explore with the sector the merits of putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing to provide a further alternative. This approach will enable provision to be made to make lawful the continued carrying out of development under the original permission for the large development, addressing the Hillside issue. It will also enable some of the other legal issues with drop-in permissions to be resolved.
In implementing Section 73B and exploring a statutory role for drop-in permissions to deal with change to large-scale developments, I emphasise that we do not want these routes to be used to water down important public benefits from large-scale development, such as the level of affordable housing agreed at the time of the original planning permission. They are about dealing with legitimate variations in a pragmatic way in response to changing circumstances over time.
Amendment 113 seeks to provide an enabling power to address Hillside through affirmative secondary legislation. I recognise that this provision is intended to enable the Government to have continued discussions with the sector and then work up a feasible legislative solution through the regulations. As with all enabling powers, the key issue is whether the provisions are broad enough to deal with the issues likely to emerge from these discussions, as hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Based on the current drafting, this enabling power would not do that. For instance, there have been calls to deal with Hillside in relation to NSIP projects. That would require a wider scope, so we cannot accept the amendment without significant modifications. That is why we think it is best to explore putting drop-in permissions on a statutory footing first and then drawing up the legislation. This will give Parliament time to scrutinise.
To conclude, I hope that the approach I have set out addresses many of the concerns expressed in this debate. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Carlile, I will start by clarifying that this is not about the facts of Hillside. That case is dead; fought and lost. This is about the principle.
I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate the point that it is the common aim of the Government and those of us on this side of the House to resolve Hillside. However, in light of that common aim, I find it baffling that the Government do not take what, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile indicated, is on the silver tray: the enabling power to deal with this.
Dealing with the two-step approach, Section 73B is extremely limited. It is not going to resolve anything like the lion’s share of cases that have Hillside issues. In relation to the suggestion that future statutory provision may be brought forward to deal with Hillside, well, by which Bill? There are all sorts of briefings and counter-rumours and rumours about the planning Act. One even suggested that I was going to write it. If I were, Hillside would be in it, but I have not been commissioned to write it. Clearly, in the absence of any certainty on the timescale, once again we are kicking the can down the road. The kinds of detailed legal points, such as whether NSIPs should apply, are precisely the kind of things that could be resolved between now and Third Reading. The Prime Minister said that the Government’s aim was to back the builders and not the blockers. I would like to see which Members of this House back the builders and which back the blockers, so I would like to test the opinion of this House.
Lord Lansley
“Chief planner(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 1, insert—“1A Local planning authorities: chief planner(1) Each local planning authority must appoint an officer, to be known as chief planner, for the purposes of their functions as a local planning authority.(2) Two or more local planning authorities may, if they consider that the same person can efficiently discharge, for both or all of the planning authorities, the functions of chief planner, concur in the same appointment of a person as chief planner for both or all of these authorities. (3) A local planning authority may not appoint a person as chief planner unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for local planning authorities to appoint a Chief Planner, who could be appointed jointly by one or more authorities, to secure that decisions, including those delegated to officers, are made with professional leadership.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 106 relates to the role of the chief planner. Noble Lords may recall the debate in Committee when we looked at whether there should be a chief planner, statutorily appointed to local planning authorities. The structure of the amendment is that every
“local planning authority must appoint an officer”
as a chief planner, and that:
“Two or more local planning authorities”
can choose to appoint the same person as the chief planner, so it is not necessarily one chief planner per local authority. The only requirement in the legislation would be that it be a person who
“has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role”.
We are not specifying any qualifications for this purpose, given that we know from experience that there can be chief planners who derive their qualifications from work on economic development and planning experience over a number of years.
The reason why we keep bringing this back is that we are committed, I think on all sides of the House, to trying to enhance the planning profession. The Government said in their manifesto that they wanted to recruit an additional 300 planners; we want to go further. The resources for planning have been deficient and, in due course, we need them to be increased. But in addition to resources for planning, we want to ensure that the planning activity itself, and the importance of planning, is thoroughly supported by the statutory role of the chief planner.
Noble Lords will recall that this has been made especially important by the Government’s publication of a plan for a national scheme of delegation. Their own document—I think this was back in July—said that decisions about the allocation of decisions to planning officers or to the planning committee should be made by the chief planner, with a capital C and capital P, together with the chair of the planning committee. The Government effectively said that there will be a chief planner in every local planning authority for this purpose. That makes a great deal of sense because these decisions mean that the chief planner, together with the chair of the planning committee, needs to understand planning law and practice, and the interpretation of the guidance. This will be further reinforced by the publication of national development management policies.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to those of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Shipley and Lord Banner, in support of Amendment 106, which would require local planning authorities to appoint one qualified and experienced person as chief planner. This would recognise the status of the officer responsible for planning matters in each local authority, as promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute. In Committee, I noted the importance of according proper authority and recognition to the individual at the head of this vital part of the planning system. After many years of cuts in the resources for planning and a general tendency to blame planners for the inevitably slow planning processes that have resulted, there is now a renewed recognition of the value of planning and therefore of those responsible for it.
In Scotland, legislation accords a statutory status to the Chief Planning Officer, with guidance from the Scottish Government on the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skills and experience required. I spoke last week to the chief planner for Glasgow City Council, who noted the importance of having one fully qualified person holding the position of chief planner, not least in enabling everyone to identify who is the key person responsible for planning matters. This is a devolved matter for the Welsh Government; I spoke to an experienced planner in Wales last week and heard of the keenness in Wales for a similar measure to that addressed by this amendment.
Raising the significance of the individual with overarching responsibility for planning, regulation and policy within local planning authorities becomes all the more important now that the Bill accords greater delegation of planning decisions to officers, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I was encouraged by the Minister, who responded in Committee by expressing a willingness to reflect on the issue and consider it further. I hope she now feels able to accept this amendment, cost-free for the Government, which would represent an important public recognition of the significance of planning once again. I am delighted to support the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I hope the Minister will be in a frame of mind to accept the amendment that I too have signed. The case has been very amply made by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Best, and I will seek to be brief as I possibly can. I believe that the Government will not deliver the objectives of the Bill unless they raise the status of planning within local authorities, and I believe it should be a statutory requirement, as it has been in Scotland since April 2024, for there to be chief planning officers in each local planning authority reporting directly to chief executives.
The reasons have been clearly stated both now and in Committee: good decision-making in planning requires well-qualified and professional planning officers at a very senior level who can integrate development management and development planning.
As we have heard, given that more decisions are going to be delegated to officers, the public interest, I think, requires that the quality of decision-making be sound and must generate great confidence within the general public. I think that this amendment would actually deliver that objective. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said a moment ago, a chief planning officer would be an authoritative source of advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just said, there is a new recognition of the value of planning in local government, which will deliver this Bill—it can deliver this Bill—but only if the status of planning has been enhanced. The key way to do it is to have a statutory chief planning officer in each local planning authority.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I support this very sensible amendment. We need to ensure that every local authority has the support of a professional, well-qualified head of planning—a chief planner. If we are going to have sensible planning, we need this. I recall a comment earlier—but I do not remember who said it—about the hydra of planning; it becomes more and more complex, and this Bill, frankly, is not helping particularly. Having a qualified head of planning, a chief planner, is critical if we are going to maintain and develop planning, as other noble Lords have said. I do not think I need to say any more—I am just puzzled why the Government are not accepting this.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks—as we have heard—to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I have also discussed this issue further with the noble Lord, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, and I agree it is important for planners to be represented in the leadership of local authorities, I do not consider it to be a matter which we should legislate for at this time.
There are currently more than 300 local planning authorities in England, which vary considerably in the scale and scope of their planning functions. We think it is important for local authorities to be able to determine how best to organise their planning functions, and in practice the role of a chief planner or equivalent already exists. The role of a chief planner is very different within a large unitary authority, such as Cornwall —a county authority which focuses principally on mineral and waste planning matters—and a small district authority.
However, as I said in Committee, I will keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system, and it is something I can discuss with local authorities. With this reassurance, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, not least for her time in discussing these matters. I do not think we have moved forward, but we continue to be in a position where she has very kindly offered to continue to reflect on this and, indeed, to consult. Maybe, the route forward is for there to be, if not formal, certainly some informal discussion with local authorities about this.
It seems to me—it is getting to be a bit of a theme of mine this evening—that as we enter into the planning reforms, and indeed the local government reorganisation, it will change the nature of the responsibilities of local planning authorities. Increasingly, given the position where the planning function occupies a leading role in relation to a range of issues, including infrastructure strategies and economic development activities, it would continue to be a desirable step forward for there to be, as part of the suite of chief officers of any local planning authority, a planner at the heart of their functions.
That said, if the Minister is willing to continue to reflect, and we have the standby option that we can revisit this in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it seems to me that we can, because it will be within the scope of the reorganisation of local government to think about who the statutory officers of those authorities should be—I will take the opportunity this evening, it being a late hour, not to press this at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 106.
Lord Addington
“Preservation of playing fields and pitches(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development, or(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing field” and “playing pitch” have the same definitions as in Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/2184).”
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I discussed this at the beginning of the day and ruminated long on what the Minister said. I am afraid it does not meet my objections. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
“Parliamentary procedure for listed building consent orders(1) In section 93 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (regulations and orders), in subsection (5), after “section” insert “26C,”.(2) In Schedule 17 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (heritage planning regulation), in paragraph 18, omit sub-paragraph (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for national Listed Building Consent Orders made under Section 26C of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her written response to my amendment. In it, she pointed out that Parliament had decided to use the affirmative procedure in the scrutiny of national listed building consent orders. I hope that she will accept that, in the grey area in which we find ourselves while these are not yet being used and parliamentary time has not been given to bring them forward, the Secretary of State can, without any parliamentary scrutiny, approve these consent orders under Section 60 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. Therefore, the argument she makes is that we find ourselves in a worse position.
If it were not such a late hour, and if I did not know the opinion of the House, I would seek to test it—I think I know what the answer would be if I were to put it to a vote. I will not move the amendment, but I hope that, as she has on two areas of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Minister will encourage colleagues to proceed with some speed here. This is a measure that I genuinely believe aligns with the aims of the Bill to help slash bureaucracy, speed up planning decisions and protect our heritage at the same time. With that, I will not move Amendment 111.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 29th October 2025
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-IV(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
12:49 - Division on Amendment 117 - Ayes: 97 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 117 disagreed.
13:01 - Division on Amendment 119 - Ayes: 133 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 119 disagreed.
Lord Ravensdale
“Duties in relation to mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in relation to planning(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in preparing—(a) national policy, planning policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,(b) a national development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.(2) A planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the planning Acts shall have special regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change.(3) When making a planning decision relating to development arising from an application for planning permission, the making of a development order granting planning permission or an approval pursuant to a development order granting planning permission, a relevant planning authority (as defined in section 91 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023) must have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.(4) For the purposes of interpretation of this section“the mitigation of climate change” includes the achievement of—(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(c) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets)(5) “adaptation to climate change” includes—(a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(b) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause places a duty on the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities respectively to have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change with respect to national policy, local plan-making and planning decisions.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank my supporters on this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter. I also thank the Minister for all the engagement we have had on this issue between Committee and Report. I feel a slight sense of déjà vu bringing this amendment before the House, because it is very similar to one tabled to the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill a few years back. We have made some really good progress in the intervening period across both guidance and legislation. I will concentrate my remarks on some of the issues I have discussed with the Minister between Committee and Report. I think we and the Government agree on the general direction of travel; our differences may be in how this should be implemented.
I come back to the point raised by the Government that we now have guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework, which is really positive, that climate and nature should be considered within planning decisions. The difference between having the duty in the NPPF and having the special regard duty in statute is that, with the NPPF, a climate and nature duty is just one consideration among many others for decision-makers on the ground to take account of. It does not have any elevated weight within the planning system. This is quite analogous to issues I have talked about earlier in Committee around duties on regulators; at the moment, regulators do not have that specific strategic direction in line with the Government’s goals, which has led to some of the issues around consenting of large infra- structure, for example. Our duty, using that “special regard” wording, would effectively prioritise or upweight climate within the planning system, which would really make a difference in ensuring that it is adequately considered. That is the core of our difference with the Government. They need to consider how climate can be better embedded and have weight within the planning system.
The other area we have talked about is the concern around litigation and possible legal cases in the court because of an amendment such as this. Actually, since this amendment was first debated during the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, around eight other legislative or regulatory frameworks—ranging from pension scheme trustees to financial regulators, NHS trusts, Ofgem, the Crown Estate, Great British Energy and Ofwat—now have climate and nature duties. As far as I am aware, that has not resulted in any legal cases. On the contrary, the feedback from organisations with these duties appears to demonstrate that they are effectively driving the decision-making and delivery of climate and nature-friendly policies and strategies in these institutions.
The amendment has been reviewed by planning and legal experts and has been derisked by using that well-established legal term “special regard”, which has been tried and tested in the courts over many years in relation to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It also provides clarity. We have had a number of cases go through the courts that are stopping sustainable developments in the UK. It would go in the reverse direction and provide welcome clarity to the planning system. The amendment has had wide support, including from the Chartered Institute of Housing, Rights Community Action, UK100 and the Town and Country Planning Association.
We have a potential way forward here in that the National Planning Policy Framework, is being updated between now and the end of the year. There is a good opportunity here for the Government to consider the wording of the NPPF in the updates they are making. I have proposed some wording to the Minister for how the NPPF could be updated to go back to that point about adding weight to climate and environment within the planning system. If the Minister could consider those updates in the revision to the NPPF and meet me and other stakeholders after the passage of the Bill, that would be a good step forward and a good way to address the outcomes aimed at by this amendment.
In the final analysis, this is about letting local authorities get on with the job of building sustainable developments and infrastructure right across the country to support growth and support our climate and nature targets. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, when I saw Amendments 206 and 114, I knew that I had to table my Amendment 121F, so that biodiversity was not forgotten again as all attention focused on climate change. I say again, and for the last time on this Bill, that with enormous political will and expenditure, it is possible to reverse climate change, but when a species is lost, it is gone forever.
Local authorities have no locus on climate change—no climate change laws apply to them—but they have many obligations under the Environment Act 2021 to save biodiversity. Therefore, I risk saying to the distinguished and noble Lords who have signed Amendment 114, and are far more expert on this matter than I am, that my amendment is more important than theirs.
Proposed new subsection (2) is, I would assert, rather vague. It states:
“A planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the planning Acts shall have special regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change”.
I think the Government already have all the powers and housing regulations to impose standards on insulation, heat pumps and issues relating to net-zero targets. Indeed, a House of Commons 2023 report stated that the role of local authorities is already defined, namely:
“Implementing enforcing minimum energy efficiency standards for new builds … Delivering funding to retrofit existing homes and improve their energy efficiency … Shaping housing, infrastructure and renewable energy development in their area in their role as local planning authorities … Developing and delivering heat network connections … Encouraging active travel, decarbonising public transport and installing public chargepoints for electric vehicles”.
That is why I say that Amendment 114 is unnecessary.
Although there is only one target on climate change—net zero by 2050—the UK has 23 targets on halting and reversing biodiversity loss. They were published in March, as referred to in my amendment, in the policy paper Blueprint for Halting and Reversing Biodiversity Loss: the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030, which is the UK plan to implement the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, agreed in 2022, in which the UK played a leading role and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee played a very important role.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 206 and apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as I might add more ad nauseam to the debate. I very much take his point on biodiversity; of course, climate change and biodiversity are not either/or. They are interlinked, interconnected and completely dependent on each other. I very much welcome his amendment and the other amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, in this group.
My amendment gives a duty to have regard to the Climate Change Act. This is a light-touch, non-prescriptive amendment, but it is a vital step to ensure that all of our planning and infrastructure decisions are aligned with our binding climate targets and commitments. The Climate Change Act sets a clear target for us to get to net zero and it is important that these targets are not held with the Government. I also support the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which is making its way through this House. Too much in the original Act is still too centralised around government. The Government need everybody’s help to ensure that we make the progress we need to make in the little time we have left to do it on these matters. That means that we need devolution of these responsibilities. The Government need to work in partnership with all these associated bodies and authorities to make sure that all this urgent action that we have to take can get done.
My amendment is not prescriptive; it is not telling the Government what to do. I think it has power, because it would be a general overarching duty—and a light-touch one, as I say. We know that our infrastructure and buildings contribute significantly to our carbon. We also know that, if we do not get this stuff right in the face of a warming planet, we will have roads that flood, railways that do not work, houses not fit for people to live in in a warmed climate, greater health and other inequalities, greater illness and an inability to conduct the business of state and to lead our lives in the way that we want to. This stuff is not a “nice to have” and it is not additional; this has to be core and fundamental to what we are building today, to make sure that it still works and is fit for purpose tomorrow. This is not just a “nice to have”; this is essential. I do not think that this is overly prescriptive. It would not in any way prevent the Government reaching the growth and progress that they want. We share that goal as well, but we have to make sure that the things we build today are fit for purpose, have a lifespan and can achieve their desired outcomes.
I also greatly welcome Amendment 114. I recognise the wording in this amendment, which is crucial. The “special regard” wording is important. I note that the noble Lord said that it has been through a number of processes to make sure that the wording works. It is important that the Government bring forward more guidance on the NPPF and that it is updated as part of the broader suite of documents on planning.
I also support Amendment 121F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. To go back to where I started, we must not forget about biodiversity in these matters. It is important and the noble Lord is correct that, when species go, they are gone forever—they will not come back and we are the worse off for that. I will bear in mind his comments that they must not be an afterthought, and I hope that we can continue to all work together on these matters.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 114 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, to which I have added my name. I thank my noble friend for his excellent introduction to the amendment and also for his hard work in the background with the Minister. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment, which I support—it has a similar intent to Amendment 114—and I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his reminder that biodiversity is also important. I was a little surprised, in fact, because when we debated my Private Member’s Bill, which placed a climate and nature duty on all public authorities, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was not totally supportive. Perhaps in the meantime he has reflected and come to my side—I welcome him.
I want to make one specific point, because I do not want to extend the debate beyond the limited time that we have. I will focus on an illustrative example to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already alluded: the problem of overheating in buildings. We should all remember that the climate change agenda is not just about mitigation, but adaptation; so there are in fact multiple targets. The Government are committed to net zero by 2050 on the mitigation side, but they have also committed in a variety of ways to adapting us to the inevitable consequences of climate change, however good we are at mitigating it. One aspect of adaptation is to future-proof our buildings in the face of more extreme climate events.
I make particular reference to overheating because, in Committee in September, I asked the Minister how many homes being built today are resilient in the face of overheating, which is highly likely to become increasingly important. The noble Baroness kindly wrote to me on 18 September to answer the question, and the short answer is that in 2025, roughly 50% of new homes are future-proofed in relation to heating. That means that half the people who have bought new homes will find them very hard to live in during the decade ahead. That is shocking. We should be really embarrassed about allowing people to spend their valuable money on homes that will be unsuitable in the decades to come.
However, the Minister also pointed out that Part O of the building regulations introduced in 2021 requires new residential buildings to be built in a way that reduces the risk of overheating. The letter goes on to explain how that is done, and it includes making windows that can be opened when outside temperatures are cooler. When outside temperatures do not get cooler—when it is 25 degrees at night and 39 degrees in the day—opening windows will not help you: the ingress of heat must be prevented during the day. Therefore, although Part O of the building regulations alludes to making buildings resilient in the face of excess heat, it does not go far enough.
The recent letter from the Adaptation Committee to Emma Hardy, the Environment Minister, written by my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge—my successor as chair of that committee—emphasises that the risks of overheating will double in the decades ahead. In the foreseeable future, there is an 80% chance of extreme heat in the summer in this country. It is unacceptable for us to allow builders to build houses, and indeed other public buildings such as hospitals and schools, that are not resilient in the face of excess heating. I hope that the Minister will go back and discuss with her officials how we can strengthen the building regulations, or the NPPF, to ensure absolutely that people do not move into new homes or new public buildings today that will be unhabitable in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly add one further point to the support for Amendment 114, to which I put my name. I am sure the Minister will tell us that local authorities and Ministers already have responsibilities for the roles outlined in the amendment, including in the NPPF, but this would bring the responsibility up to date and in one place. In these times, when one could infer from “build, baby, build” that only development matters and nothing else, this amendment would provide clarity and a long overdue appropriate sense of the importance of balance.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments at this stage of the Bill and, clearly, we are heading towards Part 3. I am trying to understand why bringing aspects of this into primary legislation is necessary, given existing legislation and, indeed, a plethora of programmes put in place by government. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 121F, because we were successful with the Environment Act, and we put in place a biodiversity duty through regulation, similar to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to do with Amendment 206 in applying the Climate Change Act. But there are very different circumstances here. Through climate change and carbon budgets, we have national programmes that in effect already control what is happening for local authorities in carrying out their duties. When it comes to biodiversity, what is significant is quite how different parts of the United Kingdom are—or, in this case, in terms of the legislation in England. The beauty of the local nature recovery strategies—which we are yearning to get into place—is that the principal thing a local authority can do is to decide how land is used, and what planning permissions are granted to enhance biodiversity. That is the whole point behind the local nature recovery strategies.
There is merit in my noble friend’s amendment trying to link that directly—in primary legislation, not a regulation—to the achievement of the requirements of the 2021 Act, to achieve, in effect, the stopping of the halting of biodiversity by 2030. Combining the direct links and helping local councils to continue to navigate that way is why I think there is a lot of merit in Amendment 121F. If my noble friend Lord Blencathra were to consider testing the opinion of the House on it, I would of course support him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond on this group of amendments, I convey my get-well wishes to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, who, as noble Lords will realise, very much hoped to be here with us today, but unfortunately is unwell. I know that she wanted to take part in today’s discussions. We all send her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I am grateful to hear the passion around the Chamber on both climate change and biodiversity, and the healthy tension that seems to have arisen between the two in this morning’s discussion. The key issue is that they are, of course, interdependent, and we have to consider both.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Amendment 114, which seeks to require the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in national planning policy, local plans and planning decisions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject and other matters concerning the Bill.
We support the principle that both central and local government should be held to a high standard of accountability in considering climate change throughout the planning system. Of course, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that local government has a vital role in all this. However, as made clear in previous debates, planning policy and existing statutory requirements already cover much of the content of this amendment. For example, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires local planning authorities to include in their local plans policies that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. There is also a requirement in the Environment Act 2021 that environmental factors are considered in the planning system. It also includes the environmental principles duty, which applies to Ministers when making policy.
Furthermore, the Environment Agency produces the flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, in line with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which all risk management authorities, such as district councils, lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards, are required to act in accordance with.
The National Planning Policy Framework incorporates the principles of sustainable development, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. We have committed to consulting this year on a clearer set of national policies to support decision-making. This will fully recognise the importance of the issue, set out more explicit principles to be followed in the planning system and include further consideration of how the planning system can best address and respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation. I encourage the noble Lord to engage with this consultation when it is launched. The exact wording of these policies and how they interact with other policies in the NPPF will need to be subject to careful consideration, so it would not be appropriate to commit to a specific wording in advance of this or prior to the public consultation that needs to take place.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about overheating. As he will know, we always keep building regulations under review, but I will take his comments back to the team about what more we need to do to promote the issues around overheating and how we deal with it.
It is crucial that we address climate change in an effective way that avoids being unnecessarily disruptive or giving rise to excess litigation. A legal obligation to give special regard to climate change across the planning system risks opening many decisions to potential legal challenges, especially given how broad climate change is as a concept. I understand the noble Lord’s good intentions, but there is a very real risk that the potential for legal challenge opened by this amendment could impede the production of the policies and decision-making needed to tackle this important issue.
I should stress that, although planning policies do not at present carry specific legal weight in decision-making, this should not obscure the significant influence they carry in the operation of the planning system as important material considerations that must be taken into account where they are relevant. I have written to all noble Lords on this matter.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions related to the NPPF, and I am happy to continue meeting him about that. Although we agree that climate change is an extremely serious matter in the context of planning, I hope your Lordships will agree that the approach I have set out is the more appropriate route to ensuring that this happens. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 121F, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 when preparing national planning policy. It also seeks to require relevant planning authorities to have special regard to the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan for 2030. I welcome the principle of the amendment, as it seeks to embed the environment in planning policy. However, it is unnecessary because it duplicates existing legislation. When setting policy, Ministers must have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement. This applies to all new policy, including planning policy. It sets out a robust framework on how to embed environmental decision-making into policy-making.
Current national planning policy is clear that local development plans and individual planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment, including by protecting sites of biodiversity value. Individual planning applications are assessed against national policies to ensure that decisions are made considering the natural environment. For example, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.
Where relevant, legislation such as the environmental impact assessment regulations and habitats regulations also applies, which ensures that the environmental impacts of individual planning applications are considered thoroughly before relevant planning authorities decide whether to grant consent. Local development plans themselves are subject to strategic environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, which require the likely significant effects of a plan or programme to be reported and include reference to biodiversity.
As the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 says, we have created
“powerful new tools such as Biodiversity Net Gain in England, a mandatory approach to development which makes sure that habitats for wildlife are left in a measurably better state than they were before the development”.
I therefore trust that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, agrees that existing legislation and policy is in place and this amendment is not needed. I ask him to consider not pressing his amendment.
Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require those performing functions under Part 3 to have regard to the Climate Change Act 2008. I recognise that the noble Earl is seeking to deepen engagement with the Climate Change Act but suggest that the existing approach in the Bill is sufficient to ensure that such matters are properly considered where appropriate.
Clause 88(3) already requires Natural England or the Secretary of State to have regard to relevant strategies and plans, which would include the Climate Change Act where it was relevant to an EDP. This ensures that the Climate Change Act is factored in where appropriate but avoids adding undue burden to the preparation of EDPs where it is not relevant. The noble Earl will be aware of the wider consideration of the Climate Change Act throughout the planning process, so I hope he understands why including explicit consideration in the EDP process in this way is not necessary. On that basis, I hope he feels able not to press his amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, provided an excellent sum-up about climate change not being the only game in town. That is an important consideration, which is why I attempted in my Amendment 114 to join things up and include the Environment Act alongside climate change considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also made an important point about systems join-up and said that we need to consider adaptation very strongly as well in how we take all this forward.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. She listed a number of other areas of legislation and guidance in which this issue is mentioned. But, of course, that is partly the point of this amendment—that it would provide a link-up between all the scattered mentions of climate and environment throughout the existing legislation and guidance.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the “special regard” wording has been well tested in respect of heritage buildings. I recognise that it is already reflected but I am trying to drive at the fact that it needs weight within the planning system.
I am encouraged by what the Minister had to say about the NPPF and the opportunity to engage with that process. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Local plan compliance with Habitats Regulations assessmentsWhen developing a local plan, a local planning authority must—(a) consider whether the plan complies with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012); and(b) conduct strategic environmental impact assessments for all sites being proposed as suitable for development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable local plans to guide developers towards sites most appropriate for development and speed up and simplify the subsequent planning application process by conducting Habitats Regulations strategic environmental assessments at local plan stage
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I have retabled slightly amended versions of Amendments 115 and 116, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. These amendments try to ensure that compliance with habitats regulations assessments happens earlier in the process, at the local plan and spatial development strategy stage. This would better direct development away from the most vulnerable habitats and would help speed up the pre-planning process for developers by enabling them to focus on sites that are more suitable for development.
This approach is very much in line with conversations I had a number of years ago when, as a biodiversity scientist in Oxford, I was asked to provide advice to senior officials from a certain extractive industry. They made the point that, in looking for areas in which to work, they often get extractive rights for around 10 kilometres but their footprint is only half a kilometre. I asked them what information they needed from us biodiversity scientists, and the answer was, “We want to know, where can we damage?” As a biodiversity scientist, I was slightly alarmed by that reply, but that is the nub of the problem, and it is a really good question. Can we inform people before the pre-planning stage which areas are suitable for development and which are not, based on the ecological risk they would carry if they were damaged? This is about looking in a totally different way at where to put our energies, and it would do what it did for those extractive industries and provide, in this Bill, a pragmatic and fast way for developers to move on.
These two amendments are very much in line with that sentiment. We already have in place a mechanism that should be doing this—land use frameworks— but in the absence of that, I bring forward my Amendment 115. It would provide that, when developing their local plans, local authorities must consider the habitats regulations and conduct strategic environmental assessments for all sites proposed for development. Amendment 116 seeks to ensure the same with spatial development strategies, so that local authorities will have already done the work on the habitats regulations, and planners can then move on to the areas where they know they are not going to get huge pushback the minute they submit their plans to the planning authorities. Such measures would highlight the areas that can be developed, streamline the process and protect those really important areas of biodiversity—all things that the Bill’s key objectives set out to do. They would just change where these things sit in the process to ensure that it is good for building and good for nature.
Finally, although the majority of planning delays are caused not by environmental regulations but by other pressures, such as lack of resource and expertise in our planning departments, I want to emphasise that my amendment would also reduce costs. The work would have been done already, so we would not have a whole slew of environmental impact assessments, for example, coming in at a later stage, and the duplication that causes much of this delay. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her introduction to this amendment, to which I put my name.
I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee and during the various meetings that have taken place, which she kindly arranged. I am comforted somewhat by the assurances given that both local plans and spatial strategies will be required to take account of the habitats and species regulations and to conduct appropriate environmental assessments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, outlined, the aim of these amendments—in conjunction with Amendment 130, which we will debate later—is very much to encourage as much of the heavy lifting on habitats regulations compliance as possible to be undertaken in advance of planning applications, in order to guide developers away from more sensitive sites so they can achieve a faster trip through the planning process.
There is, however, one issue that remains unresolved in my mind, which is the question raised by Amendment 116 as to whether the spatial strategies will be required to take account of the land use framework. I was encouraged on Monday when the Minister spontaneously referred to the land use framework. At least that must mean that the land use framework is still alive; I thought it might have been parked by new Ministers. Perhaps the Minister could assure us about the relationship between strategic spatial plans—and indeed local plans—and the land use framework, and when we might expect to see the land use framework. If used properly, it would obviate many of the requirements of Part 3 by having a rational approach to competing land use demands.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 115, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is of course our total champion on the land use framework. I share her desire to see progress in that area as soon as possible.
I will just highlight what this is about and why we should have these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said that the question being asked is, where can we cause damage? That is what will happen. We are talking about the sites and species protected by the habitats regulations, which are of the highest international importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that we have had reassurances from the Minister that this is taken into account in local plans. I would be interested to hear what further reassurances the Minister can provide, because I do not think that that is what is happening. We are continually told, “Don’t worry about this. We don’t need this amendment because this is already happening; it is already covered by existing rules, regulations and laws”, but we all know that these things are not happening. Perhaps the Minister can answer that question. If those are indeed the rules, why is this not happening and what will the Government do to make sure that it does?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I rise to address Amendments 115 and 116, introduced with such eloquence by the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown, Lady Young and Lady Bennett. These amendments attempt to reinforce safeguards within our planning system on a very strategic level. They are precise and would embed formal compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and they go directly to the preparation of local plans and spatial development strategies. They would ensure that environmental due diligence is not left until the late stages, when it is most vulnerable to oversight or to legal challenge—an aspect of the Bill that makes us very nervous.
Amendment 115 would oblige local planning authorities to conduct strategic environmental impact assessments for every site considered for development during plan making, and it would require that the plan’s compliance with habitats regulations be established from the beginning. This would ensure the first step of something close to our hearts in this Chamber, and which I hope we will discuss later in considering other groups: the all-important mitigation hierarchy. Avoidance of harm to sensitive habitats in advance would be actively enforced before development locations are finalised. The current system’s reliance on site-by-site reactive checks too often leaves nature protection exposed to the risk of retrospective fix or reactive compensation.
Amendment 116 would extend this by compelling authorities to guarantee habitat regulation compliance at the highest strategic levels. Both amendments would make environmental improvement an explicit statutory purpose within planning, a principle that aligns tightly with our belief on these Benches that operational planning must be future-facing and nature-positive, rather than solely a mechanism to accommodate growth. Their adoption would help steer development to appropriate places, supporting broader non-negotiable national goals to halt and reverse nature decline by 2030 and double nature by 2050. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to both amendments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I would like to convey from this side of the House our hopes for the swift recovery of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
As I raised in Committee, spatial development strategies and local plans should be the strategic documents that map out development in an area. This could be the stage where all the complex issues and trade-offs can be addressed to deliver the housing, commercial infrastructure and community facilities that we need, while also addressing the environmental impact and other issues. As such, there is a strong argument that these should include the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation and strategic impact assessments, as well as many other regulations that must often now be carried out on a site-by-site basis.
It would also be an alternative, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, to the Government’s proposed EDPs. This, if done correctly with the appropriate legislation, regulation and powers given to those local plans and local authorities, could deliver both better outcomes for the environment and a faster, simpler planning system, particularly had some of our previous amendments been included—for instance, my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment on proportionality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, pointed out, this could facilitate at an earlier stage a focus on areas and sites more appropriate for development. For landowners and developers, it could reduce the cost and speed up the process.
We support the intentions of these amendments, however—unfortunately, there is a however—the amendment as laid out does not address the key second part: ensuring that developments in line with an approved spatial development strategy or local plan satisfy the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, with no further need for environmental impact assessments on a site-by-site basis. To address this latter part would require substantial additions to the Bill, which are not being proposed. As such, these amendments risk adding stages and processes while still needing to substantially repeat these subsequently on a site-by-site basis, with that additional burden adding delays to the planning process and further costs for no particular benefit. For those reasons, while we support the intentions, we cannot support these amendments.
I should also like to take this opportunity, as we are discussing habitats regulations, to ask whether the Government still intend to block the development of tens of thousands of much needed homes by giving force to the habitats regulation in Clause 90 to Ramsar sites.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to ensure that local plans comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and that an authority which prepares a local plan carries out a full environmental impact assessment for all sites designated as suitable for development in that plan.
I hope I can deal with these matters quickly and reassure the noble Baroness that local planning authorities are already required to undertake habitats regulations assessments where there is the potential for impact on a site or species protected under the regulations. Additionally, local plans need to undertake strategic environmental assessment, which will form part of the local plan that is consulted on and then considered for adoption. The noble Baroness’s amendment would go further and would require not only a strategic environmental assessment of the plan, but project-level environmental impact assessments of sites designated as suitable for development under the plan.
As I mentioned in Committee, this would require a depth of information about a specific development proposal that simply would not be available at the plan-making stage, and it is adequately captured by any development that comes forward, which meets the threshold for requiring this further assessment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance, and I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 116, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted an important matter regarding the application of habitats regulations to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, I reassure her that the amendment she proposes is unnecessary. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already ensures that the requirements of the habitats regulations are applied to spatial development strategies. This provision obliges strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments where appropriate.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to mandate habitats regulations assessments for specific site allocations within spatial development strategies, but the Bill explicitly prohibits such allocations. As a result, strategic planning authorities will not be in a position to carry out site-specific habitats regulations assessments during the preparation of SDSs. Such assessments, if required, would need to be conducted at a later stage in the planning process, even if this amendment was accepted by the House.
I shall answer a couple of the questions asked. My noble friend Lady Young asked about the land use framework. This is being actively worked on by Defra and is due for publication next year. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about Ramsar. We shall have a debate about that later in the course of the Bill, so I am sure he will have his questions answered at that point. Given those clarifications, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not pressing her amendments.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall make a couple of points. What we are talking about here is a matter of both scale and timing. If we had a land use framework in place, it would look, I hope, at the habitats regs for different areas that had been earmarked as appropriate for development, farming and all the other land uses that we need in this country. But we do not have it in place, so it comes down to a matter of scale.
We can argue that we have to wait until we get to the very fine detail of a plan coming in from a developer and then, at that point, they have to get the habitats regs in place but—this is where I am afraid I disagree with the Conservative Benches—that is not the point of these amendments. The point is to do it before the developers go in. If you do it before, it makes it faster and cheaper, and they can then move in quickly. Right now, there is one barrier after another for the developer, so I do not understand this matter of timing and detail. We keep coming back to the detail, but we have to take a strategic approach. Is that not what strategic plans are for? If we are not going to put them in strategic plans, where will they be?
However, I appreciate the response from the Minister and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Permission for gambling premises: cumulative impact assessments(1) A planning authority shall, when considering any application for planning permission or change of use for premises which are to be used for gambling, take into consideration any relevant cumulative impact assessment published in accordance with subsection (2), and where such an assessment has been published they shall in the absence of very special circumstances refuse the application.(2) A licensing authority may publish a document (“a cumulative impact assessment”) to inform the planning authority’s decision under subsection (1), stating that they consider that the number of premises licences granted under section 163 of the Gambling Act 2005 (determination of application) in one or more parts of their area described in the assessment is such that it is likely that it would be—(a) inconsistent with the licensing objectives in section 1 of that Act, or(b) harmful to the wellbeing of the community,for there to be any increase in the number of such premises in that part or those parts, and where it does so it shall include a summary of the evidence on which it based its assessment.(3) Before taking a cumulative impact assessment into consideration in accordance with subsection (1), the planning authority must satisfy itself that the licensing authority, before it published the assessment or a renewed or revised version of the assessment, consulted any persons who in the licensing authority’s opinion have business interests which might be affected by the assessment, and provided them with the following information—(a) the reasons why they were considering publishing a cumulative impact assessment;(b) a general indication of the part or parts of their area which they were considering describing in the assessment.(4) The planning authority may only take a cumulative impact assessment into consideration in accordance with subsection (1) if the assessment is less than three years old.(5) In section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005 (principles to be applied), at the end of subsection (1) insert—“but this subsection does not prevent a licensing authority from publishing a cumulative impact assessment as described in section (Permission for gambling premises: cumulative impact assessments) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025”.”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. I intend to speak only to Amendment 117 in my name. I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support for the amendment.
I raised this issue in Committee and explained the urgent need to give local authorities additional powers to limit the number of gambling premises on our high streets. It is no coincidence that gambling operators wish to locate their premises in deprived areas where people can least afford to gamble yet sadly gamble most. Research shows that the most deprived local authorities have three times as many gambling premises per head of population as the least deprived local authorities. There are not only clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and the problems that this creates for individuals, their families and those communities.
But councils that wish to reduce this harm by limiting the number of gambling premises come up against the most pernicious part of the Gambling Act 2005: Section 153, which actually requires them to permit the use of premises for gambling in the absence of very specific reasons not to do so. Therefore, the power they need, which they already have in the case of alcohol licensing, is to be able to conduct prior evidence-based assessment of the impact of the number of gambling premises in particular areas. If that assessment shows that in any area there are already so many gambling premises that any more would be harmful to the well-being of the community, they can publish that assessment—a cumulative impact assessment. Once they have done so, it then acts as grounds for refusing permission for yet more gambling premises. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the relevant Minister at the time, knows that it is exactly what the Conservatives supported in their 2023 White Paper. It is also what the current Government have said they want to achieve. On 9 June, in reply to a Written Question in the other place, the DCMS Minister said that
“cumulative impact assessments … would allow local authorities to take into account a wide range of evidence to inform licensing decisions and to consider the cumulative impact of gambling premises in a particular area. We will look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to licensing of gambling premises … when parliamentary time allows”.
Even the Prime Minister has made clear that he supports it on behalf of the Government. He said:
“It is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments, like those already in place for alcohol licensing, and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and numbers of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/25; col. 281.]
The Minister and the Prime Minister both spoke about local authorities, and so have I. However, we have to bear in mind that, where a gambling operator wishes to open new gambling premises, it needs both planning permission from the local authority, wearing its planning authority hat, and a gambling premises licence from the local authority, wearing its licensing authority hat. Because this is a planning Bill, the amendment that I moved in Committee would have given the powers to make the cumulative impact assessment to the planning authority. In reply, the Minister said:
“The Government are … of the view that the most appropriate body to assess the cumulative impact of licensed gambling premises is the local licensing authority, rather than the planning authority”. —[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1449.]
That is why they were not willing to support it.
The amendment that I am now moving would accordingly give the licensing authority the power to make a cumulative impact assessment, exactly as happens for alcohol licensing, and the planning authority the duty to take it into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission for gambling premises, again, exactly as applies to alcohol licensing. I have been absolutely assured that this falls within the scope of the Bill.
This is a power that local authorities urgently need to prevent the undue proliferation of gambling premises. On Monday, in the other place, the Minister from MHCLG, in a Written Answer, extolled the virtues of cumulative impact assessments to tackle these issues. She said:
“We will introduce Cumulative Impact Assessments when parliamentary time allows”.
The Bill provides the parliamentary time, and the amendment can deliver what the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister and the Government say that they want.
I am more than happy to accept that the Minister may say there are some technical deficiencies with the amendment. I genuinely do not think there are. But if that is her response, and if she is willing to agree to have a meeting to discuss it before Third Reading, I assure her that I will not delay the House and will be willing later to withdraw the amendment. At this stage, to enable the debate, I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister also send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Sorry, Lady Hayman. The noble Baroness is always an ally on the topic of small businesses, which is the subject of my Amendment 121G; I will concentrate on this rather than on gambling premises, which are also considered in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, spoke with great eloquence, for which I thank him.
I tabled Amendment 121G following our discussion on Amendment 119. It is an attempt to persuade the Minister to think again. Although it was a late debate, there was considerable support in the House for my attempt in Amendment 119. I continue to prefer that formula and am planning to divide on it; however, this alternative formulation would ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under the Bill gave due consideration to the difficulties often faced by SME developers in engaging with the planning system. Such businesses, spread across the country, could make a much larger contribution to the Government’s house- building target of 1.5 million homes. The achievement of this target is going backwards—as we know from the leaked letter sent by the Home Builders Federation to the OBR—with productivity, which I care a lot about, also adversely affected.
Small entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country. If they are freed up, as we recommended in the cross-party report by the Built Environment Committee on demand for housing, they can make a huge difference. The difficulties that they face have meant that, in the past 30 years or so, the share of smaller operators in housing has officially declined from 39% to 10%; actually, I heard from a noble Lord last week that it has now declined to a new low of 9%.
The good news is that there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that we must reverse this trend. I believe that we must use the Bill to make things easier. My new amendment, to which it may be easier for the Government to agree, would introduce a duty to reduce the difficulties faced when engaging in the planning process, but it would do so in planning guidance. This would leave the Minister much more room for manoeuvre than my previous amendment did. It would ultimately be for MHCLG Ministers to decide how best to achieve the shift towards SMEs, and to translate that into guidance, but we must have in the Bill a reference to reducing barriers for SMEs if such businesses and their charitable counterparts are to start resuming their historical place in housing.
The changes in the site size thresholds working paper, which the Minister referenced, are generally welcome. However, we need something more concrete to deliver the crucial diversification of housing. For example, perhaps we could have an SME target for local authorities, Homes England and/or Natural England—or some other means; that can be decided on later—but a reference to the SME mission, which the Government purport to support, is needed because, in Whitehall and among these bodies, there is limited support for small businesses. I know this from my long career in dealing with all of them.
As noble Lords know, I am passionate about reducing barriers for SMEs. Referring to this in the Bill is, I believe, the way to inject more competition, diversity and enterprise into the sector. SME building in small developments is good for community cohesion, local employment and, above all, growth. It is extraordinary that there is nothing in the Bill to promote it. I hope that the Minister will be willing to agree to amend the guidance accordingly, either in a formal undertaking to the House—going beyond the consultations that are going on—or through a government amendment. She would gain many plaudits, and I encourage her to think again.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak solely to Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to which I have attached my name. The noble Lord has already introduced it eloquently and powerfully, but I want to add a bit of context and a little more information to what he said.
The context is that, at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday—it was, of course, talking about taxing gambling rather than licensing it; none the less, this is a relevant comment—the head of the Betting and Gaming Council was asked about the social ills of gambling. She said that there is no social ill and that the industry is doing
“everything that it possibly can in order to mitigate any harms that may be caused by our products”.
I would suggest that that testimony is either not honest or is astonishingly, unbelievably ignorant. What the industry is doing is everything possible to make money. We have an extreme inequality of arms. You have the industry, and then you have local authorities—particularly those in deprived areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said—that cannot do anything to stop the social ill and the damage that they can see being done.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a few remarks on Amendment 121G in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I also support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on gambling premises. I am a former MP who represented a town centre, Redditch, where we often saw these challenges in maintaining a healthy mix of shops and businesses. Thinking about planning decisions on a holistic basis would have been very beneficial. These challenges cannot be fixed by planning alone, but planning can play a part.
Turning to Amendment 121G, I declare my interest as someone who was a small business owner and an entrepreneur for more than 30 years. I thank my lucky stars that that was not in the construction sector because, honestly, that is one of the hardest sectors to operate in—particularly for a small business. When I was the Housing and Planning Minister, I spent a lot of time with small and medium businesses. It was really difficult to hear their stories, which were often frustrating, heartbreaking and tragic. Ultimately, we as a country are losing out if we fail to support and nourish these incredibly hardy and resilient people. Many of them are at risk of losing their livelihoods; in fact, some recent statistics suggest that around half of SME construction businesses are at risk of insolvency by the end of this Parliament. That is why I support this amendment.
What my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has put forward is very sensible. She makes the point that, too often, the system defaults to one-size-fits-all requirements, which land heaviest on smaller firms. We talk about the NPPF. It has 76 pages and is relatively concise, I agree, but it sits on top of a very large and complex ecosystem of guidance. This is one of the concerns that businesses repeatedly raise: the real burden lies in all of that additional guidance, not just in the 76 pages of the NPPF. Volume housebuilders can navigate such things easily, but it is not so for SMEs. For instance, negotiating Section 106 agreements hits them disproportionately harder, on top of all of the cost burdens that they face.
Anyone who has been a local representative—whether a councillor or a Member of Parliament—knows well that opposition exists to virtually all housing of any kind, no matter where it is. However, in my experience, SME local builders with roots in the community are in a much better position to overcome these hurdles and contribute to desperately needed housing.
In conclusion, these are practical amendments that support local authorities to plan for places in which families want to live, shop and invest.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I am appalled by the statement read to the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Noble Lords have to understand that it is very embarrassing for me to be on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I have to say that what she just read out shows what a disgraceful industry this is and how much money is being made out of the poorest and most deprived places.
I have lived with this problem for many years. My father was a clergyman in one of the worst slum areas of Britain. He always said that gambling was much more damaging than drink or any of the other things to which referred. It was particularly damaging in his parish, which contained a large number of military personnel, both retired and present.
I hope that the Minister will not make the speech that I suspect I might have had written for me as a Minister. It goes like this: “This is a planning Bill, and this amendment refers to the licensing duties of a local authority. I know that we already said that it was more appropriate for licensing authorities than the Planning Bill but, because this is a planning Bill, we really believe that it should be left for a different piece of legislation”. Yet the Government have said that they will make these changes immediately when there is some opportunity in Parliament to do it.
This amendment is an opportunity. What is more, it has been shown to be within the long title of the Bill, so, if the Minister says that it cannot be done because it is not appropriate, I will have to say to her that I do not believe the House should accept that. The House should simply say that it is clearly appropriate and that this is a clear opportunity. If the Government do not support that, I say something very tough to them: this is about the very people whom this Government are always banging on about and are supposed to be supporting. These are the people who are most at risk from the bloodsuckers who run the gambling industry and know what they are doing. They are applying to the very people who are most vulnerable and from whom they get most of their money.
I say this to the Minister: there is a growing anger around the country at what is happening and at the vast sums of money that some of the people who own these companies make. The biggest payer of income tax in Britain runs a betting company. That says something deeply offensive about our society; I do not believe that any of us should stop the battle to change this.
I wish also to say one thing about my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment. I hope that the Government will not say that it is not necessary to make the point about small businesses. My noble friend has concentrated on the construction industry but, very recently—in the past three years—I applied to the local authority to change a residential building back to what it had originally been since 1463: a public house.
That piece of planning change for a very small business —I do not know what I was doing starting a small business at my age, but there we were—for the benefit of the community, took a year. It was the year in which construction prices rose faster than they had for generations. At the end of that year, the cost of what one was trying to do for the community was significantly greater than at the beginning. The reasons for holding it up included the conservation officer complaining that we were going to use second-hand pamments and bricks; we were obviously going to do so because that is my attitude to these things. My architect said, “My client is strongly concerned about climate change and wishes, therefore, to use second-hand materials”. He got back from the conservation officer a note that said, “I don’t care about climate change; I’m interested only in conservation”.
Even if you know something about these things, it is very difficult to put up with a year of that kind of conversation. I merely say to the Minister that it is essential that we have in this Bill a clear statement that small businesses must be treated with the consideration that they do not have the means to do things that big businesses have. I really hope that we can resurrect small construction businesses, but we will not do that unless they have special understanding as far as planning is concerned.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief; I had not intended to speak but I want to say a few words.
First, I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s excellent amendment; I pay tribute to her persistence and indefatigability in defending small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I find myself agreeing with my noble friend Lord Deben—not always a common phenomenon—and with his excellent, passionate remarks in support of Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I say this only because my own experience leads me to believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that there is balance and fairness in the planning system between betting companies, which have significant resources at their disposal—in particular, legal resources—and planning departments, which are often in small local authorities and do not have the capacity to push back against some of the planning policies that allow betting companies to put fixed-odds betting terminals in very deprived areas, for instance.
I raised this issue when I had the privilege of serving in the other place with, among others, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, the Member of Parliament for Chingford and Woodford Green. As a communitarian, not a libertarian, I believe that civic society is about protecting those people who are most likely to be the victims of market dysfunction. This is another example of market dysfunction. It is zeroing in on people who have very little money; advantage is being taken of them. This is not a draconian proposal to close down betting shops, gaming arcades and other facilities; it is about redressing the balance to allow there to be a cumulative impact assessment on issues around adult social care and on the depression, illness and penury, frankly, with which many people suffer; I saw this in my constituency of Peterborough a number of times.
You do not have to be liberal, anti-capitalist or anti-free market to support this amendment. It is about fairness and equity, treating people equally giving planning officers, in our local councils and on planning committees, the weapons to make a reasoned, fact-based case for preventing development that would be undesirable and damaging to their local communities. It is on that basis that I support the noble Lord’s excellent amendment. I hope that the Minister will give it a fair hearing, because it is well thought through and considered. I know that my Front Bench will do a similar job in analysing the amendment. I think there is consensus that fair play should be at the heart of this and that planners need weapons to deal with potentially very unsuitable developments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on getting a permission within a year—perhaps he could give us all a few tips on how to achieve that. I really want to support Amendment 119, but I am concerned that it is so general. It does not specify what the barriers are—we may know what they are from personal experience—or how to overcome them. I have a question about what its practical impact would be. If I can be persuaded that putting in the Bill that they must “have regard to” and “consider” the barriers will not simply be a tick-box exercise and one more thing for the planners to get over, I would be happy to support it. At the moment, however, while I entirely agree that there are issues for SMEs in this sector, it is difficult to see what real impact this amendment would have.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and, by extension, the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I was for six years the chairman of a local enterprise partnership. It is often overlooked that the prosperity of the parts of this country that are having greatest difficulties can be majorly improved by enabling SMEs to take forward their projects. As has been said, the rules are the rules for everyone. It is much easier for big enterprises, which have large head offices and all the rest of it, to deal with the very considerable amount of administrative and other paperwork that is increasingly a part of the planning process. That in turn makes it discriminatory. We should not allow that discrimination. The kind of impact that major projects have on a place is very often qualitatively different from the impact that smaller, much more minor and modest proposals will have.
The underlying point behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is a very good one, because we are favouring the big boys over the small boys. I come from a part of England that is a long way from many centres of population; there is a very real concern that, increasingly, with the way the local economy is going—thanks to the activities of venture capital and large companies, for example—the profits that may be made from activities in these areas are being expatriated to other parts of the globe, or certainly to more prosperous parts of our country. It is an essential component of balancing the interests of the various parties engaged in these things that we look very carefully at the way in which the administration of the system is carried out, to make sure that the small man gets a fair crack of the whip. It is as simple as that.
As I have been listening to the debate on this and other parts of this Bill, I have remembered the words of Robert Burton in The Anatomy of Melancholy, a now almost unread book from the 17th century. He said: “Are not men mad to write such stuff who intend to make others so?”
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in Committee we were sympathetic to the intentions of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. The Government should consider this carefully. We have heard some powerful speeches on it that I will not repeat. I will go back on just one point that the noble Lord raised. A few weeks ago, the Government reassured the House from the Dispatch Box that cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing would be considered when parliamentary time allows. We will hold them to account on this promise. Will the Minister give the House a timescale for it?
I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendments to support small and medium-sized businesses. As we have raised elsewhere, the planning process is overly bureaucratic and time consuming, and I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that 12 months is frequently a very short time. This places a significant financial and resource burden on applicants, which falls particularly hard on smaller businesses that do not have the resources and expertise of larger enterprises.
As we debated previously on Report, the cost per property of the planning process can be significantly higher for smaller developments. It is right that planning authorities should have regard to this, and I ask the Minister what the Government will do to ensure that this burden is lowered, particularly for SMEs. Supporting SMEs is one of the most effective ways to inject greater competition and diversity into the sector and, ultimately, to strengthen the wider economy. Therefore, we will support my noble friend’s amendments should she choose to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I would be enormously grateful if he would make it clear to the House what his position is on Amendment 117. He said that he will hold the Government to account but wants to know what the timescale is. Well, the timescale is a couple of minutes, if we have a vote on this. Will he just explain where he stands, bearing in mind that noble Lords behind him have made very clear their intention to support this amendment?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I believe I have made our position very clear, and we will hold the Government to account.
Lord Deben (Con)
Before he sits down, will my noble friend accept that he has not made the position clear? The Benches behind want to know why we are not supporting this but merely giving the Government yet another chance to get off the hook. Can we not be a bit tough and actually do what we are here for—to oppose them when they have got it wrong?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will put the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, out of his misery. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his Amendment 117. He raises a very important issue, and I will explain how we intend to address it. I assure him that the Government intend to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when parliamentary time allows; I will elaborate on that in a moment. He will have noted that we reiterated this commitment in our Pride in Place Strategy, published since we last discussed this issue. I imagine that is what prompted the comments from my honourable friend in the other place, which the noble Lord referred to.
There is no doubt in my mind about the potential harms that can come from gambling, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts. I heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about what was said in the Select Committee, but I think there is consensus across this House that harms undoubtedly come from gambling. Cumulative impact assessments will strengthen local authorities’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets. We intend cumulative impact assessments to be used to assess gambling premises’ licence applications, rather than applications for planning permission or change of use, as in this amendment.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill concerns the planning system rather than the licensing system— I will come to further points on the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in a moment—and it is unfortunately not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of cumulative impact assessments for gambling premises licensing. Under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the cumulative impact assessment would be published by the licensing authority but be used during the planning process by the planning authority. I am concerned that his amendment would risk creating inconsistencies between the approaches of the local authority’s planning policies and the licensing authority’s statement of licensing principles. The Government’s view is that it is essential for the licensing authority to consider the cumulative impact assessment in the exercise of its licensing functions when considering whether to grant a premises licence, rather than at the planning stage. This is a planning Bill, not a licensing Bill—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can I just finish what I am saying? It might help. The issue is out of scope, but we have Bills coming forward where licensing will almost certainly be in scope. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are actively working to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when we have a suitable vehicle. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Just before the Minister sits down, she has said that it would cause confusion between licensing and planning. However, the amendment that is now before the House took account of all the concerns that she raised when we debated it earlier. It has now changed in such a way that it would absolutely replicate what is already in statute in relation to alcohol licensing. That has not caused a problem, and I do not begin to understand the difference she is now saying there is between my amendment and what already exists in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. It would be helpful if she could explain.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As drafted, the amendment would require planning authorities to make decisions based on assessments published by the licensing authority, effectively placing planning and licensing authorities into potential conflict with one another. It would also not provide for the licensing authority to assess licensing applications with respect to its own cumulative impact assessments. I hope that that is helpful. Turning to Amendment 121G—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Just before the Minister moves on, I am puzzling over the use of the word “scope” here. We seem to have two different understandings of scope. This is within scope of the Bill; that has been agreed by our experts in the Legislation Office. Yet the Minister is saying that, in the Government’s view, it is somehow not in scope. Can she say what the difference is between scope as defined legally and scope as the Government are defining it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am loath to explain the Legislation Office’s rationale. I am surprised that the amendment was allowed for the planning Bill, but we are where we are. I am trying to respond as straightforwardly as I can: we want to put this cumulative impact assessment in as quickly as we can, but we do not believe that this Bill is the right place for it. We want to put it in a Bill where it is in scope and will do that as quickly as possible.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can I help the Minister on this? Why does she not just say that she will accept this in the same terms as the regulations on alcohol? Then she would not be promising anything that is not there. Frankly, it is very worrying for us that she cannot accept, having listened to the debate, that the Government have got the measurement of scope wrong and have said something about gambling which, if it were true, would mean that the present law on alcohol is wrong. I am sure that she does not mean to say that to the House. Therefore, is not this the moment for her to say to the House: “I will take this away and come back having looked at it”? In that case, we would not need to have a vote on it, which would be much more sensible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is Report, and I believe that the Government’s position that this should be related to licensing and not planning is right, so I will hold my line on it. I know that that will be disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but it is very important that we take the issue of cumulative impact assessments as part of the licensing regime. We will endeavour to bring that forward in an appropriate way when the relevant legislation comes forward.
I turn to Amendment 121G, which seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her strong championing, as ever, of this sector. I share her passion for ensuring that we do all we can to support it. I also commend the work of my noble friend Lord Snape on the APPG for SME House Builders; he continues to keep me informed on the concerns and challenges within the sector. I welcome the recent launch of its report setting out all the issues that they are facing and what the Government can do.
The Government are committed to increasing support across the housebuilding sector, especially for SMEs. SMEs have seen their market share shrink since the 1980s and this long-term decline raises concerns about the sustainability of the construction sector and the loss of weaker firms weakening market diversity and resilience. I gently point out to the noble Baroness that there was a period of 14 years when her party was in government and might have looked to support the sector a bit better during those years.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will join me in thanking all noble Lords who participated in the debate. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Maclean, and the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Jackson, for their support for my amendment.
I want to make it clear to the House that I have spent many hours in the Public Bill Office discussing various iterations of this amendment to ensure that it is absolutely in scope for this legislation. I absolutely assure the House that this amendment replicates exactly the procedures already in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. I assure all noble Lords that local authorities around the country support passing this amendment as quickly as possible, and that Ministers and the Prime Minister have categorically said—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Is the noble Lord going to push his amendment to a vote or withdraw it? We are at that stage now.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
We are at that stage, but I want the House to be aware that there is support from all quarters to ensure that this is passed. The Minister has said that she does not accept my offer of further discussions to see whether we can find a way forward before Third Reading. She has not accepted the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I am disappointed that the Front Bench of the Conservative Party does not appear to be listening to what Conservative Back-Benchers are saying. Since there is no opportunity to bring this back at another time, the time for decision is now. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Planning process: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises(1) When discharging any duty under this Act relating to planning and development, the people and bodies in subsection (2) must—(a) have regard to the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process, and(b) consider whether such barriers can be removed or reduced.(2) The people and bodies are—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) mayors,(c) local authorities,(d) Natural England, and(e) all other people and bodies with duties under this Act.(3) In this section, “small and medium-sized enterprises” are companies with fewer than 250 employees involved in the design, application for planning consent or construction of between one and nine residential dwellings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Act pay consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have tried to get a reference to SMEs in the Bill and I thank everybody who has supported me. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, Amendment 119 is workable, but I know the system and, if we pass it, the Government with the help of parliamentary counsel will amend it suitably. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on this important amendment.
“Play sufficiency duty(1) A local planning authority in England must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions.(2) In fulfilling the duty under subsection (1), a local planning authority must—(a) undertake and publish play sufficiency assessments at intervals to be defined in regulations;(b) integrate the findings and recommendations of such assessments into local plans, relevant strategies, infrastructure planning, and development decisions;(c) not give permission for any development which would lead to a net loss of formal or informal play spaces except where equivalent or improved provision is secured;(d) require new developments to provide high-quality, accessible, inclusive play opportunities which incorporate natural features and are integrated within broader public spaces;(e) consult regularly with children, families, communities, and play professionals regarding play provision.(3) A play sufficiency assessment produced under subsection (2)(a) must specifically evaluate and report on the quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration of play opportunities within the planning authority’s area.(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, specify—(a) the frequency, methodology, content, and publication requirements of play sufficiency assessments;(b) minimum design standards and quality expectations for formal and informal play provision;(c) developer obligations regarding play infrastructure contributions to be secured through planning conditions.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) For the purposes of this section—“play” means activities undertaken by children and young people that are freely chosen, self-directed, and carried out following their own interests, in their own way, and for their own reasons;“play opportunities” include formal and informal play spaces, parks, open spaces, streets, schools, neighbourhood spaces, natural green areas, active travel routes, supervised play settings (including adventure playgrounds), and community recreation facilities;“sufficient” means adequate in quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration within community infrastructure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that planning authorities must take all practicable steps to ensure a sufficiency of play opportunities for children.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it was my intention, as signalled, to call a vote on this amendment. I believed we would have significant support from other parties, as I knew I was going to have from the Cross-Benchers. But without this, I am left in a position where I can do nothing but see the children in England fail to get the support for their health and development through play that those in Wales and Scotland now enjoy.
Lord Roborough
“(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Natural England, and/or a person designated under section 86 of this Act, about the making of an EDP.(5) Natural England, or a designated person, must comply with any such guidance.(6) Guidance issued under subsection (4) may include—(a) where and how draft EDPs should be published for public consultation,(b) guidance on minimum development thresholds for an EDP, (c) the types of measures that may be included as conservation measures,(d) the need to define the proposed conservation measures relating to an EDP during a pre consultation period and to seek expressions of interest from appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them, and(e) the use of its compulsory purchase powers, with a particular view to ensuring that—(i) the powers are not used in a manner which would threaten the viability of an existing agricultural business,(ii) the use of the powers takes account of the need to protect domestic food security, and(iii) the impacts of the use of such powers on important social and cultural traditions, such as those that exist around common land, are protected.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that the Secretary of State has a power to issue guidance to Natural England, and/or a designated person about the preparation of an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will also introduce Amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments in this group propose alternative solutions to environmental blockages to planning and development, either as replacements for Part 3 of this Bill or as substantial improvements to it. To my mind, the most important amendment in this group—and the most important to Part 3—is Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I added my name in Committee and on Report. For transparency, I again refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as a farmer, a forester, a landowner, a residential, commercial and renewable energy developer and a shareholder in various natural capital-related businesses and partnerships.
I am very grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—who, sadly, is unwell today; we send her our best wishes—for their time during the passage of this Bill and for listening to our concerns. We have fundamental objections to Part 3. First, it undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy and is a retrograde step in nature protection. Secondly, it attacks the rural economy by giving Natural England enhanced CPO powers without explicitly saying that the private sector should be engaged in delivery, as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets. It gives little or no accountability by handing all that responsibility to the arm’s-length body of Natural England, which appears highly unlikely to have the capacity to deliver the environmental delivery programmes, as is envisaged.
Not only is there no evidence that this will have any immediate benefit to the housebuilding sector, but, after the CG Fry decision by the Supreme Court last week, this part of the Bill will reimpose habitats regulations on decisions related to Ramsar sites and immediately reblock tens of thousands of houses. We also hear concerns from industries that should stand to benefit from Part 3 that there is no visibility of the level of the nature restoration levy or control over outcomes of environmental delivery programmes, and therefore reputational issues if they were to go wrong.
The amendments in this and further groups will address these and other issues, but there is a bigger question that I challenge the Minister to answer. What exactly is Part 3 designed to solve that cannot already be solved through existing structures and more targeted tweaks to that system, as we and others propose? We asked this repeatedly in Committee and I do not yet feel that I have had a satisfactory answer. It would also be helpful to the House to have some comfort that the Government are listening to our concerns, which echo every interested wildlife and rural organisation outside this Chamber. I am grateful to all that have provided briefings—there are simply too many to list.
Amendment 122 is designed to force the Secretary of State to take final responsibility for the actions of Natural England and place parameters around that responsibility, to provide greater protection to the rural economy, our food security and rural community and traditions. We on these Benches distrust these supposedly independent arm’s-length bodies and, for that reason, would like the Secretary of State to take this responsibility and be answerable to Parliament and the wider community for the performance of these EDPs. Why do the Government not want the Secretary of State to take this responsibility?
Amendment 201 is a simple amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the nutrient neutrality issues that are said to have been blocking 160,000 new houses. This is a repeat of our amendment that was defeated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I have two questions that I have previously put to the Government that have not yet been answered. Without this amendment, how many of those 160,000 blocked houses can be released immediately on Royal Assent? How many houses will be reblocked by Clause 90 reimposing habitats regulations restrictions on Ramsar sites, beyond the 18,000 already identified in the Somerset Levels?
Amendment 203 would require the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to publish a report on how to consolidate the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to allow us to have a framework dealing specifically with nature protection in the UK. There have been news stories that the Government are considering a nature Bill. That would appear to be in line with what we suggest. Would that not be the appropriate place to undertake such a far-reaching re-evaluation of the protections that our natural environment deserves, rather than a planning Bill?
I will leave the introduction of Amendment 130 to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, but I want just to highlight the benefits of the approach that we see in this amendment and to underline our support. We hope that this approach will find favour with all Benches, given that it addresses so many of the concerns from different viewpoints. Nature and species would not be put at risk should this amendment pass. CPO powers would be much less likely to be required for Natural England. The private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims. Finally, nutrient neutrality appears to be the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning, as emphasised by the Home Builders Federation in its briefing; Natural England could focus on this particular issue and increase the chances of success.
We hope to hear a constructive response from the Minister to Amendment 130. We would like to hear that the Government might at least accept the principle of limiting EDPs to these impacts until they are proven to work. We on these Benches are a responsible Opposition and would like to work in the manner in which this House works best in order to improve the Bill and to make it both workable and successful in the real world. The Government’s approach to data in Part 3 does not give us full confidence that they are approaching this in the same manner. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 128 and 129 in this group, which are in my name. I suggest to noble Lords that, if they want to follow the purposes of these two amendments, it is best to have a look at Clause 55(1), since they are, in essence, about understanding how the drafting is intended to work and what that means in relation to the practices of an environmental delivery plan in due course.
In Committee, we had a useful probing debate in relation to these issues to try to understand whether all of the environmental impacts of a development should be identified in an environmental delivery plan. The debate showed that it was not the Government’s intention that an environmental delivery plan—EDP for short—should identify all of the environmental impacts resulting from a development to which that EDP relates. Relevant in this group is that, for example, the EDP could focus on a specific subset of environmental impacts, or one or more environmental impacts, such as river quality or nutrient neutrality. Given that that is the intention—I am arguing not with the intention of the Bill in that respect but, simply, with the drafting of this provision to give effect to that—how should that potential focus be reflected in the structure of the power for making an environmental delivery plan?
Clause 55(1)(a) provides that the EDP will identify
“one or more environmental features”.
An environmental feature is either a protected feature of a protected site—Clause 93 can be seen for interpretation —or a protected species. An example that I think is relevant and useful, not least to the debate that we are shortly to have on Amendment 130, is the effect of a development on a protected site, such as through nutrient pollution arising from a development in, say, south Norfolk, which might have an impact on the nutrient level in the Broads. The Broads, as the protected site, and the nutrient level, as the feature concerned, could be the environmental feature to which the EDP relates. That being the case, if that feature is the subject of the EDP, should each of the ways in which a negative effect on that feature arises be identified in the EDP? I think that it should.
Amendment 128 would change “one or more”. I direct noble Lords to Clause 55(1)(b), where it refers to
“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”.
That defines the environmental impact. I propose in Amendment 128 that we take out “one or more”, so that the sentence would read
“the ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”—
that being the environmental impact.
That would preclude the possibility that there may be ways in which the development causes the negative effect on that feature but they are omitted. I do not understand why it would be at all reasonable for them to be omitted. That being the case, I hope that the environmental impact is always defined by reference to the ways in which a development impacts on a protected feature of a protected site or species. The focus can be narrow—which precise feature?—or it can be wide.
However, the next line after Clause 55(1)(b) says:
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”.
It feels a bit as though Ministers have decided not only to not necessarily to deal with all the effects of a development—they can focus down; we have accepted that—but that they definitely do not even need to explain to us in the EDP how the negative effects on a protected site, or a protected feature of a site, are to be understood and incorporated into the work of the EDP.
Instead of taking that out, I have chosen, in Amendment 129, to define it a little more precisely. Why are the Government doing this? I think they are trying to say that we might be looking at an environmental feature, such as algal bloom in the water in the Broads resulting from a change in the nutrient level, but we do not want to focus on the question of allowing things to be left out of a count in the EDP because they simply relate to that effect; we want to focus on where the development gives rise to the effect.
Amendment 129 proposes adding to Clause 55(1) so that after
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”,
it states,
“unless they are environmental impacts expected to result directly from the development to which the EDP relates”.
I hope that clarifies the purpose of the Bill, which is to focus, in an EDP, on the feature that is concerned and the specific ways in which a development might create a negative effect in relation to the feature that gives rise to the EDP.
I hope that makes clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. I hope that what this does is in line with the Government’s intentions in relation to an environmental delivery plan and that, from the Government’s point of view, Amendments 128 and 129 would therefore do no harm to the purposes. Even if Ministers are not immediately able to accept them, I hope that they might reproduce something of this kind at Third Reading.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 130 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their support. When preparing this speech, I went back to remind myself of the core objectives of the Bill: to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure and, as part of this, to simplify the process by which we address impacts on the natural environment.
I would argue, however, that what we have before us is a further layer of potential bureaucracy. I say that because, if the Bill passes as it is—this has been confirmed in the other place but also in this House—developers will have to take on an additional layer of assessment. They will now need to do an environmental impact assessment, a habitats regulations assessment and a biodiversity net gain assessment, and then apply for an EDP for specific features, before they even pay into this nature restoration fund. I struggle to see how that streamlines the process for developers, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us how this will speed up the process.
Lord Markham (Con)
I speak to my Amendment 132 and fully support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which is trying not to add another layer to what we would all hope would be a streamlined process. With my amendment, I am trying to make a very simple point on proportionality: where there is an environmental assessment, there should be some sort of indication on how reasonable the cost within it is.
We all know about the very famous £100 million High Speed 2 bat tunnel story. What we do not know is the cost per bat saved. As a former Health Minister, I am very familiar with being asked these questions in the health space all the time: which medicines should we approve? We have a process for this called NICE. It very explicitly puts the value of a human life at somewhere between £20,000 to £30,000 per year in terms of a quality adjusted life year. It will approve medicines if they cost less than that and will explicitly say that we cannot afford a medicine on the NHS if it is above that. It explicitly puts a value on a year of a human’s life, which leads to difficult discussions, conversations and analysis. You end up saying to people that, unfortunately, the state will not pay for a type of medicine even though it might be life-saving. We have put a value on a human life in that and we have made that open to public debate.
We should have a similar reference point when talking about the environmental impact of the life of a bat or some other species, with reference to the value that we put on a human life. I am interested in the Minister’s views on what we can learn from the NICE debate in terms of proportionality, to make sure that we are not valuing the life of a bat, say, much more highly than the life of a human.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. It is supported by those champions of nature, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Grender. I only wish I could have signed it myself.
I am not particularly interested in making things easier for developers—streamlining their processes is not my primary aim—but I strongly agree with the issues listed in Amendment 130: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource and air quality. Humans need these things for health. All our concerns about Part 3 have been supported by quite a lot of organisations, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Bat Conservation Trust, the Better Planning Coalition, the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society, which have all raised concerns just as we in your Lordships’ House have done.
Our concerns and our amendments to Part 3 are a demonstration of how much we do not trust this Government to care about the countryside, nature, wildlife and human well-being. I trusted some in the previous Government to protect the countryside because they owned so much of it—they probably had its interests at heart and in their wallets—but many in this Government clearly prefer bulldozers to bats and beavers. To me, that immediately signals that we have a problem with this Government. Labour has been disappointing on nature, the environment and climate change. It occasionally talks about those things but does not understand them, and that is a source of real anxiety to me.
I have no trust in this Government doing the right thing to protect nature. They are opposing a series of very moderate, sensible suggestions to make our planning system more nature friendly. When I say that, I mean human friendly as well. We are nothing without nature—we need it very badly—but Labour has rejected the most minor of measures, for example over swift bricks in new buildings. It has said no to the most basic protections for our precious and rare chalk streams and fails to do the most obvious things, such as stopping developers attaching new buildings to already overloaded sewage systems.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, decides to put this amendment to a vote, we on the Green Benches will support her very strongly.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 122 in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, because it is important that guidance is issued to Natural England on a number of issues that are going to be relevant. I am particularly keen on proposed new subsection (6)(d) on
“the need to define the proposed conservation measures relating to an EDP during a pre consultation period and to seek expressions of interest from appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them”.
It is hugely important that the private sector is involved. I hear good words from Natural England about getting on with farmers and trying to work with the private sector. The results are absolutely appalling when you look at them, and the private sector is very fed up with Natural England. This rather echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who said that those of us who are keen on preserving and improving the countryside and biodiversity are very disappointed with how the Labour Government have behaved. It comes in stark contrast to what they said a few months ago when they were in opposition, which is where they will be again in a few years’ time; then they will be back in favour of the countryside.
I like Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, very much. I hope that she will press it.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, given the time, I will be brief. I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis; that is because I went to some of the very useful briefings on how EDPs will be prepared.
A couple of things stood out to me. One is that Natural England proposes to base its EDP preparations on modelling much more than on actual monitoring and measuring on the ground; it will not require demonstration of the success of EDPs before the destruction of habitats is allowed. The other is that, given the voluntary nature of EDPs, the proposal is that the scale of the conservation measures will expand or contract in proportion to how much is paid into the relevant restoration fund.
Relying on modelling is hard when it comes to species. Modelling physics, such as on the flow of nutrients or the spread of air pollution, is complex but it is nothing like as complex as modelling ecology. We can measure for the presence or absence of chemicals much more easily and reliably than we can for species. Further, models are only as good as the data you base them on, but we just do not have the biological records to support really precise, accurate modelling. I cite the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, which says:
“It should be emphasised that biodiversity datasets are, by their nature, incomplete … access to private land to collect such information is frequently difficult or impossible”.
Just imagine how much private land has never been properly surveyed, even for notable species.
I turn to my second concern: the scalability of EDPs depending on the money paid in. When we heard from experts at a briefing for Peers, it became clear that the intention is that, if only a few developers paid to use an EDP, the provisions would be scaled accordingly. This relies on the fact that the ecological requirements—and, therefore, the benefits—would scale by the same proportion, as well as the money, but that is very unlikely to be true. Ecology does not scale linearly. If you halve the size of a habitat, you degrade it by more than half, and you often hit thresholds below which things are not viable. That is one of the reasons why this kind of strategic, joined-up planning can help, but the lack of detail on exactly how this measure will work makes me fear that it has not been fully thought through.
All in all, it seems very risky to try to undertake using EDPs, as I understand them, as part of the planned work for species because the consequences of us being wrong are so high. By the time we know something might not be working, it will be too late to do anything about it because we will have lost the habitat and the animals and plants in it. Restricting EDPs to physical modelling, where we can have a lot more confidence in our accuracy, precision and scalability, seems a much more sensible way to progress.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I declare my interest as a director of my family farming company. I will not make a long speech.
I looked at my notes on Amendment 122, which is an important amendment. They read: “Guidance simply needed to stop the commissars of Natural England running amok”. That probably covers it. The amendment seeks to ensure clearer definitions, parameters and accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, outlined so eloquently; it also addresses the potential abuse of compulsory purchase. I will say no more on that amendment.
The vital amendments in this group are Amendments 130 and 201, which focus on the clarity, deliverability and efficiency of the EDP process. I also support Amendments 128 and 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is seeking once again to make specificity, rather than generality and vagueness, the hallmark in the construction of EDPs.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who laid out the case for it very eloquently. It is a rather elegant solution to the tensions over Part 3—and there are undoubtedly tensions, not only here in the Chamber but out there in the country. Confining EDPs only to those issues to which the EDP process lends itself and which are best resolved on a strategic landscape scale—such as nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource and air quality—would deliver multiple benefits.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support Amendment 130. It is absolutely crucial that we get this system to a point where developers see EDPs as something they can live with. At the moment, as I evidenced in a meeting that the Minister very kindly allowed me, they clearly do not. They see this as a huge additional complication, which will slow down development enormously. I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said. No one who has ever tried to manage a garden would think you could model biological processes out in the wild. You can model the watering of a garden, but you cannot model what the plants are going to do; it requires observations on the ground. Natural England are not going down a road that will work.
That brings me to Amendment 122. I was on the Front Bench for MAFF when most of that department’s business was run through the EU. If you do not have control of what is happening in your own department, it produces a dysfunctional political process. You cannot respond to what people are saying from outside. You cannot even influence what is happening internally in the department. The department should not be doing this to itself; it should not be inshoring so much of its business to an unaccountable body, as we have seen with bat tunnels. There is nothing you can do with Natural England when it goes wrong. You cannot just pick up the phone and say, “Come on, be sensible, guys”. It does not work. What we are doing is producing an unstable political situation which will have to be unwound. Let us not create it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, given that time is short, I will contain our remarks to the standout amendment in this group, Amendment 130, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. It is a means to address a fundamental question we all have on the Bill: how do we help the Government deliver the win-win for nature and the economy by giving developers certainty about this new process, given that we are moving away from an established process which has served for many years, while at the same time ensuring that the environmental protections we want are locked in? The approach taken by the noble Baroness is to curtail the scope of this new process by saying that an EDP can happen only where it has been shown that those approaches will work, benefiting conservation at the strategic landscape scale.
I have to say that we, as Liberal Democrats, thought long and hard about supporting this amendment. It is our contention that we should always follow the science, so if there were scientific evidence that there could be conservation benefits for a species, for example, it would normally be our position to support that. Therefore, this approach to curtail it by area rather than evidence is not one that we would normally support. But as noble Lords will see, after thinking long and hard, we put our Front-Bench name to this amendment. The reason is that we are not convinced at this point in the debate that there are sufficient safeguards about how that scientific evidence will be considered by Natural England to ensure that the environmental safeguards that we all want will be in place. Therefore, we on these Benches will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say in response to this amendment but, if the noble Baroness is minded to move to a vote on it, at this point in time, we would support her.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, the usual channels have agreed that we should pause now to allow for a short break before Oral Questions at 3 pm. Although unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned, and we will return to it later this afternoon.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 29th October 2025
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-IV(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
16:17 - Division on Amendment 130 - Ayes: 260 / Noes: 141 - Amendment 130 agreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we return to the substantive consideration of Part 3 of the Bill and the nature restoration fund, with this first grouping considering amendments that relate to the underlying requirements of an environmental delivery plan.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the purpose of Part 3, we know that the status quo is not working. Environmental assessments and case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the condition of our most important habitats and species has declined over a sustained period. By taking a more strategic approach to the restoration of protected sites and species, we can deliver improved environmental outcomes while reducing planning delays for the housing and infrastructure that our communities need.
The noble Lord asked me a question about the number of houses subject to nutrient neutrality that will be unlocked at Royal Assent. We are very clear that such environmental obligations can be discharged only where a robust and scrutinised EDP is in place. This is the right approach to ensure there is a credible plan that will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we need.
Amendment 130, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has captured the sympathy of some in this House who support the strategic approach of the NRF but are concerned about this approach being used where it is not appropriate. However, we have always been clear—and the legislation is explicit—that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where it is shown to materially outweigh the negative effect of development. This is not a throwaway judgment of a Secretary of State but must be a judgment based on an ecologically sound and robustly scrutinised EDP, with Natural England providing a statement as to whether they believe the EDP can meet this high bar. As the noble Baroness will know, the scientific basis of the evidence provided to the Secretary of State was clarified in a government amendment. A Secretary of State simply could not sign off an EDP that did not stack up—and if they ever did, then the Bill provides that such a decision could be challenged via a judicial review.
In capturing a range of environmental features that could be addressed through an EDP, the Government are not seeking to suggest that EDPs will come forward covering each of these features but simply that we should be able to bring forward EDPs where science supports the case and the evidence would allow the Secretary of State to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test. Where the science does not support it, an EDP could not be made, but to limit EDPs in the way the amendment suggests would be to close off the potential that EDPs offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species, rather than merely offsetting the impact of development.
I want also to respond to some of the noble Baroness’ questions. First, on the mitigation hierarchy, Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops EDPs. It is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. However, it is not always the case. The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to suboptimal outcomes, and only then, and where money could be spent far more effectively to achieve better outcomes for nature.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about process. EDPs will not require additional assessment. Natural England will carry out assessments and surveys, and developers will no longer have to do that for the features in the EDP.
My noble friend Lady Young asked about the European conventions. The Bill does not repeal any existing legislation and will not weaken the UK’s continued support for and implementation of any of our international commitments. We are committed to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its provisions which ensure that mutual high standards are protected. EDPs will ensure better environmental outcomes that go further than current legislation, which simply offsets harm. Money from the NRF is ring-fenced for nature under clauses in the Bill.
I am conscious that the NRF has not had the easiest genesis, but the Government have shown that they are listening, and the legislation demonstrates a real commitment to breaking from a status quo that has, at best, overseen the managed decline of our most valued protected sites and species. With this explanation, I hope the noble Baroness feels able not to move her amendment.
Amendment 201, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to manage the effects of nutrients in water. This draws on the amendments tabled by the previous Government during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which were rightly defeated by this House.
While we share the noble Lord’s desire to address nutrient neutrality, we cannot simply rely on broad powers and the promise of action. The nature restoration fund creates a clear path to addressing this issue based on credible evidence, a robust and tested EDP and the legal guarantee that funding will be secured to ensure that conservation measures deliver environmental improvement. Granting the Secretary of State such a broad Henry VIII power would raise not only questions but serious risks as to how such a power could be used.
Amendment 122, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP and require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with such guidance. I recognise the importance of the matters the noble Lord raises, including in respect of agricultural businesses, food security and land that communities really value. The Secretary of State is already able to make guidance on any matter relevant to the making of an EDP, which would naturally include the important matters raised in the amendment.
On the issue of compulsory purchase raised by the amendment, as it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make an EDP and to authorise Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way the EDP has been drafted, they may simply choose not to make the EDP. Similarly, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way Natural England is proposing to exercise its compulsory purchase powers, they may simply choose not to authorise the exercise of the powers.
Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require EDPs to identify all environmental impacts from the development to which the EDP relates, on the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. As we have said throughout these sessions, EDPs are targeted plans to address specific impacts from development on identified environmental features. These are not a replacement for wider assessment or intervention but a way to allow specific impacts to be addressed through a more strategic approach. While Natural England will of course be alive to other impacts, the focus of the EDP must be on the specific impact, as it is only that impact and the associated environmental obligation that are being discharged through the EDP. We have been clear throughout that anything not covered by an EDP will be considered and addressed through the existing system. For that reason, it would simply add burden to an EDP to require Natural England to identify all impacts where the EDP itself is tasked with addressing only specific impacts.
Amendment 128, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require an EDP to identify all environmental impacts that may be expected as a result of the development to which an EDP relates. As I mentioned in Committee and have just repeated, EDPs are targeted plans, and the Government are clear that an EDP will modify existing obligations only for identified impacts and where the EDP itself can demonstrate how the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the specific environmental feature. Any impacts not addressed—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am afraid that the Minister has failed to understand that the amendments I have proposed, following the debate in Committee, are directed towards only the environmental feature, and the negative effects associated with that environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP. She is suggesting that I am widening it out to other features. I am not; the amendments address only that feature.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry if I misunderstood, but that may be due to confusion around the wording. It seemed that the amendment was trying to widen that out. As I said, any impact not addressed through the EDP is subject to a separate assessment. Therefore, it would not need to form part of the EDP itself.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I have left Clause 55(1)(a) where the Government left it, which means that we are concerned only with the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. Her entire argument against my amendments is around the proposition that I am trying to widen it out to other things; I am not. I am simply saying that, if there is a negative effect associated with the environmental feature derived from that development, it should be identified in the EDP.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. If that is what the noble Lord is trying to say, I can confirm that that is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I will continue now.
As set out in the Member’s explanatory statement, Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham,
“seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP”.
In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDPs should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures would support, to ensure that conservation measures are proportionate. As the noble Lord will be aware from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species. That may include multiple plant species of varying abundance. Similarly for protected species, an EDP would address these impacts at an appropriate population scale.
The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from the development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the nature restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test. That will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Finally, Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as they relate to planning. I appreciate that the dual systems of the habitats regulations, which cover habitat sites and include the HRA process, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSSIs, can appear complex. However, in practice, there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the Government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, the amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable. At this time, we do not consider that such a report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than ecological exercise, which would fall outside the JNCC’s area of expertise. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for the introduction of her Amendment 130 and to those who spoke so convincingly in her support. I also thank the Minister for her response to these amendments, particularly the clarifications around the issues addressed by Amendment 122.
As I feared, the Government remain intransigent on the big issues and so our mind remains resolved. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, choose to move Amendment 130 to a vote, our Benches will be in support. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 122.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I cannot call Amendment 127 because it has already been replaced by Amendment 121H.
“(2A) An environmental impact identified in an EDP may only affect nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the application of an EDP to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. However, I did not find her arguments reassuring, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roborough
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra would require Natural England and the Secretary of State to base their judgements in respect of an Environmental Delivery Plan on the best available scientific evidence.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 131 and my other amendments in this group. Amendments 131, 137, 151 and 152 seek reassurance that Natural England will use the best available evidence when developing and approving EDPs, and that that will be confirmed by the Secretary of State. The reason for these amendments is that this has not always been clearly the case. That in turn is evidenced by the revised heather burning regulations that we will be debating tomorrow.
Amendment 156 would require that Natural England report each year on the performance of each EDP in that year. The Minister did not reassure the House in Committee that the reporting requirements for the nature restoration fund or individual EDPs were satisfactory. I am sure that each EDP will be reporting its performance internally annually. Can the Minister confirm that and, if so, why is there a reluctance to share that with the public?
Amendment 157 seeks to require the impact on the local community and economy to be assessed and reported on. In some of the more remote parts of our country we have seen rewilding schemes and similar undertaken which have undermined local economies and created distrust within local communities. It is critically important that there is this level of engagement with local communities. Requiring that ensures that their views are taken fully into account.
I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance here. Amendment 174 makes a simple substitution of “must” for “may”. Why would Natural England not be required to publish these conservation measures? Do we really think it will publish if doing so is merely voluntary? I hope the Government have made progress in addressing these concerns since Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is absolutely pointless voting for this, because Natural England cannot do the job it has at the moment. Unless it is better resourced and has better structure, it is completely pointless giving it any more jobs. However, I stand here in the throes of two very strong emotions. I signed 38 Conservative amendments—I have never done anything like that before. I committed to something that I thought that the Conservatives were going to do, and they did not do it. They let us all down: they decided not to try to take out Part 3. That is shameful. If you are in opposition, why do you not oppose? What they have just done is playing politics. This is why politicians have such a bad reputation.
My second emotion is fury, which I normally mostly reserve for the Government. Part 3 absolutely stinks, and there should be no effort to get it through this House. It is a terrible piece of legislation. It completely ignores the fact that we need nature. We depend on nature, and the Labour Government are so eco-ignorant that they completely avoid the plot.
Going back to the Conservatives, they are not to be trusted. If they cannot oppose the Government when they know the Government are wrong, why on earth are they sitting here? Why are they bothering? There are some noble Lords on this side—I use the word “noble” advisedly—who, if I had moved Amendment 123, having cosigned it, would have supported me. I am very touched by that, and I thank them. However, we are allowing these amendments to go through. We are trying to improve them, but it is like putting lipstick on a lamppost. I am not going to say “pig”—I like pigs. It is like trying to tart up something that does not need it because it should be thrown out. I ask noble Lords not to vote for this and not to trust the Tories on any amendment they put forward from now on. They are playing politics. They are not trying to do their best for Britain: they are just thinking about themselves.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, that was great fun. I hope the noble Baroness feels better for her confession of how many Conservative amendments she signed. It is a surprise to us all, I am sure.
I take a slightly different view. I do not know why we did not vote on Amendment 123; I wish we had, because I certainly would have supported it. I support all these attempts to improve the Bill. Why? Because the Government say that we should follow the science. They make great play of the evidence that should be underpinning all these EDPs. The amendments in this group, essentially, are about providing proper evidence, and surely that is not controversial. The best evidence is frequently referred to and proper reporting is required. I cannot understand why anybody would be against any of that.
I agree that Part 3 is a disaster, but we are trying to improve it. I do not know about lipstick on a lamp-post: I think we are just trying to improve it a bit, given what we have been given. I support these amendments, for what they are worth, and I think that castigating the Opposition does not really help greatly. They are trying as hard as they can to improve this.
Lord Lansley (Con)
May I just say—not least to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that, as it happens, I support the view that it would be wrong to take out Part 3 at this stage? I say that for procedural reasons. If we took out Part 3, in effect, we would send it back to the other place without Part 3 in it and it would reinstate it. I fail to see at what point we would be able to do all the things that we have just been talking about and will go on to talk about, which is to revise Part 3 so that we can do our job, which is to take all the most harmful aspects of Part 3 out and put improvements in.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am so sorry—I do not know whether I am allowed to shout at the noble Lord again. What are they revising? Tell me what they are revising. They are not revising anything: they are intransigent. They refuse to listen, so why are we even trying?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying and I think Part 3 is so devastating, but I am not going to do a Second Reading speech, because I was pretty critical then. In respect of the amendments here, I particularly like Amendment 174. I also support the amendments on annual reporting.
On the best available scientific evidence, I think it is just worth considering this. I agree entirely that we have to have the scientific evidence, but one of the issues that Natural England has regularly been criticised for in terms of development is, for example, offshore wind farms. The Government are very clear they believe they are absolutely vital in terms of achieving net zero or, indeed, decarbonising electricity by 2030. It is the situation, however, that developers are then asked to do at least two seasons of what impact there will be on birds, and elements like that. One of the key reasons why so many projects get delayed is the extent of the evidence required in order to satisfy the decisions.
Having been a Secretary of State for Defra, and in charge of the R&D budget, I can assure noble Lords the House that every scientist will keep saying, “There’s a gap in the evidence” when they want more money. I am not complaining about that, but we need to make sure that we have appropriate evidence. We should not ignore the science, but to continue to try to say “the best available” means we could be here for a very long time. That may be the benefit that some people wish to achieve, but, while we definitely need proper scientific evidence, we have to balance what is ever going to be the best available.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, given what we said on Amendment 30, these Benches definitely support the principle that we should be basing decisions on the best available scientific evidence. In principle, we certainly support Amendment 131. It picks up on the point that was made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, and, indeed, at earlier stages by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that the best scientific evidence is not always just modelling: it is around actual evidence on the ground. We will move on later to amendments that talk about the necessity for the evidence base around the baseline that we have at the moment, and therefore, as I said, we support the idea in principle but we think, actually, that the framework for the consideration of that scientific evidence is actually as important.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 131, but before I do, I would like to address comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, because I am persuaded by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We are not the elected House, the Government are entitled to bring their legislation through and I am persuaded that to have removed Part 3 entirely from the Bill would have emasculated it to the extent that it would have become mute.
I do think, however—and I only wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had acknowledged this—that the thumping majority given to Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has meant that we have got the best of a bad job. Therefore, to suggest that the Conservatives and other Members of this House have somehow sat on their hands or perjured themselves or somehow maligned themselves is just not the way.
Turning to the substance of Amendment 130, of course we believe in the essential of having the best advice. I will not repeat the speech I gave in Committee, but noble Lords will remember that I was very exercised by the misleading way in which Natural England had wilfully misrepresented the science that it said supported its position but did not. Noble Lords will recall that it sent me a pamphlet with all sorts of scientific references at the bottom, which I read, and those scientific references totally refuted Natural England’s position.
All I will say on Amendment 131 is that getting the scientific evidence is one thing, but we have got to get the advice right as well. I feel there is a problem with this Bill, because it does not address the conflict of interest that Natural England is simultaneously the adviser, the regulator, the operator and the price setter. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said on the earlier group. If the Secretary of State is not persuaded, he is going to rely on advice given by Natural England, which in my view has not demonstrated that it meets the standard that you would expect.
I think the key thing is that we are about to place into statute an obvious conflict of interest between a regulator and an adviser. We should eliminate that by insisting on a separation of powers. We have a duty to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, but we are about to embed one in statute. I invite the Minister to reflect for a moment on whether it is right that Natural England is to be the judge, jury and executioner in its own court, and whether there might be some sort of device whereby the Secretary of State can take other advice into account rather than that of Natural England, because it is so conflicted and its track record is not good.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 131, 137, 151, 152, 156, 157 and 174, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, would add additional requirements to the preparation and reporting of EDPs. While the Government share the noble Lords’ desire to ensure that the EDP process is robust, I assure noble Lords that these matters are already captured through the drafting and are amplified by the Government’s amendments to Part 3. We have included an explicit provision requiring Natural England and the Secretary of State to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about evidence over time and some of the issues that occur—perhaps even conflicting evidence —but I hope that the best available scientific evidence, which is the phrase that is used here, will give the Secretary of State and Natural England the support they need to ensure that this is proportionate. It needs to be considered as the best available scientific evidence.
Regarding reporting, as well as the mid-point and end-point reports on each EDP, Natural England will publish annual reports across the NRF with a summary of its accounts, including setting out the total amount received in levy payments and the amount spent on conservation measures. This is on top of the individual monitoring that Natural England will put in place to monitor the delivery and impact of conservation measures. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his points about Natural England.
In addition, these amendments would require Natural England to report on the impact of conservation measures on the local economy and the community. The Bill already requires public consultation that will provide the opportunity for people to raise such matters, which will be considered by the Secretary of State when making an EDP. While we share the noble Lord’s desire to support local communities, it would not be appropriate and would add a significant burden to require Natural England to report on how each conservation measure is affecting the local economy. The final limb of these amendments would make it mandatory for the levy regulations to cover various matters currently specified as those that the Secretary of State may cover. I assure noble Lords that this is unnecessary because, while we would not propose to mandate for them, we fully expect the Secretary of State to make provision in these areas. I hope that, with these explanations and assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to my amendments in this group. I must say I am not entirely happy, and I look forward to returning to this subject in later groups, particularly on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I understand entirely her sentiments and frustration, and I am most grateful that she signed my amendments. We on these Benches are committed to being a constructive Opposition and to working with the House in the most effective way possible to improve Part 3. Many of us object to this part of the Bill fervently in its current form, and we are looking for the best outcome for the country as a whole to release houses for building but at the same time to protect and enhance nature. The noble Baroness remains my friend, and I hope she will eventually forgive me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent Natural England from including in an EDP network conservation measures where the affected site was not in England (or in English territorial waters or the English offshore region: see my amendment at page 92, line 31); in such a case, any conservation measures would have to benefit the affected site itself (but the conservation measures would have to be taken in England).
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
My Lords, we turn to a series of government amendments that ensure that the NRF properly manages any potential cross-border effects and operates as intended in relation to Ramsar sites, as well as in the marine context.
On our cross-border related amendments, I assure noble Lords that, while numerous, these are technical amendments that reflect our discussions with the devolved Administrations to address circumstances where an environmental feature of an EDP may relate to a protected site that is in Scotland or Wales.
I shall draw out the key amendments. Government Amendment 133 ensures that, where an EDP relates to a protected site that is not wholly in England, an EDP may not use network measures to address these impacts.
Government Amendment 136 simply defines “England” for the purpose of this clause as including its marine context. This is in line with the devolution settlements, as it would not be appropriate for a plan developed to address the impact of development in England to allow for potential impact on a site in Scotland or Wales, even where that would lead to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature.
In line with that close working and co-ordination, government Amendment 145 will require Natural England to seek the advice of the Natural Resource Body for Wales, whose operating name is Natural Resources Wales, and Scottish Natural Heritage, whose operating name is NatureScot, as well as the relevant devolved Ministers where the environmental feature in a draft EDP relates to a protected site in Wales or Scotland respectively. Government Amendment 149 specifies that for these purposes “Wales and Scotland” encompasses the territorial waters adjacent to Wales and Scotland, as is the case in respect of England in Part 3.
Ramsar sites are internationally significant wetlands that play a vital role in promoting biodiversity and climate resilience. Through the Bill, we are putting Ramsar protections on a legislative footing to ensure that the nature restoration fund can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites. This will allow development to come forward more quickly, while securing better outcomes for nature, making building quicker and simpler. To date, these sites have been subject to the HRA process in the same way as habitat sites as a matter of policy, so in the vast majority of cases there will be very little change to how the HRA process is applied to these sites. However, these changes will place the existing policy protections for Ramsar sites on a statutory footing, providing clarity for developers where Ramsar and habitat sites overlap and where assessment requirements may otherwise diverge, as well as ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations under the Ramsar Convention. These government amendments ensure that the nature restoration fund can operate as intended for Ramsar sites.
Previously, the Bill referred to Ramsar sites in England, which would have meant that, when assessing a plan or project in England, a competent authority would not have been subject to a statutory requirement to consider possible impacts on Ramsar sites in Wales and Scotland. That would have placed new obligations on competent authorities in Wales, which was not our policy intention. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a helpful step forward in firming up the protections for our most precious wetlands.
Government Amendment 231 is technical in nature and has been drafted to ensure that the Bill is fully operable within the marine context. With marine conservation zones now treated as protected sites for the purposes of Part 3, it is necessary to make limited exceptions to certain provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act that are intended to restrict activities impacting these areas. This will, for example, ensure that Natural England can carry out conservation measures benefiting these important marine sites without risk of breaching existing legislative requirements. This will apply only to Natural England and other public authorities carrying out functions relating to the nature restoration fund in the marine context.
Finally, government Amendment 255 is a minor drafting correction to ensure the extent provisions reflect amendments made to Clause 46 in Committee. This amendment removes a stray reference to provisions of that clause which were left out in Committee. I therefore hope the House agrees to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
First, I would like to associate these Benches with the best wishes sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I hope she is better soon. One or two of us spotted her attempting to struggle in this morning. The Minister here has had to take up a whole raft of amendments on which she was not expecting to lead at the start of today. We thank her for picking this up.
This is a comprehensive suite of technical amendments, and we are wrapping our heads around it. As firm federalists, we obviously welcome the consultation across borders, particularly in Amendments 145 and 133, mandating specific consultation requirements on Natural England. Proper cross-border consultations are the baseline requirement for sensible environmental policy. We will watch with some care with regard to marine and coastal access. The required removal of existing environmental checks suggests to us that the EDP framework risks some kind of weakening of protection.
We welcome the suite of amendments to Schedule 6 to explicitly amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to treat Ramsar sites more like European sites, requiring an appropriate assessment for plans or projects situated wholly in England that are likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site. Extending statutory protections to these internationally important wetlands is a move towards a more robust nature safeguard. On the whole, we welcome this suite of amendments, but there are one or two that we will watch.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, a speedy recovery. We both endure long journeys on the west coast main line with Avanti, and that is enough to make any of us ill on any occasion.
As we have said throughout the passage of this Bill, Governments should not, as a rule, introduce amendments to their own legislation that are not in response to scrutiny of the Bill. We have been disappointed by the Government’s approach to this Bill and, as many noble Lords have said, there is a reason for our procedures in this House. Amendments should be debated in Committee, wherever possible, before the House is asked to make a decision on them on Report.
The amendments in this group mostly relate to circumstances touching on the devolved regions of the UK. We understand that these changes have been discussed with the devolved authorities and are content with them. The only area where we have particular concern is the government amendments in respect of protections for Ramsar sites. My noble friend set out the Official Opposition’s view in an earlier group, so I will briefly say that we do not think the Government are right to introduce Clause 90 and Schedule 6 through this Bill, as they will effectively block new homes rather than unlocking development.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, one of the amendments—which I now cannot find the number of—substitutes all Ramsar sites with “certain Ramsar sites”. Can the Minister clarify why certain Ramsar sites are being excluded whereas before all Ramsar sites were within the scope of the Bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
The Government’s approach to placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance. Noble Lords will be aware of a recent Supreme Court judgment and some may wish to oppose this and continue with the existing approach of protecting Ramsar sites through policy. I know there has been an attempt by some to cast the Government as blocking development, but the reality is that no new planning applications will be affected by placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing. Any outline or full planning permissions that have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality in 2020 will have had to consider the impact of Ramsar sites from the outset, so for most developers this will actually be an advantage.
It also means that they can use an EDP to discharge obligations relating to Ramsar sites, which they could not without putting them on a statutory footing. We continue to support development that faces challenges in meeting the obligations. I highlight that the Government have invested £110 million to support local authorities to deliver local nutrient mitigation schemes, to allow housing to come forward in areas affected by nutrient neutrality. The NRF is an evolution of this support and will deliver on the Government’s manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports development, while driving the recovery of these internationally important wetland sites.
I am sorry, I have realised I have not answered the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I will reply to her in writing on that, if that is okay.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful. Just for clarification, I now have the amendment in front of me. It is actually Amendment 210, which says
“leave out ‘Ramsar sites in England’ and insert ‘certain Ramsar sites’”.
What is worrying is that it goes on to say that to better understand the amendment we should look at the explanatory statement of the Government’s amendment to page 180—of the Bill? There is no page 180 of the amendments, so it is difficult to know which page 180 it refers to.
Lord Fuller
“(8A) Any conservation measures provided by a landholding within the scope of an EDP must be legally secured by an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”Member’s explanatory statement
These changes are proposed as a means to ensure the deliverability of conservation measures provided by an EDP and to provide a stronger enforceability route than alternatives like a HM Land Registry Charge, which does not have the same level of legal enforceability.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 134 seeks to ensure that the conservation measures envisaged by the Bill are actually delivered for the liability period. The premise of the Bill is that, for the EDPs, a sum of money is paid for a government-endorsed plan, which will last for 10 years on the understanding that compensatory conservation measures will be provided elsewhere. The problem is that on one hand the EDP lasts for 10 years, but on the other hand the obligations are for conservation measures to last for 30 years in the case of biodiversity net gain and 80 years in the case of nutrient neutrality. There is a clear disconnect here, and that undermines the value and enforceability unless it is cleared up, and the Bill should do that.
Let us say you are a developer. Let us say you are prepared to palm off your obligations to address nutrient neutrality to a provider. Let us say you pay Natural England or its affiliates a fee to assume those liabilities in your place for 80 years—the perpetuity period. That money you pay has to last for the practical delivery of the conservation measures for that entire period. It is quite an onerous commitment. Each year, the grass may need to be cut, ditches dredged, fences mended, and sampling and monitoring undertaken. What happens for the 70 years that follow the initial 10-year period, from years 11 to 80, after the EDP expires? I would have expected the Bill to have some hints, but it does not.
Moving on, how might those liabilities be valued? Without value nothing can be delivered. This is an actuarial problem. Obviously, the value will depend on the annual cost of providing the measures over 80 years, in the case of nutrient neutrality, discounted back to present value—and that price will partly depend on the opportunity cost of the money for the period linked to the long-term gilt rate. Any one-off set-up charges might include inspection fees and renewal fees, and the more frequent they are, the more expensive they will be. The valuation is important, because unless there is sufficiency, there can be no guarantees that the conservation measures a developer has purchased will actually be delivered. On all this, the Bill is silent.
Pricing aside, I spoke in Committee about the enforceability of the conservation measures contemplated by the EDP that the housebuilder has purchased. So I now want to focus on those who will deliver the conservation measures which have been paid for, and the enforceability of those measures. This is not something that can be left to Natural England to make up as it goes along, as it has done so far—working at a snail’s pace, chopping and changing as it goes. That is no way to address a generational requirement. It needs to be on the face of the Bill: any measures need to be secured for as long as it takes, in a structure that transcends the normal lifespan of a company or partnership.
Of course, there are ways of recognising these legal obligations, either in contract or by a charge or covenant at the Land Registry. All these are enforceable, but Land Registry claims in particular require the lottery of a court or tribunal case. I ask: who is going to be bothered in 75 years, in 2100, to litigate in court a fag-end of five years of a nutrient neutrality deal that may get off the ground next spring or, for that matter, in 25 years—that is, if the operator has not run out of money and gone bust in the meantime? It is important that the obligations to deliver these measures are recorded in a form that can go the distance and be enforced without the uncertainty of litigation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If I may, I anticipate my noble friend Lord Roborough speaking to his Amendments 166 and 167. Before he does so, however, without reiterating the exchange that the Minister and I had about the way in which Clause 55(1)(a) and (b) should be used, by putting into Schedule 4 that the environmental impacts must be those identified in an environmental delivery plan, my noble friend deals with what would otherwise be a potentially serious problem. The Bill continues in Clause 55 to allow for the possibility of environmental impacts resulting from a development having a “negative effect” on a protected feature, but which are not to be included and identified in the EDP. My noble friend, in his Amendments 166 and 167, would rectify exactly that problem.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for moving his amendment in this group.
These amendments would make technical changes to how EDPs work practically. My Amendments 166 and 167 would ensure that only impacts addressed by the EDP may be disregarded for the purposes of the habitats regulations. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Lansley and am very grateful for his comments. We think that this is in line with the Government’s plans and seek to be constructive with these amendments. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments?
Amendment 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller also seeks to strengthen the Government’s measures. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.
Finally, my Amendment 135 is another that seeks clarity in the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of EDPs and how they can be effective within the specified 10-year period. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through Section 106 agreements.
The noble Lord’s stated intention is to ensure that conservation measures are secured through a sufficiently enforceable mechanism. While we fully agree with the noble Lord that we need sufficient certainty to ensure that conservation measures are delivered, I hope to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.
The NRF represents a shift towards a more strategic approach to dealing with the environmental impacts of development. Once an EDP is made, it will be for Natural England to secure the necessary conservation measures and ensure that they are in place, monitored and effective.
Some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but, where it does so, requiring it unilaterally to enter a Section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. Foremost, this would be an odd use of Section 106. Many conservation measures, such as in relation to wetlands, will not require planning permission. It is therefore unlikely that a Section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed.
What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England—one that would unnecessarily restrict its latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly. It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify its approach where doing so would be within what the EDP approved and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes.
Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures it considers most effective while still being bound by the need for the measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test—which this approach puts the focus on. In recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 135, which was previously tabled in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, relates to the use of planning conditions as conservation measures. In previous debates, I have been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers take appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and be consulted on, which will ensure that developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.
I also re-emphasise that the Bill will allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed only on a development coming under an EDP. The Bill simply will not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the Lord, Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered in Committee, but I am very happy to further clarify our position. The amendments would amend Schedule 4, which sets out the effects that an EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that, where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged.
“Environmental impact” is defined within the Bill as
“one or more ways in which
the negative effect
“is likely to be caused by the development”.
Therefore, the effect of Schedule 4 is already limited to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, those other impacts are not affected by Schedule 4 and must still be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where it is appropriate. I trust that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance, and that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If “environmental impact” in Clause 55 embraces all the ways in which a development might impact negatively on an environmental feature, why does the clause go on to say:
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”?
By definition, that means that there may be environmental impacts that are not identified in the EDP but which, under Schedule 4, may come to be disregarded for habitats purposes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry, I thought that I had clarified that matter. If only one impact is covered by an EDP, the others are not affected by Schedule 4 and have to be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and that features are sufficiently protected while allowing the EDP to cover a more strategic approach.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise; I shall not intervene again. Schedule 4 says that the environmental impacts can be disregarded, but the Minister is telling us that the environmental impacts identified in the EDP can be disregarded. We agree, and that is what my noble friend is seeking to introduce into the Bill.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall not press this amendment to a vote—we have a lot of business to do—but I am not convinced that the noble Baroness and, inter alia, Natural England as the advisers, have really understood the importance of getting this contractualised, of the enforceability and of considering what might happen not just this year or next but in 80 years and in the intervening period, given the changes of ownership, succession, bankruptcy, sale—who knows? Section 106 may not be perfect, and I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the unilateral undertaking —we are on Report and not at Third Reading. However, I think we should come back to this at Third Reading rather than just leaving it to Natural England.
I have been involved in this space for three and a half years as a person with significant interest in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, the company established by all the planning authorities in Norfolk. We have had to dig deep, take the best advice and try to game all the scenarios to ensure that, ultimately, the promises made by those delivering these conservation measures can and will be delivered for the entirety of the period. The Bill is deficient because it does not seek and frame that enforceability.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The noble Lord said at the beginning that he would not be pressing the amendment to a vote, so that should be sufficient, without needing to rehearse the debate yet again.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and shall wind up. The noble Baroness and I have a meeting next week, when I hope that we can develop this point further to see whether the Government may somehow address these concerns at Third Reading. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“England” includes—(a) the waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea, and(b) the English offshore region;“English offshore region” has the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322(1) of that Act);”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 92, line 9.
Lord Roborough
“(12) Where an environmental delivery plan identifies environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected by any invasive non-native species that is present at the site of the development, Natural England, or a body acting on behalf of Natural England, must take all reasonable steps to eradicate the invasive non-native species that has been identified at the site.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect all environmental features identified as at risk by invasive non-native species.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I raised amendments around the control of non-native invasive species in Committee. While the Government were encouragingly resolute in their policy of controlling invasive non-native species, I did not receive any reassurance that this might form any part of an environmental delivery plan. I reluctantly accept that requiring Natural England to remove these from any EDP within five years is a herculean task and likely impractical. Therefore, I have brought back a more targeted and realistic amendment on Report which I believe to be a perfectly reasonable request of an EDP—simply that where environmental features are likely to be negatively impacted by a non-native invasive species present at the site of a development, Natural England should be responsible for taking all reasonable steps to eradicate it.
I am sure that my amendment could be better drafted, and I am happy to hear from the Government whether they have a better suggestion. However, we on these Benches believe that not enough is being done to combat the spread of these invaders at the expense of our own flora and fauna.
In Committee, we discussed the rampaging grey squirrels and muntjac and the scourges of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed. There are so many more that I could mention. These flora and fauna displace our own native species and can also pass on diseases such as squirrel pox, which has had such a devastating impact on our own red squirrels. Would the Minister be prepared to go further, perhaps in guidance around the formation of EDPs, to ensure that those threats are dealt with?
I very much look forward to the introduction of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith’s amendment on swift bricks for a noble native species that deserves our help. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his guidance on this amendment in recent weeks. I shall speak in support of Amendment 245 and be brief, because I do not have to dwell on arguments that have been made repeatedly in both Houses and which are fundamentally very simple, as is the mechanism itself that is being pushed via this amendment.
I shall briefly recap on why this matters so much. As everyone knows, we are in the midst of a rapid and terrifying decline in the populations of all cavity-nesting birds, in particular the iconic swift. We know, because it is obvious, that a big part of why that is happening is that we are actively removing their homes. The way we build today means that things do not work in the same way: we do not have cavities, and there is no room for species that depend on the nooks and crannies that older buildings have. Even worse for those species, we are seeing the massive rollout of measures making life even more difficult—hopeless, in fact—for those cavity-nesting birds. I do not argue with the measures; I am a supporter of the Great British Insulation Scheme, which is a great thing. But with millions of older homes —around 50 million so far, I believe—being retrofitted and insulated, and cavities being sealed off, it is no wonder that four of our eight cavity-nesting bird species are now on the dreaded red list of critically endangered species.
Luckily, unlike with most of the problems we end up debating in this place, there is a very simple solution. The average two-bedroom brick house, according to Chat GPT—I have just asked it—uses around 20,000 red bricks. This amendment would simply require that one of those bricks has a hole in it. That single brick would cost around £20, would require zero expertise to install and no maintenance at all—and it works. Wherever these bricks have been installed, they attract swifts or similar birds. It is Gibraltar mandated, where legislation was passed 15 or 20 years ago that is very similar to the amendment we are proposing, and the swift population there, having been in steep decline, is now stable.
In previous debates that we have had on this issue, it was suggested that it should be a voluntary measure, but the numbers are obvious. Voluntary measures are great, and normally I would support them, but they have not worked in this case—and I do not think the numbers can be disputed. This needs to be included in building regulations. The good news is that swift bricks already qualify for inclusion, thanks to the swift brick British Standard, which includes all the possible and obvious exemptions.
Finally, I do not believe that any developer could or would make, or has ever made, the case that a measure like this would in any way hamper their work or deform the pricing of the houses they have on offer, as the numbers are just so small. The truth is that this does not even qualify as a nuisance for builders or developers. That is what all of us interested in this issue have been hearing from the developers themselves. For the swifts and their cousins this is critical and non-negotiable; without these bricks, they have no future in the United Kingdom.
I hope the Government will simply accept this measure. I remind them again that, in opposition, they were 100% supportive. They were wildly enthusiastic about my previous amendment—very vocally so—and in the opening months, at least, of this Government that enthusiasm absolutely remained in place. I felt that we were over the line; sadly not. But if even this tiny, nature-friendly measure is deemed nevertheless to be a step too far, then I really hope that noble Lords will join me in pushing it over the line via a Division when the time comes.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, this is Report, so I will indeed be brief. Yes, the case is well made for cavity-nesting bird bricks, and I shall just speak briefly to Amendment 138. Those who heard me in Committee will remember that I gave a bit of a treatise on ragwort. I have had endless Members come up to me and thank me for the learning they acquired; I have had only one offer to come and help me pull it out, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for that, in his absence.
It is not the non-native aspect that gives me a hard time. As I pointed out, roses and apples are non-natives; both come from central Asia. It is the invasive nature that is the problem, and I would love to see these EDPs and all the other acronyms have an element of responsibility for dealing with invasive and injurious weeds—injurious is the word in law—because under a lot of the current environmental schemes, you have a margin along a field which is entirely yellow with ragwort and is of very little environmental value, unless you happen to be a cinnabar moth.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak against Amendment 245. In so doing, I emphasise that I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his superb work as Environment Minister in your Lordships’ House, as well as respect for the other signatories to this amendment. My opposition may be surprising if your Lordships recognise that I am an emeritus professor at the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology at Oxford University —which is arguably the world’s leading ornithological research institute—as well as being a life member of the RSPB. So why am I against swift boxes? I am absolutely in favour of measures to halt the decline in swifts and in other species I will come to in a moment; my objection to this amendment is that it simply will not work.
The amendment refers to fitting swift bricks on houses or buildings over five metres tall. Let me describe the basis on which I suggest that this will not work. The Edward Grey Institute is home to the longest-running study of swift populations anywhere in the world: it has been running for 78 years. The first thing to say about this long-running study is that the swifts nest in the tower of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, which is not five metres tall but 58 metres tall. I will explain why that is important in a moment. I do not want noble Lords to think that this is my opinion alone. I consulted my colleague, Professor Christopher Perrins, who ran the swift study for many years and is a former director of the Edward Grey Institute. What he points out, and I agree, is that swifts are very specialised aerial feeders and flyers. They are superb flyers, and one consequence of their specialisation for flight is that in order to get into their nest, they need a very long, exposed flight path: like a jumbo jet landing at an airport, they need a long entry point. Equally important, when they leave the nest, they need a very large drop space in order to come out of the nest, drop and start flapping their wings to take off. That is why, when nesting in the tower of the university museum at Oxford, which is 58 metres tall, the swifts prefer to nest at the very top. Even boxes that are 15 or 20 metres from the top are not used by the swifts; only the ones at the very top.
This is a very well-intentioned idea, and I am all in favour of measures that will help reverse the decline in swift populations, but I do not think this is the right one. So what is the cause of the decline in swift populations in this country? We have to look at the fact that it is not just swifts, but other bird species that are aerial insect feeders: house martins, sand martins and swallows are all in steep decline. They all have very different nesting requirements. The swift is the only one that nests in a hole, as the swift brick amendment would suggest, or under eaves.
The real cause of the decline of these bird species is the decline in aerial insect populations. We all know, and it is an oft-repeated fact, that in the good old days when even I was young, if you drove down a country lane at night, your windscreen would be spattered with insect corpses. Now you drive down a country lane at night and your windscreen is completely clear. Yes, we should tackle the problem of declining aerial insectivores —swifts, house martins, sand martins and swallows—and declining insects, but swift boxes are really a bit player in this whole question. Although I support the intention of the amendment, I do not think it would deliver what is claimed and therefore, reluctantly, I do not support it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I listened to what he said. I remember reading a book probably by one of his predecessors at Oxford, Swifts in a Tower by David Lack, which was a very interesting and useful piece of work. I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying. There is not a simple answer; there is the matter of insects—it is not just the hirundines and swifts that we are talking about.
Swift bricks are well-intentioned things and, of course, would not be just for swifts. There are some other cavity nesting birds including house sparrows, which may not seem as exciting to people as swifts. They are in decline; I do not see many at all around in Uxbridge now.
As my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, the Government seem to have done a reverse ferret or had a damascene conversion in reverse, but I am still hoping there may be another one. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has raised the point that we should be looking at all sorts of measures, and there may be an opportunity for the Government to look at higher buildings—perhaps not residential ones, but when new schools or hospitals are being built they could put in swift bricks; they can even be put under the tiles, I believe. I hope that by the time this amendment comes to a Division, if it does, or at Third Reading, there may be some thoughts about how we make this better. I think the Government would genuinely like to do it, but there are various things getting in the way. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has given them a perfect excuse, so I will take him aside and sort him out.
My noble friend Lord Goldsmith and many other noble friends and noble Lords have expressed their desire for something to be done, and this seems like a good way forward. It is something for us to digest.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I do not think anybody in this House does not want to achieve the objectives of this amendment and, indeed, others. We have to be realistic that our populations of native birds, and other flora and fauna, have been dropping for a long time. We, collectively, are partly responsible for this, because our involvement in land use and urbanisation naturally clashes with the requirements of birds such as swifts.
Without attempting to challenge in any way whatever the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with his experience and background, nevertheless I feel that even if the swift population is not necessarily going to be dramatically affected or have its chances improved by this measure, other birds might find that they would be beneficiaries. I cannot see a downside to the proposal and, on balance, it is worth pursuing the amendment because if it does not affect swifts in some particular areas—their behaviour may obviously vary from one place to another —other birds would benefit.
It is surprising how many people are interested in this. In my own region, the Antrim area, a significant number of people are part of a swift group trying to help the native species recover. We should encourage that. I see no downside to the measure and I support it, albeit we have to accept the fact that no silver bullet will effect any one of these things; there is a combination of things. Their food source, insects, being fewer and farther between is always the biggest challenge for any native animal. But there is enough in this proposal to make it worth while, and I support it. I hope the House will do so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. It is a difficult thing to do in the wake of the very learned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but there are sometimes occasions when things do not work in theory but work in practice. In Gibraltar, where a similar measure has been introduced, the population of swifts has stabilised, as I understand it. In the Duchy of Cornwall estate, where this requirement is made of builders, the occupancy rate of the cavities created by the swift bricks is 97%, not in every case by swifts but by other cavity nesting birds.
While I perfectly accept that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may be right—possibly there is something in the atmosphere in Oxford, I do not know—at the cost of the measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, it is worth an experiment and going ahead and making this requirement. I do not think it will happen, despite the good will of the builders, unless it is passed into law.
I am always against new and excessive regulation, but there are good and bad regulations. Good regulations impose a very small burden on economic actors and have a direct outcome that is intimately and obviously related to the regulatory measure. Of course, bad regulations tend to impose very high burdens and produce all sorts of unintended consequences. Granted, this measure may not produce the intended consequence to the full degree hoped for, but it is very hard to see what poor unintended consequences it could have, and the cost of introducing it would be very small.
Think, for those houses where it works, of the sheer joy of the children of those households in being able to look out of the window and see swifts not only nesting but flying to and fro, maybe even catching those insects in full sight of their bedrooms. It is a very pleasing thought. We should all support this, rally round and make the leap of faith that may be required but is fully justified in this case.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I did say not to trust any more amendments from this side, but this is one I will vote for if the noble Lord puts it to the House. It is worth repeating that there is no downside. Secondly, there are eight species that use these swift bricks, four of which are red-listed. So this is a much bigger issue than swifts—sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. It is for our native birds, and we should keep that in mind when we vote.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 138 tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. Non-native invasive species are one of the top five pressures on biodiversity. It is extraordinary that despite there being a variety of government strategies under way, there is still, frankly, a lack of stuff really getting done. It is vital that as and when—or if—these EDPs get created, this must be tackled.
I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, speak to the Senior Deputy Speaker. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, when he was a Defra Minister, was obsessed by biosecurity and tackling these invasive species. He used to pull up not the Japanese one but the balsam stuff—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
So apparently he is a dab hand at that.
I co-signed one of the amendments, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. I will certainly push for us to test the opinion of the House on that amendment on Monday night. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, but there is a risk of letting perfect be the enemy of good. There is no doubt that the lack of insects is a key factor in what is happening with habitats, but so is the lack of a place where the swifts can land and thrive. As has been pointed out, other species are also affected.
When I was at Defra, there was always a row with MHCLG about this. MHCLG regularly complained—obfuscated, frankly—about how an extra £20 to £30 would absolutely wipe out the housebuilding industry. Honestly, that is complete nonsense. Steve Reed supported swift bricks when he was the Environment Secretary; now that he is the Housing Secretary, I hope he can persuade the Treasury that it is okay to have swift bricks as standard, and I am sure that there are many other measures that people would like. This is simple and straightforward; let us save our swifts.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling Amendment 138. I will be extremely brief and I will explain why in a second. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. We all need to be extremely mindful of invasive non-native species and the pressures they put on our beautiful, natural countryside.
Moving on swiftly—no joke intended—we support Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Amendments on swift bricks are a bit like buses: you wait ages and then two come along. We have another amendment in the next group. I am almost excited now in anticipation of the critique of Amendment 140 from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
We will develop our arguments on swift bricks, plus other measures, in the next set of amendments. As a slight precursor to that, I will say that we believe that the right way of doing things is to have a level playing field with developers and ensuring that everyone is asked to put in swift bricks. They cost 30 quid per brick, as I understand it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has already said, this is not going to break the bank of any developers, especially with their net profits. We will support this amendment if it moves to a vote, but we are also very keen to get to the next group. I apologise to the House that we did not manage to get these two sets of amendments in the same group, which would have been much more sensible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for Amendment 138, which seeks to protect the environmental features of environmental delivery plans that are identified as being at risk from invasive non-native species. As he said, we have had some very interesting discussions in meetings outside the Chamber about the various non-native species that plague our lives.
As we outlined in Committee, the Government recognise the negative impacts of invasive non-native species on our native species and ecosystems, and we are committed to taking action. We are already delivering the GB invasive non-native species strategy and have established the GB Non-native Species Inspectorate, as well as recently consulting on five pathway action plans that would target action at key pathways through which invasive non-native species can be introduced and spread.
While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intentions in tabling this amendment, we do not believe that it is necessary or feasible. The NRF already allows invasive non-native species control as a conservation measure, where it would be relevant to the environmental feature concerned and would support the delivery of the overall improvement necessary under the EDP. However, control may not always be the best option: other conservation measures may represent better value for money, have greater environmental impact and be more appropriate, in line with the need to secure the overall improvement by the EDP end date.
The amendment would introduce a free-standing requirement to take action to eradicate invasive non-native species from a development site, even where this is not linked to the impact from development covered by the EDP. This would require developers to pay to address an issue unrelated to their development. Mandating action in this way could delay an EDP’s preparation and delivery, increase costs and inadvertently limit the ability to secure the best environmental outcomes. On that basis, it is more appropriate that control remains a potential conservation measure under EDPs, to be used at Natural England’s discretion where it represents the best option. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
On Amendment 245, the Government are committed to driving nature’s recovery while delivering the homes and infrastructure we desperately need. We recognise the dramatic decline of the much-loved swift and of other nesting birds, and I have had many discussions on this subject with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. We are committed to supporting the rollout of swift bricks alongside new development. The only distinction between our position and the amendment before us is in the mechanism by which we seek to increase the use of this wildlife-friendly feature.
Incidentally, I had a meeting this week with Adam Jogee MP, who has a huge brick manufacturing plant in his constituency. I asked him whether he would speak to the people in that company to persuade them to produce swift bricks as well—so I am still on the case.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his contribution on this topic and for setting out why he considers that swift bricks are an exceptional measure. We know that mandating swift bricks through building regulations is an issue of long-standing interest. I have debated it many times in this House. As we have laid out before, building regulations in the UK are designed to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They were not designed to apply to the protection of wildlife, and expanding their scope to include interventions such as swift bricks would mark a significant shift in regulatory intent. This risks a number of unintended consequences, including diluting the purpose of the current regime, establishing overlapping policies and adding administrative pressure to a system that is already undergoing significant reform.
Furthermore, the process of updating building regulations is highly technical and complex. Introducing requirements that fall outside the current remit could slow down essential updates, divert resources, place additional burdens on registered building control approvers, complicate existing inspection, sanction and enforcement procedures, and fundamentally undermine the credibility of the system. We strongly believe that planning policy is the best way forward. The Government remain committed to consulting on a new requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings as part of our consultation on national planning policy, which we intend to launch this year.
I am very grateful for the fascinating intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because he helped emphasise that there are wider issues to be considered here. I hope that, by consulting on this national planning policy, we will be able to get the best outcome for nature as part of the planning policy that we set out.
In June, we published updated planning practice guidance, which set out expectations for the use of these features and signposted to further resources, including the relevant British industry standard. These measures are further to the new policy we introduced last December, which explicitly stated that development proposals should enhance the natural environment
“by incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as swifts”.
We expect these policies to be adhered to and enforced, with the rest of planning policy that we have addressed previously, as a material consideration in planning decisions. Local planning authorities possess a range of powers to ensure that the terms of planning permissions are complied with, and they are able to take enforcement action where the requirements of a planning permission are being breached.
To bolster planning departments, last autumn, we announced a £46 million package, which included funding for the recruitment and training of 300 planners. Through the Bill, we are enabling authorities to increase planning fees and strengthen service delivery. We have put some resources in to help with the enforcement as well.
As we have set out previously, progress is already under way. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has noted that we have not stood still since our earlier discussions on this topic.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have a very brief question for the Minister. Am I not right in thinking that the building regulations have been used as a vehicle in relation to the Climate Change Act as well as in relation to the Environment Act, and therefore they go beyond the remit of simply safeguarding the well-being and health of individual occupants?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Those are complex, technical regulations around the construction of buildings which do not relate to the protection of species. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many species lobbying groups which might want to use building regulations for that purpose. The other thing is that building regulations cover a huge variety of different buildings—probably including the 58-foot tower that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to. If you imagine the number of species compared with the number of different sizes and shapes of buildings, we would end up with a very complex picture with building regulations if we were to go down this route.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response to this small group of amendments. Starting just briefly with the invasive non-native species, I think it was very encouraging to hear the Government’s commitment to controlling them and to hear the role that EDPs will take in managing them.
I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for introducing his amendment, and I pay tribute to all the work he has done for the environment and nature restoration, not least as my previous neighbour in Devon with the remarkable planting schemes he did there. As regards his amendment, given that we are returning to this subject in the next group, we can address that then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Grender
“Environmental infrastructure in new developments(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.(2) Regulations made under this section must—(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—(i) bird boxes;(ii) bat boxes;(iii) swift bricks;(iv) hedgehog highways;(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, here we are again. The urgency of the nature crisis demands that we stop relying on—in our view—voluntary commitments and shift to mandatory ones or regulation. I am sorry that we are going back to a subject that we have already rehearsed quite a bit, but it is still important. My amendment also expands which kind of species we try to include within building regulations.
I thank the Minister for a meeting we had only yesterday where we tried to work through some of these issues. I have definitely heard, both yesterday and today, the concern she has about embedding some of these issues within building regulations, but I would still argue that making sure there is a level playing field and that developers have clarity of ask is still worth trying for, so I would like to explore it again.
Amendment 140—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for signing it—would require the Secretary of State to introduce building regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity within six months of the Act passing. These regulations should include specific measures such as swift bricks, bat boxes and hedgehog highways. The question asked is why building regulations are the appropriate mechanisms for features such as this, and the answer is clarity, consistency and enforceability. Relying on the fluidity of planning policy or non-statutory commitments leads to systemic failure in delivery. Surveys show that ecological features promised in planning approval, such as bat and bird boxes and hedgehog highways, are often—surprise, surprise—missing post-construction. Mandating their inclusion via building regulations would ensure that every new home contributes to halting the decline in species abundance, aligning with our legal duties under the Environment Act 2021.
Building regulations already incorporate mechanisms for exemptions, including where installation is impractical —this may be something that we could explore—such as near airports, where flexibility is retained. We must ensure that these proven, low-cost features are delivered universally, moving past discretion and local planning controls. It is notable that, for instance, some local authorities mandate this already, including some Labour ones. I am very happy to supply to the Minister the list of the Labour authorities that already do it. It would be great to make this a level playing field across all local authorities. That is what we are trying to achieve here.
I welcome with interest the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Any measure that encourages the creation of water bodies obviously needs to be subject to rigorous standards to ensure environmental gain. I look forward to hearing her words and the response to the amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for putting her name to my amendment. I have in turn put my name to her Amendment 246. It aims to compel the Secretary of State to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to incorporate measures that reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, alongside issuing relevant guidance. We support this necessary move to strengthen design quality. This amendment addresses an avoidable cause of fatalities and would make a very useful contribution to combating the ongoing decline in bird species, which, as we have already heard on the last group, is so significant at the moment. It is very much aligned with the approach that we on these Benches would like to take of pursuing meaningful, preventive ecological outcomes, rather than allowing damage and scrambling for compensation afterwards, which we fear is a bit of a feature of some of the measures in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 203A, which is about permitted development for ponds. I listened in Committee to concerns that the original proposal I put in, for ponds the size of a hectare, could introduce other uses for something with such a permitted development right. That is why I have returned with a surface area of less than 0.25 hectares.
Your Lordships will know that the only way that Peers can adjust regulations is by putting primary legislation in place. But I encourage the Government to go through the statute book, think about the plan to achieve the Environment Act and how we are going to tackle the national biodiversity strategy plan, and make it as easy as possible for there to be thousands of new ponds around the country. That will help newts, amphibians, mammals, insects and plants—it is not always just about the fauna; the flora matter too. As a consequence, I am keen to hear positive noises from the Government before considering whether to test the opinion of the House next week.
On Amendment 140, there is a lot to be commended in what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said. This is about trying to make it as easy as possible for people, organisations and councils or whoever to do the right thing, because it is critical for the future of our planet.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, we should make our homes and houses and gardens as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, especially where the solutions are so low-cost. I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
I refrained from wading into the swift box debate previously, but I consider this amendment to be swift box-plus, and I support it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of swifts—I have had the joy of filming them in the tower in Oxford. I also know that these boxes are heavily used by other species. Therefore, I support the use of swift bricks, nest boxes and anything that costs virtually nothing.
I recognise that the Government are not keen to change building regulations. I note that adding spaces is free and does not have to be under the name of nature. Perhaps we could change building regulations to add some spaces without specifically saying that it is for nature —for instance, leaving gaps under fences for hedgehog highways. We do not have to commercialise this; we can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do.
My Amendment 246, on bird-safe design, is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I have spoken about this in Committee, but I remind noble Lords that an estimated 30 million birds a year are killed by glass windows in the UK, and free or cheap solutions exist which can reduce these collisions by over 90%. Bird-safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe.
I have spoken about bird-safe glass and how its patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds. I want to make the additional point that these coatings, blinds or louvres, which we see often in glass office blocks, also help with thermal protection, so bird safety can easily be combined with net-zero building requirements, at no extra cost. That is just a little thought: the regulations that deal with one could also deal with the other.
I emphasise that most bird-safe design is free and does not get in the way of house or office building. For example, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those little ventilation shafts or drainage grilles that you get at the bottom of big glass offices, they fall through the grille if it is too large and then come round in a space that they cannot get out of and can starve to death. Simply mandating that the grille size is smaller than 2 centimetres can stop birds getting stuck in them in the first place. These are the tiny things that can help. They are already specified in guidance in Canada, the US, Singapore and Switzerland. We have no such guidance here.
In Committee and in a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government said that they were sympathetic to the principles but did not want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. I have changed my amendment to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating. The NPPF already includes things such as swift bricks but does not address bird safety at all. This is a big surprise to people from other countries, where bird-safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds. Given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in so many other countries, is really necessary.
I very much hope to hear something positive from the Minister tonight. If the Government agree with the principles but have a different way that they would want to implement them then I am all ears, but this is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I think that whatever their plans are should be in it. I reserve the right to ask the opinion of House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I fully support Amendments 140 and 246.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about having a level playing field. I remember organising a round table in No. 10 a few years ago with developers and builders who all said that they would love to do various environmental things but, “We’re not going to do it if somebody else doesn’t”. In that case, it was because it was a bit more expensive. It was very often to do with boilers and so on. The measures that we are talking about here are very low-cost. I can understand Governments being loath to implement this, but when everybody has to do it, everybody will be happy. There are extra things that could be put on, I am sure, and that is going to be a danger, but we must look at this very seriously.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and indeed everyone who has spoken in this group.
I will be very brief, starting with Amendment 246, to which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said, I have attached my name. I heard some expressions of shock around me when the noble Baroness said that there were 30 million bird strikes a year. That is 30 million deaths. This is from the British Trust for Ornithology. The estimate is 100 million bird strikes—the 30 million is the immediate deaths. Some of the strikes are where the birds suffer the fate the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, set out, where they get trapped and who knows what happens to them in the longer term. Flying at full speed into a window is not good for you, even if it does not kill you.
Around the world the figures on this are in the billions. We are as a species “care-less”—and yes, Hansard, I am putting a hyphen in there. We are not taking care. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said, lots of countries are at least doing much better than us. We often hear Britain talked about as a nation of animal lovers and bird lovers. We have the twitchers out there chasing some rare species that has turned up. Surely we can take this modest measure of Amendment 246. The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, has listened to what the Government have said and adapted it accordingly. This is what we are supposed to do.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecomb has attached her name to Amendment 140. I had a much stronger amendment in Committee which I did not bring back because I was leaving all the small, modest ones that the Government could agree to for Report. I suggested that we should be building the entire fabric of buildings to care for nature. I spoke about a museum exhibit that is working in that direction. I have no doubt that we will have to get to that, but how bad will the state of nature be before we get to that point, and how hard will the recovery be?
I very much support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but pick up on what she said about new ponds. We are seeing in some parts of the country, in a limited way, the restoration of “ghost ponds”, which can be up to 1,000 years old. If you carefully excavate them, knowing what you are doing and having done the lidar survey, you can get seeds that are 1,000 years old germinating in the original pond conditions when it has been restored. In East Anglia, there are 22 ponds where this has been done, and 136 species, all thought to be from historic seeds, have come up in those ponds. Making this a way in which we can let these ponds free is a win-win.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. On this side, we share the passion that has been expressed across the House for a biodiverse and environmentally rich country. The proposals brought forward here are all rightly focused on boosting habitats for species and promoting nature. We agree wholeheartedly with that objective, which is shared among noble Lords on all Benches. The Government will resist these amendments at this stage, but we hope that these constructive proposals will be considered carefully by Ministers and their officials ahead of the planned nature Bill, which we are told to expect later in the Parliament.
I will make a few short personal comments which are relevant to the Bill. In our little, deliberately overgrown garden up north, we have five hedgehogs—because we have five hedgehog houses. I spend a fortune on five-litre drums of mealworms. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, if he was in his place, “Provide the habitat and the food and you will get nature back”.
As far as bird strikes are concerned, on Amendment 246, some of the proposals there might seem expensive. However, I found that spending £5 on some stickers to put on the window glass stopped overnight 100% of bird strikes where birds were flying into the glass because of the reflection from the trees in the garden.
My final observation is that I despair every week, going back up north and finding yet another little garden being dug up and paved over. That removes the chance for the hedgehogs to get their slugs from the flowerbed and there is no grass for the blackbirds to dig up the worms from. These are personal observations, but they are relevant to the important amendments before us today.
I mentioned the nature Bill. Can the Minister give a timetable for the Government’s plans to introduce a nature Bill? When can we expect it to be introduced? Will there be an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny on the planned Bill? I hope that the Minister can give us a little clarity on that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise that many of our most precious species are in decline, and we are clear that we need to restore the health of our ecosystems.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, which seeks to enhance biodiversity in new development. However, as I set out previously, this is not about what we are doing but about the mechanism for doing it. That is where we have an issue. We do not believe that the use of building regulations is the best way of achieving our shared ambition, given that they are used primarily for human health and safety. As I have explained, expanding their scope to deliver unrelated environmental objectives risks weakening their clarity and efficacy and introducing delay and further complexity.
The planning system already sets out to support biodiversity and achieve nature recovery alongside the delivery of homes and infrastructure. Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. This is a significant step towards achieving our biodiversity targets set through the Environment Act. As we have set out previously, planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve biodiversity in development should be integrated as part of the design, including wildlife-friendly features. We will be consulting on a new requirement for integral nest boxes which can support a range of cavity-nesting birds, including swifts, starlings and house sparrows. Additionally, planning guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England’s green infrastructure framework supports decision-makers to select design elements which suit individual proposals, including green roofs and walls, hedgehog highways—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman—bird bricks and bird and bat boxes. These can be used by local councils as a toolkit to set local design expectations. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, can withdraw her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 203A. However, as mentioned in the previous debate on a similar amendment, the Government cannot support the introduction of a new permitted development right for ponds as an amendment to this Bill. We continue to recognise that ponds can deliver important biodiversity benefits, and we do want to encourage them in the right location. We also note the benefits of ponds for farmers in providing valuable sources of irrigation during dry periods. However, it remains the case that changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order. Such changes generally follow public consultation to ensure that the views of the public, including those who would benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. Consultation also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and consideration of how these might be mitigated.
There are also existing permitted development rights which do enable the creation of ponds where appropriate. For example, under an agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions to manage and control their impacts. Home owners can also create new ponds in their gardens under householder permitted development rights, again subject to certain limitations and conditions. This amendment seeks to provide a national grant of planning permission for ponds across the whole of England, regardless of whether one would be appropriate in a particular location, such as on land used for public recreation or in an area where it could increase flood risks. To ensure that ponds are appropriately located, there are circumstances where a planning application is appropriate. We therefore cannot support the amendment. However, as always, we continue to keep permitted development rights under review. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 246, I recognise the desire to reduce bird fatalities that result from collisions with buildings, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for meeting with me ahead of this debate to discuss her interest in ensuring that new buildings are designed to reduce bird fatalities. Amendment 246 seeks to ensure that buildings incorporate features to reduce bird fatalities, particularly through design and the use of bird-safe glass, by embedding bird safety within the National Planning Policy Framework. The NPPF is already clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, and that opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around development should be integrated as part of the design.
When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the principle that, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. Supporting guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework demonstrate how well-designed places can foster rich and varied biodiversity by facilitating habitats and movement corridors for wildlife. Local design codes allow local authorities to set their own rules for high-quality places. I am very happy to consider what more can be done to promote the kinds of features that can help species safety that the noble Baroness has outlined. However, amending the NPPF to state that all new and refurbished developments should incorporate measures to prevent bird fatalities, such as bird-safe glass, would extend the reach of planning considerably beyond the extent of current controls and would likely increase construction costs and design complexity, ultimately constraining the delivery of the housing and infrastructure we so desperately need.
In addition, while some types of development, such as large-scale commercial schemes, may warrant targeted intervention, a blanket requirement would not adequately reflect the risks to species across diverse building types and locations. Bird fatalities due to collisions with buildings are a genuine concern, but a measure such as this has the potential to drive up costs and building delays without delivering proportionate benefits for nature. In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will agree not to press her amendment.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who asked me a specific question about the nature Bill, he will know that that is the province of Defra, so I do not have an answer for him immediately. If it is future legislation that is not already planned for this Session, I doubt whether we will be able to answer his question as specifically as he wants, but I will endeavour to seek advice from Defra about when and if they intend to bring a Bill forward.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to this amendment. She says the policy is clear, and that may be the case, but the compulsion is not. Those developers who can get away with not doing this, as we all know, will attempt to do that. The swift brick will be back—I believe as early as Monday—but in the meantime, we will keep on working on this. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents Natural England from including Compulsory Purchase Order costs within their budgeting for an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 141, but will speak only to my Amendment 170A, which is the important amendment of mine in this group. It seeks to ensure that developers are able to use the existing mitigation hierarchy in dealing with the impacts of their developments to the level that is practical, and only deal with the residual liability under the mitigation hierarchy through contributions to the nature restoration fund. This is important for developers and for protecting the nascent biodiversity net-gain market. It gives flexibility and continues to ensure that the private sector plays a role. We will return to that issue in future groups.
The Minister was reassuring at Second Reading, in Committee and in private meetings that this was the intention of the Bill. I wonder whether she can provide that reassurance today and indicate how this might work in practice. I look forward to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lansley introducing their own amendments—both of which are excellent—and I hope the Minister will listen carefully to both. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. We discussed the viability assessment processes in Committee, and Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, since it is relevant, say that I have a registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, but I emphasise again that the comments I make on the Bill are entirely my own views, rather than any developer’s.
Amendment 69 is really about the sequencing. In making an environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, but the charging schedule. It is really important that, at that stage in making an EDP, the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that it takes up the levy, which we will want it to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen, and to deliver effectively the objectives of the EDP.
As far as I can see, there are regulations in Clause 67; there is guidance in Clause 75, and the regulations in Clause 67 must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under Clause 53. However, Clause 58 sets out a long list of those who should be consulted on a draft environmental development plan. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities, and then refers to many other public authorities. However, the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities. This is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft EDP.
Since our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice whether to go down the route of levy payments and an EDP, I am afraid that we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP. I certainly do not plan to press Amendment 69, but I hope the Minister can reassure me on the use of the consultation on a draft EDP, and on the charging schedules in particular, by way of consultation with the development community.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 171A to Clause 69 seeks to create an additional methodology open to Natural England when deciding how best to determine charging schedules for contributions to the nature restoration fund—the NRF. Clause 69(5) sets out the methodologies that Natural England can use to determine what a developer would have to pay under a charging schedule towards the nature restoration fund. It has clearly been written by a planner, not by anyone interested in the environment. It provides that charges should be made with reference to the number of units constructed or the floor-space of the development, with reference to the expected values of the development, the planned uses of the building and even the rate of inflation, yet nowhere does it provide for a methodology to be based on the amount of damage being caused to the protected species covered by the EDP to which the charging schedule should actually relate. This makes no sense.
The purpose of Part 3 is essentially to create a mechanism whereby developers can pay financial compensation to the NRF in lieu of the damage their development might be causing to a protected feature or species, yet those features are not even afforded a mention in the long list of possible methods to calculate payments due. A charging schedule that has no correlation to the actual harm caused to a protected species is unlikely to be able to deliver an improved conservation status for that species. Nor is it fair on developers, since those who avoid protected species and cause no harm would still be obliged to make a payment under a charging schedule. My amendment creates the option—and it is no more than that; it adds to the numerous options already available—for the Government to address this weakness and align the payments due under a charging schedule with the protected species and features they are intended to restore. I look forward to the Government’s response.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He is right that there is no way that Part 3 could have been crafted by anyone in Defra. It has absolutely been done by the local government department. That shows in almost every square inch of what we read.
I was asked to table Amendment 173A by the CLA. It is about ring-fencing the nature restoration levy. The risk at the moment is that the nature ring-fence applies only to the expenditure of levy income by Natural England. If funds are transferred away from Natural England or if the levy is collected and spent by another department or public body—both scenarios are actively permitted under this Bill—the ring-fence disappears. The overall design of Part 3 therefore allows levy cash to be collected by the Treasury and subsumed into wider government business as well as to be used to fund Natural England’s general functions. As compensation measures envisaged under EDPs are not legally required to be delivered, Part 3 creates a potentially substantial tax revenue stream for central government without any consultation or manifesto mandate if this ring-fence is not fixed.
I expect the Chancellor will not be reading my speech, but I can imagine that Treasury officials will be scrambling anywhere and everywhere to get money for a variety of purposes. It is as important for developers as it is for nature that this ring-fence is watertight and that nature compensation measures are funded and credible. If levy cash is instead appropriated for different purposes, the lack of funding for nature compensation would be a material consideration in planning that would allow the refusal of planning permissions. It is well known that hundreds of millions—billions—of pounds were collected under the apprenticeship levy and never applied to apprenticeships. We have to be mindful of the risks that could happen with this levy and whether nature will truly benefit.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have spoken about the lifetime of the EDP and the enforceability of measures, but now we get to the price to be charged. I will amplify some of the points in Amendment 141. There are very large sums of money and long periods to be considered here. I do not really care whether MHCLG or Defra has drafted all this stuff as none of them really understands how to discount a cash flow. That is clear. If you are someone who has bought a house from the developer on the basis that the nutrient neutrality obligation has been washed away, hidden in the price of your new home is the market rate for mitigating a new dwelling-house, which in Norfolk is somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is quite a sum.
In Committee, noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, multiplied present prices paid by the number of mitigations in a scheme, got to multi-million pound sums and wondered what would happen to the profit. Well, if only. The profit really depends on the annualised cost of providing the measures, not in one year but over 80 years discounted back to the present value, and none of this understanding is in the Bill.
I know as part of Norfolk Environmental Credits, which I founded on behalf of the local councils, that notwithstanding that we have sold more than £10 million- worth of mitigations, the balance sheet value is zero because of the way that international accounting rules require us to discount the revenues against the costs over the whole period for 80 years. There is no corporation tax to be paid or profit to be booked, only risks and liabilities to be hedged, keeping our fingers crossed that inflation and interest are kept on top of until the last few years, possibly as far away as 75 years’ time, when we will all be dead and the money nearly exhausted unless, of course, the provider has not got his sums right, in which case he would have gone bust years previously. None of this is contemplated by the Bill.
We discussed this in Committee, but there is no more detail here on Report. I think it would be sensible for the Bill to contemplate some benchmark accounting standards to value the upfront cash contributions against the tail liabilities on a consistent basis. The reason is that if we do that and get a level playing field, we will get private operators innovating and competing on the same basis to drive costs down, while still maintaining the obligations. The Bill is silent on all this and, as a result, we will never get the leading private markets in nature mitigation going, which will be a missed economic opportunity for our nation.
What consideration have the Government given to providing a consistency of accounting approach, coupled with the enforceability I spoke of on the previous group? The Bill is long on aspiration but conspicuously silent on the legal, contractual, commercial ways of achieving these objectives. Without commercial contractability, we are never going to get delivery. It is bound to fail unless these things are belatedly considered at Third Reading, but it is very late in the day.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which relate to the regulation-making powers governing the nature restoration levy. It is worth highlighting that the Bill provides the framework, but the detail of how the levy will operate will be brought forward through regulations laid under the affirmative procedure, giving both Houses of Parliament an opportunity to debate them.
Amendments 141 and 175 would preclude Natural England including the cost of purchasing land in the nature restoration levy and prevent Natural England spending levy income on land acquired by compulsory purchase. The nature restoration fund has been designed to work on a cost recovery basis. Given the potential for EDPs to address a wide range of different matters, there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land under CPO or by negotiation is required to deliver the most appropriate and cost-effective conservation measures. Ensuring that these costs are able to be covered by the levy will support Natural England to deliver against the overall improvement test for an EDP. While I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns around the use of compulsory purchase, allowing for these powers is crucial to ensure that there is certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, land can be acquired to deliver conservation measures and these costs are recoverable. Consultation on each EDP will provide the opportunity to scrutinise the measures to be covered by the levy and, as an additional safeguard, compulsory purchase powers can be used only with the approval of the Secretary of State. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure as proposed by Amendment 176 would constrain Natural England’s ability to plan for the most efficient conservation measures and prepare for unforeseen circumstances, including deploying any necessary back-up measures. This amendment would also undermine the ability of EDPs to cover the costs of ongoing maintenance and upkeep of conservation measures.
Amendment 177 seeks to ensure that regulations will include provisions about the return of any money that is no longer needed for delivering an EDP to the parties that appeared in that EDP. As mentioned in Committee, the scope of the regulation-making powers in Clause 71 is already sufficient to allow for the appropriate management of any unspent funds, as well as allowing for any necessary refund procedures.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, can I ask him in plain English to clarify a couple of questions? First, am I right to understand that unspent levy money paid by a developer will not be returned to them but will just be kept by Natural England to spend as it sees fit? Secondly, could there be a situation where a developer paid the levy and then was compulsorily purchased and his or her own money was then used to buy the land off them under compulsory purchase? That seems somewhat inequitable to me.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on those two issues, if that is possible.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I cannot say that I heard satisfactory answers to many of the amendments in this group. I certainly do not feel satisfied that there will be a way for a developer to make a partial contribution to the NRF and to do what he can on his own site. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her Amendment 130, which would basically resolve this problem, as it would many others in this part of the Bill.
The point from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about the charging schedules was extremely well made. I think the House is well aware that this is a planning Bill and this section of it relates to Defra. It is encouraging that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, informed the House the other day that this part of the Bill would be governed by the Secretary of State for Defra, which gives some optimism that the charging schedule might relate to nature when it is laid. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(ja) any farmer who farms land which is wholly or partly within the development area,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult with farmers who will be impacted by an EDP after the EDP is prepared.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. In Committee, the Minister suggested that farmers, fishermen and landowners likely to be impacted by an EDP would have a chance to be consulted but only through the public consultation exercise. I still do not believe that is enough. Many public and private bodies are listed as statutory consultees, but not those people who are going to be most directly impacted by the EDP. I do not intend to push these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that guidance will require that those interested parties are proactively consulted by mail or similar to ensure that they are aware of the proposals, and that their views are sought.
Amendment 178A in my name, supported by my noble friend Lord Caithness, would ensure that farmers were given adequate opportunity to participate in EDPs as suppliers. It would also require a guidance document to be published so that farmers knew how to provide these services to Natural England. The Minister made encouraging comments in Committee and at Second Reading about the role of farmers and the wider private sector in providing these services, and meetings have been reassuring about how public sector procurement rules will help. However, I do not believe that is enough. The Bill makes no mention of the private sector being engaged in this, and I believe it needs to be reflected in the Bill. In fact, the amendment that I prefer in this group is Amendment 182A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I look forward to listening to his introduction of it. I beg to move.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 182A, but, first, I want to support the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 178A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.
As the Minister is aware, the majority of farmers are keen to engage in delivering environmental benefits and are increasingly collaborating geographically on landscape schemes. It would be entirely appropriate to use this expertise to deliver environmental services, building on existing commitments. Who is better qualified to provide value for money than those with local knowledge and an existing track record of delivering environmental goods?
Let me enlarge on the reasoning for tabling Amendment 182A—and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell, for their support for it. The amendment seeks to amend Clause 76 on the administration, implementation and monitoring of EDPs. I thank Ministers for their helpful letter of 13 October. I read it a number of times before deciding whether to table the amendment. Was I satisfied that the assurances given in the letter, that they would expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, were adequate?
I concluded that this requirement should be in the Bill and not just advisory. Let me try to explain why I am concerned. The purpose of the Bill, as we have heard a number of times, is to speed up the planning and development process to enable the Government to deliver their housing ambitions and critical infrastructure plans. There is, however, a deep cynicism and suspicion that to throw Natural England into the mix, into the planning and development process, will absolutely not speed it up.
I am afraid I do not share the confidence of the Minister. It is not a criticism of Natural England, but the involvement of an arm’s-length public body, any public body, will, due to its culture and accountability, lead to layers of bureaucracy that did not exist before, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, stated earlier. The spades might start digging a few days earlier, but there will certainly be a delay in the delivery of the EDPs. It is inevitable.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, most responsible developers have now established relationships with consultants, ecologists and contractors who understand the current obligations and requirements in regard to local nature strategies, biodiversity net gain, et cetera. That may not have been the case a few years ago, but it definitely is today. Why disrupt a model that has been established and is now working well? This amendment will almost certainly guarantee that the process will speed up, because those involved in market solutions will be determined to prove that they have a solution before Natural England gets its sticky hands on the development, imposes a levy and increases the costs involved.
I have another, broader concern that has been referenced before. The Government and Natural England have tried to reassure us that Natural England will be adequately resourced to carry out this additional function. It will be able to siphon off the levy, which of course will add to development costs. I will be very surprised indeed, in view of the very serious pressure on the public purse, if the Chancellor does not bear down on expenditure in her Autumn Budget, including arm’s-length public bodies.
This amendment is an attempt to improve the Bill by insisting that Natural England allows and indeed encourages private market solutions to prove that they have a solution to deliver the conservation and ecological measures necessary before NE takes it in-house, with all the bureaucracy that will then entail. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but may wish to take this amendment further.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 182A, which has just been so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and have very little to add, other than to say that I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 178A, as he does.
Implementation and monitoring of this very ambitious project need a proper, open tender process, for two basic reasons: value for money and the fact that the private sector locally, including farmers, is going to know the land, the systems and the available resources far better than the rather uncharitably described “sticky fingers” of Natural England—but then I suggested earlier that it might “run amok”, so perhaps I should not be too bold. Natural England’s engagement in direct delivery, if it can actually deliver it, which is a question mark, should surely be the last resort, and it will almost certainly be considerably more expensive. I thoroughly support my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will talk briefly in support of Amendment 182A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. This Bill should be shaping how private operators will address the market for mitigation; instead, we have Natural England becoming a monopoly supplier of mitigations in a drive to nationalise nature and, in so doing, potentially drive out private initiative.
In an earlier group, I touched very briefly on the distinction between permitting and licensing. In my view, licensing is the way to go, because it prevents the derivative secondary markets that enrich the speculators at the expense of delivering the outcome. We cannot afford to create by way of permitting a new milk quota disaster—for those with long memories—where the mitigation industry just became a collateralised asset class that had everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with nature recovery.
That is not an argument against private involvement, but it is an argument for channelling and regulating a fast-developing industry where we have global leadership, the encouragement of which will enrich our economy. We just need to avoid the Wild West I have seen emerging among some chancers who are taking the money and spending it on Ferraris rather than laying it down to provide mitigations for the entire liability period.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which seek to amplify the role of farmers in providing nature services in respect of Part 3 of the Bill, as well as probe the consultation requirements for EDPs for specific groups, including farmers, landowners and fishing businesses.
I begin by reiterating that Natural England will, of course, work with local landowners, private providers and farmers in the delivery of conservation measures under EDPs. The Bill has therefore been drafted to enable delegation and partnership working with third parties. This may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessment, and to the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs represent an opportunity for growth in nature services markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses.
As committed to in Committee, the Government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs. This will be clear that open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competition procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary. While I applaud the noble Lord for acting as a champion for the interests of farmers, I hope this explanation provides sufficient assurance that there is a clear role for farmers and landowners in making the NRF a success.
Regarding the noble Lord’s amendments relating to consultation requirements with specific groups, as he will be aware, every EDP will be subject to statutory public consultation to ensure that everyone with an interest in an EDP has the opportunity to comment. These responses will be shared with the Secretary of State when they are considering whether to make an EDP. This consultation can run for no fewer than 28 days and can be extended through regulation. We understand that different sectors will have specific interests in EDPs, depending on their content, as each EDP will vary based on location and the issues it addresses.
Of course, we recognise that farmers and the fishing industry are particularly important sectors, and their views should be heard. However, given the large number of farming and fishing businesses that we have, it would not be practical, or helpful, to legally require Natural England to contact each one directly and personally during the formal public consultation. Nor can Natural England require any private business to respond to a consultation. We believe the Bill strikes the right balance—ensuring public consultation and engagement with the responses from landowners and businesses forming part of the Secretary of State’s consideration of each EDP. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
I turn finally to Amendment 182A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to introduce a requirement for Natural England to pay another person to deliver conservation measures and the related monitoring measures that are required within an EDP. As I have set out previously, we are clear that Natural England will work with third parties and private providers when delivering conservation measures and associated activities under the NRF such as monitoring. As I have set out, we agree with the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that private markets and other expert organisations can support the roll out of the nature restoration fund through delivering conservation measures. However, while we expect Natural England to adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, there may be some instances where direct delivery will be necessary and appropriate. We would not wish for the legislation to remove this option where it would deliver better value for money, better environmental outcomes or both. With this explanation, I hope the noble lord will not move his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for sticking to his brief, but I think there was not enough there to satisfy certainly these Benches—enabling private sector engagement, instead of requiring it, and not being willing to have it written on the face of the Bill are not reassuring. Direct delivery in certain unspecified circumstances does not seem to us to be a guarantee of private sector engagement in these EDPs. The noble Lord helpfully mentioned the guidance that would be delivered. We discussed this in Committee and the noble Baroness the Minister, who is in her place, indicated that she would provide that draft guidance when it was available. I very much look forward to that.
While I am very happy to withdraw my amendment for now, I should make it very clear that, if the noble Lord, Lord Curry, does decide to divide on this, he will have the support of our Benches.
“(ja) if an environmental feature identified in the draft EDP is a protected feature of a protected site that is wholly or partly in Wales, the Natural Resources Body for Wales and the Welsh Ministers,(jb) if an environmental feature identified in the draft EDP is a protected feature of a protected site that is wholly or partly in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Ministers,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult its counterpart in Wales or Scotland and either the Welsh or Scottish Ministers where a draft EDP covers development (in England) which is likely to have an impact on a protected site in Wales or Scotland or in the waters adjacent to those countries (see also my amendment at page 95, line 11).
Baroness Parminter
“(5A) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish draft regulations to make provision for—(a) how the mitigation hierarchy will be applied in preparing and applying an EDP,(b) a procedure by which the scientific evidence for including an environmental feature in an EDP will be assessed, taking account of the precautionary principle,(c) an assessment of the baseline condition of any environmental features that are habitats or species for each development application under an environmental delivery plan,(d) a list of irreplaceable habitats which cannot be an environmental feature in an EDP, and(e) the circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development takes place under an EDP.”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 148 is an attempt to try and make the much-vaunted win-win for nature and the economy a reality. Kicking off, I thank my co-sponsors for supporting this amendment and indeed the Minister and her team for the various meetings where I have tried to persuade her of the merits of this case.
I would contend that this amendment provides a very pragmatic approach. We are taking the Government at their word; they have said that:
“Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP”.—[Official Report, 17/9/25; col. 2249.]
That in itself is welcome, but it is just words and there is no clarity in the Bill about how the scientific evidence will be assessed, nor how the environmental impacts will be considered. That is why this amendment calls for these important environmental principles to be put in regulations. We are not saying they have to go on the face of the Bill, but we have asked for regulations to give people the confidence about the environmental safeguards that we want to see, and which our dwindling wildlife needs, if we are to meet our own legally binding environmental targets.
The first of those environmental principles, and the most important by some degree, is that of the mitigation hierarchy: in the first instance, one seeks to avoid damage; if that cannot be satisfied, then one reduces; and then, only if all other avenues have been explored, one moves to compensation. The Government have, despite repeated requests, not given any further clarity on the guidance note which said there is a
“continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs”.
As I say, we have not seen anything clearer than that, and we know that a guidance note, in itself, is not sufficient.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said:
“the mitigation hierarchy is expressed through this model, with government amendments underlining the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs”.—[Official Report, 17/9/25; cols. 2239-2240.]
Again, that is all well and good, but it is not on the face of the Bill. We are quite clear that the mitigation hierarchy is so important that how it will be applied needs to be spelled out in regulations. This would not stop the Government going ahead with their new approach for these EDPs; it would just require them to be able to prove that all the steps have been gone through, during the process of drawing up an EDP, to make it absolutely clear that in terms of conservations outcomes this is the best route to go down.
Equally, these regulations would spell out how the precautionary principle would be used in assessing the scientific evidence, because we cannot face the prospect of an EDP that allows damage which could not be repaired by mitigation elsewhere.
As mentioned in our earlier debate on Amendment 130, the regulations would also set out the assessment for the baseline conditions, giving people the confidence that the quality of the information is the best available and not just from impact modelling.
Again, we are taking the Government at their word. In Committee, the Minister said unequivocally that irreplaceable habitats would not be included in an EDP; through these regulations, then, let us put that in the make-up of the EDP. Let us be clear: there are other regulations—including on biodiversity net gain, which were introduced by the previous Government—which spell out that irreplaceable habitats will not be included within the scope of those provisions.
Finally, again taking the Government at their word in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about how there will be circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development can take place—great, but we need that spelled out. The regulations would be the means to do that.
As I say, we are trying to be helpful to the Government, not only because we need those environmental safeguards for the Government to meet their environmental targets but because these EDPs are a completely new process. We have got to give businesses the confidence that, if they say, “Yes, we will go with these EDPs”, there is certainty that they will not be challenged. As it stands at the moment, there is no clarity about the scientific evidence or assessment of the environmental impacts. I am deeply worried that, unless this amendment is accepted, there will be far more challenges to the Government in their approach, which will not deliver the certainty for developers and will not deliver the houses and infrastructure that the country needs. I offer this amendment to the Government as a helpful approach to deliver for the environment and to get us building houses with the certainty we need as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 236A. I need to apologise to the House; the amendment is deficient in its drafting. I did not realise that in time to withdraw it but, as a consequence, I am happy for the Front Benches to completely ignore Amendment 236A. That said, I support Amendment 148 and if the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, puts it to a vote, I will support her.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
I rise briefly, because I spoke already on these matters on Amendment 130. All the concerns that I had about the scientific evidence and its basis are covered very nicely in this amendment. I would support the noble Baroness if she decided to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 148 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing it so clearly. It is quite a modest little amendment because all it asks is that, within six months, the Government publish draft regulations that would address a number of issues that have been of concern to several folks around the House, as well as external audiences. It is about a set of important issues that can give assurance that the Bill will definitely deliver, both for the environment and for development.
The Government have already given a bit of clarification on the requirements laid out in this amendment, with some very useful but limited government amendments being tabled after the Commons stages of the Bill. We have had assurances that irreplaceable habitats would be unlikely to meet the overall improvement test. We have had assurances that the environmental principles are already captured through drafting and various government amendments. We have had reference to the Secretary of State meeting the environmental principles policy statement as an alternative to the mitigation hierarchy. However, there were also other downsides in the comments made by the Minister in Committee.
For example, on whether measures need to be put in place in particular circumstances before a site is developed, I was rather concerned that it was said that that might be the case in instances where habitats or species are rare or fragile. You would think that if habitats or species are that rare or that fragile, we probably ought to be using the mitigation hierarchy to avoid doing damage to those really important areas. The Minister was clear that the Government would not require developers to use the mitigation hierarchy to do that very important thing: to try to avoid damage to the most important sites and to direct development to sites of rather less importance. That is fundamental if the Bill is to deliver both for the environment and for development.
The Minister very kindly had a drop-in session on EDPs, during which I asked whether we might see guidance and draft secondary legislation before Third Reading. Actually, I asked whether we would see it before Report, but I got a stout rebuttal at that point. It is really important that if there is a need for clarity, as I believe there is on the sorts of issues that are in Amendment 148, we see as much as possible of what will be in the guidance before we have to finally press the button on the Bill, because at the moment we are buying a bit of a pig in a poke.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 148. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has said, it is a modest but sensible little amendment with broad support, as we have seen tonight from all sides of the House. It deals with many of the concerns raised by Members from all Benches, including covering a number of amendments that we on these Benches have tabled.
I see no need to speak at length. I know there is some suggestion that this could be an adequate solution to the ills of Part 3. I am afraid it does not go far enough in that regard, but it could be part of the solution. That is why I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that if she intends to move it to a vote, the Official Opposition will support her. If she does not wish to vote on it tonight, we will need to return to this at Third Reading and discuss it further.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations dealing with various matters within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued engagement with Part 3 and welcome the opportunity to revisit the important matters raised by her amendment.
As set out in the recent all-Peers letter on the NRF, the Government are confident that each of the matters raised in this amendment is appropriately addressed in the legislation and that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficiently robust to guard against the misuse of this new approach. However, we recognise the particular desire for the Government to set out in greater detail how the mitigation hierarchy will inform the preparation of EDPs. I am happy to commit to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to determine the best way for the mitigation hierarchy to be considered in the preparation of an EDP. To be clear: this includes my undertaking, if necessary, to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading.
I have already spoken about the mitigation hierarchy at some length in previous debates, so I will not repeat all those points, but I again draw Peers’ attention to the recent all-Peers letter, which sets out how the elements of the mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the legislation. The hierarchy starts by saying that development should avoid or reduce impacts wherever possible. Natural England is already able to achieve this by requiring that conditions are imposed on any development that relies on an EDP. These standard conditions will be a form of conservation measure under Clause 55.
At the other end of the hierarchy, harm should be compensated for only as a last resort. This too is incorporated into Part 3. Network conservation measures are a form of compensation measure, in old money. The Bill makes it clear that these can be used only where Natural England considers that they would make greater environmental improvement than measures delivered at the site being impacted. It is inherent in this that Natural England must prefer conservation measures, which would previously have been called mitigation measures, to compensation measures. Both these structures are reinforced by the existing legal obligation, under the Environment Act 2021, for the Secretary of State to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy, which will also apply when making an EDP. This will itself encourage compliance with the mitigation hierarchy through the prevention and “rectification at source” principles.
As I have said, I welcome the opportunity to work with the noble Baroness to ensure that there is clarity as to how this framework will be deployed in practice. In respect of the other limbs of her amendment, the Government’s amendments clarify that Natural England and the Secretary of State will need to have regard to the best available scientific evidence. This approach to evidence feeds into the consideration of any baselining that Natural England will have to do to appropriately model the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also speaks to the position in respect of irreplaceable habitats. This returns us to the overall improvement test, which simply would not allow an EDP to be made if it would lead to irreversible or irreparable harm, as this would fail to secure the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature required under the test. Where an environmental feature is irreplaceable, an EDP could not allow for this feature to be lost, as that would fail to materially outweigh the impact of the development.
I am therefore confident that putting a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations on these matters is unnecessary, but I recognise that the Government will want to carefully consider areas where it would be useful to provide further guidance to Natural England as part of the implementation of the NRF. I therefore hope the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, feels able to withdraw her amendment. I will not speak to Amendment 236A, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, suggested.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate to show that there is consensus on the importance of this issue and the need for the Bill, as it stands, to be amended to address what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, regarded as a teeny-tiny issue but which could have really significant impacts, both for the environment and in certainty for the business community. We on these Benches always seek to be constructive, and I thank the Minister most heartily for her offer to have further discussions between now and Third Reading to progress matters. I hope very much that we can make progress on this before Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
“(8) In this section, the references to Wales and Scotland include the waters adjacent to them up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 94, line 25.
Lord Roborough
“(8) If the Secretary of State decides not to make an EDP, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order where the Secretary of State has decided not to make the connected Environmental Delivery Plan.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. The purpose of the amendments is to impose further discipline on Natural England in the exercise of its CPO powers relating to EDPs and potentially to remove them.
Amendments 153 and 160 seek to impose enhanced Crichel Down rules on Natural England in regard to any land that is acquired by Natural England for an EDP under a CPO or the threat of a CPO. The intention of the amendments is that, if the land is not required for an EDP, or if the EDP is revoked or expires, the land is returned to the previous owner. In practice, I would expect that the previous owner should pay the lower of market value or the net value after expenses and tax that was realised on the initial sale. This is slightly different to the Crichel Down rules, which require the offer of the land back at market value, should the land be about to be offered for sale, and is therefore a greater protection to the original owner. I hope that the Minister can offer encouragement on these points.
Amendment 189A would modify the requirement that Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers be subject to Secretary of State approval. The amendment would have the force of requiring Natural England to share with the Secretary of State all documentation and communication relevant to the decision, as well as allowing the landowner impacted to make a written submission of their own case. The amendment would place on Natural England a greater requirement for diligence in the exercise of these powers and allow private landowners, who may feel the injustice of the compulsory purchase, to state their case.
Amendment 190 seeks to protect gardens and allotments from the compulsory purchase powers available to Natural England. In the Bill, it appears that Natural England explicitly does have the power to CPO such property. In meetings and in Committee, the Minister stated that that would be very unlikely ever to happen. In that case, why does this power need to be included in the Bill?
Should the Minister be minded to adopt these suggestions, our Amendment 191, which removes Natural England’s CPO power for EDPs entirely, may not be necessary. But, if we were not to get satisfaction, we would be very inclined to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I just want to refer to Amendment 190. Often when we are tabling legislation, people say, “Well, that’ll never happen”, but it does in a different way.
I remember a coastal path in parts of Yorkshire where Natural England had a writ for it to go through gardens. Understandably, the homeowners were very upset. Finally, at my insistence, Natural England did change the path, because I said the regulations would never be laid. There is an element here of why I understand why my noble friend Lord Roborough has tabled this amendment, and I hope that the Government will give him sufficient assurance.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 190 raises an important issue about the use of compulsory purchase orders in relation to environmental delivery plans. It seeks to prevent land that is part of a home or garden from being subject to such an order. This is a reasonable and proportionate safeguard, recognising the sensitivities that come with any proposal to acquire private property and the importance of ensuring that powers of this kind are used only where it is truly necessary for the public good.
This question sits within a much wider context of how we support land management and environmental delivery. Post Brexit and post the CAP, Governments of both colours have tried and often struggled to deliver mechanisms that provide public and private funding for farmers to deliver public goods. The number one priority of the National Farmers’ Union has always been that such schemes should be open to all farmers, allowing them to continue vital environmental projects as part of profitable, resilient businesses.
Moving on to the intentions behind Clause 83 and the desire to ensure that environmental delivery plans can be delivered effectively, there remains a need for greater clarity from the Government on how these compulsory purchase orders would operate in practice. I would particularly welcome assurances on the safeguards that will apply, the circumstances in which such powers might be used and whether the Government believe that there are sufficient limits to prevent their overreach.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 191. This seeks to remove Clause 83, which provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land to carry out functions under Part 3.
To secure a win-win for nature and the economy, Natural England needs to have the necessary powers to bring forward the conservation measures needed to secure environmental protection while enabling Britain to get building. I know that the availability of compulsory purchase powers is a concern for some in this House, which is why the Government have taken a suitably cautious approach to the provision of such powers under Part 3. But we are clear that CPOs should be available to Natural England, subject to approval from the Secretary of State, where they are needed to secure land that is necessary to deliver conservation measures required under an EDP.
This is not, as some would portray it, a power grab for Natural England, but part of a package of measures in the Bill that will ensure that the necessary conservation measures will be delivered. While the Secretary of State would approve the use of such powers only where they were truly necessary, we believe that they need to be available to ensure that important conservation measures are not prevented from coming forward. On this environmental basis, I hope the noble Lord can see why such powers are necessary and will agree not to press his amendment.
Amendments 153 and 160 from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order under two situations. The first situation would require land to be returned where Natural England has used CPO to purchase land that is then not required as the Secretary of State has subsequently chosen not to make an EDP. I assure the noble Lord that this situation will never arise, as Natural England is unable to use these powers before an EDP has been made by the Secretary of State.
The second situation seeks for land to be returned in the event that an EDP is revoked. It is important to recognise that, in the unlikely event that an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State is required to take proportionate action to ensure that the impact of development that has come forward under the EDP is materially outweighed, in line with the overall improvement test.
It is not the case that, where an EDP is revoked, conservation measures can then be discontinued. Where an EDP is revoked, it will be because the Secretary of State no longer considers that it would meet the overall improvement test. It would therefore be environmentally reckless to require the land to be returned in this scenario, given the ongoing need to outweigh the impact of development. To do so would risk removing vital conservation measures and increasing the need for remedial action that would need to be funded by the taxpayer.
Amendment 190 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers for land that is part of a private dwelling. I assure noble Lords that the powers being granted to Natural England are not a licence to turn private gardens into nature reserves. As I have set out previously, these powers are there to provide certainty that, where necessary, Natural England can purchase land in this way.
However, we recognise that CPO is a significant tool. That is why it is ultimately a decision for the Secretary of State whether the public benefits of the CPO outweigh the interference with individual property rights and whether there is a compelling public interest in making the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight. Noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 252, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. To secure the successful delivery of the new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to deliver the necessary conservation measures.
We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight—including authorisation by the Secretary of State—and the landowner will receive compensation, in line with the existing approach.
The price paid to the landowner if the land is compulsorily acquired is not linked to the value of any contract proposed by Natural England prior to a CPO being taken forward, but will reflect the fair market value of the land. This approach to valuation is common across different CPO powers and is not specific to EDPs. When land is acquired by this route, Natural England will use the land to deliver conservation measures required under the EDP. The cost of these measures may vary for a number of reasons, and it is conceivable that Natural England may be able to use the land to deliver a range of conservation measures linked to different EDPs. As well as undermining the ability of EDPs to meet the overall improvement test, requiring land to be returned in this situation would expose taxpayers and developers to increased costs and would require Natural England to monitor the value of contracts associated with the land for potentially up to 100 years, with land being returned, potentially at increased value, at any point over that period.
I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the heart of many noble Lords. However, I trust that noble Lords can recognise the need for these targeted powers and can appreciate the safeguards established through the Bill.
Finally, Amendment 189A would require the Secretary of State to permit a landowner to make written representations before any decision on whether to approve a compulsory purchase is made. As part of this amendment, Natural England would be required to inform landowners that this option is available and provide all parties with the necessary information.
I can reassure the noble Lord that the important protections in his amendment already apply in the Bill. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 specifies that the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 apply to compulsory purchases made by Natural England under Clause 83. Sections 12 and 13A of that Act include provision for the notification of affected landowners as well as the ability of objectors to submit representations to the confirming authority, in this case the Secretary of State, either in writing or via a hearing.
With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply to my amendments. I did not detect much movement, although I thought it was very helpful to have the answer on Amendment 189A, which is a significant protection to a landowner who has been CPO-ed. I did not detect much of an answer on the Crichel Down rules as such, and whether it was possible to improve on those as they relate to a CPO for an EDP. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on that over the next few groups and offer something before we get to Amendment 191. I am still minded to test the opinion of the House on that, but any clarification could be helpful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 29th October 2025
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-IV(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
20:26 - Division on Amendment 182A - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 182A disagreed.
20:44 - Division on Amendment 183A - Ayes: 50 / Noes: 115 - Amendment 183A disagreed.
Lord Lansley
(2A) An EDP can be amended if the following conditions are met—(a) the EDP applies to a development with multiple developers,(b) a commitment to pay the levy by one or more of those developers would render it no longer reasonably practicable for other developers to opt not to pay the levy and otherwise to meet their environmental obligations, and(c) the EDP is to be amended to make the payment of the levy mandatory for the other developers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows EDPs to be amended after a developer has committed to pay the levy, if it is to make the levy mandatory where (1) there are multiple developers and (2) some but not all have committed to pay the levy. This would avoid conflict in the delivery of the EDP between (a) developers relying on the levy, and (b) developers abiding by existing environmental obligations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group consists of amendments relating to the circumstances under which the levy for the nature restoration fund should be made mandatory. The Minister may recall that, in Committee, this was not the subject of an amendment or substantive debate but of an exchange to try to better define the circumstances. At that time, the view was that this would be under exceptional circumstances. The question is: under what exceptional circumstances?
I am very grateful to officials who gave me the benefit of time and advice yesterday. I have tabled Amendment 158A because it was not apparent to me that an amendment to an environmental delivery plan could be made simply to make the levy mandatory after the EDP has been made. I am assured that the powers are available in Clause 62 for the purpose of amending it, and that that can be done to make the levy mandatory in circumstances where the EDP has already been made. I hope the Minister is in the happy position of being able to assure me that Clause 62 can do that.
Amendment 164A, in my name, is the substantive amendment in this group, in my view. I tried to establish in discussions with the department the circumstances in which the levy should be mandatory. To paraphrase, these came down to two things. The first was that there would be occasions when Natural England, in order to fulfil the objectives of its environmental delivery plan, would need full coverage of the levy to deliver the plan. If there was not full coverage—namely, if some developers chose to go down the route of not offering to pay the levy—then the EDP would not be able to be delivered, and those who had made such a commitment to pay the levy would not be able to fulfil their environmental obligations through that route. Secondly, in a large project, such as a nationally significant infrastructure project with, essentially, one developer, if Natural England were to make an environmental delivery plan and that developer or project controller chose not to go down the route of paying the levy, then all the work done on the EDP would be pointless and it would make no progress. I have tabled Amendment 164A to try to arrive at a point where we can specify much more clearly in the Bill the circumstances in which the levy can be made mandatory. This is not unimportant; it is a very important issue.
I remind noble Lords of my registered interest, but I rely not on that but on the submissions and representations made publicly to the Government about this from the Home Builders Federation, among others. It is very concerned. From the point of view of the development community, the whole purpose is to give developers the choice between meeting their environmental obligations through the habitats and other regulations or going down the route of an EDP, with the opportunity to meet their obligations through the payment of the levy. If it is made mandatory, the choice simply does not exist anymore. For that reason, I want to define the circumstances in a clear way in the Bill.
The latter circumstance, with a single developer, is not a substantive problem. If Natural England goes down the route of consulting on a potential EDP, it would be a matter of necessity that the developer concerned was part of that consultation. Natural England would arrive at a considered view as to whether the developer in that instance was going to pay the levy and go down that route. That would determine whether the levy can be made, and the Secretary of State could rest upon the results of that consultation.
However, I believe that there is a case where, if there are multiple developers associated with a particular area—the EDP might cover a number of development sites and range across a wider area—one or more of those developers may commit to pay the levy. It may be that it is literally not possible to meet the objectives of the EDP without the others paying the levy. If they choose to go down an alternative route, they may not be able to meet their habitats regulations requirements, because they would be mitigated through the mechanism of the EDP. Alternatively, they may be trying to freeload off those who are paying the levy by saying that they will meet their habitats regulations requirements, but in practice they would be met through the EDP managed by Natural England and paid for by other developers. There is therefore a case for a mandatory levy, but I do not believe that the Bill says what those circumstances are.
I am afraid that it is not at all satisfactory to leave the power unspecified, because it will increasingly be a temptation for Natural England to initiate an environmental delivery plan, do the work, set up the potential draft, consult on it and then reach the conclusion that only by making it mandatory will it secure the necessary coverage to fund an EDP. Far from it being an exception, we will find that Natural England is increasingly defaulting towards mandatory levy payments as the basis on which it can proceed with its ambitious environmental delivery plans. That is not where we were told this would be going.
I will not press Amendments 164A or 158A, as I do not believe that what we require in the Bill is as yet specified in those amendments. I can well see that my noble friend, with his Amendment 164, could do us a great service, because if we were to take out these provisions it would press the Government to reinsert them with the necessary detail on how and when the mandatory levy should be imposed by way of substituting for what is currently in Clause 66(4) and (5).
However, if my noble friend were to take the view that it would be better for the Minister to give an assurance that she will consider whether there is scope for specifying the conditions under which the levy is mandatory—and narrowing that down to the kind of examples that I have referred to in my introductory remarks—I would be happy with that. I do not want us to take out the mandatory levy entirely; I want us to be able to specify it in more detail. I beg to move Amendment 158A.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have been sitting for the last eight minutes next to my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I am slightly concerned by what he said. He accurately painted a picture that shows that there will be a drift, an expectation and a move by Natural England towards mandation for an EDP. I have been concerned for a while that the process by which an EDP might be consulted on and have consensus built could take a long time; I believe that it is very unlikely that we will get any EDPs operational in this Parliament, such is the process that is outlined, with multiple grounds of consultation and so forth.
I will paint an alternative picture to that of my noble friend Lord Lansley that involves a developer who just has to get on. The site that he is trying to develop is eating its head off in interest and there might even be demand for the homes—who knows? The developer has to get on and cannot afford to wait for that third year, so they cut and run. They go with a private operator under the habitats regulations; it is a proper scheme—I am not talking about shortcuts—but it means that they can get on with it.
The problem with mandation is they could end up paying twice, and that is no good. The Bill is meant to be speeding up development. So if they could have a route to develop more quickly while delivering the environmental benefits, without going down the EDP route, it should be open to them. I am concerned that mandation—and the slippery slope towards mandation being the default position, which my noble friend laid out—would see development being slowed down when it could be speeded up. Who wants to pay twice? Rather than get on with it, they hold back on the supposition that, in due course, the EDP will somehow come to the rescue. This is working against the role of the private sector in innovating and bringing in new techniques, and it is reinforcing the notion that only Natural England—that dead hand of the state—has a monopoly on how these things should be delivered. That is dangerous.
I am not going to speak against my noble friend, but I do not feel that he entirely covered the double jeopardy point, which is the logical conclusion of the amendments he has laid. In accepting that my noble friend Lord Roborough may press his amendment, I note that it will come back at Third Reading. If it does, we will need to consider the double jeopardy point about paying twice.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 158A and 164A, which seek to understand why the nature restoration levy may be mandatory. That would appear to go against the sense of the whole of Part 3, which is supposed to offer an alternative to the existing system of dealing with environmental planning matters.
If Natural England has the power to make the NRL mandatory, what is to stop it from exercising that power unfettered and in all cases? The solution to not getting reassurance on these amendments is to take out this power entirely, which is the effect of my own Amendment 164. My noble friend made a point that is worth the Minister considering, so can she reassure the House that those conditions could be tightened up and made more explicit, in order to inspire more confidence? I hope that she can reassure the House, and I will follow on from her response in my approach to my Amendment 164.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, just in case there is a move to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. While we understand the intent behind the proposal, we on these Benches are not persuaded that removing the provision for mandatory payments to the nature restoration fund would be a step in the right direction. If developers choose to proceed through an EDP route, it is only right that they contribute to the environmental mitigation and restoration measures that make those plans effective. Allowing them to opt out of such payments risks undermining the consistency and fairness of the system and could weaken the overall purpose of the fund to ensure that development contributes positively to nature recovery. Therefore, we approach the amendment, and a possible vote on it, with considerable caution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to examine the circumstances in which an environmental delivery plan, and the associated levy payment, could be mandatory. Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would wholly remove the option for an EDP to be mandatory. Amendment 164A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Langsley, would significantly restrict the circumstances in which an EDP could be made mandatory. I assure noble Lords, as I previously stressed in Committee debates, that the scenario of mandatory EDPs and levy payments will arise only in limited, exceptional circumstances. I will explain that in a bit more detail—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested that I would say that again—to try to reassure noble Lords.
A key purpose of the NRF is to offer developers an alternative way to meet their environmental obligations, so it is not our intention to make EDPs the only route available. As I have set out, Natural England is able to recommend that an EDP be mandatory only where it believes this is necessary, and it would be required to set out its reasoning within that EDP. That would form part of the consultation on that EDP—allowing developers and others to support or oppose this approach —and the responses to that consultation would of course form part of the Secretary of State’s consideration before making that EDP.
We consider that these steps represent a significant consultative and democratic safeguard. However, we also recognise that there is interest in what circumstances the Government consider may be necessary for an EDP to be mandatory rather than optional. We consider that there are two broad possibilities, the first of which is in instances where the ability to make an EDP mandatory provides a crucial assurance to Natural England and the taxpayer. For example, were Natural England to work with the developer and invest significant resource into preparing a bespoke EDP to address the impacts of a single large development such as a piece of energy infrastructure, that EDP is not likely to be usable by anyone else. If the developer or promoter subsequently chose to discharge their environmental obligations via a different route, that cost of developing the EDP would be wasted. It is important, therefore, to have a mechanism to provide certainty that an EDP will be used in such a scenario.
Secondly, if an EDP could only secure the right conservation measures to pass the overall improvement test and if all developers in scope paid in, but consultation showed that a small minority of developers did not wish to do so, it may be reasonable for Natural England to recommend and for the Secretary of State to agree that the EDP should be mandatory. A consideration of the overall benefits to growth and development would be properly in the gift of the Secretary of State in this scenario.
It is also important to note that the Bill contains a duty on the Secretary of State in drafting the levy regulations to ensure that even where payment of the levy is mandatory, it does not make development economically unviable, as this would not deliver the win-win the NRF is seeking to achieve.
Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. They are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which will enable stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on regulations before they are made. In developing the regulations, we will, of course, work closely with stakeholders to ensure the effective operation of the levy system. Given this reassurance as to the limited circumstances where the levy could be mandatory, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Amendment 158A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to limit circumstances where an EDP could be amended so as to make payment of the levy mandatory. I assure the noble Lord that while we do not envisage Natural England amending an EDP to make payment of the levy mandatory, the Bill already provides that an EDP could be amended in this way. Such a scenario would be very unlikely to materialise, because the Secretary of State would need to consider whether making an EDP mandatory meets the high legal bar of this being necessary. However, if it did, the Bill as drafted already allows for this to happen, crucially, following further public consultation and, of course, the consent of the Secretary of State. With this reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate; it is a really important one. What the Minister said certainly added something new in terms of the operation of the viability test as a way of mitigating the risk that the mandatory levy would put developers in a disadvantageous position. Otherwise, what she said was what I had previously understood.
Personally, I do not think that Amendment 164A significantly narrowed the scope; it simply expressed what I hoped was the intention. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister continued to consider—if not in the Bill itself, then certainly in the regulations and guidance—whether Natural England is deterred from constantly pressing the Secretary of State to think of making the levy mandatory, simply in order to justify the fact that it put all its effort and money into preparing EDPs in the first place, which is, I am afraid, part of the argument it will inevitably present. But, subject to that request, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 158A.
Lord Banner
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable developers to use an EDP after development commences, for example, in cases of applications for alteration of planning conditions, planning applications for developments already carried out or applications for changes to a planning permission.
“(1A) If a development to which a request relates has already commenced, Natural England must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to accept the request.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State when considering whether to accept a request from a developer to use an EDP in cases where the development has already commenced.
“(a) section 125 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs) insofar as it applies to any function of a public authority of determining an application (whenever made) relating to the development, and(b) section 126 of that Act”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the general duties on public authorities in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 when exercising decision-making functions that may affect marine conservation zones. Those duties require authorities to further the conservation objectives of each MCZ, so an EDP containing network conservation measures may cause a public authority to breach the duties.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
“(3) Natural England must pay another person to take conservation measures with regard to its duties under subsection (1)(b), or to monitor EDPs with regard to its duties under subsection (1)(c).(4) Before commissioning another person to take conservation measures or monitor EDPs with regard to subsection (3), Natural England must first set out which private market solutions were explored to address an environmental impact on an identified environmental feature, and why no existing and available private market solution was deemed sufficient or suitable.(5) When commissioning conservation measures or monitoring under subsection (3) with regard to subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), Natural England must undertake an open competitive tender process.(6) Natural England cannot undertake conservation measures itself unless it can show that no individual or body is willing to undertake conservation measures on its behalf. (7) In the event that Natural England undertakes conservation measures itself, it must first attempt to purchase the land in question at market value.(8) In monitoring an EDP under subsection (1)(c) Natural England must take sufficient measures to monitor —(a) the effectiveness of the conservation measures that have been implemented, and(b) the effects of the EDP in general.(9) When commissioning monitoring with regard to subsection (1)(c), Natural England must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s response. I do not think it took us forward, and it does not move us on. I am still deeply concerned about the ability of Natural England to deliver this, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Caithness
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of the Earl of Caithness to clause 77, seeks to ensure that both statutory undertakers and private individual land managers are given equal treatment as regards the powers of entry to be exercised by Natural England.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 183B in my name. These are identical amendments to those tabled in Committee, when, as one will find in Hansard at col. 2327 on Wednesday 17 September this year, the Minister gave some encouraging words to me. It was one of the few amendments to which she responded positively, as though she had listened to what we said, and I was extremely grateful to her then. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments I made. She said she wanted to consider both these amendments further. I have not heard from the Minister, which saddens me. I do not blame her; her officials should have picked this up and made certain that I was informed of what the thoughts were before we came to Report, and I think that is discourteous, to say the very least. I hope that the Minister has given this careful consideration and that on reflection she will be able to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I must say, I smiled when the Bill first came out and I saw this clause. It shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of rural life. Someone working for Forestry England, which is probably the statutory undertaker most likely to be affected, will visit his forests probably three or four times in 80 years—it depends how many operations are going on. The guy working for Forestry England who leaves his desk gets 21 days’ notice. But the farmer, who owns his land and has to make every square metre of it count and pay the income that his family depends upon, probably gets back at nine o’clock at night, opens his computer, tries to have a meal and catches up with family life, and he is informed that Natural England is coming on to his land tomorrow. It is oblivious of what the farmer actually intends to do with the land; maybe he has people visiting, because he could be an environmental farmer. He could be ploughing the land, harrowing or harvesting it, and at nine o’clock at night it is far too late to tell anyone or do anything about it.
I do not think Natural England would naturally behave like this, because it has more sense, but it is strange that this clause gives 21 days to the statutory undertaker and 24 hours to the hard-working farmer. Mind you, as it is only notice that you are going to enter, a 10-day period would probably be enough for both, to be honest. These two amendments need to be supported.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of both amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. The arguments were made powerfully and comprehensively in Committee and well summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Farmers, in particular, should be given adequate notice of entry in order to take necessary precautions to manage their liability towards those entering the farm and to manage the biosecurity risks that entrants to the farm pose to their animals. If my noble friend is dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, we would support him in testing the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I apologise for any discourtesy to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I take responsibility for that myself. Although he was kind enough to say that it was not my fault, it is always down to the Minister to make sure that Peers are responded to. I apologise if he did not receive the response that he should have.
I thank the noble Earl for tabling Amendments 183A and 183B, which would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land. This is currently set at 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases. While we agree that it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry requirements in other legislation. Through aligning with other legislation, we have minimised the risk of confusion for landowners, while also recognising the justified difference in how we treat statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and may require additional preparation to protect public safety and prevent disruption. There are also additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these powers cannot be used to gain access to a private dwelling. These safeguards further ensure that these powers cannot be used in any manner other than for carrying out surveys or investigations as specified within this part of the Bill. I hope that, with this explanation and the assurance that the NRF is in line with standard practice, the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and for taking responsibility for the inefficiency of her officials. The rest of her remarks do not please me so much; I am very disappointed. There is no different argument to what was used in Committee. I just want the Minister to reflect. Does she really want to treat farmers in the way that they are being treated at the moment? This is not emergency legislation. There are, rightly, cases in legislation where emergency access is required and less than 24 hours’ notice is needed. That is not the case here. I disagree with her entirely that it will be confusing for the landowner in this instance. This is just sheer discourtesy towards the hard-working farmers of this country. I think that she would resent it if she was a farmer and was treated like this. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I did ask the Minister whether she might reflect on the debate we had earlier, and I would be very interested to hear whether she has anything to add. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The noble Lord asked for further assurances in respect of how land acquired under CPO could be returned where the land is no longer required. The Crichel Down rules are existing non-statutory arrangements under which surplus land that was acquired by, or under threat of, compulsion should be offered back to former owners, their successors, or sitting tenants.
In reference to land acquired under CPO in respect of Part 3, as I explained, it is very unlikely that land acquired by compulsory purchase under an EDP would not be used. It is unlikely to be surplus. This is because, if an EDP were revoked, the land might still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Where land that has been compulsorily purchased is genuinely surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply, as they would for land purchased under any other CPO power.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that addition to the debate. On that basis, I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading on this matter, but I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
“Sustainable drainageThe Secretary of State must bring into force in England all uncommenced parts of Schedule 3 of the Water Management Act 2010 (sustainable drainage) within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
In England, developers have the automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for this. Implementation of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) would end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is my moment; I have waited all day and all night. It gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 197 and to speak to Amendment 198. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for lending her name to both amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for lending their support to Amendment 197.
I hope that the amendments are self-explanatory. They are flipsides of the same coin, and they have huge amounts of support among interested parties, such as insurance companies, environmental managers and others, as I shall explain. Amendment 197 explains that developers have the automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is a capacity for this or not.
Both Houses of Parliament approved Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the purpose of which was to end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems. It has not yet been implemented in England, but it has been implemented with a degree of success in Wales.
Similarly, Amendment 198 links the right to connect to the public sewer to first having followed the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, to provide a more robust incentive to developers to follow this guidance in the absence of full implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who waited with such patience to present this terribly important group of amendments. It is disappointing that the length of the day and the hour mean that this group will not get the kind of attention it deserves, but it is worth highlighting the breadth of political and non-political support for this amendment. It is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, one of our acknowledged experts in this general space, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
I will make two additional remarks. We have already had a comprehensive introduction to the background, the very long history and the arguments for this. I am sure some noble Lords here were at the Lord Speaker’s Lecture this week, given by the noble Baroness, Lady May, who is not currently in her place. One of the MPs there asked: “Isn’t it really a problem that constituents today expect the Government to fix things in an hour or a day, just like they get something delivered from the internet?” Maybe it is, but I think 16 years is quite long enough for people to wait for the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act.
There is a real issue here. The public often think that once the Government have announced something it is going to happen—and that is something we need more political education on and awareness of—but surely they have the right to believe that, once a law has been passed, having been through all the scrutiny and effort such as we are putting in now, it will be implemented. It has been carefully examined and is understood to be a good idea, and the people expect it to be delivered, and it brings politics into disrepute when it is not—that is the small “p” political argument for this amendment.
On the broader argument for SUDS generally, I have visited many such schemes, but the one I point noble Lords to—it is well worth visiting for those who have not seen it—is at the LILAC co-housing scheme in Leeds, which is essentially built around a central pond that all the water on the site drains into. We have spent many hours talking about how important green spaces are and how important supporting biodiversity is. We unfortunately did not get to vote, but we spent a lot of time talking about how important play space for children is. This is a way you can use SUDS. Well-designed SUDS can deliver so many other things that the Government say they want and that the House has said it wants. This is simple, practical common sense on how we should be designing the kind of communities—not just housing—that we desperately need.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have a particular attachment to this amendment. I think it is fair to say that, when I went back into Defra, I was pretty surprised that we had not made any progress in getting Schedule 3 sorted. Yet again, it was the part for housing that had put a block on it, on the basis that apparently it was going to cost more money. But all that does, in a different way, is transfer the costs, both societal and financial, from a developer trying to put together a community to the billpayer, and those costs are potentially higher. I know that we managed to secure, and the Government have continued with it, over £96 billion from the water companies to address certain things to do with sewerage. This is one of those ridiculous situations where there is an obvious answer. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh has already mentioned, Sir Jon Cunliffe has said this should be done. Why has it not been done?
Actually, not just the committee from the Commons but also the committee in this place were very supportive and delighted that, when I was in post briefly for that year, we were going to get things done. We did the review, managed to get DLUHC over the line, and then managed to put out confirmation of a policy we were going to do. We were going to do a consultation. That got going as well, and then the election happened. Do not get me wrong: I understand why this might not be a top priority for a Government coming in, despite this whole issue being one of their key campaigning messages in the 2024 election. Here is the solution, ready-made, that they could just do at the stroke of a pen. That is why it a concern that we are not at this point yet.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, on this group of amendments I feel as if I am on my own. I agree absolutely that SUDS, or sustainable urban drainage systems, can play a wonderful role for smaller-style developments—for ones and twos, miles away from the mains in rural areas, they are obviously the way to go and oftentimes they are the only way to go—but I cannot see for the life of me how promoting SUDS and accepting these amendments will be proportionate when we are talking not just about connecting 10 or 15 homes but building 1.5 million. We will never solve the housing problem by connecting 1.5 million homes to SUDS. We have to connect them to the mains; it is the only way forward.
Lord Fuller (Con)
But I am concerned, listening to this, because we will be letting the water undertakers—the sewage firms—off the hook if we are not careful. I say to my noble friend that I have looked carefully at the amendments. This whole Bill is about speeding up development; we have to get these homes going. It seems to me that we are potentially having a perverse incentive in allowing the sewage treatment firms to have a veto over new development.
The sewage treatment works and the operators—the water undertakers—are going to be the tail that wags the dog. If they say, “We haven’t got enough capacity, therefore you can’t connect”, no new homes will be built at all. I am really concerned about this. I went to the world heritage site at Iona in Scotland and its sewage treatment works were at capacity. It ended up with the visitor centre being forced to have its own package system that drained straight through the public areas, making it worse. In Norfolk, Anglian Water is saying that its sewage treatment plants are at capacity and it cannot contemplate any new homes. It is the blocker: 40,000 new homes in the greater Norwich area, as well as other areas, are now at risk. So far, so much for speeding development. This is going to slow it down, because it gives them a get-out—a perverse incentive not to invest in what they should be doing, while taking the money from business rates and so forth.
In aggregate, we are going to end up with more polluting package systems rather than connecting. That is no good for places such as Poringland, in my own area, where there is clay and the drainage is really poor. This is really important because by promoting a multiplicity of much smaller package systems, rather than incentivising the main sewerage providers to invest, we are going to avoid scale—and we need the larger, better-structured sewage treatment works brought up to scratch, because it is only then that they would address the phosphate problem. Phosphate is very difficult to do in a package system because there are harsh chemicals, so you have to wear face masks, gloves and all the health and safety paraphernalia. It all has to be carefully handled. This is where we get the economy of scale, which is what we should be encouraging.
Another point is that if we are to allow the sewage companies to say, “We think we’re full now, so you can’t have any more”, we will end up with more small package schemes. There is the smell. They are also unreliable and expensive to maintain. It is difficult to get them adopted.
I am really concerned about Amendment 198. I do not want to put the black spot on it entirely, but it needs to be improved. We would end up with a perverse situation in which there was a lack of capacity and we incentivised the sewage treatment companies and water companies to take it easy, rather than go the extra mile. This is not some theoretical risk. In places in Norfolk such as Heacham, Docking, Snettisham, Horsford, Brancaster and the entirety of the greater Norwich area, Anglian Water is holding up the delivery of tens of thousands of houses.
This is an infrastructure Bill, so there would be unintended consequences. While the amendment is well meaning—I accept everything the noble Baroness said about what is in the Water Act, and I accept that for smaller schemes this is it—if we are to have an infrastructure Bill, we need to remove the excuses for the sewage treatment companies and the water undertakings not to invest in that most basic infrastructure. It is as if we are going back to the days before Chamberlain in Birmingham and Bazalgette here on the Embankment in London. We spent ages on the Water Bill, and there is widespread concern about sewage discharge, but sewage discharges will be solved only if we hold the water companies’ feet to the flames and get them to invest. It is a real problem if they just say, “Well, it’s a bit difficult. We’re not going to invest, and therefore you can’t build houses and can’t get the economy moving”.
In summary, we need to make sure that we take into account that SUDS has a role for smaller schemes, but we should not allow the pressure to be taken off the large companies for the big schemes—the schemes that will deliver the homes this nation needs by getting roofs over people’s heads. Otherwise, we will never meet the targets. As it is, in the Times yesterday there were questions about whether we will even get half way to delivering the housing targets, let alone all the way.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I will speak briefly to this group. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her resilience in the face of some opposition from her own Benches.
Amendment 197 seeks to end the automatic right for developers to connect surface water from new homes to the public sewerage system, regardless of capacity, and would instead provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems.
Amendment 198, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would go further by linking the right to connect to compliance with the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, creating a stronger incentive for developers to follow this guidance, in advance of full implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I believe that some of this was developed by the All-Party Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities, among others, and we certainly support what the noble Baroness is attempting to do with these amendments. Managing surface water is a huge challenge. It is such an irony that we have the problem of lots of surface water, but we also do not have enough water.
Protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity and reducing flood risk are really important priorities. We see the merits of these amendments. While they are not the only steps needed to achieve a fully resilient water system, they represent a constructive approach to improving drainage management in particular, and to encouraging developers to take responsibility for sustainable practices.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendments in this group. I know that the whole House respects her for her commitment to the issue of sustainable drainage, and I pay tribute to her for her persistence in raising this particular matter, because it is about time that we made some progress on it.
Our water system is put under pressure when developments are built out and connected up, and my noble friend is right to raise this. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to set out the Government’s ongoing work on delivering a sustainable future for our water systems? We would also be interested to hear what active steps the department is taking to engage with the development sector, including small and medium-sized developers, to ensure that existing non-statutory standards for sustainable drainage have been implemented.
My noble friends have mentioned 2010. I can beat that. I think it was in 1992 that, as Environment Minister, I was shown a revolutionary new system whereby the downpipes from our houses are connected to a soakaway and a system of seepage pipes about a foot underground, where the water then slowly leaked back into the soil. For big commercial car parks, the seepage pipes were put down a metre, so they were not crushed.
Those systems were in development then, and I said, “This is a jolly good idea, we should do it”, but the word was, “Oh no, Minister, it is not quite the right time to do it yet”. So I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say about that particular area. What development work is going on for seepage systems in ordinary domestic houses? We have millions of gallons of pure raindrops falling on our roofs, we put it into the sewerage system and then the water companies spend millions of pounds taking out the clean water again. Seepage systems must be the way to go in the near future.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for proposing these amendments, and for her persistence in these matters. I remember having long discussions with her on the same subject over the course of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
Proper implementation, adoption and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems can significantly reduce the pressure on sewer networks from new developments by as much as 87%. This creates capacity for further development in areas where conventional drainage alone would be insufficient. There is growing need for SUDS in more developments, with designs that can withstand changing climate conditions, support broader water infrastructure goals and contribute to addressing the water pollution challenges.
Progress has already been made through the planning system to improve SUDS delivery. I am afraid that I do not accept the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that MHCLG has been holding this up. The updated National Planning Policy Framework, published on 12 December, now requires SUDS for all developments that have drainage implications.
Sewerage companies have the authority to reject connection requests if they believe that the mode of construction or condition of the drain or sewer will prejudice their network or fail to meet reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to the sewer system.
The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, has reviewed the regulatory framework for the water sector in England and Wales. Both the UK and Welsh Governments are assessing the findings, including any potential impact on the right to connect. Any legislative changes to Section 106 should take into account the findings of the Independent Water Commission’s report before moving forward. The Government remain strongly committed to requiring standardised SUDS in new developments and increasing rainwater management strategies to mitigate flood risks and to adapt to climate change.
In June 2025, the Government released updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS, which have been positively received by stakeholders as a very constructive development. Later this year, the Government plan to consult on national planning policies, including those related to flood risk and SUDS. Additionally, a consultation will be launched on ending freehold estates which will explore ways to reduce the reliance on private management arrangements for community assets, such as SUDS. When we bring those national planning policies forward, I hope that the noble Baroness will take part in the discussions. As she has such a detailed knowledge of the subject, I am sure that she would be very helpful in the preparation of those national planning policies.
For all these reasons, the Government cannot accept Amendments 197 and 198. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment 197.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in favour of the amendments—and to those who did not. I will take my colleague aside and teach him the error of his ways, perhaps acquainting him with Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
As a newly elected MP, I was surprised at two things: first, that we do not make new laws but amend existing ones; and, secondly, that, having passed a law, we do not implement it. I listened very carefully to the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. She has made the points for me: these are guidelines in the non-statutory National Planning Policy Framework and in the national standards for SUDS.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have explained many times during the course of the debate on the Bill that, although the planning policy statements and the NPPF are not statutory in themselves, they are part of a statutory planning framework and they must be taken into account as local plans are developed. They cannot be statutory documents because they have to be amended frequently, but they sit within that statutory planning framework, and that is what makes them powerful.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. It is not me that she has to convince, but the insurance companies out there, and the likes of CIWEM, who have to pick up the pieces when there is a combined sewage overflow. We have not plugged the gap of the highways runoff, either. I would like to reserve judgment about bringing back the amendment at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
“Heritage tree preservation orders(1) A local planning authority may make a heritage tree preservation order in respect of a heritage tree.(2) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations for heritage tree preservation orders, which must include provision— (a) for a heritage tree to have all the protections afforded to a tree by a tree preservation order under section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (power to make tree preservation orders);(b) requiring the owner of a heritage tree, or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands, to advertise appropriately its status as such, and the penalties for harming it, to persons approaching the tree or planning activities in its vicinity;(c) enabling the responsible planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner of a heritage tree or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands to take specified reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree and, if the owner or occupier does not take such steps in reasonable time, to take such steps itself and to recover the reasonable cost of doing so from the owner or occupier;(d) for the responsible planning authority, Natural England, the Secretary of State or another prescribed responsible body to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier about the care and preservation of the heritage tree (a “heritage tree partnership agreement”), including about costs;(e) for additional or higher penalties for breach of a heritage tree preservation order.(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for the creation, publication and maintenance of a register of heritage trees in respect of which heritage tree preservation orders have been made.(4) For the purposes of this section, “heritage tree” means a tree listed as such by Natural England on grounds of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecologic importance.(5) Natural England must create, publish and maintain a list of heritage trees in England for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides for the protection of heritage trees.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 199 is about heritage trees, and I thank everyone who has stayed for this debate. A special thank you goes to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has worked on this for far longer than me.
The existing mechanisms for tree preservation prove consistently inadequate when confronted by development pressure. To halt the continual attrition of irreplaceable ecological and historic assets, we must introduce specific mandatory, statutory safeguards. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for also signing Amendment 199, which achieves this by empowering local planning authorities to make heritage tree preservation orders: HTPOs. A heritage tree is precisely defined as one listed by Natural England based on its exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological importance. They are exceptional—not just any old tree in somebody’s back garden.
Natural England is explicitly tasked with creating, publishing and maintaining this register of heritage trees in England. The measure would guarantee that these assets were afforded all the protections of a standard TPO but mandate significantly more rigorous enforcement and proactive care. Under it, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying that breaches of an HTPO incur additional or higher penalties. Crucially, the system would move beyond reactive enforcement; the regulations must specifically enable the responsible authority, the planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner or occupier to take specified, reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree. If the owner failed to comply within a reasonable timeframe, the authority could execute the work itself and recover the reasonable cost.
This proposal would ensure that these vital historic assets were kept for future generations. It would be financially enforceable and remove uncertainty. Furthermore, transparency would be mandatory: owners must publicly advertise the tree’s status and penalties for harming it in the vicinity. The provision also encourages collaboration through heritage tree partnership agreements between the responsible body and the owner concerning care and costs.
The mechanisms within this amendment would deliver the focused legal protection required for irreplaceable features, moving accountability from discretionary planning guidance to a mandatory framework of enforcement and proactive conservation of our vital heritage trees. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, it would be exceptional if I did not support this amendment, in that it takes the provisions of my Private Member’s Bill and puts them into the amendment—so it would be a bit two-faced of me if I did not support it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has laid out clearly what the issue is. It is a very important issue in the public domain. We saw the outpourings that happened at the Sycamore Gap, and we see every year in the Tree of the Year competition just how many people exert themselves to vote for their favourite heritage tree. We have the beginnings of a register of these trees already in existence. I believe that my optimism, which was raised when the Government commissioned the Tree Council to put forward a report on what should happen, deserves a bit of encouragement, because, as yet, we have not had a very satisfactory response to the Tree Council’s research.
In Committee, I summarised the Government’s position as being that they felt that by saying that these trees were irreplaceable habitats was simply sufficient—but it is clearly not, as they are increasingly being damaged either by demolition or by poor management, so being called an irreplaceable habitat is not having any impact whatever. The second worry that I had in Committee was that, although the Tree Council had come forward with recommendations, it was clear that the Government were not planning to do very much as a result of them. It would be good to hear from the Minister tonight that, with this having been reflected on, there has been a change of heart, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having also attached my name to this amendment, for reasons I shall get to in a second, let me say that it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender —and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in particular, as she has been our champion in this space.
I am going to speak about two groups of trees in Sheffield. Members of your Lordships’ House may remember the great Sheffield tree controversy and the struggles that the whole city went to to defend its street trees. Two groups of those would, I think, have been covered by a heritage tree preservation order. One was about 40 trees on Western Road that had been planted in 1919 as a living memorial for the soldiers killed in the First World War from that community. The council planned to cut them down. There were paintings by artists underneath the trees and a huge march in World War I-style uniforms from the trees down to the town hall, and a huge campaign that demonstrated just how important those trees were to the community, and nearly all of them were saved.
On the other side of the city, in a much more deprived area, there were two cherry trees that were planted to commemorate two brothers killed in the Second World War. They were just cut down and people were deeply shocked. We have talked a lot in your Lordships’ House, throughout the passage of this Bill, about how nature is terribly important to people’s health and well-being, but here we are talking about individual trees that communities have an individual relationship with and that desperately need protection. They are part of their history, part of their future. At the moment, we do not have ways of protecting them, except for communities going to the kind of extraordinary efforts that the people in Sheffield had to go through to save those trees that they did manage to save.
I will make one other point. Poland has a green monument system that marks tens of thousands of trees across Poland, and Romania has a similar scheme. Britain is supposed to be really keen on nature and really keen on heritage, and look how far behind we are.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 199 because I think it is important that we protect and recognise our historic trees. I am thinking not just of the highway and byway trees; there are some really special champion oaks in South Norfolk, where I was the leader of the council. We took steps to recognise them, bring them into the local plan and give them special designations. They form the basis of the strategic gaps between settlements, which is not just a good thing for the landscape; it also maintains that spirit of community.
I am thinking in particular of Kett’s oak, which is a champion oak said to be over 500 years old—it might be more—sat there on the B1172 between Norwich and Wymondham. It was the site of Kett’s rebellion, where Robert Kett marched 16,000 people to Mousehold Hill in Norwich, having had a petition of 29 demands. I expect the Government to want to knock this one back, but I note the context of that historical nature, as well as the landscape importance. Some of Kett’s demands were to limit the power of the gentry and to prevent the overuse of communal resources. It did not do him any good—Kett was executed on 7 December 1549 —but it is part of the lexicon. I am conscious that my noble friend Lady McIntosh is going to take me outside and duff me up afterwards. I hope I do not suffer the same fate as befell Robert Kett.
My serious point is that having a national register of important trees is not just important for biodiversity and all that sort of thing; they are part of our history and culture, and these are things to be celebrated. I warmly endorse and support Amendment 199, with my personal knowledge of Kett’s oak, and other noble Lords will have similar stories from their own areas. I suppose the salutary lesson is that when that Sycamore Gap tree was felled, quite terribly, in Northumberland last year, there was a national outpouring. Amendment 199 attempts to capture that sense of pride and purpose, and it has my full support.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we all share an appreciation of our heritage trees. The Fortingall yew in Perthshire is estimated to be around 2,300 years old, and there are oaks on the Blenheim estate that are estimated to be over 1,000 years old. Of course, the iconic Sycamore Gap tree, which I was driven past the day before it was cut down, was over 100 years old, but while it was a relatively young tree by comparison, I think it was probably the most famous iconic tree we had, loved by millions.
Whether they be ancient yews or oaks that have stood in Britain for hundreds if not thousands of years, our heritage trees are a link to our past. That is why we have robust tree protection laws. While we are committed to maintaining those protections, will the Minister please confirm that the existing protections for trees will not be swept away inappropriately without due consideration when developments are considered? It would be unacceptable to have an EDP that meets the overall improvement test but necessitates cutting down one or more heritage trees. I think we all agree that that would be unacceptable. Will the Minister please set out the Government’s view on the current penalties for breaches of tree protection orders? Do the Government feel that these remain appropriate, or do Ministers have plans to review them or introduce new regulations and new laws?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for the debate and the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. Obviously, trees and the natural environment are very important to all of us, especially the Government. Trees offer profound environmental and societal benefits; they are instrumental in our efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, they support human well-being, and they provide important habitats for wildlife. We have considered the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, which seeks to establish a new category of “heritage trees”—those of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological significance—and give them additional statutory protection.
As mentioned in previous debates, the tree preservation order system remains a vital mechanism for safeguarding trees and woodlands in England. Local authorities are already expected to consider the historic, cultural and ecological value of trees when making such orders. Local planning authorities are required to notify relevant parties when an order is made, and they are empowered to encourage good tree management, particularly in the context of making planning decisions. Enforcement powers are available to local officers and it is a criminal offence to cut down, uproot, wilfully damage or top or lop so as to destroy a protected tree without written consent from the authority.
We also recognise the value of trees in planning policy as a core component of natural capital. It is our position that trees should be incorporated into new developments wherever possible, and that existing trees should be retained. Furthermore, development that would result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, or ancient or veteran trees, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.
Given these existing provisions, the amendment does not, in our view, offer sufficient additional protection to justify its implementation. The creation of a new category of heritage trees risks introducing confusion and placing an additional burden on both Natural England and local authorities, without delivering commensurate benefits.
In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response. I will not be testing the opinion of the House, because I have a sense of clarity as to what the outcome would be right now. However, I do feel that there is a need to push for greater rigour and content within a Bill of this nature, and we will look to see whether there is further work that we can do to perhaps get it into a nature Bill in the future. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Nuclear power station development(1) Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).(2) In subsection (2), insert at the beginning “Subject to subsection (3A),”.(3) In subsection (3), for “(4)” substitute “(3A)”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (2)(a) to (c) does not apply, and this subsection applies, in the case of an application for an order granting development consent for a nuclear-powered generating station with a proposed nameplate capacity of 500MW or higher, if and to the extent that the Secretary of State considers it is necessary and appropriate to disregard any provision of—(a) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,(b) the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, or(c) any environmental delivery plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025,to secure the provision of the generating station in an economic, efficient, proportionate and timely manner.”.(5) By the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to provide for a bespoke regime for the environmental impact assessment of any proposal for an order granting development consent for a nuclear-powered generating station with a proposed nameplate capacity of 500MW or higher. (6) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (5) must make provision for—(a) a page limit for environmental statements, not exceeding 1,000 pages for the main body of the statement and a total of 4,000 pages for any appendices, and(b) any person or body consulted on an environmental impact assessment to respond to the consultation within 21 days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes special provision in relation to large-scale nuclear power station developments by allowing the Secretary of State, when determining an application for a Development Consent Order, to disregard regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, habitats regulations assessment, or any environmental delivery plan, if this is considered necessary for the delivery of the nuclear power station. It also requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to put in place a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime for proposed nuclear power station development.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 202 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. It addresses the pressing need to streamline and speed up the delivery of new nuclear power stations, currently burdened by heavy-handed regulations. It aims to correct this and ensure that our planning system facilitates rather than fetters the delivery of affordable, accessible and secure energy for the British people.
Energy is the fundamental deciding factor in the success of an economy and that has never been truer than it is today. Energy is indeed now the currency of AI. Progress is decided by whether innovation can be supported by a cheap and accessible supply of energy, and in the present day, with round-the-clock data centres, AI start-ups and an economy that runs non-stop, that is all the more important. If we want to be a growing and prosperous economy, we cannot resign ourselves to be a nation that accepts intermittent and expensive energy.
Unfortunately, we—I include successive Governments in that—have so far done just that. Our international counterparts have been busy reducing their costs and securing their domestic energy supply. At the same time, we have been busily engaged in a somewhat blinkered and self-defeating ideological pursuit. The result is that our costs are now some of the highest in the world, and our shackled planning system does not let us correct this.
This is not an attempt to play politics; the empirical evidence proves the point. Wind and solar energy now account for nearly 40% of our national grid generation. We have commandeered fields and tarnished the countryside to reach this outcome. The result is that even if wholesale prices halve in the next five years, electricity prices will be 20% higher. The policy costs of this Government’s initiatives add around £300 to the average annual bill and cost companies twice as much to deliver it as it does in France. This is not the result of an efficient energy system.
The obvious solution to this is to build more nuclear power plants. They may have large upfront costs, but that is offset by relatively small variable costs. There are potential economies of scale, and they are infinitely more productive than the sources of energy we currently rely on. Once built, they are entirely domestic and provide a secure and sovereign energy source. Replace wind with nuclear power and we have a source of energy that uses up 3,000 times less land—that is an environmental change that will have a noticeable effect on the people of this country.
The problem lies in the fact that we have not taken the necessary steps to realise nuclear’s benefits. The last nuclear power station to come online did so 30 years ago, and of the five in use, four are scheduled to close by the end of the decade, as it currently stands. Hinkley Point C, currently under construction, is set to become the most expensive power station in human history, at an exorbitant £44 billion in 2024 terms. It uses the same EPRs as counterparts in France and Finland, yet they pay 27% less per kilowatt hour than we do.
I spent yesterday in Finland at Olkiluoto 3, the first nuclear power station to have been opened in 15 years. It began electricity production in 2023. It is estimated to last for another 100 years and is the third-most powerful nuclear power generator in the world. It produces almost a third of all electricity in Finland, regardless of the weather or the time of day. It is the same design as Hinkley Point and that proposed for Sizewell C, so we should learn from the engineering challenges faced by the Finns.
The environmental lobby has undertaken a two-pronged attack on energy security, the first of which is the endless sprawl of wind and solar farms, the second being the endless stream of consultations, challenges and appeals that are now a given with every new planning application. This amendment would go a long way to answering that problem, putting progress over paperwork and allowing vital national infrastructure to be built.
If we seriously want lower bills, a dynamic and growing economy and a Britain that attracts investment, we must be brave in bypassing the self-sabotaging legislation which holds us back. This amendment would not dangerously free the market. It is a balanced approach that gives the Secretary of State the choice—it is a choice—on whether the benefits of nuclear power must outweigh discretionary environmental concerns. It would allow us to achieve energy security, embrace the new technologies that come with industrial development and enable the growth that this Government have for such a long time promised. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 207, 220 and 230, which are all linked. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for supporting them. I am also grateful for all the constructive engagement I have had with the Minister and her teams between Committee and Report. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, cannot be here this evening and wish her a speedy recovery.
I reflected on the Committee debate which highlighted the contentious nature of these amendments. Of course, noble Lords are concerned about rolling back protections for nature for infrastructure build, and the delays we have seen to large infrastructure in the UK are a multifaceted problem, but we cannot get away or escape from the fact that poor interpretation of environmental regulations is causing excessive cost and multiyear delays to many of our large infrastructure projects. The evidence here is clear—I will not go through the examples again that I cited in Committee.
The root cause of the delays to many of our offshore wind and nuclear programmes, and the other examples that I cited, and their excessive costs, comes down to an overzealous interpretation of the habitats regulations. Ironically, those regulations are causing long delays to much of our net-zero infrastructure and much else besides. They are impacting our national security, because energy security is national security.
My amendments offer a way through that, while maintaining protections for nature, by attempting to take the regulations back to their original intent by reversing case law and clarifying interpretation of existing law. These changes would move the dial significantly by ensuring that regulators are guided towards a more sensible and proportionate interpretation of the regulations and compensation, streamlining the programme for getting infrastructure through the system.
Finally, these points relate to a substantive proposal that the Minister has offered related to these amendments, so I look forward to hearing her proposal in detail when she sums up.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I should be clear at the outset that the amendments in this group seek to amend substantively the habitats regulations beyond the context of EDPs and the nature restoration fund, and beyond the current focus of the Bill. I am aware that these amendments, and the desire to make changes to the wider system of the habitats regulations, stem in part from a concern that the NRF will not deliver for infrastructure projects. I want to be very clear that this is not the case. We are all well aware of cases where vital infrastructure has been held up by specific environmental issues. We are currently identifying opportunities where EDPs and the NRF can have the greatest impact on infrastructure delivery, particularly addressing common challenges that are currently difficult for developers to resolve alone.
I stress that the Government are already taking action. We believe that the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately, with decisions based on the best available scientific evidence. The Government are working closely with stakeholders to improve the functioning of the habitats regulations, including by acting on the recommendations of the Corry review and the post-implementation review of the habitats regulations.
We know that there are particular issues with the delivery of suitable environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind projects. The consultation, which closed in September, covered proposed reforms to deliver a more flexible approach to this. We will make it clear in guidance that only relevant information needs to be considered in reaching conclusions on the risks to a protected site. The updated guidance will also make it clear that small effects that do not have any prospect of risking harm to a protected site can and should be screened out.
Finally, we will take the opportunity to set out more clearly where there is already flexibility in law in considering appropriate compensatory measures under Regulation 68 of the habitats regulations. Should guidance not be sufficient to make clear how the regulations should be applied, we may consider whether legislative change is needed, in careful consultation with developers, planners, ecologists and other relevant stakeholders. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I very much welcome her commitment to address the points raised in the amendment through guidance and her recognition that legislation will be required. I look forward to working with the Minister and her team on that. Nevertheless, I stress the urgency of bringing forward guidance quickly in this area, due to the delays we are seeing. Can she offer any more information on the timescales for the issuing and release of that guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making. I will take the subject back and discuss it with the teams in Defra and my own department, and then write to him, if that would be helpful. I am loath to make a time commitment from the Dispatch Box without doing that first.
Turning to Amendment 202, as previously noted I share the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to support new nuclear development, which will be critical for economic growth and achieving our clean energy mission. However, providing the Secretary of State the ability to completely exempt nuclear power stations producing more than 500 megawatts from requirements in respect to the habitats regulations, environmental impact assessments and any future environmental delivery plans would create uncertainty for developers and erode public support for such projects. These are important tools for making sure that the environmental impacts of projects are considered. The environmental protections they contain relate not only to nature but to the broader community impacts. This blunt approach to disregarding these obligations would put decision-makers at a disadvantage and prevent developers taking important steps to address the environmental impact of the development.
I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness; we need to do more to reform the planning system to accelerate nuclear development in this country. We are in the final stages of designating a new national policy statement for nuclear energy generation, EN-7. That will provide a robust and flexible framework for new nuclear developers seeking development consent and, alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), will provide the Secretary of State with some discretion when considering habitats regulations and the environmental impact assessment during decision-making by defining low-carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, as a critical national priority. We are also awaiting the final recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce.
I hope, following my explanation, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 202.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Although I do not entirely agree with her arguments, I have made my case as well as I can and I do not propose to detain the House any longer, given the lateness of the hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 3rd November 2025
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-V Fifth marshalled list for Report - (30 Oct 2025)
19:32 - Division on Amendment 208 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 178 - Amendment 208 disagreed.
20:52 - Division on Amendment 237 - Ayes: 107 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 237 disagreed.
21:05 - Division on Amendment 238 - Ayes: 72 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 238 disagreed.
22:25 - Division on Amendment 239 - Ayes: 58 / Noes: 125 - Amendment 239 disagreed.
23:00 - Division on Amendment 245 - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 102 - Amendment 245 disagreed.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to my Amendment 231A. I address Amendment 208 individually, rather than as a group as in Committee, because the facts have changed following the CG Fry Supreme Court judgment. This creates an opportunity to accelerate home building, which the Bill currently threatens to eliminate unnecessarily. I will speak to the application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites from the Back Benches, and leave the policy area of housebuilding to my Front-Bench colleagues, as it is their speciality. My amendments would remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill, preventing the legal imposition of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Before I go on, I refer the House to my register of interests as an owner of development land, which, as far as I know, is not impacted by nutrient neutrality or Ramsar.
We in government chose to apply the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites through policy as a well-intentioned move to recognise the special international status of these wetland sites. I do not see evidence that our largest neighbours, such as France and Germany, have chosen to do the same. Since then, we have all watched in horror as Natural England’s advice on nutrient neutrality within the habitats regulations has led to as many as 160,000 new homes being blocked. We know that 18,000 of these are through the application of the habitats regulations to the Ramsar site on the Somerset Levels. I and my noble friends have asked the Government several times: how many more homes than this 18,000 are currently blocked by the unnecessary application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites? I hope that we can receive that answer today.
The CG Fry judgment, that simply adopting this as policy does not carry legal weight, was right. The habitats regulations derived from EU law and were designed to apply to sites with protection under EU law and no further. Natural England has been able to advise for years that specific land should have SPA or SAC designation and be brought under the habitats regulations. The fact that many Ramsar sites have only partial or no protection as European sites is because, so far, Natural England has judged that they do not need it. Ramsar sites already have protection under paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework. If, after the CG Fry judgment, Natural England were to advise that more European designations were necessary on the Ramsar sites and the Government accepted that, the habitat regulations would apply at that point. Should my amendment be passed, I am sure that Natural England will want to evaluate that point, and I would urge it to be highly scientific and evidence-based in that process, because the eyes of those needing houses will be on them.
The Natural England advice in the CG Fry case relating to the Ramsar site was not even that development would add to the level of phosphates in the Somerset Levels but that it would slow the rate of improvement in phosphate levels. Natural England had no objection based on the SPA designation for the Somerset Levels. This appears to be a pretty tenuous argument.
I urge the Government to accept my amendments, not to blindly block new housebuilding, and allow the habitats regulations to perform more closely to their original intention. Clause 90 and Schedule 6 unnecessarily and voluntarily gold-plate the application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites, for which they were not intended, to the detriment of the broader interests of our country. Without my amendments, this planning Bill, designed to accelerate housebuilding and growth, will actually block housebuilding. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have heard time and again during the passage of this Bill from the Government Front Bench that this is a Bill to streamline the obstacles for anybody who wants to get anything done in this country. That is what Amendment 208 does, and I support it entirely.
Just under two weeks ago in the Supreme Court, as my noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned, four years of litigation concluded in the Fry case. The case revolved around the protections of Ramsar sites. In essence, the court was asked to judge whether Ramsar sites were subject to the same onerous requirements as sites protected by the EU habitats directive, including the potential for developments to be blocked at the stage of discharging planning conditions, many years after they have obtained that planning permission.
For over 50 years—since 1971, when the Ramsar treaty relating to over 2,500 wetlands in 172 nations was signed in the town of Ramsar in modern day Iran—it has never been the case that EU habitats directives apply to these important places. For that period, over the entire world, Ramsar sites have been protected without any reference to the EU, EU regulations or any of the other state paraphernalia that flows from Brussels. Why would they be? There are 23 such sites in Brazil, six in Cameroon, one in Mongolia, three in Equatorial Guinea and 39 in Japan. The EU is irrelevant to these places.
Natural England, as the Government’s statutory adviser, quite wrongly asserted that EU habitats regulations were relevant when they are not. Do not take my word for it: take the word of the Supreme Court. It concluded that the regulator had no business in making the equivalence between Ramsar and the other nature sites covered by the habitats directive. The Supreme Court held that Ramsar sites were not subject to this level of protection as they fell outside the habitats directive. Twelve days ago, a regulatory burden was lifted. Inexplicably, the Government now seek to undo that pro-growth judgment by bringing the Ramsar sites back within the habitats regulations, even though they fall outside the regulations’ parent directive.
We need a moment to see what has happened here. The justices concluded that Natural England had overreached itself in its advice to government, that it could not interpret the legislation accurately, that it misdirected itself and, crucially, misadvised the entire development industry as to the truth. Natural England’s dossier had the effect of holding up tens of thousands of homes. The evidence before the court in the Fry case was that 18,000 homes had been held up in Somerset alone, many already with planning permission, owing to Natural England’s misplaced concerns.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These Benches are not supportive of these amendments. While we appreciate the arguments that have been made about streamlining and simplifying the legislative framework, it is more important to recognise the significance of Ramsar sites and to treat them in the same category as European sites when it comes to environmental protection.
These wetlands—there are 176 designated sites in the UK—are often of extraordinary ecological value, supporting biodiversity that is not only nationally but internationally important. To remove the relevant provisions at this stage would risk sending the wrong signal about our priorities and would weaken the coherence of the overall environmental protections.
The Government’s goal all along has been to preserve sites that are of environmental importance. The arguments about Part 3 of the Bill have not entirely gone the way we had hoped, but they have gone a long way towards raising the importance of the environment as far as the planning system goes. We are keen to uphold the value of Ramsar sites, alongside other protected areas, and to dismiss the arguments made by those who, on one hand, say that we need more houses on these wetland sites, but, on the other hand, argue for other sites—perhaps in the green belt or designated sites—not to be built on. Let us be clear: the environment comes first, and protecting biodiversity and our precious environmental heritage is of key importance to us.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. These may appear as technical provisions, with Clause 90 dealing with temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase and Schedule 6 making consequential changes to Part 3 of the Bill, but, as we have heard from the speakers so far, their combined efforts risk damaging the very housing and infrastructure goals that this legislation is seeking to advance.
The Bill, as currently drafted, extends the legal obligations of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites. In practice, this means further restrictions on housing development and a fresh layer of uncertainty for local planning authorities and developers alike. The result, as my noble friend Lord Roborough warned, is that a Bill meant to get Britain building risks doing totally the opposite by tying up housing delivery in yet more red tape and delay. This point cannot be overstated: the country faces a housing crisis—not a crisis of ambition, but a crisis of delivery. By removing Schedule 6, we would avoid further complexity in the already overburdened environmental assessment framework, a system that too often paralyses local authorities and developers in costly uncertainty rather than securing real gains for nature.
The Government’s own target of 1.5 million new homes will not be met if planning reforms continue to tangle it up with excessive regulation and unintended consequences. Of course, environmental protection must remain a central consideration in planning, but, as my noble friend rightly observed, the small nut being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 has now been shown to be even smaller. The recent ruling to which he referred has already resolved many of the issues these provisions sought to address. What remains, therefore, is unnecessary bureaucracy and an additional drag on housing delivery.
However, I reiterate that the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case has now shifted the status quo. Following the judgment, Clause 90 and Schedule 6 will have the perverse effect of blocking development rather than facilitating it. This surely cannot be the Government’s intention; we are minded, therefore, to seek to test the opinion of the House when Amendment 208 is called if the Government have nothing further to say on this issue.
These amendments are not anti-environmental. They are proportionate, pro-clarity and, most importantly, pro-housing. They seek to ensure that this Bill does what it says on the tin: to plan and deliver the infrastructure and homes that this country so desperately needs. I urge the Minister to look again at Clause 90 and Schedule 6. Are they truly necessary to achieve the Bill’s goals or are they, as the evidence increasingly suggests, just obstacles in their delivery?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, both tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These relate to Ramsar sites, as we have heard, and noble Lords will be aware from the debate that these are wetlands of international importance that have been designated under the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
To date, in England, these sites have been given the protection of the habitats regulations assessment process through policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. To support the effective operation of the nature restoration fund, we propose placing protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing, with Part 1 of Schedule 6 amending the habitats regulations so that protections for Ramsar sites align with the protection of other internationally important sites. Placing protection of Ramsar sites on a statutory footing will ensure that the NRF can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites, and this has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance.
The Government have, of course, carefully considered the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgments, which we have been debating, that distinguished in very specific circumstances between the legal protection provided to European sites under the habitats regulations and the policy protection afforded to Ramsar sites. This ruling has led to some commentary suggesting that placing Ramsar protections on a statutory footing will serve to prevent development from coming forward. This belief was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her speech just now; this, however, is mistaken.
Noble Lords who have followed the judgment will know that it found that habitats regulations protections for Ramsar sites should not have been applied, as a matter of policy rather than legal obligation, to developments that were already in possession of planning permission prior to the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020. While some—and the noble Lord, Lord Robrough, mentioned this in his introduction—have suggested that large numbers of homes will be unlocked if Clause 90 and Schedule 6 are removed from the Bill, this does not bear up to scrutiny. The reason is that no new planning applications have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020 that are affected by the Supreme Court’s judgment or by the protections for Ramsar sites proposed in the Bill. Furthermore, while this case has been progressing through the courts, the Government have provided significant investment to deliver local mitigation schemes, including in Somerset, which has ensured that mitigation is available to allow development to come forward.
I want to respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who suggested that 18,000 homes in the Somerset catchments are delayed by nutrient neutrality. That is actually the number of homes in existing plans from 2020 to 2032, so we are talking about a 12-year period. It includes homes that already have mitigation and homes for which no application has yet been submitted. Therefore, this overstates the number of homes affected.
We also know that developers can access nutrient mitigation in Somerset. For the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2025, 5,747 dwellings have been permitted within the Somerset Levels and Moors catchment area, and phosphate credits are available to mitigate a further 2,900 dwellings. That demonstrates that mitigation is already available and that this is not blocking such development.
The NRF will now deliver on the Government’s manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports more efficient and streamlined development, but with better environmental outcomes. We want the NRF model to be available to support development that impacts Ramsar sites as well as SACs, SPAs and SSSIs, while also driving the recovery of, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, put it perfectly, these internationally important sites. The amendments would actually prevent the NRF being used to help development in circumstances such as those in Somerset.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, to my noble friend on the Front Bench for her support and to the Minister for her well thought-through and considered reply.
I have to say that I am not convinced. The fundamental principle of the habitat regulations is that they are supposed to apply to EU-designated sites. Should these Ramsar sites be deserving of that protection, then surely it is up to Natural England to advise the Government that that is the case and to put in place those protections. Without that, it is really not clear why we alone among the major European economies should be choosing to hamper our building in this way.
I am grateful for the detailed response regarding which houses are being held up. These are still material numbers of houses. The effect of the CG Fry judgment alone was to release 650 houses, and, while that may be over a 12-year period, that is still a lot of houses. The country needs those houses, and the Bill is supposed to deliver them. So we on these Benches cannot sit on our hands and watch this happen. Given that the Government are determined to plough ahead with this, I am forced to test the opinion of the House.
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where it appears to Natural England that a notice of a proposal under section 28E(1)(a) of the WCA 1981 relates to an operation which is or forms part of a plan or project situated wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site,it must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.(2B) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, Natural England may give consent for the operation only after having ascertained that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is the first of a number of amendments to Schedule 6, the effect of which would be that the Habitats Regulations would give protection to Ramsar sites (wherever situated) where they are affected by any plans or projects in England (rather than protecting only Ramsar sites in England).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
(a) in paragraph (1)—(i) after “where” insert “—(ii) at the end insert “, or(b) a consent for an operation situated wholly in England has been given under section 28E(3)(a) of the WCA 1981 (or has effect as if given under that section) in relation to land included in a site of special scientific interest which, after the date of that consent, becomes land within a Ramsar site.”;(b) in paragraph (3)—(i) in sub-paragraph (a), after “24(1)” insert “or (2A)”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), after “24(2)” insert “or (2B)”;(c) in the heading, after “European sites” insert “or Ramsar sites”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project situated wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site,must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(ba) in paragraph (9), for “paragraph (1)” substitute “paragraphs (1) and (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(b) after “63(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(za) in paragraph (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
14 “(1) In regulation 75 (general development orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) at the end insert—“(2) It is a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order made by the Secretary of State on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force that development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,must not be begun until the developer has received written notification of the approval of the local planning authority under regulation 77 (approval of local planning authority).”(2) In regulation 75(2) (as inserted by sub-paragraph (1)), after “force” insert “or a street vote development order”.14A In regulation 76 (general development orders: opinion of appropriate nature conservation body), in paragraph (7), for “75(a)” substitute “75(1)(a) or (2)(a)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where a simplified planning zone scheme for an area in England is adopted or approved, that scheme is not to be taken to grant planning permission for development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,unless adopted or approved in accordance with the assessment provisions.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where an order designating an enterprise zone is made for an area wholly in England, or where a modified enterprise zone scheme is approved for such an area, that order or scheme is not to be taken to grant planning permission for development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,unless made or approved in accordance with the assessment provisions.”;(aa) after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) Paragraph (2A) does not apply to an order made or a scheme approved before the day on which this paragraph comes into force.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“22A In regulation 85A (assumptions to be made about nutrient pollution standards: general), in paragraph (6)(a), after “63(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(4) Section 3(10) of that Act is not to be taken to deem planning permission to be granted for development wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,whether or not the development authorised by the permission has been begun, unless the competent authority has agreed to the plan or project in accordance with the assessment provisions.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Where a land use plan relating to an area wholly in England—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,the plan-making authority for that plan must, before the plan is given effect, make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(za) in paragraph (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”;(zb) in paragraph (3), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“37 In regulation 110A (assessments under this Chapter: required assumptions)—(a) in paragraph (5)(a), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”;(b) in paragraph (5)(b), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
41A (1) The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is amended as follows.(2) In section 125 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs), after subsection (12) insert—“(12A) This section does not apply to the exercise by a public authority of functions under or by virtue of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (development and nature recovery).”(3) In section 141 (exceptions to offences under section 139 or 140), in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) was done by a public authority exercising functions under or by virtue of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (development and nature recovery);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the duties in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 where a public authority exercises functions under Part 3, such as drafting or approving an EDP. This is necessary to enable an EDP to include network conservation measures (see further the explanatory statement to my amendment to Schedule 4 (at page 171, line 28)). It also makes a consequential amendment to s.141.
Lord Lansley
“ScheduleMayoral Development Corporations for planning and development purposes: amendment of the Localism Act 2011Introduction
1 The Localism Act 2011 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.Part 8
2 In the heading of Part 8, after “London” insert “and areas of other mayoral strategic authorities”.Interpretation
3 In section 196—(a) before the definition of “the Mayor” insert—““CCA” means a combined county authority established under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“combined authority” means a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“constituent council” means—(a) in relation to a combined authority—(i) a county council the whole or any part of whose area is within the area of the authority, or(ii) a district council whose area is within the area of the authority;(b) in relation to a CCA—(i) a county council for an area within the area of the authority, or(ii) a unitary district council for an area within the area of the authority;and here “unitary district council” means the council for a district for which there is no county council;”;(b) for the definition of “the Mayor” substitute—““the Mayor” means—(a) the Mayor of London,(b) the mayor for the area of a combined authority, or(c) the mayor for the area of a CCA;”;(c) after the definition of “MDC” insert—““strategic authority area” means—(a) in relation to the Mayor of London or a mayoral development area designated by that Mayor, Greater London;(b) in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the combined authority, or(c) in relation to the mayor for the area of a CCA or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the CCA;”.Designation of Mayoral development areas
4 (1) Section 197 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “Greater London” substitute “a strategic authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may designate a Mayoral development area only if—(a) the Mayor considers that designation of the area is expedient for furthering economic development and regeneration in the strategic authority area,(b) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by subsection (5B) and, if applicable, subsection (5C),(c) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees,(d) in the event that those comments include comments made by a constituent council or a district council consulted under subsection (5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance,(e) the Mayor has laid before the combined authority or CCA, in accordance with its standing orders, a document stating that the Mayor is proposing to designate the area, and(f) the combined authority or CCA approves the proposal.(5B) The persons who have to be consulted before an area may be designated are—(a) the constituent councils,(b) each Member of Parliament whose parliamentary constituency contains any part of the area, and(c) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.(5C) In the case of a combined county authority, any district council whose local authority area contains any part of the area also has to be consulted before the area may be designated.(5D) For the purposes of subsection (5A)(f) the combined authority or CCA approves a proposal if it resolves to do so on a motion considered at a meeting of the combined authority or CCA throughout which members of the public are entitled to be present.”.Exclusion of land from Mayoral development areas
5 (1) Section 199 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Before making an alteration, the mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA must consult—(a) the constituent councils, and(b) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.”.Transfers of property etc to a Mayoral development corporation
6 (1) Section 200 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “a person within subsection (3)” substitute “an eligible transferor”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferor” means—(a) a London borough council,(b) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,(c) any company whose members—(i) include the Mayor of London and a Minister of the Crown, and(ii) do not include anyone who is neither the Mayor or London nor a Minister of the Crown, or(d) a person within subsection (3).(1B) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority, “eligible transferor” means a person within subsection (3).(1C) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a CCA, “eligible transferor” means—(a) any district council whose local authority area is within the area of the CCA, or(b) a person within subsection (3).”.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraphs (a) and (b);(b) in paragraphs (d) and (e), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”;(c) omit paragraph (k).(5) In subsection (4), for “liabilities of—” substitute “liabilities of an eligible transferee.(4A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferee” means—”.(6) Before subsection (5) insert—“(4A) 20 In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA, “eligible transferee” means—(a) the combined authority or CCA, o(b) a company that is a subsidiary of the combined authority or CCA.”.(7) In subsection (9), after “(4)(c)” insert “or (4A)(b)”.Functions in relation to Town and Country Planning
7 (1) Section 202 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (7), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(7A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may make a decision under any of subsections (2) to (6) only if—(a) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by section 197(5B) and, if applicable, section 197(5C), in relation to the area,(b) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees, and(c) in the event that those comments include comments made by the constituent council or a district council specified by section 197(5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance.”.Arrangements for discharge of, or assistance with, planning functions
8 In section 203, in subsections (1) and (4), after “City of London” insert “, or a county council or district council”.Acquisition of land
9 (1) Section 207 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”.(3) For subsection (3) substitute—“(3) Before submitting a compulsory purchase order authorising an acquisition under subsection (2) to the Secretary of State for confirmation—(a) 15 an MDC for an area in Greater London must obtain the consent of the Mayor of London;(b) an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA must obtain the consent of the mayor for that area.”.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 232 relates to mayoral development corporations. Noble Lords will recall a debate in Committee about this precise point. To remind noble Lords, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, presently in the other place, the Government have proposed that the powers available to the Mayor of London in relation to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation should be provided to all mayors of established strategic authorities—I think that is correct. Noble Lords will also recall that I previously tabled an amendment to this effect back in July, so I was pleased to see that the Government were proceeding in exactly the same direction, but disappointed that this has been included in the English devolution Bill rather than here in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where Part 4, which we have now reached, is devoted to development corporations. It was certainly my understanding and intention that we would debate and, I hope, adopt the measure of giving all the mayors access to the same powers.
As a simple way of bringing that forward, I took Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and transposed it into what would become a new schedule to this Bill. I anticipate that it is not the Government’s intention to disagree with the content of Amendment 232, since they wrote it; however, they appear to be set on resisting the idea that it should be included in this Bill and, on the basis of our anticipation of Royal Assent being reached only in a matter of weeks rather than months, be brought into force rapidly.
As it happens, since Committee, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee has had the opportunity to consider Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill and has not amended it, so there is no requirement for us to think of it having changed. I suspect, based on the discussion in that Bill Committee, it will not be returned to in substance on Report. I do not anticipate that the English devolution Bill, when we see it, will have any different text from what we see here now.
I put it once more to Ministers, but will not press it because what would be the point? It is their Bill, their language, their schedule that they can have now, in my view—and why would they not? It seems to me that most mayors, certainly the ones I have spoken to or their representatives, would like the powers sooner rather than later.
Quite early in the new year, probably before the English devolution Bill has received Royal Assent, we will be discussing the question of which new towns will be mayoral development corporations as opposed to government development corporations or locally led ones. These are precisely the issues which are the subject of this part of this Bill. I put it to noble Lords that it would be better to take this provision, include it now, and bring it into force at an earlier stage. I beg to move
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we have much sympathy with the core principle behind this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, regarding mayoral development corporations. The purpose of Part 4 of this Bill is to create a more flexible, and perhaps more robust, framework for development corporations. The existing way that development corporations work has limitations with regard to some of the development that all of us seek—transport infrastructure, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has helpfully reminded us that this selfsame wording is in the devolution and empowerment Bill, currently going through its stages at the other end of the building, so those of us who will have the joy of debating that Bill, when it comes here, will be coming back to this issue.
The main concern we have, though, is about the decision being vested in the hands of the mayor and the rather narrow representations of the leaders of the constituent authorities—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister. This is an erosion of meaningful local planning influence, reducing local authorities to mere consultees whose considered objections can be dismissed. This amendment could grant substantial planning control over designated areas by placing the decision-making at the mayoral level, with its minimal approach to democratic engagement and consultation. While mechanisms exist for arrangements concerning the discharge of planning functions, this shift inherently concentrates strategic planning functions away from the local level.
Amendment 232 is a way forward in potentially accelerating growth plans, but it is achieved at the expense of local democratic involvement and, crucially, would lose having a strong voice from those residents directly affected. In a nutshell, this is an interesting and important proposal, but it bypasses local democracy.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s expertise on development corporations is, as ever, formidable, and the concerns he raises deserve full and careful consideration. This amendment speaks to the wider question surrounding the Government’s devolution agenda, particularly the potential to give metro mayors the tools they need to deliver housing projects, attract private investment and cut through the bureaucratic fragmentation that so often stifles local ambitions. In many ways, it would build upon the principles set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and the work that we have done collectively to champion place-based solutions to the challenges that this country faces. As my noble friend says: equality for mayors.
I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment. It is clearly defined and purpose driven. However, to sensibly empower metro mayors or development corporations further, the Government must provide clarity on their plans for local government reorganisation. Without this clarity we risk legislating into a vacuum, creating overlapping authorities and confusion where coherence is needed. On these Benches, we strongly support greater local oversight and a faster route to regeneration, but the real obstacle remains the Government’s opaque approach to LGR. Until there is a clear framework for how local government structures will interact with devolved authorities and combined counties, progress will be piecemeal at best. The Government must work this out, and quickly. We are all waiting for clarity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I understand why the noble Lord has brought his amendment forward. The Government are bringing forward equivalent provisions via Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and I understand his view that inclusion of this amendment would expedite the legislative change. I welcome that enthusiasm: it is essential that all mayors have powers to establish and oversee mayoral development corporations, which are a key tool to drive large-scale development and regeneration in their regions.
None the less, the amendment would not save significant time. The Government are committed to ensuring that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill reaches Royal Assent in spring 2026, at which point there will be no delay. The relevant provisions will commence on the day that the Act is passed, providing relevant mayors with the powers to establish development corporations. The amendment would also have minimal impact because, except for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority—I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might be particularly interested in that one—all mayoral strategic authorities currently have powers to establish and oversee MDCs. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, as well as any new mayoral strategic authorities, will automatically receive mayoral development corporation powers following Royal Assent of the English devolution Bill.
Finally, and I think this reflects the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises provisions providing mayors with mayoral development corporation powers, as part of the wider package of powers being granted to mayors through the devolution framework in the English devolution Bill. Therefore, while I understand the reason that the noble Lord has brought Amendment 232 forward, I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to this short debate, and particularly grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I heartily endorse what he said about the importance of trying to resolve the relationship between the processes of local government reorganisation and the rapid progress we want to achieve in implementing planning reform in order to get on with building the houses and developments we are looking for.
I should have previously referenced my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister is absolutely right: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor should have access to development corporation powers—even though the Government’s apparent intention, as I think was stated last week, was that the Cambridge Growth Company will be turned into a development corporation in the Cambridge area. We have yet to know in what designated area and with what powers, but that is for another day.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s assertion that the delay will be so limited. Let us hope that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does not get at all bogged down in the new year, because we want to be sure that those powers are available to mayors where they come forward to take up the potential new town designation. I was wrong when I said “mayors of all established strategic authorities”; I know it is my amendment, but I have just checked, and it does not say that. It refers to all mayors of strategic authorities. Whether they should be established strategic authorities is a question we might have a look at when we get to the English devolution Bill. But for the present, while looking forward to returning to these interesting issues in the new year, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 232.
Lord Lansley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another amendment in Lord Lansley’s name to clause 94.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group containing, happily, not only my amendments but Amendment 238 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, is about the designation of new towns. The purpose of Amendment 236, which is the substantive one in my name, is to provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny of the designation of new town development corporations—those controlled by the Government. It is particularly about those under Section 1(1) of the New Towns Act, whereas elsewhere in that Act, locally led new towns, for example, were subsequently inserted. This provision would not apply to them; it would apply only to those controlled by the Government.
The point is that there are substantial implications in having a new town controlled by the Government. Designating the area and, for that matter, the powers that are to be given to that development corporation, and therefore by extension taken away from a local planning authority and vested in a development corporation, is a highly significant issue.
The super-affirmative procedure which the proposed new clause would introduce is, as the parliamentary guide would tell us, intended to be reserved for highly significant statutory instruments. I think this fits that bill. We are talking about the potential transfer of powers, potentially for relatively large areas, away from democratic control for decades.
For example, in the recent report by the New Towns Taskforce we saw a proposal for a dozen new town sites, some of which are pretty substantial. If we look at the area described as Brabazon and West Innovation Arc, it comprises three substantial areas to the north of Bristol. If all the planning control in that area were to be taken out of the hands of local authorities for what might be decades, it would make a very big impact in that area. The scrutiny of that by Parliament at the outset is important.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 238. I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations contemplated by the Bill. In fact, I think it is the best part of the Bill.
Clause 96 seeks the achievement of sustainable development and the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. However, there will be no sustainable development without sustainable financing of the proposals that the development corporations bring forward. Since Committee, the New Towns Taskforce has published its report, and only this afternoon at Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, gave warm words to the principle of private investment in local infrastructure, perhaps by development corporations.
The magnitude of the task ahead of us is nothing short of generational. The state alone will not be able to build these new settlements; neither will councils, nor, as noble Lords heard in the previous group, will the mayors—not quickly, anyway. Only by harnessing the power of the financial markets and other private sector actors at home and abroad, including perhaps private households, will the promise of building these places become a reality. My amendment, supported by my noble friends on the Front Bench, recognises this simple truth. Some 50 years since Milton Keynes and 80 years since Stevenage were designated under the first new towns Act, it is time to bring the development corporations up to date.
I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised, that mayors may be created, and that the day-to-day financial pressures they both face have never been greater. In a former time, the development corporations would hold out their hand, perhaps to central government or to local councils, for funding. Of course, that route may be still open in some parts, but we know that the PWLB is capped and, at a time when Nestlé can borrow money cheaper than our Government can, the PWLB is not necessarily the cheapest, best value, or most available source of long-term infrastructure finance for the generational opportunities that my noble friend Lord Lansley so ably identified. Building new towns is the work of generations—it goes beyond political cycles—and relying on national and local politicians will not be enough in a world where a new secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover £100 million.
So we must help the development corporations in the single-minded pursuit of sustainable development, and we must help them get the money right. That means giving them the powers to exploit the distinction between funding and financing. Funding is simply writing the cheque, but financing is putting that deal together. It is no surprise that the financiers in the City of London have the most highly paid professions, because they have the hardest task: putting those deals together. It is not easy to finance difficult prospects but, to get Britain building, we will have to grasp that nettle.
I will not dwell too much on the significance of governance in development corporations, but I will make the factual observation that strong governance, established by statute—that is why I tabled this amendment—leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash early on for infrastructure at lower prices. That is why my amendment is so important. We need to make it easy for the development corporations to raise the funds and for the pension funds to put their shoulders to the wheel, helped by the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body.
The development corporations must be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the issue of bonds, shares or similar, and we should contemplate other sources of finance as well. In my view, that extends to entering into joint ventures with landowners on a territory. Their land could be incorporated at the heart of financing as an in-kind contribution, so they would not enjoy the upfront benefit but they would have a return that is sustained over a long-term period. That may be good for them—it is certainly good for the taxpayer—and it enables us to get the infrastructure built up front more cheaply. It should not be the default position that a development corporation just goes for CPO powers and then ponies up a premium price—10% more than the market value—sustaining all the unpleasantness of the process. There must be a better way. My amendment pathfinds that opportunity.
In Committee, the noble Baroness—rather complacently in my view—said that the amendment was unnecessary because corporations could always borrow from the PWLB, and that was that. The bond markets are suggesting that there may be limits to that approach, which is why we need more flexibility. So I want to place finance in the widest possible context and, without central or local government necessarily acting as a banker in the traditional manner, the development corporations can be empowered.
So, although I accept that development corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve at the best value and the greatest certainty, with the cheapness and value that come from statutory provision.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 236. This gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend and his work in this House. I declare an interest as chairman of the Greater Cheshire Development Forum.
On new towns and the new town of Adlington, I have to say that it was a wee bit of a shock. I am Lord Evans of Rainow, and Rainow is not far away—it is in the Peak District—and as you look out from the Peak District at the Cheshire Plain, Adlington is in the foothills. It is green belt, so it was a bit of a shock for me and the local communities. It is not every day that between 14,000 and 20,000 houses are set to be built in England’s green and pleasant land of east Cheshire. It was also a real shock to the Macclesfield MP, Tim Roca, as he had got married and was on his honeymoon at the time, but he was quick off the mark and put together the inevitable petition to Parliament against this proposal. It really flies in the face of democratic community empowerment—it is a coach and horses through local government. There are three outstanding local parish councils in that area: Poynton Town Council, Bollington Town Council and Pott Shrigley Parish Council. If you go on their website, you can see clearly that a lot of what they say has been articulated here today: a lack of consultation and accountability.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just said. Unlike my predecessor, I have no intention of trying to petition for parts of the diocese of Chester to become parts of the diocese of Manchester, just because of the urban sprawl extending—but I rise to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller.
I have served on the boards of a lot of large institutional investors. One of them, the Church Commissioners, had a particular interest in one of the major landowners in the country. I can well see how for an institutional investor that wants to invest in something that is a social good, like building towns, and wants to do it for the long term, because it is interested in long-term return and not just what the next quarter’s figures are going to be, being able to invest in these kinds of things would be the right way to go. Should the noble Lord put this to the vote, I would hope to be with him in the Lobby.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. As a general principle, we are in favour of any amendments that are genuinely about devolution and not just decentralisation. As we are all aware, there is a significant difference. However, we are aware that this brings issues of governance and accountability that are new to much of the sector at this level, with the difference in governance arrangements and in geography.
We also support the Government’s ambition and political will to build new towns to meet our challenging housing need. But—and it is a big “but”—we nevertheless feel that something as significant, important and impactful as designating a large amount of land for a new town should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Everyone’s voices deserve to be heard—and I understand that there is a difference between being heard and being listened to. However challenging and difficult that might be, the process is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, outlined. Increased scrutiny and the opportunity for revision are essential. We have to get this right for the people and for Parliament. Thus, we too welcome a debate on the new towns agenda and on the sites already designated.
I turn to Amendment 238. It seems to us an inevitable consequence of the new development corporations’ ambitions, roles and responsibilities. If devolution is to really mean something, it must also mean fiscal devolution. It is very unlikely in the present economic climate that any new major developments are going to be totally government funded, so it makes sense to cast the financial net as wide as possible. But—and, again, it is a big “but”—given some local government history on these and related matters, we assume that the Treasury will be concerned about rising debt and potential poor financial controls. With the discredited PFI funding also in the background, it will be concerned also about potential poor value for money. We are concerned that there should be the necessary protections and processes for good government, transparency and accountability. I wonder whether the Government may envisage a more proactive role in this regard for the National Audit Office before investment decisions are made.
Finally, a key question, which my noble friend Lord Shipley raised in Committee, is who picks up the tab if there is a loss on a project, or on several projects, or if a mayoral development corporation is running generally at a loss. Is it the council tax payer or the Government? There was no answer in Committee. It would seem likely to be the Government but, if so, it would be reasonable for them to be involved at all stages of project delivery, which makes Amendment 238 insufficient without explaining what controls would be in place. However, we would still support Amendment 238, because it gives a sense of the direction that we should go in, even if the detail is not yet in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, all I can say is that we support all the intentions of these amendments so ably introduced, as always, by my noble friend. I do not think there is anything more that I can add to what he has already said, apart from saying to the Minister that I think these important questions need answers tonight.
Alongside my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I have co-signed Amendment 238, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller. Ensuring that development corporations have access to sufficient finance will be critical, as we have heard, if we are truly to deliver the high-quality new towns and new developments that we would all like to see. Having access to a range of finance resources is a key component to this, empowering development corporations to seek finance from the widest possible range of sources. This amendment would allow them to do precisely that—to access funding not only from the Public Works Loan Board but from private capital, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, and through value-in-kind contributions as part of joint ventures. Crucially, it would also give them the ability to issue bonds, either individually or collectively with other development corporations.
Why does this matter? I suggest three key reasons. First, it enables collaboration. Development corporations could work collectively across areas, pooling capacity and scale to unlock investment in major regeneration and infrastructure projects that would otherwise be out of their reach. Secondly, it opens the door for local pension funds, particularly the Local Government Pension Scheme, to invest directly in their communities. This builds on the Government’s own commitment to mobilise LGPS capital for local growth. It would mean that people’s savings are working to deliver tangible, long-term benefits in the very places where they live and work. Thirdly, it aligns with the Government’s broader ambitions on devolution and local growth. Page 29 of the English Devolution White Paper makes clear that strategic authorities will have a duty to deliver on economic development and regeneration. Local authorities will be required to produce local growth plans, and LGPS administrating authorities are expected to identify local investment opportunities and put them forward to their asset pools.
This amendment would therefore help the Government achieve precisely what they have set out to do: to channel more of the nation’s long-term capital into productive place-based investment. It would empower development corporations to be proactive, innovative and financially self-sustaining, drawing on both public and private sources of finance to deliver growth, regeneration and prosperity for local communities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but interesting debate. Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to change the parliamentary procedure for designating areas to be developed as a new town by new town development corporations from the affirmative procedure to the super-affirmative. They would also require that the Secretary of State reconsults if a proposal for an area to be developed by a new town development corporation is changed following an earlier consultation.
The Government agree that proposals to establish development corporations should be subject to consultation and proportionate parliamentary scrutiny, but this is already the case. The New Towns Act 1981 already requires that the Secretary of State consults with relevant local authorities prior to designating an area to be developed by a new town development corporation via regulations. Consultations and decisions to designate are also subject to public law principles. Further consultation would therefore already be considered should the proposal fundamentally change.
I will just comment to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on his points about Adlington. He may have looked at the report of the New Towns Taskforce, which sets out very clearly the principles under which new towns must make provision for infrastructure, including energy, water and all the facilities that make communities work and be successful. As I have said, there is consultation set out in law for those decisions to designate. Designation by regulations is also already subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses. As these regulations neither amend nor repeal an Act of Parliament, which is the usual super-affirmative process, the Government do not believe that they require the high level of scrutiny of that super-affirmative procedure.
The noble Lord’s amendments would also have the unintended consequence of adding significant time to the process of designating areas as new towns. The super-affirmative procedure would add a minimum of two months and the duty to reconsult could add significantly longer, depending on the number of reconsultations required. I was grateful to the Built Environment Select Committee and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for the thorough way he looked at the subject of new towns. His work has been very helpful. I will give thought to the request for further discussions within your Lordships’ House on all the issues arising from this new generation of new towns. Both the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, have made this helpful suggestion. I will take that back to the team and look at parliamentary schedules to see when a further discussion on that might be possible.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short, as the Minister said, but I thought very interesting debate—a preliminary to the further debate that I hope we will have, not least if we can contrive to have an early debate on the Built Environment Committee’s report in the new year at a time when we can incorporate the Government’s full response to the task force report and the Government’s actual proposals for new towns. We learned from my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow that if there is that range of issues to be considered in relation to one of the new town proposals, we can expect a lot of contributions when we get to a dozen such proposals, not even including Cambridge, from my own point of view, which is beyond the task force’s report.
What the Minister had to say was encouraging from the point of view of getting parliamentary debate to take place without impeding or delaying the programme in any way. I hope that, when we have that debate, we will come back to some of the important issues raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller. He made some important points, in my view, about the capacity for financing this. Tax increment financing and the ability to borrow against the future development value will be a key part of that.
From my part, in relation to parliamentary debate on the new towns programme, I was grateful for the Minister’s response, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 235.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I gently remind noble Lords that, as stated in the Companion:
“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and”
should not
“respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”,
or pressing,
“ the amendment”.
Speeches appear to be getting longer at this point. I respectfully urge noble Lords to be brief so that we can continue to make progress and get to the votes.
“Provision of green and blue spacesIn section 4(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 (objects and general power of development corporations), at end insert“and to provide green and blue spaces which are publicly accessible to local communities”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require development corporations to provide green and blue spaces when securing the layout and development of new towns.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief in speaking to Amendment 237 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their support.
Amendment 237 is on a similar theme to my earlier amendment, relating to the delivery of green and blue spaces in spatial development strategies. I will not repeat the arguments that I made previously, other than to say that the provision of accessible green and blue space in urban areas has been identified by many different organisations as a critical component that can support health and well-being for urban populations.
This amendment deals with the same issue. However, this time, it seeks to put the statutory requirement for the provision of accessible green and blue spaces into the objectives of the development corporation responsible for delivering new towns. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to create blue and green space in new towns.
This point was emphasised most recently by the New Towns Taskforce report, published in September 2025, which stated that:
“New towns provide a rare opportunity to plan holistically”,
and that they should have,
“easily accessible green spaces and recreational facilities”.
The Government responded to this report by saying that they are
“committed to ensuring that all new towns are thriving and sustainable places”,
and that they will
“consider how best to ensure expectations are set and managed at a national level”.
However, similar to the spatial development strategies in the NPPF, I imagine the Government will respond to say that the new town development corporations are sufficiently equipped to deal with the provision of blue and green spaces. I will give three counterpoints related to this. First, exactly the same as the NPPF, this is only guidance. It is toothless unless it is written into law. Secondly, there is no clear, mandatory, legally binding standard for equality of access to blue and green space. Over the last five years, yes we have seen more green spaces created, but more and more they are created in rich areas compared to in poorer areas. We have to take this seriously, or inequality of access to green space will get worse.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the recommendation of the New Towns Taskforce was that new towns could be delivered by the introduction of special development orders. That would mean that the Secretary of State could determine a planning permission for a new town and grant it directly through this special development order, with the potential to override the provisions of local plans and the NPPF. We do not even have the NPPF or the local plans any more to ensure blue and green space in cities and equality of access to it.
This is a fairly simple amendment, which would not cost anything. I hope we can find a way to move forward, and that the Minister will accept my amendment. It offers a reasonable and non-burdensome way to implement what the Government recognise is an important issue: to hardwire blue and green space into new towns so that they can deliver critical spaces for health and well-being for everyone in those cities. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have put my name. I will talk briefly about the opportunity that the new towns offer by ensuring that they are beacons for providing green and blue space close to where people live, especially for deprived communities. With her depth of experience, the Minister has seen green and blue spaces and placemaking in Stevenage and, not that far away, in the historical examples of Letchworth Garden City and others, including, more recently, Milton Keynes, which indubitably is full of green and blue spaces.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, I am sure that the Minister will restate her faith in the NPPF requirements—although the noble Baroness raised a question about that—and refer to the New Towns Taskforce report and the strong emphasis it put on placemaking principles and green and blue open space. There is no doubt that new town development corporations are already equipped with sufficient legal powers to provide blue and green spaces, but powers are one thing and commitment is another. I want to see some provision of this sort in the Bill to ensure that, in the push for new towns that the new towns programme represents—to provide housing, businesses and places to live—there is also a push for accessible green space, especially for more deprived communities.
I would like our new towns, in respect of this green and blue open space, to be praised by future generations in the way that the Victorian model towns were praised, in the way we praise the garden cities and in the way that some of us, grudgingly, praise Milton Keynes and, dare I say it, Poundbury.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I have the honour to serve on your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee. It is no coincidence that two of us who have added our names to this amendment are on that committee, the second being the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who is its chair.
An issue that we have come across as we have made our inquiry into new towns—the first module of which was published recently, as was the New Towns Taskforce report—is that there is a lack of vision. There is no vision for blue and green space in the New Towns Taskforce report. Obviously, it is integral that houses are part of a new town; that goes without saying. It should be integral that green and blue space is part of a new town; that should also go without saying.
Last week, we had a fascinating debate in your Lordships’ House on swifts and swift bricks. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, taught me a lot about why swift bricks were perhaps less important, because they could not be positioned in the right place. But the fact is that if those swifts do not have any food, because there is no green space or blue space to produce the insects, all the debate we had about swift bricks is completely meaningless—and that goes for every single species.
It is not just about the species. I will not repeat all the arguments we made in Committee and last week about the other amendment concerning green and blue space being in the NPPF. I simply say that it is equally essential, for all those reasons—for human health and well-being and for children—that green and blue space is as integral in the vision of development corporations as the houses themselves.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, seems to be amazingly modest. If I had written it, it probably would have been far more complicated and have no chance of being passed by this House. But it really needs to be in the Bill.
New towns will be on the map and inhabited for hundreds of years—we hope, if we manage to solve climate change—so it is crucial that the elements that make them up are there at the beginning. Those need to be statutory, compulsory and mandatory because, as we all know, at various points in the evolution of these new towns, there will be financial issues and constraints. That would also allow us to consider not just biodiversity but human health in those new towns, which is absolutely key. I hope that the Government will take heed of this, and that those green and blue spaces will be additional to any biodiversity net gain.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, unlike the previous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, her Amendment 237 omits the word “network”, and we believe that she was right to do so. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities become responsible not only for safeguarding individual sites but managing and maintaining the functional and spatial connections between them.
I will not repeat at length the importance of green and blue spaces—that has been thoroughly debated and supported by this side in debates on previous groups of amendments—but I commend the noble Baroness for the clarity and practicality of her approach to them. If she is minded to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 237 would update the objectives of new town development corporations to include the provision of publicly accessible green and blue spaces for local communities.
Our position remains that national policy is the best mechanism. Development corporations are subject to the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets clear policies for green infrastructure. As noted in Committee, we have seen this work well in practice. The Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has provided almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.
To repeat what I have said many times in our debates on the Bill, the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself because it needs to be flexible. We brought in a new version of the NPPF last December and we will publish another one shortly, so it is very important we have flexibility within it. However, as I have said before, it sits within a statutory framework of planning, which means that it carries the weight of that statutory framework.
The Government expect development corporations to work within the framework of national policy taken as a whole. It would be inappropriate to single out blue and green infrastructure in primary legislation, and it is unmanageable to include all relevant national policies within the objectives of development corporations at this level of granularity.
I understand that a driving concern behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to ensure that the Government’s programme of new towns includes accessible green and blue spaces. However, her amendment would not guarantee this. New town development corporations are only one possible vehicle for delivering new towns; urban development corporations and mayoral development corporations are also under consideration, as well as public/private partnerships, where this is right for the place.
I would also say to the noble Baroness that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her role as Defra Minister, that a program is being drawn up on access to green and blue spaces as well, which is coming along very soon.
I fundamentally disagree with the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that there is no vision for new towns from the Government. The independent New Towns Taskforce recommended, alongside its overview, that there were 10 key placemaking principles, including that new towns should have easily accessible green spaces. The initial government response set out that we support the placemaking approach recommended by the task force. The final selection of placemaking principles will be subject to environmental assessment and consultation, as many noble Lords have mentioned.
The Government are committed to ensuring that new towns are well designed and have the infrastructure communities need, including green spaces. Implementation will, of course, be key. The task force recommended that government provide guidance on the implementation of placemaking principles and establish an independent place review panel to help ensure that placemaking principles are translated into local policies, master plans and development proposals.
My officials are developing policy ahead of a full government response to the taskforce’s report next year. I would very much welcome further engagement with the noble Baroness on the issue of new towns to better inform our final position. That said, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their really thoughtful contributions to this debate. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks, but I still have a very big problem here: every time, we come back to the NPPF, and every time there is recommendation and guidance. Unfortunately, when economic costs come in, particularly with developers, those recommendations and guidance disappear. We see it time and time again. At some point, we as a country have to be able to say, “These spaces are so important that they should be in the Bill”. They should be there, because without them, we will have no green spaces left in cities. So, while I appreciate this response, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Fuller
“(c) the funding and financing of development proposals, which may extend to the issuance of bonds, debt or similar financial instruments.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to empower development corporations to seek finance from the widest number of sources whether from PWLB, private money, sovereign wealth, pension funds or value in-kind as part of a joint-venture together with the ability to issue bonds, individually or severally with other development corporations.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the development corporation parts of the Bill are the best parts of it, and my intention is to make the best of that and to support it. I came here with an open mind, not really knowing whether I was going to press the amendment but. in her winding. the Minister said two things which I am uncomfortable with, so in due course I wish to test the opinion of the House. The first was that there is an apartheid in this country in so far as development corporations are concerned.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Lord made his speech earlier. We do not need to rehearse what has been said during the debate—I spoke on this issue at the beginning of this particular debate. Perhaps he can let us know whether he will move this to a vote.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am getting there; I just wanted to give the two reasons. The first was—
Lord Fuller (Con)
Your Lordships are only delaying it.
First, the development corporations outside London should have the same financing as those within and, secondly, the Minister mistakenly interpreted my amendment to mean that it required development corporations only to take private finance, whereas it was to give it the option. As I am dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, I wish to put the matter to a vote.
Lord Lucas
“(A1) In section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (interpretation), after the definition of “local authority” insert—““local news publisher” has the meaning prescribed to it in Schedule 2ZA.”.(A2) After Schedule 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, insert—“Schedule 2ZALocal news publishersDefinition of local news publisher
1 The term “local news publisher” means a business that—(a) has as its principal purpose the publication of original, local news content, where such material, whether or not publication is done with a view to making profit—(i) is published, online or in print, no less than once every 31 days;(ii) is subject to editorial control;(iii) is regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), or by IMPRESS;(b) is legally resident in the United Kingdom;(c) is owned and operated within the community; and(d) is considered by the relevant local authority to be an effective means of drawing the notice to the attention of local people who would be interested to read it but are not actively looking for it.2 An organisation is a relevant local authority if it is—(a) identified as a principal council within the meaning of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1978 for England or section 21 of that Act for Wales, and(b) required by law (such as section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to issue a public notice relating to any powers it exercises.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with two others to this Clause in the name of Lord Lucas, is to update the 1981 definition of newspaper so that it takes account of the substantial changes in local media this century, in relation to newspaper notices required under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
Lord Lucas (Con)
First, my Lords, I note with unrestrained delight from the annunciator that Parliament is being presented with the opportunity to spend another £10 million on a new door, and I look forward to the announcement shortly.
My amendments concern the advertising requirements in the Bill and indeed elsewhere in legislation. The purpose of the advertisements is to tell people what is happening, and there are two main routes through which that information has to flow. One should be a central database of all such announcements run by the Government so that all the professionals can immediately go where they need to in order to look at it every day, see what is happening and be completely up to date without having to faff around.
The other is that they ought to go in publications that ordinary members of the public read so that they can say, “Oi! What’s going on? I need to take an interest in this”. It is that second section that particularly concerns me because the rules as to where these advertisements can be put were set down in 1881 and need updating. The Minister has kindly promised me a meeting—which has yet to be arranged—with her department and DCMS; I look forward to that very much, but this needs doing.
There are a number of other amendments in this group, the presentations of which I will listen to with interest. The only one that I have a particular interest in is Amendment 250, which seems an undesirable bit of retrospective legislation designed to enable the All England Lawn Tennis Club not to have to negotiate fairly with the people it is disadvantaging as a result of its plans. I hope the Government will reject it, but I declare in saying so my interest, in that I am a resident of Eastbourne, which has been disadvantaged by the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s plans, and I have numerous friends and relations who are Wombles. I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 238A in this group, which is in the same terms as an amendment that I tabled and withdrew in Committee, reserving the right to return to it later. I have decided to bring it back for further consideration and will seek to reinforce the arguments for it.
This takes us into the largely unexplored Part 5 of the Bill and concerns the scope of exceptions to home-loss payments in what is now Clause 105. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a drastic step for which clear and proper justification should be required. Normally the person displaced from a property that is his or her dwelling receives the market value of the property, together with compensation by a statutory home loss payment, which provides some modest recognition that the person concerned is being compelled to leave his or her home.
However, in Clause 105, a proposed new section of the 1973 Act stipulates exceptions to the right to a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair or there have been other failures to comply with notices or orders which have been served. Homeowners caught by those exceptions will be denied any home loss payment. Of course, the assessed amount which the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect the lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment would be therefore in addition to the reduced price reflecting a poor state of repair.
Repairs or improvements to a home may not always get done, for a variety of reasons. There may well be situations in which denial of home loss payments would be justified when there has been a significant, culpable failure to comply with statutory obligations to maintain, repair or safeguard a property wholly or in part. But the proposed list of unqualified exceptions in the Bill as drafted could operate unduly harshly and punitively, taking no account of individual circumstances or any underlying reason for non-compliance with the notice or order, which would automatically trigger forfeiture of the home loss payment.
The Bill does not allow for the exercise of any discretion in depriving the homeowner of that payment. In her helpful response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that it would be for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the 1973 Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the owner. I am sure that is correct, but the situation contemplated by my amendment is that arising at a later stage, after the order or notice has been served, when the homeowner to be displaced may reasonably want to show why personal circumstances do not then allow him or her to comply with the notice or order.
I wish to stress as quickly as I can three points. First, the amendment would not place any obligation on the local authority to investigate the reasons for non-compliance in any way, unless and until the person concerned tried to show that the omissions were not deliberate and that the cause of non-compliance was either that the required work could not have been carried out because of that person’s ill health or infirmity or that it could not have been afforded because of financial difficulty, such as an inability to obtain or afford funding. The burden of proving any of that would remain on the person to be displaced and would require credible evidence. The only obligation on the local authority at that stage would be to look at the realities of the cause for non-compliance.
Secondly, in these cases the property being compulsorily acquired is a home, and the displaced homeowner will almost certainly need the home loss payment to help find a replacement home. All this amendment seeks to do is obtain some modification of the blanket application of exclusions from such payments in an attempt to make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable when there has been what might be called no-fault non-compliance.
Thirdly, of course it is important to consider the financial implications for local authorities, but compulsory acquisition of homes in disrepair where notices have not been complied with is rare and, if the amendment is accepted, the number of cases in which the claimant could show genuine inability to comply with the required work because of ill health or lack of finance will be rarer still. This amendment would allow those people some opportunity to show those reasons and receive the payment which the Bill would otherwise take away from them. If the Government are not minded to look at this again and reconsider the amendment or something like it, I at least hope there would be an indication that guidance would allow such circumstances to be considered. If it were possible for that to happen, I suggest that unnecessary appeals could be avoided.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 242 and 243 are in my name. The purpose of these amendments is simply to eliminate the ability of the Government to ignore hope value when assessing value on compulsory purchase orders. The Minister has kindly laid out in writing that this will happen only in limited circumstances and, by implication, that it is of little concern. That is wrong. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, put it far more simply and elegantly than I when he said that hope value is actually market value. He is right. Other government departments accept this. When land is valued for inheritance tax or capital gains tax on non-financial transfers, hope value is explicit. Tax is paid on that hope value, so why should another government department be entitled to disregard it?
Under this Government’s family farm death tax, greater inheritance tax will be paid based on this hope value of land that might lift it, in certain circumstances, from around £10,000 per acre to as much as £50,000 per acre. What happens if the Government then turn around two years later and compulsorily purchase that land at £10,000 per acre because they want to disregard hope value? This is surely absurd; that hope value has not disappeared. The Government should pay for it.
This is a power of confiscation and, as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is probing with Amendment 251, and as I raised at Second Reading and again in Committee, it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister’s previous responses that the ECHR allows for CPOs is right, but it does not allow them at less than market value. His Majesty’s Government appear to put the ECHR on a pedestal; I am curious whether that is only when it suits them. CPO powers are, of course, essential to a modern Government carrying out their duties, but this cannot be a tyranny of the majority. The rights of the individual have to be respected.
Can the Minister assure us that, should she reject my amendments, CPO valuations will include all elements of market value attributed to that land under historic valuation parameters, as I believe the Red Book valuations already incorporate? I refer the House to my declaration of interests as a landowner, among other things.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 250 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Grabiner, who are unable to be here this evening but who continue to support it, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell. This amendment would address the wide-reaching consequences for persons who acquire former open-space land in light of a Supreme Court decision in 2023, R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council [2023] UKSC 8. Given that this amendment has been misunderstood by some and mischaracterised by others, I need to explain what it is and is not about.
Open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to that land for the purpose of recreation. Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that the local authority may not dispose of
“any land consisting or forming part of an open space”
unless before it does so it advertises its intention in a local newspaper for two weeks and considers any objections received in response to that advertisement. Section 123(2B) provides that the sale of the land post advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust.
If a local resident or community group considers that the disposal of land is unlawful for any reason, including but not limited to a failure to comply with the requirement to advertise, they have a remedy: they can bring a claim for judicial review of the local authority’s decision in the High Court. If they have good reason for bringing the claim late—for example, if they were not aware of the decision at the time it was made—they can draw the court’s attention to that in support of an application for a discretionary extension of time.
In public law, the normal position is that, if a public body’s decision has not been successfully challenged by way of judicial review, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision. However, in Day, the Supreme Court held that, even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged, and even if it was made many years or even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertising requirements means that the statutory trust continues to exist, and therefore continues to frustrate the beneficial repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question.
Crucially, that is the case even if the land was sold in good faith by the authority to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements when it was sold.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 250 because I believe that it is a necessary and proportionate measure to remove a legal blockage to sustainable growth—a blockage that is holding back both our national well-being and our economic prosperity. I declare my relevant interests. On the well-being side, I am a member, unpaid, of the board of the World Wellbeing Movement and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics. On the economics side, I am a professional economist with decades of experience at the Treasury, and unpaid president of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, I naturally view this issue through the twin lenses of economic growth and fiscal sustainability. Of course, I am a member of the committee of the All England Lawn Tennis Club, which is obviously where I have experience that others can, I hope, learn from.
Regrettably, the decision that this House made in April, that we must exclude our non-financial interests from the register, has led to a degree of misunderstanding and, in some quarters, to unwarranted personal attacks on me—hence my need to put these matters on the record at my first opportunity. This is the first time I have spoken on this issue. I note that I asked the registrar’s office about this on 6 March: I wanted to carry on including my non-financial interests in the register, because they are really important, and I was told that this was not possible. It is ridiculous, so I am stuck with this.
I go back to the point of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, mentioned all the KCs and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the rest of them have all the legal arguments; I will not even try to rival their expertise. I am an economist—that is what drives me—and I care about well-being. As was said, this amendment responds to the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Day case. In essence, that judgment created a new and retrospective uncertainty over land ownership, affecting potentially innumerable development sites across the country. This is the important thing to get across. This is important for the economic growth of the country. The Wimbledon example is an important one, but it is only one among a number. The Minister is very aware of the long list of projects—because I sent it to her—that are now held back by this legal shadow. Because the problem is itself retrospective, the remedy must necessarily also be retrospective if we are to restore the legal clarity that the market and our communities so badly need.
I will go to my area of expertise: the real-world effects are best illustrated, to me, by the experience of that much-loved British institution, Wimbledon. I declare again that I have been a long-standing member of its main committee and put this in the register for many years, until that April change. The Day judgment has created significant delay and uncertainty for Wimbledon’s ability to transform the land that has, for more than a century, been a private members’ golf club.
I stress that there are lots of other examples but, in the Wimbledon example, the expansion already has planning permission from the Greater London Authority; it has been upheld by the High Court, yet progress is now halted because of the uncertainty surrounding the Day case. But this is about far more than economics. Wimbledon is a jewel in the crown of British sport. The other Grand Slams are investing heavily in their facilities and the fan experience. For Wimbledon to maintain its place at the pinnacle of world tennis, it must be allowed to evolve as they are. This expansion is crucial to that future. It is not only about elite sport; it is also about national well-being. The proposed development would turn qualifying week into a festival in its own right, offering three weeks of world-class tennis and community celebration rather than two. It would enhance the experience for the thousands who camp out each year in the queue. Let us remember that Wimbledon is not a profit-maximising organisation: 90% of our surplus goes back into the LTA and the other 10% goes into improving Wimbledon every year. So it would allow fans to have a better experience and capitalise on one of the country’s finest examples of soft power by extending the celebration of Britishness that the nation holds so dear.
Yet, perhaps most importantly of all—I stress this to my colleagues to my right—the benefits extend to the environment and local community. This is not an act of overdevelopment but of restoration, environmental enhancement and the opening up of new green space. Let me be specific: the project will convert 27 acres of private land into publicly accessible park land—a 50% increase in green space for local residents. It would restore the historic Capability Brown Wimbledon Park lake, which is terribly silted up at the moment, creating a circular boardwalk and reviving a landscape feature of national heritage. It would help to deliver a substantial biodiversity net gain, with the planting of at least 1,500 new trees and the creation of rich habitats for wildlife. These arguments were made at the GLA planning stage, and the environmental case won the day. As someone who massively believes in green spaces and in well-being, I am afraid that I have to disagree with those who think that somehow this development will do the opposite of that. It is not—it will make things better.
I urge the Government to swiftly find a way to support the amendment, which is a modest and necessary measure to restore certainty, enable sustainable growth, strengthen our national well-being and help to deliver the kind of forward-looking development that future generations will thank us for. I honestly do not understand why the Government, who accept that the current situation needs to be changed via legislation, cannot bring forward at Third Reading in their own wording, taking account of any issues that they may have, something that can solve these problems.
I have experience of these matters; there are more there are more than 50 brilliant and excellent draftsmen in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Every department has additional drafters. It is not beyond the wit of man to do this reasonably quickly. When I am told that we might do this in some future legislation, I remember the words of my successor as Cabinet Secretary, alas, the late Jeremy Heywood. When faced with issues like this, he would say to me, “Gus, we need to get a grip”. He was right. Can we please get a grip, get on with it and solve this problem, which will enhance national well-being, improve the environment and stimulate economic growth?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I do not want to take up the time of the House at this stage of the evening, but I want to speak against Amendment 250 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Pannick, Lord Grabiner and Lord O’Donnell. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in one respect, that it is a backwards step for what the register of interests now represents, in that non-financial interests absolutely ought to continue to be highlighted. We have just had a prime example of that tonight, if I may say so.
I was slightly nervous about saying anything against such an illustrious line-up as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has lined up, but my understanding of the situation is not that, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, tried to persuade me, we are all misunderstanding the position. I do not think we are; there is a real need for this to be gripped, but this is not the way to do it. This amendment has caused substantial concern that it erodes the protection of green space and removes long-standing public rights to green spaces, where the land is sold by local authority, with or without consultation. For the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to say that a judicial review is the way forward, frankly, misrepresents the position of many local communities, which are absolutely incapable of bringing a judicial review, either by degree of organisation or financially.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with pleasure and particularly agree with her point about judicial reviews. I have visited more local communities than I can count, where they have desperately been trying to bake cakes and to collect pence and pounds here and there, struggling to stand up a judicial review and simply unable to do it. I have no nervousness at all in opposing Amendment 250, because I bring voices from the community, something I often seek to bring into your Lordships’ House, as represented by the Wandsworth and Merton Green parties and Merton Friends of the Earth, which are strongly opposed to the development by the All England Lawn Tennis Club and opposed to the kind of changes that this amendment would bring. It is also, of course, strongly opposed by the Open Spaces Society.
I want to make two specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, talked about “beneficial repurposing”, saying, “Oh, it’s fine if it’s beneficial repurposing”. Beneficial repurposing, I am afraid, is often in the eye of the beholder, and there can be many different perspectives on what it is. The other contextual point I wish to add—these are figures from 2018, which will undoubtedly be out of date—is that what has been described as “the new enclosure”, from the late 1970s to 2019, has seen 10% of what was public land in Britain transferred into private hands. That is 2 million hectares of land. This is probably not large in terms of scale, but it would be yet more loss of public good for private profit, not for the people who have already lost so much. I finally note the strong vote for the recent amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, on protecting blue and green spaces: that is the House strongly showing what it wants to do.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 250. I know that many noble Lords are much better versed in the law around this than I am. However, I want to touch on the point about land held in trust for enjoyment by the public. In situations where such a purchase will mean that the public’s rights of enjoyment will not be maintained, surely there should at least be extensive consultation with local communities, with their views taken into account, and where there is strong objection, surely at the very least some alternative provision should be made.
Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, I am concerned that this amendment will erode the rights of the general public and that they will not have a suitable, easily accessible mechanism to defend their rights or negotiate a solution to satisfy both parties. The law is beyond the reach of most normal people as it is so expensive. Judicial review would probably be off-putting to local communities not familiar with law.
If I have read this amendment correctly, it would appear to backdate this right. Surely that is very unusual and we ought to be looking to the future. I hope that when this issue is given further consideration by the Government, they will consider the rights of local people and ensure that their voices are heard and they are given primary consideration.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee. I want to follow up briefly, because in this debate we are getting a more comprehensive view of the problem and, potentially, of the solution. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to the fact that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 brought in the provisions now in the Local Government Act 1972. Last time we were told about these ancient pieces of legislation: the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906. The fact that they are ancient pieces of legislation is neither here nor there. The thing we are dealing with was inserted in 1980, which is why the amendment refers to 1980.
What should happen in the future? In future, if land to which the public have some rights of enjoyment and access is to be disposed of by a local authority, the local authority should consult. And what the legislation requires is not too onerous: it is to advertise for two weeks and consider any objections raised. This is hardly too much. That is for the future. Clearly, the public benefit should be incorporated into whatever decisions are made as a consequence of that.
For about 45 years local authorities thought, because of what is in Sections 122(2B) and 123(2B) of the Local Government Act 1972, that if they did not do that, not only was the sale still valid but the trusts relating to that legislation were extinguished. They were wrong about that, so we have to put them back in that situation. Essentially, we have to look back and say, in all these decisions made over that period, where local authorities operated on what turned out to be a false basis, they must take into account the public benefit that might have been derived from the trust and find some other way of doing it. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, explained to us how, in one instance, it is the intention of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to ensure that significant public benefit continues to be provided by way of access to open space and public enjoyment. That is exactly where we need to go. But the legislation needs to reflect both the requirement for consultation and that there may be some continuing necessity for the public benefit either to be enjoyed in that open space or by some alternative means.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just said. Philanthropists in the past gave areas of green space and there have been scandals where councils have sold them off for money, and we all complain that there are no more playing fields, for example. This smells a bit like that. It is almost land that has been protected by accident by a legal quirk that has prevented it being developed subsequently or sold on for development unwisely.
To my mind, this is surely a case-by-case matter. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, made a very powerful case for Wimbledon. Maybe he is right, but I am sure that plenty of sites around the country are not quite so green and lovely in their eventual outcome. I find it difficult to support an amendment that alters everything across the board. Going back, almost in a time machine, doing a proper consultation and the substitution of what is being lost has to be the approach, rather than what is proposed in this amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is quite a wide-ranging group of amendments, and fairly disparate at that. I will first briefly focus on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In Committee he raised those issues about the publication of public notices, with which I had, and continue to have, some sympathy.
The sad demise of the printed local newspaper means that fewer and fewer people will have access to the public notices. This is partly in reference to Amendment 250, because where would people read the notice about Wimbledon Park or any other site of that sort? I am sympathetic to the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes in his amendment.
Moving to Amendments 242 and 243 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I remember the long debates we had on this very issue during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I recall that it was the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who passed the levelling-up Bill, now Act, and included in it the very issue he now wishes to undo.
We have been listening to arguments about growth and economic development, but for many parts of the country, without access to land at affordable prices for the public good, those sorts of developments, such as community health centres and so on, will never come to fruition. We had those arguments on the levelling-up Bill. For me they are still important issues that we ought to respect, so for the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I am afraid it is a big cross—I cannot support those amendments.
This leads us on to Amendment 250. It is always worth looking through the other lens of an issue of development, or no development, whether it is for the public good, public well-being and economic development, or the lens of the residents who live in the area. I have used that theme throughout discussions on this Bill. It is very important to those of us on these Benches that the views of local people who are affected by a development, be it a national strategic infrastructure project, a local planning application, mayoral development corporation plans or this issue, should and must be at the heart of those decisions.
What happens on the land affects their lives. It might be that the development is beneficial but, unless you take local people with you, it will not be, because they will constantly oppose it. I hear the legal arguments, but let us listen to people. I have been a local councillor for many years, and one thing I know for certain is that if you try to impose a decision on people—certainly in Yorkshire, anyway; I do not know about the rest of the country—and say, “It’s to do with the law. This is what’s been agreed. It’s bound to be good for you”, they will make their voice heard loud and strong and long. You need to take people with you on these big issues.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will say just one sentence in support of Amendment 238A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is a deeply humane, very minor amendment, and I hope that the Government will get behind it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 238ZA, 238ZB and 238ZC from my noble friend Lord Lucas seek to change the definition of a local newspaper for the purpose of compulsory purchase orders. I listened carefully to his argument for these changes, but we have some concerns that these amendments might be overly prescriptive and place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. That said, we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on improving the transparency of public notices relating to CPOs. Clearly, where CPO powers are exercised by Ministers or Natural England, the public should be made aware, so can the Minister set out the Government’s assessment of the current requirements and confirm whether Ministers have plans to strengthen them?
Amendments 242 and 243, in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, seek to return to the position whereby farmers are paid the market value of their land when it is subject to compulsory purchase. As we have heard, these amendments seek to reverse changes made under the previous Government, but under this Government the situation of farmers has changed significantly. The Government’s policies have put farmers in an impossible position. Noble Lords listening to this morning’s “Today” programme will have heard James Rebanks’s comments on the challenges faced by farming communities across this country.
We have spoken consistently of the need for food security, and Ministers need to deliver a fairer deal for farmers. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will consider giving farmers whose land is subject to compulsory purchase the fair market price for their land? While we may not get an agreement this evening, we hope that Ministers will take on board these concerns and seek properly to support farmers across this country.
Amendment 251, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, also speaks to fairness in the compulsory purchase system. The amendment calls for a report on the compatibility of compulsory purchase powers with the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes a specific right to property. Given the expansion in compulsory purchase powers in the Bill, we agree with my noble friend that the impact of these powers on landowners’ rights should be considered carefully and in full. We hope that the Government can give an undertaking that they will commence a report on that.
Finally, Amendment 250 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. Listening to our proceedings, I am not quite sure whether the things I thought we would be debating have been debated. None the less, this amendment seeks to establish legal clarity. We have seen too many examples of development being blocked after permission has been granted, based on historic technicalities. There will be circumstances where historic constraints are appropriate and should be heeded, but there have also been some very high-profile examples of historic technicalities resulting in perverse outcomes in the planning process, inappropriately blocking the delivery of much-needed homes.
I will take this opportunity to describe my understanding of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked a lot about consultation, but it is my understanding that this amendment would not change in any way the requirement for consultation. Also, if there is a change of use for any piece of land, planning permission will still be needed, and the things we have discussed in this debate can be relooked at, discussed and consulted on, and decisions can then be made on the proposed changes.
I understand that the Government are looking seriously at that, which I welcome. These are complex and technical issues, but I hope that the idea that the decision will come in future legislation can be made much clearer. Perhaps the Minister could say that it could be brought back in the devolution Bill, which is in the other place and is likely to come here in the new year. That would be an ideal way forward in our opinion.
We need legal clarity. Given the hour that this amendment will come for a decision, we may not get a final answer tonight. However, I hope that Ministers will continue to talk to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments, take them away, look at them in detail and, very soon, in the next available Bill, establish a better way forward.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that very interesting debate on a wide-ranging set of issues in the Bill. There are a number of amendments in this group relating to compulsory purchase. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about that subject as well as the other issues raised in this group. I hope noble Lords will understand that, out of respect to you, these require a fuller response than I would otherwise have given at this late hour, because I think it important that I respond to the points that have been made.
Amendment 238A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, relates to compulsory purchase compensation rules and home loss payments. The amendment would ensure that homeowners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action required.
A home loss payment is a separate payment made to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. It is an amount paid in addition to compensation for the market value of a property subject to a CPO. Under current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with notices or orders served on them to make improvements to their land or properties, their right to basic and occupiers loss payments is already excluded.
As mentioned in the previous debates on this issue, there are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments, which is an inconsistency. Clause 105 of the Bill amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 to apply this exclusion to home loss payments. Where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be paid compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation and other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. Clause 105 does not prevent these other heads of compensation or costs being claimed. It will be for local authorities to decide whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order, taking into account the circumstances of the property owner.
Furthermore, individuals are able to challenge improvement notices or orders served on them by local authorities, and Clause 105 does nothing to interfere with this right. The provision introduced by Clause 105 will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring substandard properties back into use as housing where there is a compelling case in the public interest, and this will enable more empty properties to be used as family homes and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.
Amendments 238ZA to 238ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper which notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain criteria. As mentioned in previous debates, the legislation already requires authorities to publish notices in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. As introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, CPO notices are also published on the acquiring authorities’ websites. The purpose of this change was to modernise the CPO process to ensure that local people are fully informed. I agree with the comments made by Peers in the debate on these amendments that there are significant costs associated with publishing newspaper notices, and we therefore have to be mindful of adding new burdens to already hard-pressed local authorities.
That is why the Government have introduced Clause 107 in the Bill. The purpose of Clause 107 is to simplify the information required to be published in CPO newspaper notices, to reduce administrative costs and to improve the content of such notices. The amendments would also increase the complexity of the CPO process. Amending the existing requirement by stipulating in primary legislation a certain type of local newspaper would create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process and increase the potential risk of legal challenges, resulting in additional costs, and in delay in decision-making and in the delivery of benefits in the public interest.
I reassure the noble Lord that DCMS has committed to a review of statutory notices as part of the local media strategy. I, for one, really welcome that; it is very much time we did it. It is important that a coherent and co-ordinated approach be taken to this issue, rather than picking it up piecemeal. For these reasons, while we agree with the intention behind the amendments, I hope noble Lords will not press them.
Amendments 242 and 243, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, relate to compulsory purchase compensation. The amendments would repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, where justified in the public interest, for certain types of schemes. They also seek to omit Clause 107 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a full and helpful reply to my amendment. I look forward to the meetings which we are in the process of arranging. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Protection of villages(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages from over-development and change of character.(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—(a) preventing villages from merging into one another, and(b) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages, under the National Planning Policy Framework.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we debated this issue on a previous day on Report. On this side of the House, we have grave concerns over the importance of the protection of our much-cherished villages across this country. Pressures will come from new town developments, changes to the green belt and a lack of support for neighbourhood plans. This simple amendment seeks to provide existing villages with the protection equivalent to that which we already provide for our towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We do not understand this and are going to stand up for our rural communities and villages. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Land purchasing: duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land(1) Any developer or company approaching a landowner to buy or lease land for the purpose of development must declare whether they are also approaching other owners of land in the vicinity to buy or lease land for the purpose of development.(2) The declaration required under subsection (1) must include whether the combined amount of land intended to be purchased or leased will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project as set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008.(3) In subsection (1), “in the vicinity” means any land immediately adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing or whether there are others being approached so that the total sum of the land obtained may result in application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 241. Amendment 240 is a return to the debate that we had about the issues of transparency and the right of landowners to be fully informed of the potential scale of a project. It would insert a new clause after Clause 106, creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land in the vicinity. Proposed new subsection (2) states that that declaration
“must include whether the combined amount of land … will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project”,
while proposed new subsection (3) provides a definition of what is meant by “in the vicinity” in this context; namely, anything adjoining or within 10 miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased. The amendment would not prevent land purchasing from occurring but would force better practices, bringing in transparency and accountability to the process for potentially very large projects.
In Committee, the Minister argued that the amendment could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on development projects. I disagree. I am not asking the developer to provide each potential partner with chapter and verse on other negotiations but simply to indicate that the land in question might form part of a larger project connecting to neighbouring land. That is a simple statement that would not be an onerous burden on developers; it would be a way of ensuring that all of them acted within the spirit of professional behaviour that we would expect, although sadly, as examples given in both Houses during the passage of the Bill have confirmed, that does not take place.
All too often it is the actions of a few that tarnish the reputation of the many, but surely it is only morally right and fair that landowners and the local communities potentially impacted have a true sense of the potential scale of the project being proposed and how it might have a bigger impact beyond the one plot being discussed. Anecdotally, I have heard of a case where the developer failed to notify those selling or leasing their land that they would be part of a big project; when it was discovered, there was considerable anger from the local community, with those who had agreed to lease their land being ostracised. Not only is this therefore the right thing to do, because surely all deals of this kind should be open and transparent, but it is also in the interests of community cohesion. I have since checked this with a land agent, who said that he thought it was eminently sensible.
The Minister referred to the book of reference and how it is available for public view—if indeed anyone knows about it—and that it should list all land and interests in land that may be affected by development. I reiterate a point made by others throughout our discussions: to the general public, development jargon and process is all a bit of a mystery to start with. However, the Minister herself mentioned the problem here: she implied in her Committee response that the book of reference is available for public view only once the application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State. Transparency after the application is too late and not transparent at all.
While some landowners may jump at the chance of being part of a nationally significant project, others may not wish to be. If they do not know what is being proposed, how can they make an informed choice? In this House, surely we should not be enabling corporate underhand behaviour. We need to ensure that consideration is given to those being approached for land with projects and the communities that will all have to live with the consequences.
Amendment 241 requires a similar simple statement, which again has the principles of transparency and good practice at its core. It seeks to prevent land banking, the practice of purchasing undeveloped land and holding it for future development or resale, rather than immediately building on it. Its proposed new subsection (1) would create an obligation on the developer or company to declare whether they held planning permission for similar developments within a 10-mile radius of the new site they were seeking permission to buy or lease. Proposed new subsection (2) would give the power to refuse development if any similar sites identified by proposed new subsection (1) had not been activated for over a year.
I remind the House that we must not conflate housing delivery with granting planning permission. Planning permission will not meet targets if it is not acted on. I will not reiterate all the stats from the debate we had in Committee, but suffice to say that, as another noble Lord highlighted, around four years’ worth of the Government’s current target is sitting in land banks. Better transparency will only help build trust and confidence in what our planning system can deliver.
I was pleased that the Minister expressed that the working paper is looking to see that permissions given are built out as quickly as possible and I suggest that this amendment could only strengthen the incentive for this to happen. It was also mentioned that a form of use it or lose it could be brought about by implementing the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Why has this not been kick-started already? Can the Minister give us a timetable in which she hopes that this will be implemented? How many other land banks will be approved before this comes into force? I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for bringing these amendments, particularly Amendment 241. The noble Baroness raised the issue of land banking in Committee and I am pleased that she is raising it again on Report. As she rightly said, land banking is one of the blockers of development. I will repeat one of the stats I gave in Committee: 1.2 million housing units with full planning permission are waiting to be constructed. Those figures are from the ONS. One of the reasons is that developers want to keep prices high and therefore phase development over a sometimes inordinately long timeframe. Indeed, in my own town there is a development of nearly 300 homes that the developer wishes to develop over 10 years, which explains, I think, as much as anything, why this country is short of the housing that it needs.
There are other consequences of land banking, apart from the crucial one of failing to supply the houses that the country needs in a timely way; it also has an impact on local plans. Where developers have full planning permission for all the allocated housing sites in a local plan, they can, and do, argue that they therefore need more sites, sometimes with preference for sites in the green belt, even though there is no intention of beginning, let alone completing, the sites they currently have with full planning permission. That is a really important issue on which I hope the Minister will give some comfort for those of us in local councils. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on these important issues.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson for her constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill, her close attention to its detail and her ambition to improve the legislation in a number of important areas. Amendment 240 needs to be considered carefully; I will be interested to hear what the Minister has on it. Where the total land being assembled could ultimately lead to an application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project, there is a real need for greater clarity at an early stage. That would only help to build trust between developers, landowners and local communities, and my noble friend’s proposals rightly highlight that need.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for Amendment 240. This amendment seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land, developers must declare their interest in purchasing or leasing adjoining land. We appreciate the noble Baroness’s continued interest in promoting transparency and discouraging speculative land banking. However, we maintain that this amendment is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.
There is existing guidance on the procedures in the Planning Act 2008 for the compulsory acquisition of land in connection with NSIPs. This guidance supports applicants to seek to acquire land by private negotiation, where practicable, using compulsory acquisition only where attempts to acquire by agreement fail. The guidance also encourages early engagement with affected parties to help build up good working relationships, to treat landowner concerns with respect and to help reduce the mistrust or fear that can arise in such circumstances.
Land acquisition for NSIPs can be highly sensitive and often involves confidential negotiations. Mandating developers to disclose discussions with adjacent landowners could risk breaching confidentiality agreements and potentially hinder the progress of vital infrastructure projects. This is particularly important at the pre-application stage, where early engagement is critical to shaping proposals and identifying potential issues. Forcing disclosure at this stage could discourage that open dialogue between developers and landowners. However, the Government recognise the importance of transparency for landowners and ensuring that there is a fair process in place before consent is granted to authorise the acquisition of land.
For those reasons, when applications that seek to authorise compulsory acquisition are developed and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, applicants are required to submit the accompanying book of reference, to which the noble Baroness referred. This is a publicly available document. It outlines all land and interests in land affected by a proposed development, including those subject to compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or other impacts. This ensures transparency and public accountability. I think there is an obligation to make people aware of the presence of that document.
After an application has been accepted, and to proceed to examination, applicants are required to notify landowners under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Landowners are also recognised as interested parties under Section 102 of that Act, which enables them opportunities for involvement during examination. This is not merely procedural; it grants landowners meaningful opportunities to engage in the examination process. These provisions are vital to ensure that the voices and interests of landowners are not only heard but properly considered throughout the process.
In light of the sensitivities involved, the existing government guidance and the transparency mechanisms already in place, we do not think this amendment is necessary. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued engagement on this issue and kindly ask her to withdraw Amendment 240.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for tabling Amendment 241 related to the buildout of development, an issue we discussed in Committee. The amendment seeks to address the concerns around land banking by requiring planning permissions to be refused if developers have not commenced another development nearby within a year.
I fully recognise the intention behind this amendment and share the noble Baroness’s commitment to improving the buildout rate of residential development. As I have previously set out, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that planning permissions are translated into homes being built. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary to achieve that goal. We confirmed at the time of the response to the NPPF consultation that we will implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions following a technical consultation.
During our earlier debates, I highlighted the publication in May of the working paper that sets out a more effective and comprehensive strategy for speeding up buildout, including greater transparency on buildout rates, new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort.
The working paper also sets out our intention to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, helping to unlock stalled sites and making land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We are analysing the responses to that working paper and will set out our next steps in due course. I remain confident that the measures set out will make a real and meaningful difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Given this and the broader strategy we are pursuing, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not moving her amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, although I am, of course, slightly disappointed by it.
I worry about when people are approached for land, either for leasing or buying, and not treated with honesty and transparency. I do not see how saying that developers should declare what the endgame is would impede an open dialogue. In fact, not telling people is not an open dialogue.
The Minister set out the process to be followed, but what happens when developers do not follow it? What comeback is there? It is all too late. I am disappointed about that, and I hope that there will be further consideration of it at some point.
I am glad to hear that there is a working paper and that there are plans to implement parts of the LURA. I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Report: local government reorganisation and devolutionWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out—(a) how this Act is intended to operate following local government reorganisation,(b) the arrangements that will apply in respect of this Act in the interim period while devolution settlements are being negotiated, and(c) what provisions must be in place to ensure the effective operation of this Act during the interim period.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is straightforward: it would require the Secretary of State to set out how the Bill is intended to operate following any local government reorganisation.
As many in this House will be aware, the landscape of local government is shifting. Across England, there are ongoing discussions about devolution, new combined authorities and the potential reorganisation of existing councils. Each of these changes will have significant implications for how local responsibilities are defined, how accountability is maintained and, ultimately, how this legislation will function in practice.
This amendment seeks clarity, not complication. If local government structures change, communities, councils and partners need certainty about how their duties, powers and relationships under the Bill will continue. Without such clarity, we risk creating confusion at precisely the moment when consistency and coherence are most needed.
We now await the forthcoming devolution Bill and the conclusions of ongoing negotiations around local government reorganisation. These will no doubt shape the future architecture of local governance, but in the meantime it is vital that we ensure a clear line of sight between this legislation and whatever follows. Amendment 244 is a small but important step towards that assurance. If not, a lack of clarity will affect delivery, as we are already seeing in local planning authorities across the country. I therefore hope the Minister will consider how the Government intend to provide this clarity and ensure that, as local government evolves, the operation of this legislation remains transparent, accountable and effective.
As this is the last time I will speak at this Dispatch Box on Report of this Bill, I will take the opportunity to make a broader point on commencement. Throughout the course of this Bill, we on these Benches have offered the Government a clear, credible plan to build more homes and to get Britain building again—and what have Ministers done with that advice? They have just ignored it. We have sought to address the genuine blockages in our planning system: the practical and legal barriers that stand in the way of new housing, such as the Hillside judgment, the lack of proportionality, the restrictions around the Ramsar sites and the complexities of nutrient neutrality rules. These are not abstract legalities; they are the very issues holding back delivery on the ground.
Our amendments would have tackled those problems directly. They would have released land, unlocked permissions and allowed homes to be built where they are most needed. Let us be clear: we are not speaking about a few thousand homes here or there. We are speaking about hundreds of thousands of homes that our plans would and could have unlocked. The uncomfortable truth is this: it is not local authorities, the courts or even the developers who are blockers in our housing system. It is the Government themselves.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I am sorry to have to point out to her, not for the first time from the Dispatch Box, that her Government had 14 years to get the housebuilding that we so desperately need. They had ample opportunity to take all the action that we are taking now, but they did not do so, so it is left to us to sort out the inevitable housing crisis that we face in this country.
Amendment 244 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three months of enactment, on the operation of the Act in the context of local government reorganisation, and during the interim period while devolution settlements are being negotiated. This amendment creates an unnecessary and potentially burdensome precedent. Councils undergoing reorganisation are subject to a comprehensive suite of secondary legislation providing for the transfer of all statutory functions, including those created in new legislation—from predecessor councils to new councils. We will of course work in partnership with the sector to ensure that areas receive support to enable successful take-up of the Act, as well as transition to new unitary structures. This legislation refers to existing planning legislation—for example, Part 5 of the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2008. We will review and, as necessary, amend these and other provisions in the light of this Bill, and the timetable for any such updates will be determined by the reorganisation process.
Turning to devolution, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act already requires the Government to lay an annual devolution report before Parliament. The report provides an annual summary of devolution for all areas in England. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill amends current requirements so that this report reflects the introduction of strategic authorities and the new framework-based approach to devolution in England. It will include information on functions conferred on strategic authorities and any parts of the country where proposals have been received by the Secretary of State for the establishment of a strategic authority, and negotiations have taken place but agreement has not yet been reached. This allows for public transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of the devolution agenda. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that was not what I expected. There are local planning authorities across this country that do not know what to do—they do not know whether or not to start a local plan. If they start a local plan, what will happen when they then become reorganised? It is a waste of time and money for a local government family that do not have the money to do it, or the resource. It would be such a simple thing to explain to local government what they should do in this interim period. However, I have said it all before and we have asked for something back from the Government, just to help the structures work better. It lands on fallow ground. I have tried, but I am going to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Building regulations: swift bricks(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.(3) For the purposes of this section—“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the common swift and other cavity nesting species;“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitats for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitats in buildings to breed.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Save our swifts! I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“National Planning Policy Framework: bird safety of buildings(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) amend the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that buildings incorporate, to the extent practicable, features, practices and strategies to reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, and(b) issue guidance on such features, practices and strategies to reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings.(2) The amendments under subsection (1)(a) must apply to any building that is constructed, or of which more than 50 per cent of the façade is substantially altered, after the date of the updated National Planning Policy Framework coming into force.(3) The Secretary of State may issue exemptions to the amendments made by subsection (1)(a) for listed buildings.(4) The guidance under subsection (1)(b) must include—(a) features for reducing bird fatality resulting from collisions with buildings throughout all stages of construction, taking into account the risks and available information on bird fatalities that occur at different types of buildings, and(b) methods and strategies for reducing bird fatality resulting from collisions with buildings during the operation and maintenance of such buildings, including using certified bird-safe glass.(5) The Secretary of State must review the guidance under subsection (1)(b) on a regular basis to ensure that it reflects current knowledge on effective methods to reduce bird fatalities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce bird safety (in design and in the use of bird-safe glass) into the National Planning Policy Framework for new builds and non-heritage buildings being extensively modified.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive comments in the debate. I think we all want to find proportionate ways to stop 30 million birds a year being killed on our windows in the UK. I was very interested in her suggestion that a targeted measure for commercial developments might be a way of solving this problem, or at least addressing it. The Wildlife and Countryside Link briefing supports this, stating that bird safety in a commercial building would cost probably around 0.5% of the facade cost. I hope that the Government might be persuaded to bring this forward in an amendment of their own at Third Reading. On that basis, I will not try the patience of the House further.
Lord Crisp (CB)
“Secretary of State’s duty to promote health improvement and reduce health inequalitiesWhen considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions under the planning Acts the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to—(a) improve the health of persons living in England, and(b) reduce health inequalities between persons living in England.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Lord Crisp, would place a duty upon the Secretary of State to consider health promotion when they discharge their planning functions. The amendments use the same wording for the duty and definitions as are used in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Clause 43, Health improvement and health inequalities duty).
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 247 I will speak to Amendment 248 in my name. I thank the noble Lords who have added their names to it, and I thank Hugh Ellis and Rosalie Callway of the TCPA for their support.
In this House, I am sure we all understand that our health status is very largely determined—65% or more—by the so-called social determinants of health: that is housing, environment, employment, wealth and education. The relationship between good and bad housing and good and bad health is particularly close. Planning is a huge factor, with its oversight of the environment, access to nature and blue and green spaces, housing, economic development and much more. Unless these other sectors and planning are involved in promoting health and reducing health inequalities, I fear that the UK’s health status will not improve and may continue to get worse, with knock-on effects on public services and the economy, and that the NHS will simply not achieve its ambitious goals for improvement.
My amendment is not about the NHS; it is about health, important as the NHS is. To quote my old friend Francis Omaswa, who used to run the Ugandan health service, “Health is made at home; hospitals are for repairs”. By all means let us improve the repair service, but we need to focus on health improvement. It is therefore vital that planning plays a role in promoting health and tackling health inequalities. My preferred route would be through the setting of standards for healthy homes and neighbourhoods, but I recognise, having tried this line several times in your Lordships’ House, that there is currently no appetite for that around the House. I fear it will come back to prominence in future years, not least because of the standard of homes that may get built. I hope I am wrong.
Lord Moynihan
“(2) Sport England may make representations to the Secretary of State about the extent to which the Secretary of State is meeting the duty in subsection (1).(3) The Secretary of State must have regard to the representations in subsection (2).”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and his eloquent explanation when moving his amendment. My amendment seeks to reinforce the points he has made. It will not surprise him to learn that not only am I fully supportive but that sports policy is no longer principally about sporting success; it is about the important link between sport, health and well-being. That is why I have for a long time argued that ministerial responsibility for sport and recreation should be firmly embedded at the heart of the Department of Health, rather than mistakenly in a separate department responsible for broadcasting, tourism and the digital economy.
Sport England, courtesy of both parties—I am glad to see the Labour Benches so strongly represented at this hour—already has a statutory responsibility and a strategic duty to promote health improvement and reduce health inequalities, primarily through its role in increasing participation in sport and physical activity among underserved and less active groups. Sport England’s primary legal duty remit has rightly broadened in recent years to encompass improving health and well-being and addressing health inequalities as central objectives, in line with government policy. This includes supporting links between the sport sector, planning and health systems, and driving changes that address barriers to activity for disadvantaged groups in particular. That is why it is the right body to be the consultee, to ensure that with Amendment 147 placed firmly in the Bill, as I hope it will be, it can police its effectiveness.
The government strategy clarifies that the aims set out in this amendment require collaboration across the sectors, including councils, planning authorities, the NHS and other parties. Sport England has the rightly expected lead role and holds measurable targets in this area, and that is why I argue that it should be the statutory consultee. In conclusion, that is why this amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would strengthen it and provide oversight as to its effectiveness.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly at this late hour, having attached my name to Amendments 247 and 248, so ably and clearly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I will make two brief points.
The first point is about the proposed duty to promote health improvement. The UK has a terrible state of public health. We are doing much worse than many other countries that we consider comparable, and that has huge human, social and economic effects. The social determinants of health—so many aspects covered by the Bill—are the major factor in why that is the case. Unless we take action, it will only get worse.
My second point is about the second chief element of the proposed new clause: the Secretary of State’s duty to “reduce health inequalities”. The King’s Fund defines health inequalities as
“avoidable, unfair and systematic differences in health between different groups”.
In assessing this issue, it points to life expectancy, which varies across England by almost a decade, and healthy life expectancy, which varies between the poorest and the richest areas by 18 years.
My question to the Minister and the crowded Benches opposite, is: how can a Labour Government or Labour Peers oppose this amendment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a couple of comments. Clearly, my noble friend the Minister will no doubt say that this is outwith the intention and focus of this legislation. I sympathise with that; it is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, as a former distinguished chief exec of the National Health Service, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right to pinpoint that there are some gaps between the needs of health and healthcare and the planning system. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some reassurance that, as we go forward—we have an NHS Bill coming in the next Session—there will be ways to find that some of the noble Lord’s key points will be embraced in both the planning and the National Health Service system.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to attach my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He raised a wider issue in the debate on what became the levelling-up Act about the need for healthy homes, and he was right to do so. I was saddened that that was not accepted by the Government at the time. He has now brought forward a less demanding amendment.
It is important that, when thinking about development, health and housing, we add the idea of ill-health prevention and the social determinants of health. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned and defined, and how right he is.
Some 14% of homes in our country—3.5 million—are not up to decent housing standard. In my own district, which has areas of quite considerable deprivation, where people are living in poor accommodation, a report says:
“Children in bad housing conditions are more likely to have mental health problems, have respiratory problems, experience long-term ill health and disability, experience slow physical growth and have delayed cognitive development”.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has made the case: children deserve better. We ought to support him.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, these amendments deal with an issue that goes to the very heart of the Bill’s purpose: how we ensure that our planning system promotes not only economic growth and infrastructure delivery but the health and well-being of our communities. This is not just about a healthy home but about a healthy community, which is so much more than just the bricks and mortar. As has been raised many times throughout the passage of the Bill, we all want to create great communities—a home and that sense of place. Great places are healthy places. That includes warm and comfortable homes, spaces that are safe for outdoor recreation, places to socialise and places where work, leisure facilities and open spaces are easily reachable.
Amendment 247 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve health and reduce health inequalities when discharging their planning functions. That is not a radical departure; indeed, it aligns precisely with the language used in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and reflects the Health and Social Care Act 2012 duty on the NHS to reduce health inequalities. It simply asks that the same commitment be applied to planning—one of the most powerful levers for shaping the health of our nation.
Amendment 247A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, would add a valuable and practical dimension for allowing Sport England to make representations to the Secretary of State on how this duty is being met. That is a sensible suggestion, recognising the importance of physical activity and access to sport in promoting both physical and mental health.
Amendment 248 would provide clear definitions, ensuring that “health inequalities” and “general health determinants” are well understood and that this duty is not left to vague interpretation. The drafting captures what we all know to be true: the state of health is shaped as much by housing, transport, safety, employment and access to services as by anything that happens in the health service itself.
A modern planning system must support not only economic growth but social resilience and public health. The pandemic reminded us just how closely our built environment is linked to physical and mental well-being. If we want truly sustainable communities, health must be a core planning outcome, not an afterthought. I therefore urge the Minister to look sympathetically at these amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and the decisions that stem from them should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. That would enable and support healthy lives by both promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where that would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities between the most and the least deprived communities.
Turning to Amendments 247 and 248, I recognise that improving the health of our communities is a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, cares deeply about; he has been a great advocate for many years on this topic. We agree with him that health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities is an important matter in which our planning system should play a vital role.
However, we do not believe that his amendments are necessary. Ministers and other public bodies are already subject to requirements under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard, when carrying out their functions, to the need to advance the equality of opportunity, to eliminate discrimination and to foster good relations between people with protected characteristics. That will, where relevant, include taking into account potential differential impacts in terms of health and well-being. While the noble Lord’s amendment would extend even more widely in relation to Ministers’ planning functions, the importance of these matters is both recognised and addressed through the National Planning Policy Framework, which places a strong emphasis on health. Indeed, the importance of healthy communities is recognised in a dedicated chapter.
The framework sets out that planning policies and decisions should achieve those healthy, inclusive and safe places, which promote social interaction and enable healthy lives, promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this would address those local health inequalities. The framework recognises the importance of open space and sport and recreation facilities in enabling physical activity and the health and well-being of local communities. It is clear that local planning should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are set out in planning practice guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I believe it falls to me to briefly respond. My intention is not to press my amendment.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment; I should have supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I am still not convinced by the Minister’s response or that what she has said will make a material difference to health in this country. Until we take the social determinants of health seriously, we will not see the improvements that we want. I will continue to press this on other occasions. Having said all that, I am not going to move to a vote tonight, given the certainty of losing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Compulsory purchase for planning and development: code of practice(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to be followed by all bodies or individuals exercising powers of compulsory purchase for the purposes of planning and development.(2) On publication of the code of practice, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) an enforcement mechanism for the code of practice, including nominating a responsible body or individual for monitoring compliance,(b) penalties for non-compliance with the code of practice, and(c) a system for appealing against findings of non-compliance with the code of practice.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to ensure that all acquiring authorities, and their agents, are bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice exercised by a willing seller to a willing buyer.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, a similar amendment to this was brought forward in Committee and very ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. The problem the amendment tries to resolve is the fact that the Government’s powers of compulsory purchase are being used and abused by private operators. The Government quite rightly have statutory powers of compulsory purchase for developing our infrastructure. But in recent years the statutory bodies responsible for building this infrastructure have been delegating, or outsourcing, these powers of compulsory purchase to private operators that are abusing the system for their own private gain. There are numerous examples of the use of bullying tactics and scandalous delays in payment.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted some of the appalling aberrations and bully-boy tactics that are currently prevalent in the system, which only seem to be getting worse. I will not repeat the examples he gave, but bad behaviour is not hard to find, involving a range of statutory bodies from highway authorities to water companies, electricity operators and, of course, railway companies—HS2 being a prominent offender.
I will not detain your Lordships with too much detail, but it cannot be right that householders should, for instance, be given three months’ notice to leave their homes and get offered only 90% of the market value, and that they often get paid long after the three months are up. How can they buy an equivalent new home for themselves and their family under those circumstances?
It cannot be right that businesses, farming or otherwise, can be threatened with either temporary or full-time confiscation of their premises without the upfront—I stress that word—full compensation for what they are losing. I may also say that, in the case of HS2, many of the businesses involved in a cancelled section—cancelled over two years ago now—have yet to see either their land back or proper payment for their property. In the private sector you have to pay 100% up front before you can take occupation of a house or land on a farm. All we are asking for is for compulsory purchases to be bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice. You should not be allowed to chuck a family out of their house or off their land without giving them full compensation before you do so. These people have done nothing wrong. They just happen to have found themselves living or working in the wrong place. Furthermore, the dispossessed should have an easy means of recourse if the code of behaviour is abused.
A flagrant HS2 example which I came across recently involves a commercial site in Birmingham where HS2 took over the property of a partnership over seven years ago now. Six months after the purchase, HS2 had paid the partnership only 20% of a conservative value put on its property by its bank. I should point out that banks never overvalue property; they would not survive if they did. Well, some of them did in 2008, and we all know what happened then. A spokesman for that partnership told me:
“Our sense is that HS2’s strategy has been to seek to delay payment for as long as possible. They have used the letter of the law to obfuscate and avoid meaningful interaction with us at all times. At no point has there been a genuine desire to settle this case or even to meet to share information and views. As a result, we are likely to incur thousands of pounds, tens of thousands of pounds, on legal costs, trying to drag them through the courts to force their hand”.
Involving slightly less money, I give your Lordships an example from Wales which came to me just last week. I quote from the lady farmer involved:
“Our farm has been in our family for four generations and includes an eco-campsite by the Colwyn Brook Marshes SSSI, a protected wetland habitat supporting rare species. On 7 July 2025, a Land Agent called to say that Green Gen Cymru (part of Bute Energy) planned to conduct surveys during the weeks of 14 and 28 July—our busiest period. He said they intended ‘to make an example out of somebody’ and would issue a summons and seek costs if access was refused.
On 29 July, Green Gen representatives arrived unannounced at our campsite shop saying surveyors would arrive on 31 July but they could not confirm where or when. I showed them our map and asked them to identify the survey areas—they refused. I explained that we offer our guests open access to our land while ensuring that environmentally sensitive sites were properly protected. Despite this, I was told that legal action would be taken if we attempted to obstruct the surveyors, and that the energy company would seek a warrant and pursue court action if we refused access.
The next day, I was told by email that the surveys had been deferred. I thought this was because they’d had second thoughts, but then we found out it was because they had already been. Hidden wildlife camera footage showed them walking through the Colwyn Brook SSSI in dirty boots and overalls, having entered my land on 29 July. No biosecurity measures were followed. And when I reviewed the CCTV footage, I discovered that the surveyors had also been in the stream below our house—despite assurances that no surveys would be carried out”.
These are the sorts of cowboys that are being let loose with government powers across our country. There are now 300 cases looming against Green GEN Cymru of a similar nature. What we all want—at least, what I want—is for the compulsory purchase system to work as effectively and as speedily as possible. That would be so good for our infrastructure, our economy, our economic growth—everything that this Bill is trying to achieve. But there are too many cowboys involved, using state powers to manipulate the system to their advantage.
The compulsory purchase system is, in the opinion of many, lurching towards a crisis. It is now looked on with suspicion by all involved. The key thing is that if no one trusts it, property owners, householders and farmers will dig their heels in and use every legal means available to delay having to surrender their house, their farm or their business. Thus our new infrastructure and our growth will go out of the window.
In Committee, the Minister mentioned existing government guidance which states how the acquiring authority should behave. As I have already pointed out, these do not behave. It could be because the government guidance is 191 pages long. She also indicated that the Government believe that the necessary rules are already in place and should be clear to all. First, having rules and regulations is not the same as having a code of practice to abide by. Secondly, it is not the same as having a referee to oversee fair play. Football has rules but without a ref it would soon descend into a bloodbath. Sometimes it gets quite close to that, even with a ref. It is precisely what is happening now with our compulsory purchase system. Without anyone to blow a whistle, the bad behaviour will only get worse—and our infrastructure growth will be permanently mired in legal entanglement. We must restore faith in the system.
When, two or three Governments ago, the public and politicians became aware of the bully-boy tactics of the large supermarkets over the small food producers, Parliament, with the strong support of the Labour Party, got all parties together to agree a groceries code and appointed a Groceries Code Adjudicator to oversee fair play. It has been a big success. The very existence of the adjudicator has changed how supermarkets work. This is what we desperately need in the compulsory purchase system—some sort of agreed code and a referee.
I hope the Government have noted that I minutely changed the wording of this amendment from the one that I tabled in Committee. I felt that for the Secretary of State to nominate a body or individual to monitor compliance, rather than to establish a new one, might make it more acceptable. However, if the Government want the compulsory system to work effectively, to speed up our infrastructure, from roads and rail to—especially—housing, this amendment or something like it will be essential. I hope that I get a satisfactory response from the Front Bench on this. If the Government cannot accept my amendment, they might undertake to bring their own forward at Third Reading or, at the very least, to have a meeting to work out some way of resolving the problem that I have outlined. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. A code of practice would curb the bad practice that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has very movingly illustrated to us this evening. It is based on the evidence of lived experience of compulsory purchase as currently enforced by commercial agents. I urge the Government to reflect on its merits as driving a far more humane, more swift and less expensive process than the current guidelines achieve. I hope the Government will not reject it simply because they can.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, made a compelling case for the issue which he has reiterated this evening—the necessity for a code of practice to set rules that can be enforced on compulsory purchase order issues. I said in Committee that I had a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord had to say. He has made an even stronger case this evening with the real-life examples that he has quoted to us.
I hope that the Minister can respond very positively this time to the genuine issues that are being raised, with a solution being offered. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has said, we look forward to what the Minister has to say, but this issue is not going to go away unless the Government grasp it and deal with it.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to add our support for Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I would draw a thread through all these debates that we have had on Report on compulsory purchase: this is a necessary tool of government to allow society’s needs to be placed above the individual in a small number of cases where the case is clear-cut.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for the amendment. The Government understand the spirit of the amendment; however, we maintain that a statutory code of practice is unnecessary.
First, government guidance, which was updated earlier this year in collaboration with external stakeholders, such as the Countryside Land Association, contains strengthened advice, which acquiring authorities should follow. The updated guidance states that authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners to identify the impacts of their schemes and what measures local authorities can take to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. I say to the noble Lord that where this is not done, the Government are of the view that CPOs are at risk of failing. In addition, we intend to update CPO guidance early next year, and we would welcome the views of stakeholders, such as the Countryside Land Association, on where the advice could go further on promoting best practices for acquiring authorities to follow.
Secondly, when decisions are taken on CPOs, the decision-maker must be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As I mentioned previously, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention. In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act.
Thirdly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published updated professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. The purpose of the professional standards is to protect claimants and businesses, support high standards in valuation delivery, and future-proof practices in the public interest. The standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected for RICS members advising on compulsory purchase matters. The Compulsory Purchase Association has also published, in collaboration with leading CPO practitioners, a land compensation claims protocol.
This Government’s objectives are to make the process more efficient for all parties to a CPO without creating further duplication. The amendment would run counter to these objectives. Therefore, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words, which I have to say were very disappointing. They obviously came from her department, written of course from the perspective of the Whitehall bubble, which in my view always remains somewhat distant from the reality of what is going on out there.
I cannot actually believe that the Minister personally believes that the sort of behaviour I have described should be at best tolerated, or at worst condoned by the Government—by any Government. Nevertheless, in spite of my disappointment and in light of the numbers in the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Rock
“Tenant farmers (compensation for disturbance following change of use for farm business tenancies let under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995)In the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, after section 21 insert—“21A Compensation payable to the tenant for disturbance(1) This section applies where a farm business tenancy terminates in whole or in part by reason of a notice to quit given by the landlord following the granting of a planning consent for change of use and the tenant quits the holding in consequence of the notice.(2) Where this section applies there shall be payable by the landlord to the tenant by way of compensation for disturbance a sum equal to the tenant’s actual loss limited to the extent of the farm business tenancy and any consented activities connected to this.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces reasonable compensation provisions payable to farm tenants within the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. It will ensure that farm tenants receive compensation equivalent to their real loss for any land removed from their tenancy agreements for development. There are currently no compensation provisions within the Act.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, you will be delighted to hear that we are now in the home stretch as we debate just before midnight. I shall speak to the three amendments standing in my name, which, unsurprisingly, deal with matters connected with agricultural tenancies. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their support, and for the many sympathetic responses to the amendments I have had from all sides of the House from people who recognise the important role tenant farmers play. I refer to my interests in the register as a tenant farmer and the author of the Rock review into agricultural tenancies.
From time to time, landlords of holdings that are subject to agricultural tenancies may secure planning consent for a change of use from agriculture, either through a planning application considered by a local authority, which may also go to appeal, or as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. When that occurs, depending on the nature of the agricultural tenancy, the landlord will be able to secure vacant possession of the holding or part of the holding involved, either by statute or by contract. Agricultural tenancies subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 have a statutory process, set out in Schedule 3 to the Act under what is known as case B, which will allow the landlord to recover possession but paying only a statutory maximum level of compensation, which is just six times the rent being paid by the tenant for the land being removed. That rarely, if ever, comes close to the tenant’s actual commercial loss. For example, if a tenant farmer is paying £65 for an acre of land, compensation for that acre would be just £390. Amendment 253A seeks to redress that by providing a default position, setting out that the compensation will either be a multiple of the rent or the tenant’s actual loss, whichever is the larger.
I take as an example of the problem the case of the tenant arable farmers Rob and Emma Sturdy, who farm on the Fitzwilliam Malton estate in North Yorkshire. The local planning authority rejected a planning application by the solar energy developer Harmony Energy to take away almost half their farm, but that was appealed by Harmony. Before that appeal, Harmony Energy made an offer of compensation that was above the statutory minimum but, as far as Rob and Emma were concerned, below what would have been their actual commercial loss.
On appeal, the refusal of the solar farm by the local planning authority was overturned, but the inspector failed to make it a condition of that consent that the compensation offered by Harmony, and alluded to throughout the entire appeal, should be paid to Rob and Emma. Unfortunately, Harmony Energy has now taken that compensation offer away and reverted to offering only the statutory minimum compensation of six times rent for half the Sturdys’ farm. That is wholly unacceptable.
The case is made doubly worse by the fact that it was called in by the Government and the decision of the inspector was fully supported by the Planning Minister, despite the promise made to tenant farmers by the Prime Minister when, as Leader of the Opposition, he said that solar energy schemes must not be taken forward at the expense of tenant farmers and that tenant farmers needed to know that the soil beneath their feet was secure. Unfortunately, Rob and Emma are now feeling the emptiness of those words. That is why this provision is so ripe for change. Furthermore, in the solar road map that the Government published in June, they said that statutory compensation for tenant farmers must be addressed, so there is no reason why it cannot be addressed for all development that causes dislocation to tenant farmers.
The situation for tenants under farm business tenancies, regulated by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, is arguably worse. There is no statutory fallback position as to compensation when a tenant loses land following a planning application obtained by the landlord for change of use which allows the landlord to use a contractual clause to remove land. Amendment 253 merely seeks to add a legislative fallback position. Again, this will operate to provide tenants with a level of compensation equivalent to their real loss in losing land to a change of use following the granting of planning permission.
Amendment 253B seeks for the compulsory purchase regime to fully recognise the way in which tenant farmers are impacted. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, have spoken expertly on the need for wider reform of the way in which compulsory purchase operates, but this amendment focuses its attention on tenant farmers, who are often left out of discussions and end up with little or indeed no compensation when they see their businesses, homes and livelihoods devastated by a compulsory purchase acquisition.
While the landlord might receive a level of compensation which may or may not be reasonable in the circumstances, we must ensure that tenant farmers are also in receipt of a level of compensation which adequately covers their losses. In the same way that tenant farmers facing loss of land due to change of use being taken forward by their landlords need adequate compensation, the same must be true when the land is removed through compulsory purchase.
I confess I was increasingly dismayed this evening to note that the Minister in early responses on CPOs constantly referred to landowners. Some 64% of England’s land is wholly or partly tenanted, and yet the Minister fails to address the issue of tenant farmers who do not own land but will still be affected by CPOs. I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment to level the playing field for tenant farmers.
The Government should, and I believe should with ease, support these amendments, as they sit firmly within their own policy that the compensation payable to a farm tenant should be “adequate and fair” following a change of use to give way to a solar energy scheme as set out in the Government’s own recent solar road map. In already accepting that compensation provisions are not fit for purpose for solar energy schemes, the Government surely must also recognise that they are not acceptable for other types of development where the tenant farmer, through no fault and no decision of their own, loses occupation of land where they pay rent. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Grender has cosigned the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. Unfortunately, she is not well and so is not here tonight. She has asked me to make it clear that she fully supports the amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock, supported by my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
These are very important amendments, not just because the contents are wise and right, but also because of the detailed knowledge my noble friend has of tenant farming—better than anyone else in this House. My noble friend is a non-executive director of Imagination Technologies and First News UK. She is the senior independent director of the Keller Group, a company of 10,000 employees with a revenue of £3 billion. She is also the chair of Costain, another company with revenue of almost £1.5 billion. My noble friend is a top-notch executive with experience of analysing problems and delivering solutions, and has been headhunted by some of the most important companies in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is no surprise that in 2022, the Defra Secretary of State asked her to chair the Tenancy Working Group, which had two clear objectives.
The first was to look at how the new government financial schemes will be accessible, open and flexible to tenant farmers. The second was to look at longer-term changes that would ensure a robust, vibrant and thriving agricultural tenanted sector for the future. With roughly a third of farmland in England being tenanted, tenant farmers are absolutely vital to the nation’s food production, alongside the delivery of environmental outcomes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for those kind comments about my noble friend Lady Hayman. She was here earlier this evening, but it was not fair to keep her here when she is still recovering from quite a nasty bug.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her Amendments 253 and 253A, which seek to ensure that farm tenants receive compensation equivalent to their real loss where a farm business tenancy is terminated, in whole or in part, as a result of planning consent being granted to a landlord for a change of use. The stories she gave were indeed truly shocking. Existing legislation in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 sets out the compensation provisions for tenant farmers, but we genuinely recognise that it needs to be revised so that tenant farmers receive adequate compensation, reflecting real loss for land removed from their tenancy agreements for development.
The Law Commission announced its 14th programme earlier this year, which will consider whether existing agricultural law appropriately balances giving tenant farmers the security and opportunity to maintain viable businesses, while providing landlords with the confidence to let land and supporting opportunities for new entrants into farming. That is something I am sure the noble Baroness would want to see, as we all do.
The review is also likely to consider the scope and design of appropriate compensation provisions, drawing on the Law Commission’s specialist expertise in legal reform. This would typically include a detailed consultation and thorough examination of the law, resulting in the most comprehensive and balanced outcome. I suggest that the compensation provisions be considered within this wider review of agricultural tenancy law, not in isolation. As such, we recommend that the amendment be rejected pending the Law Commission’s 14th programme review into agricultural tenancies, which will commence when resources allow. Further steps and timings will be announced in due course.
Baroness Rock (Con)
These reviews take years and years, but this is a clear and present danger now. Therefore, before the Minister sits down, will she agree to meet with me and the Tenant Farmers Association to discuss what can be done in this Bill to protect tenant farmers immediately, rather than waiting for a review that could take years and years? Otherwise, I reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I genuinely do not believe that this Bill is the place to deal with this, but I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hayman would be prepared to meet as well. Within Defra, there may be more scope for dealing with some of the issues the noble Baroness raised, so I am very happy to have that meeting. It may also be worth the noble Baroness speaking to the Law Commission about the urgency of this, because the commission will be dealing with it. Stressing the importance and urgency of this with the commission will be helpful. Meanwhile, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 253B seeks to allow tenants whose homes are subject to compulsory purchase to claim compensation for disturbance to their business where it is carried out from home. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, we do not believe it is necessary. As part of their entitlement to compensation, occupiers, including tenants, can already claim disturbance payments where they lose possession as a consequence of compulsory acquisition. These payments cover losses caused by losing possession of the land as a consequence of the compulsory purchase order, as well as other losses not directly based on the value of the land, which could include any associated with running a business from home. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Rock (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for her response. As I said, I am disappointed. This is absolutely the right place to address these issues around tenant farmers. I have given very clear examples of why these amendments sit firmly in government policy and are desperately required. I look forward to the meeting with the Minister and, as I said, I reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(ca) section (Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems” to extend to England and Wales and Scotland. However, it would have no application in Wales as there are no relevant seismic array systems situated there.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a stray reference to provisions that were left out in Committee.
“(a) sections 1 and 2 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;(aa) section (Projects relating to water) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;(ab) sections 3 to 8 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Projects relating to water” would come into force on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.
“(na) section (Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems” to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(u) sections 39 and 40 come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(ua) section 41 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;(ub) sections 42 and 43 come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my proposed replacement for Clause 41 to come into force by regulations.
“(ca) section (Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in England) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in England” would come into force on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.
“(ca) in section (Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets)—(i) subsection (1) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(ii) subsection (2) comes into force at the same time as section 102(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets” to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(ca) section (Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge” would come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(ca) section (Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities” would come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a technical amendment linked to my amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 6. It means that a reference to street vote development orders is only inserted into the Habitats Regulations when the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act introducing SVDOs themselves come into force.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 10th November 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 143-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (7 Nov 2025)
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 65: Other requirements for an EDP
Amendment 1
“(8A) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the appropriate prioritisation, by Natural England, of the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or on a protected feature of a protected site when—(a) preparing an EDP, or(b) considering requesting an amendment to an EDP.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a prioritisation of the different ways in which the negative effect of development which may be subject to an EDP may be addressed. The regulations would apply to Natural England when preparing an EDP or considering an amendment to an EDP.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the nature restoration fund is a key part of the Government’s vision for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have worked with Peers and wider stakeholders to ensure that everyone can be confident that, by taking a different approach, we can unlock better outcomes for nature. While the NRF proposes a different approach, this will be available only where there is clear evidence to show that this strategic approach will deliver better environmental outcomes.
In creating this new approach, we have developed the overall improvement test to ensure that EDPs deliver more than would be achieved under the current system, going further than offsetting impact and supporting the restoration of sites and species, in line with our wider ambitions. While it is right that we focus on outcomes, we have been clear that Natural England will of course carefully consider not only what is achieved but how it is achieved. That is why the Bill provides Natural England with the tools it needs to take action to avoid and reduce the impact of development, as well as deliver proactive conservation measures that will materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature.
While we are clear that the Bill will allow Natural England to take appropriate actions to deliver on the overall improvement test, in moving to a strategic approach there is a need to articulate how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Grender, for their continued work with the Government to ensure that there is clarity as to how Natural England will consider the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development, including how such actions should be prioritised when developing an EDP.
This will not affect the experience for developers, nor the speed with which EDPs can come forward, but will provide transparency as to how Natural England will undertake the preparation of an EDP and how it should prioritise the actions available to it to deliver the overall improvement test. This amendment will allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out the appropriate prioritisation of actions taken to address the negative effect of development through an EDP.
I also wish to bring to the attention of the House a minor and technical correction to Clause 120 to remove a previous government amendment that was accidentally agreed on Report. That consequential amendment made provision for the commencement day of a substantive government amendment that would change the Secretary of State’s powers to issue holding directions to local planning authorities, which your Lordships defeated on Report. We have therefore removed the consequential amendment from the Bill.
While on my feet, I want to address a couple of further points following our debates on Report, raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The first relates to the noble Lord’s request for an assurance that CPO powers under the Bill will not be misused and for clarification as to how these powers, and the purchase of land by public authorities more broadly, engage with the Crichel Down rules.
Where land acquired by or under a threat of compulsion by a non-departmental public body is surplus to requirements, there is an expectation that it will be offered back to the former owners or their successors. This expectation is established in case law and the procedure for offering land back is set out in the Crichel Down rules. This ensures that where the land is genuinely surplus following purchase by a public body, it will be made available to former owners. As we move forward with implementing the Bill, we would be happy to work with relevant stakeholders to consider how best to improve awareness and understanding of these rules.
Through the passage of the Bill, concerns have been raised on the behaviours surrounding the use of CPO powers. The Government have been clear that authorities using CPO powers should undertake engagement with all landowners to identify the impacts of their schemes, along with the mitigation measures that can be implemented. This advice was included in the latest update of the Government’s guidance on compulsory purchase, which was published in January this year.
The Government have listened carefully to the debates in the House and will continue to work with stakeholders to promote best practices to drive out bad behaviours and to ensure that the needs of landowners are fully considered. In addition, we will review the Government’s guidance and plain English booklets on compulsory purchase to ensure that they are as robust and clear as possible.
On compensation, the availability of advance payment of compensation is important to ensuring that landowners receive payment where they have been unable to reach agreement on the total amount of compensation due. Authorities are advised to ensure that prompt advance payments are made—otherwise, interest on the total compensation due will increase, resulting in the overall cost of development being higher.
The Government have been clear that the CPO reforms in the Bill do not target farmers or any other type of landowners. Nothing in the Bill changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. It must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded and there is a compelling case in the public interest.
Finally, another area raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, was in respect of the role of the private sector and landowners delivering the nature restoration fund. As set out in the recent all-Peers letter, EDPs create new opportunities that will help to grow nature service markets and support revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses. As committed to in Committee, the Government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs. This guidance will be clear that open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary.
I hope that this provides reassurance that the NRF presents opportunities for landowners and private providers to work with Natural England to deliver high-quality nature services. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have a question about the amendment that the Minister has just moved to Clause 65. She will recall from the debates on Report that there is a whole structure in Clause 63 that is designed to allow Natural England, when making an environmental delivery plan, to focus on one environmental feature and, in relation to that feature, to focus on one negative effect of the development on it. It is structured so that the others are excluded, notwithstanding the wise insertion into that clause of material relating to water, nutrient neutrality et cetera. The new amendment, where the Secretary of State can make regulations relating to prioritisation, does not refer to the negative effect on development identified in an environmental delivery plan, but it talks about
“addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or on a protected feature of a protected site”.
To boil that down, my question is: is it the intention that the Secretary of State’s regulations would look at only the negative effect of development on a protected feature that is identified in an EDP, or is it, at an earlier stage, setting out prioritisation in relation to what may be the negative effects of a development on a particular feature? I am afraid that it makes a significant difference when and how the prioritisation comes into effect.
While I am on my feet, I say a big thank you to the Minister and her officials for the several—in fact, many—occasions on which they have provided helpful guidance and advice on the interpretation of the Act, but I reiterate my continuing request that we be told when the powers that are relevant to the implementation of this Bill but are contained in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are to be commenced or, more to the point, implemented. She knows that we are waiting on many of these and that they are as significant as some of the planning measures in the Bill itself.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to thank the Minister for her engagement and her reassurance on the exercise of CPO powers and the engagement of the private sector.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
Gosh, that was brief. I will say a few words on behalf of our Benches. I apologise that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is stuck—there are no trains anywhere—so the House will have me, very briefly.
We have been pleased with the engagement that we have had with the Ministers throughout Report and leading up to Third Reading today, which has brought about some important changes in the Bill, including on the issue of how we plan for electric vehicles in infrastructure, and the commitment that the Minister has made to look again at spatial standards for housing so that hopefully we can ensure that more young homeless people can find accommodation in the future.
The amendment that the Minister ably introduced—I am grateful for the many meetings about it that she and colleagues had with me and other Peers on these Benches—tries to give us reassurance that the environment will have the safeguards that are needed in this new process of strategic planning. I am particularly grateful that she has brought forward regulations—not guidance, which was an issue of concern—because we need regulations to provide the necessary clarity and transparency for those of us who are concerned about the need for environmental safeguards and the appropriate way in which the negative effects of developments will be addressed.
Can the Minister make clear how the mitigation hierarchy, a very well-established environmental principle which has served this country and indeed many countries around the world so well for so long, will apply in this new approach to strategic level planning for housing? How the mitigation hierarchy in this new process of EDPs will provide the necessary safeguards for the environment?
It is my hope that it will reduce the risk of viable impact avoidance and mitigation solutions being overlooked—I say it is my hope; at this stage, that is all it can be. However, it will definitely make it much clearer for those of us concerned about the environment just how Natural England will make its decisions. What evidence will it use in order to move forward with EDPs? That will give us some reassurance that the environmental protections will be in place. If they are not, we know there will be legal challenge. That is neither in the interests of the developers or, indeed, of the environment that will suffer.
It is a compromise on the amendment I introduced on Report, and I accept that. For some, will be a compromise too far; I accept that as well. I am a Liberal Democrat and prepared to face the political reality and the evidence that this Government believe this new approach with EDPs will deliver the housebuilding that we all want, while at the same time giving us on these Benches and others some security that the environmental backstops will be in place. That is what we need and what our ever-diminishing wildlife and habitats desperately need.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening and for bringing forward Amendment number 1, which this side of the House supports. We also take note of Amendment 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes an amendment to the commencement clause which was made in error at Report Stage as it related to an amendment inserting a new clause which was not agreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, to make a few brief comments to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we have discussed the implementation of the issues contained in the levelling-up Act before; however, it would probably help noble Lords if I write a letter setting out when those provisions come into place—I hope that will help all noble Lords. In terms of the noble Lord’s question about the hierarchy and how it would be employed, we wanted to be very clear that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model but has to be expressed in a different way given this move to a strategic approach. We have debated that many times before. The different levels of the hierarchy do not neatly map on to the different types of conservation measures available under an EDP, so we will use regulations to set out how those principles are expressed through the NRF. If I can comment further on the issue raised by the noble Lord, I will write to him or arrange a meeting between us.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for all their engagement and contributions during the passage of this landmark piece of legislation, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is a complex piece of legislation. I have been very grateful for the expertise around the House, which, in the best tradition of this House, has helped to make the Bill better. We have debated the Bill at length and into the early hours on many occasions over the past six months, with many thoughtful and considered contributions. I say a special thank you to my noble friends Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lord Khan of Burnley, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield—he has arrived from his horrendous train journey just in time to hear me thank him—and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for their steadfast support in taking this Bill forward. I know they echo my thanks to Members across this House.
I also thank my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has taken a lot of time to talk to Peers about their concerns. I am grateful in particular to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for their robust and constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. In a similar vein, I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Parminter and Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their continued engagement and contributions during the debate.
Many noble Lords have generously lent their time and expertise, including many here around the Chamber, and I am very grateful to all of those who have contributed. While there may be disagreement on some of the issues we have debated, I know we all share the same aim of unlocking economic growth and getting this country building again. I believe that we are in broad agreement that this Bill represents a critical milestone in achieving this objective, alongside doing what we can to enhance our environment as we go on that journey.
Finally, I am very grateful to all the officials and members of the Bill team, who have worked tirelessly on this Bill behind the scenes: Holly Harper, Isabelle, Lucy, Tom, Daria, Fatima, Guy and Sam. I of course thank my brilliant private office, without whom I would not be doing anything. I also pay tribute to all the parliamentary staff, including the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard and the Public Bill Office, many of whom have stayed late—sometimes very late—as we debated this Bill into the early hours.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I know that the Commons will consider amendments to this Bill on Thursday. I genuinely hope that the Government strongly and carefully consider the contributions noble Lords have made during this Bill, particularly on Amendment 130, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown.
On the advice of the clerks, I speak at this point to put on record my concerns about the Clause 20(3) statement that was put in the Bill by both the Minister and former Secretary of State. It is a matter that is being considered in the courts right now—whether it is justiciable or not. As a former Secretary of State for Defra, my understanding is that it almost certainly would be. However, it turns out that the Government and House of Commons do not believe it is, but that it is a parliamentary proceeding. That is why I want to express my concerns about not only this Bill but how we consider this element in future Bills.
I do not say this lightly, because I am conscious of what the Office for Environmental Protection has said, but it is one reason why I have tabled Questions to the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Minister. With that I hope that we will see a Bill enacted in due course that will enhance the environment, rather than my concerns about what Part 3 will do to it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this has been a challenging Bill. Over eight days in Committee and five on Report, we have examined it in extraordinary detail, with early mornings and late nights. Yet, despite the effort, it still falls short of the Government’s stated ambitions. The scale of late-stage amendments, with 67 tabled on Report—and even two more today, which we supported—speaks to a Government with no clear plan to deliver the homes we need. At the last election, the Government pledged to deliver 1.5 million new homes, yet construction output continues to decline, falling by 0.3% in August following no growth at all in July. That is hardly the sign of a system ready to meet its targets.
This Bill, regrettably, does not confront the real blockages to delivery. From the outset, we on these Benches have sought to focus on substance: the practical and legal barriers that genuinely hold back new housing, such as the Hillside judgment, the absence of proportionality in planning enforcement, restrictions linked to Ramsar sites and the complexities surrounding nutrient neutrality rules. These are the real challenges confronting developers, councils and communities seeking to build, not the voices and views of local people that are being curtailed. These are the issues that matter; the measures that would build homes, infrastructure and hope for millions still locked out of home ownership.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is very much part of our plan to deliver. We inherited a sclerotic system and we will get Britain building again, fixing the foundations so that we can deliver both the housing and infrastructure that we need and protect our environment at the same time. We have already committed to funding the planning sector, supporting the skills agenda in the construction industry, sorting out the building safety regulator—great progress is being made there already—and providing a package of support for SME builders, who definitely deserve our confidence as they have found themselves neglected and left out in the cold for the past few years. We want to get Britain building again. We all need to work together on this mission—it is something for all of us to get involved in—and I look forward to working with noble Lords from across the House.
The noble Baroness mentioned there being 67 amendments. I hope she realises that there is an irony in first accusing the Government of not listening and then accusing us of putting forward too many amendments. We were listening. Many of those amendments were technical in nature, responding to some of the devolution aspects of the Bill, but those that responded to what noble Lords have said have, I hope, received the support of the House. That said, I thank all noble Lords for all their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Thursday 13th November 2025
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 13 November 2025 - large print - (13 Nov 2025)
16:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 135 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 264 / Noes: 125 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 128 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 78 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 128 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 129 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 130 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 250 / Noes: 133 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 132 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to King’s consent. Do we have a Privy Counsellor present?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
indicated assent.
King’s consent signified.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 2
National policy statements: parliamentary requirements
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 4 to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117.
Matthew Pennycook
Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it has always been this Government’s No. 1 mission. This landmark Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, is integral to the success of that mission, and it will play a vital part in delivering the Government’s plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Government are therefore determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the House has an opportunity today to renew its commitment to this vital legislation and express its firm opposition to attempts to undermine its core principles.
Before I turn to the amendments before us, let me put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny to which they subjected it. The Government made a number of important changes to the Bill in the other place, with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended, that its full potential in respect of unlocking economic growth is realised, and to provide further reassurance that a number of its key provisions will achieve the beneficial outcomes that we expect. In the interests of time, I will update the House briefly on the two most significant areas of change.
The first concerns the package of measures we introduced last month to maximise the growth potential of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill’s impact assessment estimates that it could benefit the UK economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years. That is an assessment, it should be noted, that was made prior to the incorporation into the Bill of several important pro-growth measures, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications—a change that could result in cost savings of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects in this Parliament. The package introduced last month further bolsters the growth impact of the Bill. It included provisions that further streamline the consenting of reservoirs, clarify Natural England’s strategic advisory role, and facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds’ worth of investment into UK services that come with that.
The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part 3 of the Bill, which directly addressed a range of issues that were highlighted in the advice the Government received from the Office for Environmental Protection on the new nature restoration fund. They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already in the Bill on its introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I emphasise that none of the changes made will affect the process by which house builders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it, and nor do they undermine the strategic approach that underpins the model.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The housing market is absolutely flat and we desperately need to build more housing. What is stopping all this new building, people moving and creating a healthy housing market? It is the appalling stamp duty that everybody acknowledges is the worst tax. The Minister is not the Chancellor, but will he approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the autumn statement and see whether she can steal our clothes and promise to abolish stamp duty?
Matthew Pennycook
The Chancellor will set out her decisions on the Budget in fairly short order and the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. I am going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the Bill and what is in scope, rather than ranging more widely, as he tempts me to do.
The amendments we tabled in the summer package provided greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. I take the opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the Government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for his thoughtful participation in Committee, which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question.
I should also make clear that the Government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure that the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment. Those amendments also ensure that the NRF can be used to support the impact of development on Ramsar sites. In addition, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Lord Banner in the other place to ensure that the NRF can accommodate the development processes associated with large strategic housing sites that are phased.
Turning to the amendments made by peers in the other place, I want to make clear that the Government welcomed the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. However, I am afraid that most of the amendments sent back to this place seek to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely why, in each instance where that is the case.
Lords amendment 1 would prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy amendments to national policy statements. In short, it is a wrecking amendment designed to frustrate the Government’s intention to streamline the process for incorporating into NPSs changes that have already received public and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me emphasise once again that the intent of clause 2 is not to erode parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the four categories of changes the clause covers. That said, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various hon. and right hon. Members, as well as by noble Lords, about the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny in respect of NPSs. That is precisely why I provided the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) with a number of assurances on Report.
For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat those assurances. When the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, a statement will be laid before Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. In other words, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted.
To assuage further the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of the clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment today: when a statement is laid in Parliament announcing a review, it will include how the proposed change or changes fall within the four categories of changes to which clause 2 applies. I cannot, however, accept Lords amendment 1 for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it.
Turning next to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Lords amendment 2 enables faster consenting of major water infrastructure projects. Crucially, it allows third party providers, appointed by water undertakers, to apply to deliver such projects through the streamlined development consent order route.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Apologies, but I want to go back to the point the Minister was making about Lords amendment 1. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I am slightly concerned that we will get less opportunity and time to scrutinise major infrastructure projects. Had these proposals been law when High Speed 2 was first being considered, instead of a hybrid Bill, it is likely that HS2 would have come under them, and the third runway at Heathrow, plus the national infrastructure network, will do so. Does he not agree that this House and its Committees should have sufficient chance, not just to wait for the Minister’s convenience—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that that is a very long intervention.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, but I do not agree that the change will mean Select Committees do not have the opportunity to feed their views into Government. As I said, what we are trying to do with the clause is ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor and reflective changes. They do not entail the full amendment of a national policy statement; that would have to come via the normal route. I hope my comments on what we expect of Minister’s attendance at Select Committees and in other areas provides her with reassurance.
Matthew Pennycook
No, I will not give way again. I will make some progress on the next set of amendments, which I need to get to, as I know many Members wish to speak.
As I was saying on Lords amendment 2, the Government support the intent of the amendment. However, subsections (7) and (8) of the new clause would require consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites to be obtained separately from the application for development consent for dams or reservoirs. We cannot support those subsections.
Lords amendment 3 is also problematic. It introduces additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences are to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects, despite such matters already being addressed by the Planning Act 2008. Both amendments are contrary to the intention of the NSIP regime, which introduced a streamlined “one- stop shop” approach to obtaining consents. It is the Government’s considered view that the regime already provides ample opportunity for those issues to be considered before the relevant Secretary of State makes their decision. Numerous adequate heritage safeguards and opportunities for communities and interested parties to have their say about dam and reservoir projects are already in place.
In respect of heritage concerns in particular, the national policy statement for water resources contains explicit policy on preserving the historical environment. When deciding whether to grant consent, the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, conservation area or scheduled monument where applications affect these assets. In respect of the demolition of homes, again, the Planning Act already provides sufficient safeguards for the compulsory acquisition of land. For those reasons, I urge the House to support an amendment to remove subsections (7) and (8) from Lords amendment 2 and to reject Lords amendment 3 in its entirety.
Turning to Lords amendment 31, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is not in his place, made a strong case on Report for greater accessibility requirements for electric vehicle charge points. As he knows, I made a personal commitment to him to give further consideration to the arguments he made. The objective he sought is echoed in Lords amendment 31, which seeks to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points through regulations.
As the House will know, the Government are already working closely with the sector to update the current accessibility standards for public charge points. However, I have been convinced that we should use the Bill to provide further certainty in respect of this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu that is faithful to the original amendment agreed in the other place, with some minor changes designed to ensure that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points and that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering them. The Government will of course consult before producing and laying the relevant regulations. The Department for Transport looks forward to working with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments on these matters. On that basis, I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu.
Lords amendment 32 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of current regulation on low-hazard reservoirs and to set out proposals for deregulation of such reservoirs within six months of enactment. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ science search website. Furthermore, the Government already intend to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I also commit to clarifying planning practice guidance for the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs, giving clarity to farmers about when this permitted development right can be used. Given that the Government have fulfilled one aspect of the amendment already, and I have committed to fulfilling the rest today, we are clear that there is no need to legislate on the matter. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment.
Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the use of the negative procedure in respect of these regulations. We have already consulted on detailed proposals to help inform the regulations, and the clause itself imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult again on the draft regulations before they are brought into force. This consultation duty will apply not only to the first set of regulations, but for any subsequent changes to those regulations. In the light of the two rounds of consultation planned before those regulations are laid, I urge the House to reject this amendment.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Just this week at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the new Secretary of State outlined that the Government will not be urging national development management policies to be non-statutory. That almost seems at odds with the Government’s direction of travel, which is towards speeding up the national scheme of delegation. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking the approach of making the guidance non-statutory?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her.
Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity. We hope that with this assurance, and a view to future opportunity for consultation on the matter, the House will reject Lords amendment 37.
Lords amendment 38 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. While I appreciate fully the positive intent of the amendment and reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting those vital ecosystems.
While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s length bodies like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The SDSs that they will be required to produce will be high-level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, as locally-led spatial exercises, local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them, and SDSs will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDSs will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against those requirements.
It remains the Government’s view that the protection and enhancement of chalk streams through the planning system is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy. As I made clear on Report in the Commons, the measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by those precious habitats, which are already recognised by decision makers in the planning system as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value that should be identified and safeguarded through local plans.
That said, we have been giving this matter careful consideration given the strength of feeling expressed by the Commons on Report, and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy. I am happy to make it clear to the House that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making, which I referred to in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)—and, as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 38.
Lords amendment 39 seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. The Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. Through the revisions made to the NPPF on 12 December 2024, we broadened the definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made it clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.
In September last year, the Government published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. Again, we intend to take forward those proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making that I referred to a moment ago.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister is addressing the brownfield-first approach inherent to the amendment. He opened his remarks by mentioning the Government’s target of building 1.5 million homes. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, a very respected independent charity, has identified enough brownfield land in England alone for 1.4 million homes, so why do the Government persist in rejecting their Lordships’ amendments on this matter, against the advice of the CPRE?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development.
Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He is talking about local pressures for housing delivery and the brownfield-first approach. As he will know, a number of sports grounds in my constituency are increasingly subject to interest from would-be developers. Can he confirm that these proposals will include protections for much-needed sports grounds so that they are not open to that sort of speculative development?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply.
Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities. It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall.
The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement. By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Minister is a very thoughtful individual, and he has a wide view of what is happening in the country. Housing is imperative, but in my constituency there was a proposal for 3,000 houses on what was effectively virgin land, and we established that the habitat of 32 rare and protected species would be irrevocably damaged. Does he agree that biodiversity has to be a central plank of the Government’s intentions, and will he assure the House that, if Lords amendment 40 is disagreed to, future Governments—who might be less caring about the environment—will not be able to use the law to damage habitats such as those I am describing?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but the Government have been consistently clear that meeting our ambitious development targets need not and should not come at the expense of the environment. Part 3 unlocks a win-win for nature and the economy. Although I cannot commit future Governments to anything, we are confident that the nature restoration fund and environmental delivery plans that part 3 facilitates will result in the delivery of more homes and infrastructure in a more timely manner, as well as improved environmental outcomes.
In respect of Lords amendment 40, I would simply say that there is no convincing rationale for arbitrarily limiting the application of EDPs to strategic landscape matters and thereby preventing their use in supporting the recovery of protected sites and species where appropriate. I remind hon. Members that the Bill is now explicit that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. Moreover, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will have to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP, and EDPs will be subject to robust scrutiny.
On Third Reading in the other place, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of developments. Lords amendment 40 would undermine one of the core principles of the Bill —namely, that the alternative approach provided for by the NRF can apply to both sites and species. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not, I am afraid, as I am bringing my remarks to a close, but I am happy to respond to any points when winding up the debate.
I appreciate the leave you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to set out the Government’s position on the large number of amendments before us. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their sterling work. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been our shadow Minister and contributed enormously to the debate in Committee.
I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box for a further discussion on planning and infrastructure, and congratulate him on being the last man standing from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government team that was appointed in Labour’s golden summer of 2024. As he surveys the bombed-out wreckage of that ministerial team and knows that he is the only one not to have succumbed to friendly fire, I am sure that he shares my sense of disappointment that, after a year of debate and discussion, we have not made the progress that the British people expect from us in the delivery of planning and infrastructure.
The Opposition have three fairly simply tests to apply to the amendments and the Bill as a whole. First, does this deliver the required reform of our administrative state—the planning process, statutory undertakers, decision makers and all those who play a part—to ensure the swift delivery of infrastructure? Secondly, does this create the necessary incentives for host communities to support and embrace the opportunities that development offers? Thirdly—and most critically, we think, having undertaken many planning reforms during our time in office—does this get the market building the 1.5 million new homes that already have planning permission? The entirety of the Government’s target already has consent, with no further loss of green belt or environmental impacts.
Mr Perkins
Many people are concerned about this issue, which the shadow Minister’s party also faced when in government. Why does he think that developments do not get built despite their planning applications getting approval?
David Simmonds
I am going to develop my answer to that, because that is the question we face as a country. We set ourselves a target in the last Parliament of delivering 1 million homes, and we fell just short of that, but when this Government set out their commitment to net zero, I do not think they intended 23 of the 33 London boroughs to have net zero new housing starts, according to a new Bidwells report on the housing market in London. They did not anticipate a 20% reduction in completions of new homes. They did not anticipate a 55.9% drop in the number of new housing starts here in our capital city or a Labour mayor delivering 4.9% of the target set for him by this Government, despite record levels of funding. The context, as we saw today, of growth in our country falling to just 0.1%, is a significant clue to the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
When we assess this Bill and these amendments against those tests, it is clear that whatever lofty ambitions some may have, this Bill fails in the eyes of the Office for Budget Responsibility, because it does not generate the level of growth and contribution that the Government promised. That is reflected in the hasty implementation of large-scale amendments in the Lords that were not even contemplated at the Commons stages. It fails in the eyes of homebuyers—the many people who aspire to get on the property ladder for the first time. It fails in the eyes of our farmers, who were hoping it would make it easier to create the infrastructure that would make our farming and food sector more efficient. It fails in the eyes of the developers, who are talking about packing up and taking their investment abroad because the UK market is so poor at the moment. It fails in the eyes of the builders, who see no measures in the Bill to address the shortfalls they all face.
It fails in the eyes of the travelling public, who have watched this Government cancel projects such as the expansion of the A12, which was set to support the delivery of thousands more homes. And it fails in the eyes of lovers of nature, because for all that has been said, there is still a grave lack of clarity about how the measures in the Bill will support the ambitions we all have to balance the delivery of new homes and infra- structure with the needs of a nature-depleted country, to protect the natural environment that we all cherish. The Government signalled before they even embarked on this legislation that their intention was to reduce green-belt protections, which raises the suspicion that this is not a holistic agenda; it is about making it as easy and cheap as possible to build on the green belt, without the strategic underpinning that delivers the homes and infrastructure that our nation needs.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman has not actually answered my question. He is talking about the policies of the last 15 months, but the problem he is alluding to of developers sitting there with planning permission and not building has been going on for 15 years or more. Can he be realistic about what his solution is to get developers to build the developments they have planning permission for?
David Simmonds
As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions, we would not start from here—we would not have made the mistakes this Government have made, which have led to the crash in house building that I outlined.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman. Is the answer not a “use it or lose it” planning permission, whereby a developer loses the permission or the land if they do not build on it?
David Simmonds
We spent a good amount of time debating that issue in Committee. “Use it or lose it” planning consent is one option. Application of council tax at different stages of delivery is another. We could also take a different approach to section 106, to the community infrastructure levy or to the way that local authorities interact with the housing market. All those measures that we either considered in government or have been debating—none of which has been taken up —have the potential to ensure that more of the homes that have planning consent get delivered.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is not the principal difficulty that so many housing developments have now become unprofitable, and that is why they are not being proceeded with? It is the costs that have been loaded on builders in the last 15 months.
David Simmonds
My right hon. Friend tempts me to fast-forward to a point that will arise later on.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the end of her Budget statement last year that she was wiping the slate clean, and from here on in it was on them, she was absolutely right. If we look at the impact that the measures taken have had on the deliverability of housing and infrastructure, and the rising costs of government driven by the colossal borrowing spree that has been embarked upon by this Chancellor, there is no question. A Government who have borrowed £100 billion this financial year alone are not in a position to talk about a businesslike approach to delivering housing and infrastructure.
The Opposition share the concern that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) set out in her intervention, highlighted in Lords amendment 1. Ongoing accountability is crucial. We know there will be trade-offs, whether it is on Heathrow—an issue that affects her constituents and mine—or High Speed 2, which has been very much debated, the delivery of new cross-Thames infrastructure to the east of London, new ports, new airports or new roads. There is a significant parliamentary interest in all those issues, and that process provides an opportunity to explain to the public where those trade-offs sit.
On heritage sites and reservoirs, the Lords have done some excellent work. I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for their willingness to embrace the debate about electric vehicle charging, and I know noble Lords have been extremely keen to support the work being done to deliver that net zero agenda. However, so many elements of the Bill incorporate a tendency to centralisation. The lack of community-level accountability and lack of ability for local residents to have their say about what is happening in their area—for example, on assets of community value—remains a fundamental concern. If we want those communities to embrace development and new homes, they need to be able to see the benefits and opportunities that a development will bring to their lives.
Another issue covered in the Lords amendments is chalk streams. I declare for the record that the River Colne, which borders my constituency, is a chalk stream, the majority of which are in southern England. Given the work done by my party in government, we are determined to ensure that there is an appropriate level of protection enshrined in legislation. We would choose to develop brownfield first. We seek the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites, including here in our capital city, rather than intruding on the green belt, which is critical for nature, is important for the health of human beings and for leisure and is often a site of sports facilities and agriculture, supporting the lives of our communities. That is another area where, sadly, this legislation falls far short.
It is clear that this Government have a heavyweight majority. Through the measures that are being implemented, the Government are using that majority to deliver a left hook of reducing community voice and community say in planning applications. They are following that with a right hook of reducing protections on the green belt and building on virgin land—as we heard from the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place—rather than previously developed land being recycled. That is followed by the uppercut of wholesale top-down council reorganisation, and then a jab demanding that local plans the length and breadth of the country be changed through the national planning policy framework changes, without there being remotely the capacity at the Planning Inspectorate to deal with those in a timely manner.
A number of Members have said, “Why is this happening, and what do you think needs to be done to address it?” The knockout blow to our housing market in the last 12 months has been delivered by the massive hike in national insurance introduced by this Government, which is leading developers, builders, the whole supply chain and local authorities to fear that they will have to throw in the towel, because it is simply not possible, under such a business-unfriendly Government, to deliver homes and infrastructure that require a pro-business environment.
As the Bill proceeds, pummelling our first-time buyers, hammering our homeowners, bashing our builders, and duffing up our developers, on behalf of the Opposition I simply say this to the Minister: there is an opportunity this afternoon to begin to change course, and to signal that he believes, and we believe, that a different course of action is possible that will deliver the homes and infrastructure that the British people expect. I always enjoy meeting the Minister across the Dispatch Box, and I always keep my spare Conservative party membership form handy just in case he should ever need it—his high standards of professionalism suggest that one day he will make the journey to the dark side. Minister, take the opportunity to say to your colleagues that it is time to add to so many poor U-turns, a good U-turn. Let us get on with the job of delivering the homes and infra- structure that the British people need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to those in the other place for their work in getting us to this stage. I am conscious of time—it is a Thursday, and many Members want to speak—so I will not go into great depth on the amendments. However, I welcome the changes that the Government have made in the other place, and the work of Ministers to reach a compromise to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I particularly welcome the series of pragmatic Government amendments on environmental delivery plans. It is critical to ensure that any system to protect our environment is robust, and the measures outlined by the Government will go some way to quelling some of the fears outlined not just in the other place but by Members across this House on Report. I also welcome reforms to address water supply and encourage the building of badly needed reservoirs, as well as measures to ensure that developers have extra time to commence work when a court grants a judicial review. That sensible and proportional approach will ensure that permissions do not expire through no fault of the developer, and avoid any unnecessary repetition of the whole planning process.
As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I wish to touch on two points that relate to the scrutiny we have in this place for planning and infrastructure. The first relates to Lords amendment 1, which is identical to amendment 83, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) on Report. As the Minister said then, this is
“about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made,”. —[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 756.]
However, we must be honest and say that even amendments to statements can have a massive impact on our communities up and down the country. Sometimes that impact is even bigger than that of Bills, which are subject to the full weight of parliamentary scrutiny.
I understand the point that the Minister made in Committee, which is that the system has led to unacceptable delays, sometimes for several months. I also know as much as anyone that just because a Committee recommends something to Ministers, it is far from a guarantee that the Government will change their policy. However, it is important that this change is not used to ride through significant changes without Committees having the chance to carry out proper scrutiny into how the measure will impact the lives of people up and down the country. It must also not be used to bypass scrutiny when a statement is amended so much over time as to become a de facto new statement. That is part of the role that we were elected to carry out by this House, and it is something that helps give confidence to the whole House that we have properly considered the statements before us. I heard the Minister indicate earlier that the Government will not accept Lords amendment 1, but I gently ask whether he can assure the House that Committees will still be included in the process of amending statements, and that they will not be sidelined when we engage proactively and in a timely manner with that process.
The introduction of this Bill is long awaited, after years of failing to unblock a broken planning system and to build on the scale that we desperately need. Research from Crisis found that nearly 300,000 families and individuals have ended up without a home of their own, while previous Governments failed to act, and as we know, some children do not even have a room in which to learn to walk or crawl. In reality that will not end overnight; it will end only when we have a system that consistently builds the affordable and social homes that we desperately need.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am not on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, but I can tell from hon. Friend’s passion that she is an excellent Chair. The use of temporary accommodation, which we have discussed before, costs local councils millions of pounds every year. Does she hope that the Bill, and the fast tracking of social and affordable housing that she talks of, will help to tackle that issue and bring down bills for local councils?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend is a proud advocate of highlighting that issue, which we constantly raise with the Minister. This is about ensuring that our councils are part of the building process, and the new social and affordable homes package—the £39 billion—will help to ensure that we build those homes. It is good to see that package. The prospectus was announced last week, and bids will be coming in from February 2026—build, baby, build!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Gideon Amos.
Gideon Amos
The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable.
That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans.
I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale.
In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome.
Matthew Pennycook
May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts, as an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a species population? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature?
Gideon Amos
I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain.
Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [Interruption.] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way.
Edward Morello
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that West Dorset is home to a number of our rare and precious chalk streams, including the Frome and the Wraxall brook. Does he agree with me that a system similar to the Blue Flag status that we have for beaches would be a relatively cheap and easy way for the Government to provide environmental protections for our chalk streams?
Gideon Amos
I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing, recognised standard for chalk streams, similar to those that we have for other environmental designations, would be incredibly welcome.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I also have a chalk stream in my constituency, the River Snail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give these chalk streams statutory protection through measures such as those set out in Lords amendment 38, rather than relying on national planning frameworks that can be changed without referring back to this place?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that.
I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process.
Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements.
Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4.
The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
This Bill has sparked a keen interest among my constituents. It is important to recognise that people who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the benefits that living in a nature-rich part of the country gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others on Report, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure that changes to environmental protections do not hand developers a licence to trash nature.
As we know, Britain is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We have lost half of our biodiversity, one in six species is at risk of extinction and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That is why I urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments.
The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. That may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality, but it simply is not suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what has been lost. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinctions. Developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown envelope or two, but we cannot buy back lost biodiversity.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend has considered the results of the Corry review, which recognises that we have such complex nature legislation in the UK that it makes it incredibly difficult to build. Does he agree that Lords amendment 40 makes it even more complicated for people to build the homes that we desperately need?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
As several hon. Members have already mentioned, we have to find the correct balance between building the houses that we so desperately need and protecting our vulnerable nature and the habitats that we want to preserve.
The Wildlife and Countryside Link states that
“some species cannot be traded away for mitigation elsewhere. Once local populations are destroyed, they are unlikely ever to return.”
If we want the Bill to be a genuine win-win for development and for nature, and to keep our manifesto pledge to reverse nature’s decline, environmental delivery plans must be limited to where there is clear evidence they can actually work.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is right that there are examples of where species should not be able to be moved, but Lords amendment 40 does not relate to some cases but to all cases, and it sets out in statute that species should never be moved. Does he agree that the Government’s approach, which will prevent species from being moved in many cases, is better than setting in statute something that could block so many opportunities?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I was about to come to that very point, and how serious people feel this issue is. The Wildlife Trusts have nearly 1 million members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than 1 million members, and the National Trust has more than 5 million members. There is a massive base of people in this country who care deeply about nature. If we get this wrong, the risk is not just environmental, but political. People will not take it kindly if their local chalk stream is degraded, for example.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
As I am sure the hon. Member knows, chalk streams are among the rarest habitats in the world. This is not the first time I have mentioned them in this Chamber. Only 11 of the more than 200 chalk streams are protected, and even those 11 are in decline. The problems are over-abstraction, significant pollution and inappropriate development caused by poor planning. Does he agree that protecting these habitats through this Bill is essential, not optional?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Absolutely. Because of the nature of the constituency I represent, I know that chalk streams are extremely important and should be protected. They are our national inheritance, and we are their custodians. I really hope that the Government will take further steps to align this Bill with a fairer and greener future for everyone.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I will speak to Lords amendment 28, which was introduced in the other place but relates specifically to my constituency. The Eskdalemuir seismic array, which is near the village of Eskdalemuir in my constituency, is a seismological monitoring station established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions. To a generation that grew up following the end of the cold war, the facility may seem to be little more than a historical curiosity, but it continues to be a vital asset in global monitoring, in scientific research, and, crucially, in helping to keep the United Kingdom compliant with its international obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
The Eskdalemuir seismic array has been operating since 1962, making it one of the longest-operating steerable seismic arrays in the world. The facility is geographically remote, in a low seismic noise environment, and highly calibrated and sensitive, enabling the detection of even small seismic signals at a vast distance. Over recent years, its seismometers have picked up the sonic boom from Russian jets in UK airspace, and have detected underground nuclear tests in North Korea. On one occasion, it was able to detect signals generated by the detonation of around 100 tonnes of conventional explosives in Kazakhstan. All that is clear evidence of the unique nature of the site and its capabilities.
Some might wonder what the site has to do with the Bill. What could the Bill’s impact be on the maintenance of this vital scientific facility, which is crucial to our national defence and our undertakings under international treaties? In many rural constituencies in Scotland, the march of large-scale wind farm developments continues, encouraged by the Scottish Government. The forces acting on wind turbines cause vibration in the turbine—vibrations that can travel underground for many kilometres, with obvious consequences for facilities that require seismological quiet for their effective operation.
As some Members may know, the desire of wind farm developers to push the boundaries of where their infrastructure can be located, and the boundaries of the guidance against which their applications are assessed, has led to challenges to the Ministry of Defence. A previous attempt by a developer to site a wind farm at Little Hartfell, which is in the consultation zone of the Eskdalemuir seismological monitoring station, led to judicial review proceedings against the MOD. On that occasion, the challenge did not dispute that the MOD is entitled to devise and enforce a policy to protect the array from interference with its detection capabilities—it concerned the way that proposed developments were prioritised—but the lesson is clear: developers will seek to push the boundaries of where and how their developments may be sited. Ministers must be aware of that, and willing to take measures to protect against that, where issues of national defence are at stake.
The key consideration is this: in a dangerous and difficult world, we must not water down our defence systems or let down our allies to squeeze out what, in a national context, is a small amount of extra electricity. The UK Government should robustly refuse to entertain novel technologies within the 15 km exclusion zone proposed by the Eskdalemuir working group, which would replace the existing 10 km zone. That should also apply to those applications already in the planning system that were submitted by developers who continued to pursue their projects aggressively, with full knowledge that work was ongoing to review the exclusion zone. Our national defence must come first. I am sure that most people would agree that this is an area where an abundance of caution is well justified. It would be concerning if Ministers and the MOD were pressured into going too far in the name of net zero.
I am not necessarily objective, because I am the Member of Parliament with the largest number of wind turbines in their constituency, either consented or built. I believe that industrial-scale wind farms are bad generally for the locality, but there need to be specific rules around them when national security is in question, and we have to protect our credibility with our international partners.
Any loosening of the rules on infrastructure developments around facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, or passing up the opportunity to reinforce existing rules, would send entirely the wrong message, both to potential developers eager to exploit new opportunities to construct even more wind farms, and to our international partners, who rely on our ability to contribute to our own defence and our collective defence. Lords amendment 28 is an opportunity to underscore the protection needed for facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, and I want this Government take those protections forward.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my thanks to those in the other place for the work that they have done on this Bill, and particularly on Lords amendment 1, which I will explain my thinking on in more detail.
I stand to speak on this issue because of the importance of scrutiny of Government policy by the Select Committees of this House. While this House has an important scrutiny task, and Bill Committees have their job to do, there is a valuable role for Select Committees in scrutiny because of the depth of knowledge of the Committee teams, which are made up of Members, experienced expert staff, and Clerks. That depth of knowledge can be very helpful to Ministers and Governments, who can get useful input as policy is developed, and Select Committees have a particular role in relation to national policy statements.
More widely, I say to Members on the Treasury Benches that although I massively appreciate the work that the Minister has done to ensure that we lean into this issue —which I will touch on in a moment—Governments of whatever party need to be mindful when they are pushing legislation forward. We get elected with an agenda and, quite rightly, we are impatient to push things through, but we need to be mindful of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. We diminish that at our peril, because we risk a slippery slope. One day, a mad, bad or dangerous Government—do not tempt me on that, given the past 14 years—could misuse the system. We need to stress-test what is being proposed by the Government of the day in the light of that important fact.
We have 13 national policy statements covering types of national infrastructure. I do not need to go into detail on that, but they include energy, transport, waste water and waste. The normal process has been that these statements are laid before the House, and Select Committees are involved. For time reasons, I will not go through the technical detail of how that works, but basically, Select Committees have an important role to play in scrutinising any changes to national policy statements. The Government are concerned that this can take too long, and have decided, as the Minister has explained, to introduce a new reflective amendment procedure. Under that procedure, the Government would not be subject to the existing statutory obligation to respond to a resolution of either House, or to recommendations from a Committee of either House, regarding the proposed changes.
The key question is: what is proposed to replace the existing procedure? As the Minister has said, there will continue to be a public consultation on reflective amendments —the smaller category of amendments that might be introduced. The Minister will need to write to the relevant Select Committee, and Ministers must make themselves available to appear before the relevant Committee to explain why the proposed changes to the NPS mean that the reflective amendment route is appropriate. The Minister and I have been discussing this for months—I have been speaking on behalf of those on the Committee corridor—and I thank him very much for his time.
On Report, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that Ministers would appear in front of Select Committees
“as far as is practicable”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]
I raised with him the concern that although “practicable” may be a legal term, it does not really work for Select Committees, because there is a question about what it means. The Minister could be on holiday, or could be visiting a constituency somewhere else in the country, and it might not be practicable for them to appear before a Select Committee. I have been a Minister, and it is right that Ministers should be accountable to this House. That should be a priority; it is the job of a Minister to steer legislation through the House, politically and practically. I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether he can give us a reassurance that Ministers will be expected to appear before a Select Committee if required to do so, not just as far as is practicable.
Under the new approach, an amended national policy statement will be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days—I am glad that the Minister has been clear that it will be sitting days, not days during a recess period; that is critical—and the Government will respond to any Committee reports during that time. However, they no longer have a statutory obligation to respond. I hope that the Minister can reassure me further, at the Dispatch Box, that they would be expected to do so.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee corridor, we are very clear that we would play our part in ensuring that these matters were turned around within a proper timeframe, and there would not be unnecessary delays. There is a great team of people behind our Select Committees. If you were not in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that I am privileged to work with probably the best set of Chairs of Select Committees that we have ever had, but that would cut you out, and you did important work that set the tone for us all. You were a leader in this field when you chaired the Women and Equalities Committee; we follow in big footsteps. There is a very talented team of people on the Committee corridor who want to make sure that this process works. We take very seriously our responsibility to scrutinise Government legislation, and our role in getting it through Parliament, although not necessarily without amendment. We will work very closely with the Government when submitting our views.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Those who are watching this debate might think that we are just debating tedious parliamentary processes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made clear, national policy statements have impacts. We are about to consider—in some detail, I hope—the national policy statement on airports, which would result in 15,000 people in my constituency losing their home, and whole communities being wiped off the face of the earth. That is why it is so critical that we get this procedure right; otherwise, we will not carry the community with us.
Dame Meg Hillier
I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend that, as the Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box, very large changes would go through the old process. There is no watering down of that, which is absolutely right and proper; the Government are leaning in the right direction on that. Our concern was about turning smaller amendments into reflective amendments. The Minister outlined four categories of amendment; when he sums up, I would be grateful if he could clarify who decides which of the four categories an amendment would be in, and whether there is any prospect that the process could be misused by a future Government. I cannot imagine that the Minister would misuse it, but in a bad world, could this process be abused by the Government of the day?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I do not wish to detain the House terribly long; I just want to cover three matters, if I may. The first is Lords amendment 38, which deals with chalk streams. As the Minister knows, because I have told him before, my constituency is chalk stream central—as is yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour. The River Test, the most celebrated of chalk streams, rises in the north of my constituency. We also have the Anton, which flows through Andover, and most famously the Bourne rivulet—about which books have been written, such is its beauty and importance. I know the Minister appreciates the importance of these incredibly rare ecological environments, which are almost unique to southern England.
I heard what the Minister had to say about the appropriateness of spatial development strategies for protecting chalk streams, but he will know that those of us who are concerned about this issue have been disappointed by the seeming reduction of enthusiasm for protection of chalk streams since this Government came to power. Obviously, the chalk stream recovery pack, which had been hard-won in negotiations with the previous Government, was abandoned. In May, amendments to this Bill that sought to protect chalk streams further were voted down. The Minister is a good chap—he and I get on well—and at every stage he has reassured the House that he wants to do more for chalk streams, but we have yet to see the beef. Even today in his opening remarks, he said that he is minded to take further steps elsewhere to protect chalk streams. Given the Government’s record over the past 12 months or so, I am afraid that that is not terribly reassuring, so when he sums up, I would be very grateful if he could be a little more detailed about what exactly he intends to do.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The right hon. Member will know from his own constituency that there are some fantastic campaigners trying to protect chalk streams. In my patch, I have the River Chess Association, the Mend the Misbourne project, and the Chiltern Society. Does he agree that it should not be down to committed campaigners to protect these chalk streams, and that it needs a statutory underpinning?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In my constituency, I have groups of volunteers who work very hard, including on the Anton river in Andover, and do a fantastic job. In fact, that river flows through part of the town centre, but gets lost, and it is about to be opened up with a new riverside park running down Western Avenue. I am pleased to say that I played a small part in that scheme obtaining a levelling-up grant from the previous Government.
People in my constituency value these chalk streams almost as if they are members of their family. They are part of the identity of towns such as Whitchurch, Overton, Andover and other villages in my patch and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would take the protection of those chalk streams almost as seriously as the protection of their children. Many Members—not just me—have campaigned for such statutory protection, and I would be interested in what the Minister has to say. I do not entirely accept his argument that spatial development strategies are completely inappropriate. As he knows, they can flag up areas of planning constraint and discuss corridors and green infrastructure. If there is a green infrastructure corridor, it is a chalk stream. Certainly in my part of the world, they are treasured such that a new mayor—if we have one next year—would be required to look at them as protected corridors and say as much in their plan.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member and support everything he has said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think it would be helpful if the Bill went a bit further in trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated urban areas? Since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think that London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up, so as to give people a sense of what their natural world is really like?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly, he may or may not recall that when I was a Westminster councillor, we had a project in Westminster called “Hidden Rivers”, which signposted where those rivers were. If any Members find themselves on the platform at Sloane Square station, for example—just a couple of stops away—and look upwards, they will see a socking great big pipe going across the top of the platforms carrying the River Tyburn. It rises at Marble Arch, where Tyburn convent is, and where the Tyburn tree used to stand for hanging people. It flows down, across the platform and into the Thames. The same is true, I think in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the Fleet flows down towards Fleet Street and into the Thames. People value and treasure such rivers, and they should be protected. I want to hear a little more on that from the Minister.
For those of us who would support new settlements, for example, SDSs might be important for the protection of chalk streams, because they can point towards the areas where new settlements should be and protect such things as river catchments. For chalk downland constituencies like mine, that is key. While I accept that the Minister will get his way and get his party to vote for the second time against protection for chalk streams in this Bill, I would like to hear a bit more detail on what he is minded to do—I take him at his word—how firm that mindedness is, and when we can expect some of the protection to come forward, because this is an urgent matter on which many of us have campaigned for many years.
The second thing I lament about the Bill, and ask the Minister to clarify, is its impact on neighbourhood plans. I have asked him this question in the past, particularly in the light of new housing targets. Both my borough councils, Basingstoke and Deane, and Test Valley, have had significant increases to their housing targets. I do not mind that necessarily, but the question is where those houses go. I have encouraged villagers and communities across my constituency to take advantage of neighbourhood plans and to put them in place. The significant alarm now is that some of the local plan implications from the new housing targets that are flowing through are riding roughshod over those neighbourhood plans, some of which took years to put in place.
The Minister has given me an undertaking in the past that extant neighbourhood plans would not have to be varied in the light of those new housing targets, until they came up for refresh, and that constraints, such as protected landscape, would pertain. I would be pleased if he could reassure us on that point when he sums up.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the impacts on neighbourhood development plans of the new housing targets. In my constituency, those plans were blown out of the water by the new targets. In the Cotswold district, 80% is protected landscape and of the remaining 20%, half is floodplain. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Government are opposing Lords amendment 39, which would have forced developers to prioritise brownfield sites and save our countryside?
Kit Malthouse
I sort of agree. We should be pushing developers towards brownfield—that is absolutely right. Brownfield first was the policy of the previous Government, and it makes lots of sense. The key thing, which I am sure the Minister accepts, is that if we are to overcome this problem with the generational contract—that we who are housed will build houses for those who are not—there has to be a compromise. For me, that compromise has always been neighbourhood planning. Far too often in my constituency, villages and towns feel as if planning is something that is done to them. They dread the land promoter showing up to ram some inappropriate planning through. Some of that compromise can be about beauty, and I lament the fact that the design standards were taken out of the NPPF and that that word is not used. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister’s nodding—that is great.
I have often said that in my constituency—for Members who do not know, it is 220 square miles of beautiful chalk downland—if developers would build thatched cottages, we would have thousands of them. People would be more than happy for developers to build villages such as St Mary Bourne all over the place, if they look beautiful and fit in. Unfortunately, we get the same ersatz development that everybody else gets around the country. We need to crack that. The other thing is putting planning in the hands of local people, and I hope the Minister will try to preserve that principle in the Bill.
My third point, briefly, is about an omission in the Bill that the Minister and I have discussed before, which is the problem of undeveloped consents. My concern is that the Bill will stimulate the land promotion industry and stimulate lots of applications. However, as the shadow Minister pointed out, when the housing market is flat, stamp duty is at penal rates, when interest rates remain stubbornly high because of Government borrowing, and when the development industry is crippled by taxes, we will not get the level of development that the Minister aspires to—certainly not towards the 300,000 a year target and 1.5 million by the end of the Parliament. Instead, we will see a stacking up of consents, as we have seen in some parts of the country already, where there are thousands and thousands of undeveloped consents. The industry will bank them. In the absence of a market into which it can sell, it will occupy itself by banking the land for times when hopefully things will come good.
Similarly, I am afraid that we will see some of the large infrastructure projects going through the process—the Minister and I are keen to see them accelerated—but people waiting for more propitious economic times to bring them forward, notwithstanding the lack, therefore, of the facility to the British public. I urge him to consider, as he looks to the next stage of his planning reforms, what he will do on undeveloped consents. I think I have said to him before that the Government should force local plans to have a 10-year housing supply that also takes into account granted consents. Then, developers can see a 10-year horizon, as can local authorities, but they also can see that if they want a life beyond 10 years, they will have to start developing that which they already have. If we deal with that issue, we will also deal with quite a lot of the resentment people feel when they see particularly large-scale planning applications coming forward. They ask, “We’ve already got 400 down the road that haven’t been built. Why do we have to take another 400?” Of course, the local council has to put huge amounts of work into the local plan, notwithstanding the fact that it might already have a five-year supply that has been consented but does not count toward the future target.
This is a problem that Governments, including my own, have struggled with for some time, and it is one I struggled with when I was Housing Minister, but I hope the Minister will give some thought to at least giving councils the option of having a 10-year supply in which granted consents count. He might well find that he gets a lot more houses built.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The natural environment in my constituency is fantastic. It is of huge value to my constituents and it underpins Norfolk’s greatest economic driver, tourism, which is fundamental to rural areas like mine. I am especially proud that we have so many beautiful chalk streams and rivers, the most impressive of which, the River Nar, forms the northern boundary of my constituency and lends its name to the villages of Narborough and Narford. Because of its national importance, this river is designated a site of special scientific interest—one of only 11 chalk streams in the UK with that status.
The Nar is well known for its populations of brown trout and the globally threatened European eel, but even this river, protected by its designation since 1992, has a history of damage and ongoing degradation through pollution from farmland, sewage treatment works and road drainage, as well as man-made modification of its channel and floodplain, and abstraction both from the river itself and from the chalk aquifer that supplies the calcium-rich, clean water on which these systems rely. Natural England reports that 50% of the River Nar SSSI is “not healthy” and “not getting better”, which it classifies as “unfavourable—no change”.
Last year, at South Acre in my constituency, I had the pleasure of visiting part of the Nar that has been restored by landowners, with the help of the brilliant Norfolk Rivers Trust. I am so pleased that landowners and this Norfolk charity are working hard to restore the river to better health. Thanks to their efforts, the other 50% of the river is in “unfavourable—recovering” condition, or “unhealthy, but getting better”. Sadly, none of the river is classified as in “favourable condition”. Other chalk streams and rivers in my constituency include the Rivers Wissey and Little Ouse and their tributaries, such as the River Thet, which runs through my home town, Thetford. All are important features of our local natural environment, but none is healthy enough to be considered an SSSI.
Just two weeks ago, I visited the Little Ouse and met the Little Ouse Headwaters Project—another small, local charity that is trying to restore the river and the fens in its catchment. I also visited Blo’ Norton fen. Blo’ Norton is a small village at the southern edge of my constituency, near Garboldisham, which we in Norfolk pronounce “Garbisham”. The story at this location is a familiar one: the Little Ouse has been canalised—straightened, over-deepened and embanked, separating it from its floodplain. It is polluted by phosphates, nitrates, silt and pesticides running off agricultural land, and by sewage treatment works and poultry units adjacent to the river.
Local volunteers have been working hard to restore the catchment for the past 23 years. I pay tribute to the chair of trustees, Dr Rob Robinson, trustees Reg and Rowena Langston, and conservation manager Ellie Beach, all of whom I was pleased to meet recently. They gave me a tour of the fen, for which I sincerely thank them and all the other volunteers involved in the Little Ouse Headwaters Project. We as a nation owe so much to volunteers like them, who safeguard our natural heritage for future generations. It is disgraceful that previous Governments have left small charities like this and others struggling to restore these globally rare habitats, 85% of which are in England, many in my constituency.
This Government are rightly proud of their efforts to improve our rivers by holding water companies and other polluters to account, delivering an ambitious programme of reforms to fix the water system, and managing and resetting the water sector. I am pleased that water companies will invest £2 billion over the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration, as part of our plan for change, and that the Government are investing £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund for chalk stream clean-up projects. As a new member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am keen to see the effect of this Government’s improved funding for environmental land management schemes, including six landscape recovery projects in chalk stream catchments. One of those awaiting a decision on funding from DEFRA is in the headwaters of the Little Ouse. I hope it gets the funding it deserves.
I believe it is time we legislated to put chalk stream protection on a permanent footing, buffered from the vagaries of policies and funding by future Governments, so that we leave a permanent legacy of environmental protection of a globally rare resource. We must do more to protect and restore chalk streams. I urge the Minister, whose opening speech I listened to carefully, and others to take up opportunities now or in future policy considerations to protect precious environments like those in Norfolk. They are irreplaceable, and they are, in their own right, crucial to our local economies and to growth.
Dr Savage
On behalf of many of my constituents, I rise to speak in strong support of Lords amendment 40. Nature unites us in a way that few other things can. Even the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told me of his love for nature after the Second Reading of my Climate and Nature Bill. Our love for the fields, woods and waterways that shape our lives can cut across deep political divisions, ages and backgrounds. We all want future generations to walk the same landscapes, hear the same birdsong and feel the same sense of belonging to the natural world that so many of us have known.
Lords amendment 40 recognises that truth. It would ensure that nature is treated not as an optional extra but as an essential—something that must be protected and restored alongside meeting our urgent housing need. It would limit environmental delivery plans to areas where a broad, strategic approach genuinely works, as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) mentioned; examples include nutrient neutrality, and water and air quality.
Without this safeguard, the Bill risks undoing decades of progress in protections for our most vulnerable species. A big-picture approach cannot replace the precise protections that bats, dormice and great crested newts depend on. One cannot ask a dormouse to move house, or offset repeated local losses somewhere else. If we allow that pattern to continue, national extinction becomes a real possibility. This is how nature, the web of life, works. We cannot dismiss small snails simply because they are small. It is the smallest creatures that inhabit our topsoil that form the foundation of the entire ecosystem.
In South Cotswolds, the bond between people and nature is strong, but our area is one of the most environmentally constrained: about 80% of the Cotswolds district lies within the Cotswolds national landscape, and with much of the remainder already developed or at flood risk, we will struggle to meet our target of more than 1,000 new homes every year. Constituents who cherish our wildlife and landscapes have written to me expressing heartfelt concerns about what that level of development will mean for the places that have defined their lives.
The Labour manifesto promised planning reform that “increases climate resilience” and “promotes nature recovery”, yet the Secretary of State recently rejected amendments that would do exactly that. His “Build, baby, build” slogan suggests that we must choose between growth and nature, but that is not true: wildlife protections are not blocking new homes. Councillors and developers alike point to land availability, infrastructure and delivery capacity as the constraining factors. There is no justification for weakening nature protections when it is entirely possible to build in ways that benefit both people and planet.
Lords amendment 40 reflects a real cross-party consensus and is backed by the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and the Better Planning Coalition. It would offer clarity, reduce legal risk and support sustainable development while strengthening genuine nature recovery—which, incidentally, will also help in climate change mitigation. Above all, the amendment recognises that we are not, and do not need to be, in conflict with nature; we are part of it. This is our chance to show that good planning can be both responsible and ambitious, and that we can deliver the homes that people so urgently need while safeguarding the natural world that sustains us all.
I urge Members and the Government to support Lords amendment 40. I urge this House to choose clarity over confusion, evidence over ideology, and long-term stewardship over short-term slogans. Today we have the chance to choose a planning system that is efficient and fair, that is good for business and for communities and, above all, that is good for the wildlife and landscapes that define our country. We can choose to honour our responsibility to future generations, who will judge us not so much by how fast we built, but by what we protected and what we passed on.
Mr Perkins
Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that Government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry to explore that exact question last November, and we will shortly be able to share our conclusions and recommendations to Government. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a central plank of the Government’s plan to unlock the planning system in order to deliver the housing and infrastructure that Britain needs.
I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who rightly identified the issue of developers sitting on land. I have to say, as someone who has been in local and parliamentary politics for 23 years, that that has always been the case, so it was unconvincing that, having identified the issue, he did not seem to have any solutions. He listed a number of things that the Government might consider, without enlightening us as to whether he supported any of them, so it is clear that the Government will have to crack on alone if they wish to address this important issue.
The Bill has been significantly improved during its passage, and my original concerns about part 3—which were shared by many others—have been allayed. I have been through enough debates on legislation in this Chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening to give credit to my hon. Friend the Housing Minister for having listened to criticisms and skilfully clarified how the Government will respond. I thank him for that.
Unfortunately, the Minister’s work has been made more difficult by briefings that characterise nature as a blocker to development. In fact, research from the Wildlife Trusts found that bats and great crested newts were a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. I think these anti-nature narratives are at best lazy, and often unhelpful; they distract from some of the more significant challenges in the planning system, such as the lack of resources and skills in local authorities to support good planning applications. Tackling those genuine planning barriers, alongside this Bill, will be essential to building the homes that we need.
Lords amendment 40 would limit environmental delivery plans to only certain environmental impacts, including water pollution, water availability and air pollution. Addressing environmental impacts at a strategic level, as enabled by the EDPs introduced by the Bill, has the potential in some circumstances to deliver more benefits for the environment and faster planning outcomes. In some circumstances, this strategic approach would absolutely not be appropriate—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) alluded to, harm to a site-loyal species would often be impossible to redress in a different location.
I do believe, though, that it is reasonable to steer clear of stipulating on the face of the Bill which environmental issues EDPs could be developed for in future, as Lords amendment 40 would do. If guided by current robust scientific evidence, or evidence that might come to light in future, it is possible to imagine that a strategic approach for addressing environmental impacts could be found to be appropriate for issues beyond only water and air pollution.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend is making an extremely considered speech. On that point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), we now have concerns being expressed by virtually every environmental organisation we have ever worked with, including SERA—the Socialist Environment and Resources Association—Labour’s own environment campaign.
Could there not be a compromise here? If the Government were really clear on the process for the future, the issues that my hon. Friend has just raised could be considered. Then, we could see that there was a strategic approach on some issues, but that there would be further consideration on others that the Government could come back to. There is potential there for a compromise with the other House as part of this ping-pong process.
Mr Perkins
I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. The Lords amendment is sensible and well-intentioned. Even if it is rejected, as the Government are minded to do, he makes an important point: we need to get clarity that, in the majority of cases, the approach would be of this narrower type. The Minister has given us some assurance that, in the event we start seeing certain EDPs misused, we will be able to scrutinise that process, so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say in response to my right hon. Friend’s point.
I welcome the Government’s package of amendments during the Lords stages, including one that specifies that robust scientific evidence must be used by Natural England to develop an EDP. These improvements largely address the original concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. However, I urge the Minister to consider proactively providing a list of environmental issues that might be considered suitable for EDPs. That would provide reassurance that this new and powerful tool will be directed only towards diffuse pollution issues such as those set out in amendment 40, where EDPs will have environmental benefits and provide the most value for development.
Amendment 39 would embed a brownfield-first approach in the new SDS. Building on brownfield land can help to revitalise towns and cities, as well as avoiding developing greenfield land. However, it can be more expensive: there are often clean-up jobs to be done on site. In large urban centres, brownfield development is often still profitable, but, in smaller towns such as Chesterfield, the additional factors in developing brownfield land can make development unprofitable, so sites sit undeveloped, as the Robinsons site in my constituency has for more than 20 years now. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what more the Government can do to promote development on brownfield land.
Both nature and safe, secure housing are enormously important to people, and our constituents deserve both: they deserve to breathe clean air, to live in safe and healthy homes, and for their children to be able to play in a local river, free from pollution, but they also deserve to have affordable housing in the communities in which they live. That is the balance that the Government must strike. Although the EDPs introduced by the Bill are an important tool, they are only part of the answer to solving the housing crisis and to improving our natural environment.
This is an important Bill and is much improved. We need to ensure not only that we get it passed as soon as possible but that the work of protecting nature does not begin or end with this Bill and carries on long after it.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I will focus my comments on Lords amendment 38. I have heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about the potential environmental impact of this Bill and how it might affect the River Itchen, the precious chalk stream that runs through my constituency of Eastleigh. The River Itchen is a site of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation, but despite these designations, it has been subjected to repeated sewage discharges by Southern Water, threatening its delicate ecosystems and putting species at risk. We have incredible natural habitats that are being destroyed because existing protections have failed. Indeed, in the latest Environment Agency assessment, Southern Water was handed a two-star rating after causing a shocking 269 pollution incidents last year, including 15 classified as serious.
According to the 2024-25 chalk stream annual review, 83% of England’s chalk streams are failing to achieve good ecological status, which is disgraceful. That is why Lords amendment 38 is so important to my constituents and to communities across the country who live alongside these extraordinary habitats. There is no reason why we cannot have a thoughtful planning process that protects our precious natural environment and delivers the social and affordable housing that our communities desperately need, with the infrastructure to support it. We have an opportunity to show that development and environmental responsibility are not competing interests, but shared objectives. By embedding these principles in the Bill, we can address the housing crisis while simultaneously protecting our rivers, habitats and green spaces.
Lords amendment 38 would establish much-needed new protections for chalk streams and impose a responsibility on strategic planning authorities to enhance chalk stream environments. I saw the urgent need to address this issue when I visited with representatives of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust this summer, when I was able to test the water quality of the River Itchen. With the help of experts, we saw at first hand the very low levels of biodiversity and high nitrate levels. I fully support the proposition that spatial development strategies must list chalk streams in their strategic area, and safeguard them from irreplaceable damage by outlining clear measures to protect from environmental harm.
Greater and appropriate consideration for our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the fact that, under Lords amendment 38, local spatial development strategies would vary according to the needs of the particular area, allowing strategies to set different balancing points between local conservation and development needs in different places. It is disappointing that the Government are unwilling to retain the amendment. Will the Minister instead commit to strengthening existing planning mechanisms and ensure that water companies are held to account, so that chalk streams are protected? This is such an important issue for my constituents, and anything less than a cast-iron guarantee is not good enough.
People across the country deeply value and treasure our natural environment. We need to deliver the housing and infrastructure that are vital for our communities, but let us not treat our chalk streams, wildlife and habitats as an afterthought.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus.
At the outset of my contribution to today’s debate on this important legislation, there are a few general points that are probably worth reiterating. There need be no conflict between house building and nature; the real conflict is between greed and the sort of country we want to build. After 20 years of planning deregulation, time and again we see profiteering trumping public need and the protection of the countryside; cost cutting where communities deserve quality; and low-density, high-price housing while families wait for council homes.
Since we last debated the Bill in this place, Key Cities has published a very useful report, which highlights that in a survey of its members, only 6% cited the planning system as the primary obstacle to house building. More than twice that figure pointed to developer delays, so I hope that we will shortly see similarly major Government legislation to tackle the profiteering developers that are blocking the delivery of genuinely affordable housing in this country.
The recent announcement of plans for towns built within a new forest shows that good development and nature recovery can go hand in hand, and we must go further. A democratic programme of mass council house building could easily avoid the clashes that so often mark the developer-led system. What is needed are well-funded councils with the power to assemble land and identify the best sites for new homes—building not grey estates that are shaped by the defeatism of low expectations, but cohesive, thriving communities that are built for life to flourish. That is the solution to the housing crisis and would create a country that puts people and nature before profit.
I welcome the several important amendments tabled by the Government in the other place. In my view, the most important is the stronger overall improvement test for nature recovery, which I campaigned for on Report. It is very good news that these amendments have substantially allayed the concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. Nevertheless, it is clear that environmental experts and conservationists continue to have some concerns, which the other place has sought to address through Lords amendments 40 and 38 in particular.
Our Labour Government were elected on a clear manifesto promise to reverse the nature crisis in this country, so it is essential we get this right. That is particularly urgent for our endangered species and irreplaceable habitats, including chalk streams such as the Rib, Beane, Ivel and Mimram, which criss-cross North East Hertfordshire and bring joy to so many people’s lives. I genuinely welcome the comments that the Minister has made to allay the concerns of nature experts, and I will dedicate my remaining time to a few short questions that I hope he can address in his wind-up.
First, given the need for legal certainty, can the Minister confirm that the overall improvement test will guarantee that irreplaceable habitats and species cannot be covered by EDPs, and if so, will the Government set out a list of environmental features that they consider would be irreplaceable?
Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether any EDPs are currently under consideration or development by Natural England, or proposed by the Government? If so, will any of them be affected if Lords amendment 40 remained part of the Bill?
Thirdly, will the Minister give confidence to the many constituents of North East Hertfordshire worried about potential impacts on the wildlife we love by once again putting on record that the Government recognise the difference between diffuse landscape issues such as nutrient pollution, where strategic scale action is best suited for nature restoration, and protected sites and species that cannot easily be recreated elsewhere?
Fourthly, given the widespread interest in this Bill shown by many of our constituents and by the wider nature sector, will the Minister consider providing further transparency and accountability through a Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 40 to ensure parliamentary approval of EDPs beyond diffuse issues such as air, water and newts?
Fifthly, given that the “Catchment Based Approach” annual review published this autumn found that a third of chalk streams do not have a healthy flow regime, that over-abstraction due to development pressures is one of the main threats facing these crown jewels of our natural heritage and that there are currently no planning policies specifically protecting chalk streams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government foresee planning authorities being able to direct inappropriate development away from struggling chalk streams within the process of setting spatial development strategy plans, and would he consider opportunities for this through regulation, if not through the Bill?
Sixthly, will the Minister provide further certainty from the Dispatch Box about ensuring that chalk streams are specifically added to the national planning policy framework as an irreplaceable habitat, and will he set out when this might happen given that an update of those provisions has been delayed since 2023?
Seventhly, as one reason put forward for Lords amendment 40 is that it would mitigate concerns about the weakening of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, what reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that these iconic animals will not be at risk from widespread licences to kill in EDPs paid for by developers in the absence of Lords amendment 40?
Eighthly, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed the potential impact of proposed biodiversity net gain exemptions on the private finance for nature markets that will be essential for the delivery of EDPs?
Ninthly and finally, can the Minister reassure those who have raised concerns that the current legislation may allow money committed to the natural restoration fund to be redirected to other purposes?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start on a positive note and by looking for common ground, so I will begin by recognising and welcoming the fact that the Government have made some concessions in the other place on this Bill, which is a positive step. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the Minister’s claim that this is a win-win for nature and housing, and express my continued concern that the Bill, especially part 3, has not had the full reconsideration it needs to ensure we have a genuine win-win. The reason, unfortunately, is that the Government seem to be stuck in the view that there is a zero-sum game between nature protection and house building. That is wrong and unhelpful; it is a complete misconception. Despite making some concessions, the Government lost a lot of trust among the general public by claiming at the outset of the Bill’s progress that they would do no harm to nature protection. The Government were forced to reconsider and recognise, not least by their own official adviser, that that was not in fact the case.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I did think that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) was about to slip up in her round-up and say, “Build, baby, build”—we almost had her there.
Every single week at my constituency surgeries, people come and talk to me about housing shortages, whether it is people living in overcrowded or temporary accommodation or people facing homelessness, and tomorrow will be no exception. In fact, the impact of the storms in my constituency this weekend will likely mean that hundreds of people—perhaps up to a thousand—will be temporarily removed from their temporary mobile homes in the Billing aquadrome, putting additional pressure on our housing system. It is right that the Government are stepping forward to try to fix this. I have been quite surprised in some of the debates on this Bill that we are not putting more focus on how we deal with homelessness, and that a debate on planning and infrastructure has instead come down in many cases purely to a discussion of nature.
Dr Chowns
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many hundreds of thousands of homes sitting empty around the country and that this Bill will not do anything to address that issue, which could go a very long way to addressing the problems of homelessness that he claims to worry about?
Mike Reader
The hon. Lady is completely right that there are lots of empty homes. I am sure that there must have been some amendments tabled by the Greens that I have missed, and that they have been constructive and worked with Government to address that issue through the Bill.
Working cross-party is what I have always tried to do in this place. I am proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment and the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure and, even though the Minister and I do not always agree with the membership of the group—I have to say, some of the members do take unwarranted and quite grotty shots at the Minister—I am proud to chair the Representative Planning Group with Simon Dudley, the treasurer of the Conservatives.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised a point that I raised on Second Reading that solving the housing crisis will take action from the whole Government. The Bill is part of it, but there are many other things that we need to do to fix the mess that we inherited. I am also reassured that concerns that I and others raised on Second Reading around how EDPs will work have been recognised, particularly in some of the latest amendments, as well as by the Minister’s comments on how brownfield will be dealt with, which is so critical.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the housing issues that we all see in our constituencies, so it is interesting that there are so few advocates for building. Whenever there is a new housing application in Chesterfield, we get people who live nearby saying, “I’m a bit concerned about this.” We get lots of people saying that there are not enough houses around, but they never come to us and say, “Please can you support one of these new applications?” Maybe we should give some thought to how we do more to build for the huge number of people who are inadequately housed. We need more housing developments in order to actually create some movement in favour of these developments.
Mike Reader
My hon. Friend could not be more right. Part of why we set up the cross-party Representative Planning Group was to create an opportunity to bring forward legislation that ensures that all voices are heard in the housing debate, not just the loudest and angriest and those with lots of spare time on their hands.
I am surprised by the position taken by the Conservatives. I was fortunate to sit on the Committee for the devolution Bill. I recognise that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is an absolute expert on local government, and he made some amazing contributions in Committee. As I am sure many Members did, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at the Conservative party conference. She spoke about cutting bureaucracy, making things easier and cutting down on Government waste, but many of the amendments the shadow Minister spoke to do just the opposite. Lords amendment 3 adds layers of process to how planning will work, increasing the risk of judicial review. Lords amendment 33, which the Minister picked up on in his opening remarks, adds more parliamentary processes to trying to fix our housing crisis. I hope when he sums up that the shadow Minister will reflect on whether his position on this Bill reflects the position of his party’s leader and her call to cut regulation and get us building.
A big point here is trust. Unfortunately, the debate on this Bill has focused on trust—trust in Government, trust in those who build our homes and trust in our planning system as well. If Members turn their mind back to May 2024, they will remember a soggy former Prime Minister standing with music playing behind him. I was at the UK Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum to discuss housing and how we get Britain building. I listened to a whole industry that is completely fed up with the Conservatives. One of my engagements over the past couple of days was a discussion on trust in the housing sector. I cannot remember the specific numbers, but I am thinking of figures from a couple of years ago: less than 20% of people had trust in developers, and less than 20% of people had trust in our planning process. It is clear that the whole process is broken, and that is why we are working really hard through this Bill to try to fix it.
We have talked about the big amendments, but I want to turn to EDPs. If any Member wants to come in on that, I am very happy to discuss it. There are other great measures in the Bill that will get lost. Lords amendment 34 seeks to improve how heritage sites are dealt with. That is fantastic for somewhere like Northamptonshire, which has one of the largest volumes of country houses, manors and stately homes in the country. Lords amendment 39 addresses brownfield sites, and Lords amendment 31 addresses the provision of EV charging, which came up a couple of weeks ago when I was on “Politics East” alongside the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and we were asked for our views.
I am pleased that the Bill is returning to a focus on planning. Some of the amendments show that the Government have listened to those who build and those who want to see homes built across our country, and we are taking positive steps. EDPs have been the topic of a number of speeches. It is a contentious point both for my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I have worked in the industry for 20 years, starting out fixing houses that were filling with sewage, and ending my career working on mega and giga projects around the world. I have experience of planning, approvals and consenting processes—in the most developed countries and in some developing countries as well—and I can tell Members that our process is so complicated.
I referenced the Corry review in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). The review, commissioned by DEFRA, found that we have some of the most inefficient, inconsistent and difficult-to-navigate nature legislation in the world, and it is not fit for purpose to drive nature recovery. Those who argue against change argue for the status quo, which has led to our country being one of the most nature-depleted in the world. That is what those who argue against this Bill argue for. They argue for more of the same, more nature destruction and a process that does not deliver homes.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
My hon. Friend intervened on me, mentioning the Corry review, and then he cited it in his own contribution. I am sure that he would like to acknowledge that the review specifically warns about a bonfire of red tape and supports targeted changes. Does he agree that amendment 40 aims to support pragmatic reform, limiting EDPs to where they can make a positive impact, rather than where they will do harm?
Mike Reader
I take the point. The intention behind amendment 40 is well meant: there are situations, as my hon. Friend has said, in which EDPs will not be needed and there are other ways to deal with those situations through existing legislation. Having such a finite definition in the two lines of the amendment, which people have focused on, creates what the Corry review calls the problem: adding more complexity to the process, not simplifying it.
I make no complaints about starting my career as a civil engineer and working in industry, and I am sad to hear that some of my colleagues and some of those across the House have the idea of greedy developers taking all our money and making millions of pounds in profit without ever giving back to society. I am interested to see, through this debate, the very well-funded environmental lobby. I am proud to be an environmentalist and to be on the executive committee of SERA, Labour’s environmental campaign, and I am grateful for the debate that I have had with them through this process to inform my thinking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) mentioned the 3% stat—that only 3% of planning fails because of nature. The truth is that the assessment would be done long before the planning process, and I am surprised that schemes have got to that point on nature, as I am by the 3%. The chances are that when going for early viability on a project, nature challenges will be looked at. The complexity and difficulty of delivering in this country, because of the way our legislation is set up and the risk entailed, means that many schemes do not go ahead in the first place. I recognise the stat that my hon. Friend has presented, but it is slightly erroneous, because when there are particular nature issues, most projects will never get to the planning stage.
It is really positive, however, to see so much brought forward by the Government—nearly 30 additional amendments—as they listen to the concerns of both Houses, to the environmental lobby and to those who build the homes we desperately need, and improve the way the law will work. There are great opportunities to support that going forward.
I will add a slight observation. Through my career, I coined the three Cs of delivery, whether I was working on the Hudson tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York; on the Peru reconstruction programme, a project that was championed by another former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, as a great example of exporting British expertise to a country and working in partnership to deliver nature restoration, new schools and new hospitals; on airports in places such as Keflavik in Iceland; on regeneration schemes in Greece; or even on the new hospitals and prison programmes and other things that we deliver in our great country. Those three Cs are certainty, commerciality and cost—and that is what it fundamentally comes down to when delivering projects.
I am sure that everyone recognises that cost is critical. If we cannot afford it, we cannot deliver it, so we have to get cost right. At the moment, viability particularly impacts our ability to deliver homes, and this legislation will start to improve that. Commerciality is the one that I like to focus on when talking to industry, because how we deal with apportionment of risk, change and commercial incentivisation is how we get projects working well, such as the Silvertown tunnel in Newham, and how we get projects that run very badly, such as HS2 phase 1, where the commerciality is completely wrong.
The third C is certainty. That is what we have to give the market after 14 years of failure of a Conservative party that flip-flopped on housing policy, with a revolving door of Housing Ministers—we have all heard the tropes, so I will not keep going. We need certainty in the timescales around how planning works. The Bill simplifies that, making it clear how the judicial review process works and how we go through planning to give certainty to the communities that are impacted and which need those homes.
The amendments brought forward by the Lords that the Government are taking forward improve that certainty of the legal process. Even yesterday, in the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, we heard evidence on the planning process for delivering community energy, and I am sure everyone would support more small-scale community energy. We were blown away by the complexity of planning regulation in trying to get, say, solar panels on to a community building or a small-scale district heating scheme delivered in a local community for their benefit. The scale of complexity of our planning process is such a big challenge. As well as improving certainty of the legal process, the Bill improves certainty around nature protection. The engineering design process will help us deliver more homes and protect nature.
Since coming to this House, I have chosen to add a fourth C to my three Cs: the C of courage. What I saw in industry was a Government who did not have courage and that flip-flopped on their decisions, and that meant chaos. As has been said, we have inherited a system that fails to deliver the homes that we desperately need. That political courage to do difficult things, find compromise and drive forward is what the Bill represents, and I am proud to give my backing to my Government in pushing it through and ensuring that we deliver homes for people right across our country.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
There has been great anxiety about the possible negative impacts on the environment of this legislation. Lords amendment 40 seeks to restore site specific protections for most cases where they do not involve wider issues, such as nutrient neutrality, but it has been opposed by the Government, as we have heard. Can we trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to nature versus development? We can pick up a big clue by looking at what has been happening in my constituency in West Sussex.
For the last four years, Horsham district has been contending with the complications of water neutrality, which is often wrongly confused with nutrient neutrality. It is something that applies only to my district and a couple of neighbouring areas. It concerns possible damage to a unique wetlands habitat on the River Arun, which is home to a rare species of snail and many birds. On a precautionary basis, Natural England has required a halt to any new development that would increase demand on the water supply abstracted at nearby Hardham. Natural England was wrong to impose such a draconian limit. The “not one litre more” rule prevented small businesses from building even the smallest project, and that seriously damaged the local economy.
I do not have any confidence either in the abrupt lifting of all restrictions, as happened a fortnight ago. Southern Water promised to reduce its Hardham abstraction licence by a few million litres a day, but that will not make any difference, because it never used the whole allowance anyway—it was just a notional figure set many decades ago.
The immediate crisis for Horsham is how the changes affect planning and housing development. For the past four years, Horsham has been in the ludicrous position of having to obey two totally contradictory laws. One law says that we have to build circa 1,000 houses a year. The other law says that we cannot build any houses at all if they will use extra water. That is clearly quite a challenge. As a result, we have fallen from being an authority that exceeded our housing targets, even though they were very stiff, to being one of the worst performers in the country, with a land supply of less than one year. It is literally against the law for us to obey the law.
As a result, Horsham district council has been forced to accept a series of applications that contradict its local plan and that make complete nonsense of the strategic plan-led development that the Government always profess to support. Complications around water neutrality have prevented a new local plan from being passed, and that has prevented major new environmental provisions from coming into force.
This legal nonsense has done huge damage to Horsham district and is set to do even more. The sudden lifting of water neutrality today leaves us exposed to wholly unconstrained development, which will do major damage to our environmental ambitions. It is impossible to make meaningful plans for new schools, clinics and community services to support the enormous targets that we will be forced to build when speculative developments keep going through that have none of those attributes.
Do I trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to environmental protections? No, I do not. Do I believe that they are committed to plan-led development? No, I do not. The Government are content to see holes dug all across our beautiful Horsham countryside in the hope that it might dig the Chancellor out of her own personal fiscal black hole.
I therefore urge the Minister to support Lords amendment 40, and to consider how the legislation is affecting my constituency. I invite him to meet me and Horsham district council so that we can explain that what he is doing will not just sacrifice our local environment but make the delivery of affordable housing—my overall key ambition for Horsham—harder, not easier.
John McDonnell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue.
In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords.
John McDonnell
I am happy to take an intervention if the Minister so wishes.
Matthew Pennycook
I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments.
John McDonnell
The Government did not accept the amendments on Report, but the reality is that they had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments that were in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff)—it is as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit when we make mistakes.
That is why I worry about this. If we introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred, in a derogatory tone, to the well-funded environmental groups. I have been working with those groups for nearly 50 years. I have never seen a breadth of unanimity across them on an issue such as this. Some of them cannot be described as anything other than mainstream. What they are asking for, in some of these amendments, is relatively limited, so it behoves us, as a listening Government, to go that one step further and see whether compromises can be reached. I congratulate the Government on doing that for clause 3, in which compromises have been reached. For some reason, however, people are digging their heels in, particularly in relation to Lords amendment 40.
Let me deal with Lords amendment 1 on national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence must be built when dealing with huge developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has mentioned the third runway at Heathrow. The proposal to build a third runway will never have my constituents’ confidence because, as I said earlier, 15,000 of them will lose their homes, whole villages will be wiped off the face of the earth, and 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution —so we will not be able to convince them, to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of Select Committees has been critical, as they are able to examine those issues in depth, have Ministers before them and present reports to the House, which we can debate.
In many instances, Select Committee reports and the work those Committees have done has been of such a quality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) demonstrated in his description of the work his Select Committee does—they have influenced Government, enabled policies to be changed and, as a result, built up confidence in the general public. I am concerned about any lessening of the role of Select Committees in this whole process. The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am pleased to speak today in full support of Lords amendments 38 and 40. I would also like to take the opportunity to press the Minister on the Government’s response in the other place to Lords amendment 32, which I will come to shortly.
First, on Lords amendment 40, I am pleased that the Lords altered the uses of environmental delivery plans to better protect species. North Norfolk is proudly biodiverse, and it must be protected. We should all see the shocking decline in our rare swallowtail butterflies—an icon of the Norfolk broads—as an indicator of the nature emergency we face. Protections for wildlife and biodiversity are crucial, and I hope the Government will retain this amendment.
On Lords amendment 38, I welcome the Minister’s statement of future intent, but I am nevertheless in full support of protecting North Norfolk’s chalk streams. I thank my local bishop, the Bishop of Norwich, for tabling that amendment in the other place and for his admirable support for and defence of chalk streams in Norfolk and across the country. He is a great champion for the environment and I thank him for it. Over the summer I went to Letheringsett in my constituency, with volunteers from the River Glaven Conservation Group. The Glaven is a much loved chalk stream locally, and one of many in North Norfolk that we hold dear. As one local councillor told me, in North Norfolk, “we cherish our chalkies.”
I saw the work undertaken to renew and revitalise the river and its floodplain, made as part of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s nine chalk rivers project. A 1.2 km man-made channel was dug to reconnect the river to its original path and restore its natural flow after years of human interference. A new wetland near Glandford ford has also been created, generating a vital new habitat for the native crayfish and water vole that can be found there. I also heard of the challenges, from construction silt run-off to sewage discharges. Allowing a unique and precious natural environment to be treated this way in recent years is nothing short of scandalous.
Sadly, this is the situation not only for the Glaven or even Norfolk’s chalk streams; we have heard shameful tales of those historic habitats across the country being trashed and abused by profiteering water companies, without a shred of care for the environment that they are damaging. That is why I believe that Lords amendment 38 is a perfectly sensible and much-needed addition to the Bill. Of course those of us with chalk streams in our local areas want spatial development strategies to take account of them and ensure their ongoing protection. I am yet to hear a convincing argument from the Government as to why this amendment is being so strongly opposed.
Clearly, the status quo is not working, and we cannot embark on a new age of development and infrastructure building without making sure that those aspects of our environment that are already being failed are not damaged beyond saving. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about national pride and the St George’s cross. Well, I am proud that the St George’s cross flies over 85% of the world’s chalk streams. Out of only 200 in the world, the majority are right here in England. We are the custodians and guardians of the vast majority of this special habitat. We have to take that responsibility seriously, and Lords amendment 38 is an important step towards proving that we will.
I have been critical of much of what is included in the Bill, but almost equal amounts of criticism can be levelled against it because of what it lacks. Today we can plug one more gap in it by agreeing with the Lords in their amendment.
I said that I wanted to press the Minister on Lords amendment 32, which may have been unfortunately worded with a slightly predetermined outcome when it was tabled in the other place. In North Norfolk, we have real issues with water abstraction licences. Food processors and farmers need water, and attenuation is the answer. The current permitted development regulation is clearly not working. The Government responded in the other place by saying that they needed to look at PDRs and would return to them. I wonder if I can press the Minister to indicate a few more steps and some timelines.
Steff Aquarone
I am getting an indication that he will not do so, which is a shame.
I support the development of more homes in North Norfolk; there are 2,400 households on our housing waiting list who demand that provision. I am delighted that new residents in Walcott and Bacton will be moving into dozens of new affordable homes in the coming months, supported by our Lib Dem-led council. I want everyone living in North Norfolk, though—in new homes or in old—to be able to cherish our ancient chalk streams for the decades and centuries to come, and I urge colleagues across the House to vote to protect them.
Ruth Cadbury
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), a fellow Transport Committee member. We do not have any chalk streams running through Brentford and Isleworth, but we are beside the Thames, which I know is fed by many chalk streams.
Ruth Cadbury
We do have a canal. We also have the Thames, the River Crane and the Duke of Northumberland river, but I do not think any of them are chalk. The issues for chalk streams, particularly sewage going into them in Oxfordshire, causes us problems in the Thames as it goes past my constituency—I digress.
I welcome the many changes that the Government will make to the planning system as a result of the Bill, and I welcome the amendments that have been made during its passage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) said so eloquently, the most important thing about the Bill is that will it bring more homes. There is high demand for housing in the borough of Hounslow; people desperately need adequate, affordable and good-quality housing but cannot get on to the housing ladder. Some people can afford to rent or buy privately, but I know from door-knocking that all the flats that have been built over the past 20 years are fully occupied.
West London is desperately short of housing, for those already living in the area who want to stay close to their family and for those who want to come to live in the area to take advantage of the many job opportunities in growth sectors. Sadly, some developments that have planning permission have not yet been built, partly because of changes to designs following Grenfell, and partly because other building regulation and industry changes. I hope that those developments get on stream very quickly.
I will focus on Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. In response to my intervention on the Minister earlier, he assured me that despite the significant changes and the new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny—including a role for this Chamber and the Committees—will continue, and I thank him for that.
The new procedure introduced in clause 2 applies to amendments to national policy statements that reflect policy or legislative changes, or decisions that have been through the courts. The implication is that the provision will enable the quicker implementation of light-touch amendments—those involving less material changes—to national policy statements. That concerns some of us, as the Chair of the Liaison Committee has already covered so eloquently. Some of these changes could be very significant, and they deserve proper scrutiny. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will come later to some examples specifically relating to transport.
The Government’s changes will give
“Parliament and the relevant select committee forewarning that Government intends to follow the reflective amendment procedure to update an NPS”.
The “reflective amendment procedure” is what I would call “the reduced procedure”, but we will get forewarning—great. The Government will also have to formally announce a review of an NPS by making a statement in Parliament—great. When there is a partial review, the Government will
“informally update the Liaison Committee and the relevant Select Committee”
by writing to the relevant Select Committee at the commencement of the public consultation period on proposed changes to an NPS.
In Committee, the Minister said that
“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 105.]
It is the words “so far as is practical” that have concerned the Chairs of the Select Committees.
A letter received by the Liaison Committee also stated that if a Select Committee publishes a report on proposed NPS changes within the public consultation period, then the Government will take those views into account before the updated NPS is laid before Parliament and will seek to respond to the report around the time of laying the updated NPS “wherever feasible”.
When the Minister sums up, I hope he will clarify those two phrases: “so far as is practical”, in relation to the Minister coming to the Select Committee; and “wherever feasible”, in terms of the Government responding to the Committee’s report.
As I have just said, the reflective amendment process is expected to apply to changes to national policy statements that reflect legislative decisions, Government decisions, the publication of Government policy or changes to other documents referred to in the ANPS. I have a question, which I would really like to know the answer to: by what criteria will the new process be used, and who decides? When will the full-fat version, with the involvement of Parliament, be used?
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point about the need to use these planning processes to align our transport infrastructure plans and ensure that they align with our ambitions around housing developments. Nowhere is the lack of public transport infrastructure more important than in rural constituencies such as mine, where we have my thriving town of Shrewsbury. We have 65,000 residents, but we had no buses after 7 pm or on a Sunday, until now. Thanks to a pilot, we will now have a night bus for the month before Christmas that will run hourly between 8 pm and midnight, giving a boost to our local economy. Does she agree that we must not wait 10 years for such excellent news? We must plan ahead to align both our transport policies and our development plans.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury—I have learned so much about Shrewsbury since getting to know her. Although it is possibly beyond the scope of today’s debate, she is absolutely right about the need to align transport policies and networks with our wider growth and development aspirations. I know that the Government are listening, and are working hard on that very issue. The point about new towns is also a very good one, and it has been welcome to see a Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister for quite a lot of this debate—it is a good sign that the important need to break down the silos that built up in Government over the past 15 years is being recognised. We on the Committee corridor really appreciate that.
The Transport Committee considered national networks in 2023, so we do not expect to see that national policy statement again until 2028—we will see what process is followed then, if indeed this change does go through. We published our view on the national policy statement on ports this morning, so it will be 2030 before that is due for revision again. As I said, airports is the only national policy statement that is specific to a particular development, and the Transport Committee expects to address it in the months ahead. Of course, we will be doing so following the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government wish to pursue the development of runway three.
Although we honour the power and role of the Government, I pick up on what the Minister said on Report when he was keen to assure us that the Government’s changes were
“not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made”,
and that the Government
“recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]
Our constituents want to be assured that any changes that have a disproportionate impact on them will be properly scrutinised by this House. I am glad that the Minister has said that the Government will lay a statement in the House, write to the relevant Select Committee and make themselves available, but I want to pick up on the phrase “as far as is practicable”. It is good that he went on to say that
“the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes”,
and that
“Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.],
but Parliament needs time, access to Ministers, and assurance that significant changes will be able to be properly and fully scrutinised. Where a proposed change is significant enough—where it is not a relatively minor change—we must be able to use the full process.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the
“Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”.
That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course.
The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see?
Matthew Pennycook
I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised.
I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today. Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.
Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days. That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted.
On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand. We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date.
Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period. If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes.
Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward.
In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should:
“Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”.
In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications. As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister knows that, across this House and the other place, there is wide recognition of how unique and precious our chalk streams are. He clearly recognises that, as well. Given their importance and the fact that most of them are in the UK, why have the Government not yet brought forward an amendment to reflect the cross-party concerns expressed in both Houses? I know him to be a serious and sincere man, but the Minister is, in effect, asking the House to rely on his good will to do something at some point, and we have no idea what it is.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the undertaking the Minister is giving, but he will recognise that all of this is guidance; it does not preclude planning decisions that will impact on chalk streams. Given that he is set on his course, which we understand, and his appreciation of the fact that the amendment was proposed in the spirit of addressing the lack of any other sort of protection for chalk streams, will he reassure us that the intention in the planning guidance is to give chalk streams the same sort of protection as was put in place for, for example, veteran trees, which are deemed to be irreplaceable? That is the highest level of protection in planning guidance—I think I introduced this as Planning Minister. In that way, only in very exceptional circumstances could permission be granted for development that would impinge on chalk streams.
Matthew Pennycook
I cannot go beyond what I set out earlier. We will put the proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will address the subject of irreplaceable habitats in this winding-up speech.
In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other issues, including the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, housing delivery targets and local plans. Perhaps we should sit down outside the Chamber and have a coffee, as I think I would benefit from his insights, but I shall certainly give further thought to the many points he made.
On neighbourhood plans, they are not referenced in the Bill, other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites. Again, I am more than happy to have a wider conversation with him about this Government’s view of the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system.
On irreplaceable habitats, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of such habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections continue to apply; nothing in the Bill bypasses them. Fundamentally, an EDP that would lead to irreversible harm to or the loss of an irreplaceable environmental feature could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant feature.
I want to briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops an EDP. That is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the environmental principles policy statement include the prevention and rectification-at-source principles, which are key to the mitigation hierarchy. The Secretary of State must have due regard to the EPPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. We recognise, however, that we need to provide further reassurance. On Third Reading in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of development, providing greater clarity about how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system.
I will briefly touch on two further issues. On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge made by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case.
Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill.
Lastly, I must reference the constituency issue raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) regarding the Eskdalemuir seismic array. We recognise the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group, which I know he is aware of. We are clear that the array is a key piece of defence infrastructure that is part of international monitoring networks, and that any updated approach to managing onshore wind deployment near the array will not compromise its detection capabilities.
Under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs onshore wind proposals to submit specific information and comply with the seismic impact limit, and for determining authorities—the decision makers—to be bound not to approve applications if those limits are breached. I hope that provides the right hon. Gentleman with some further reassurance, but, again, I am more than happy to engage with him further.
To conclude, this Government were elected on a promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. Let me bring the House back to what is at the heart of this Bill: we need new homes and we need new critical infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made that point compellingly. The need for those across the country is pressing. This Bill needs to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.
To that end, we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to compelling arguments, but we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing constructive conversations with peers, alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both Houses in the near future. I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. In an earlier Division, six Members behaved in the most disorderly fashion and pushed themselves past Doorkeepers. Those six Members have been identified, and I expect them to come and apologise to me before the evening is out, and to the Doorkeepers to whom they behaved in the most disrespectful way.
Clause 51
Delegation of planning decisions in England
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Members who caused the earlier fracas have apologised to the Chair and the Doorkeepers, so that case is closed for now.