Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

16:10

Clause 51: Delegation of planning decisions in England

Amendment 62A

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

62A: Clause 51, page 67, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations must not allow an officer of the authority to approve any planning application which—(a) allows building or development outside the boundaries set out in the local plan, or(b) has a housing density for the area that is below the level prescribed in the local plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent officers to whom decisions have been delegated from approving planning applications which would (1) require land outside of the boundary of a local plan, or (2) build at a lower density of housing than prescribed within a local plan.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. We are at the stage now where we are considering the Government’s significant changes—basically, removing decision-making from councillors on a huge scale, which gives me cause for concern—but I have decided to highlight just a couple of issues.

I shall start with Amendment 87F, which goes to the nub of one of these issues. The Government seem to be proposing, in Part 3, that councillors no longer make decisions and that they be handed over to officials, who are obviously not locally elected. Amendment 87F would require the reporting of planning permission that has been granted but not actually commenced. We already have plenty of homes that have planning approval right around the country, never mind the 700,000 homes that are currently sitting empty. I do not necessarily mean second homes; I am talking about other homes that are sitting there doing nothing. This is important to me when I think of communities around the country that have had huge housing targets imposed on them, when actually, the worst situation is in London, where, sadly, hardly any homes are being built at all. Instead, to be candid, we are seeing this rather Stalinist approach. Amendment 87F is intended to encourage the Government to make sure that at least we have some transparency on what is happening with all the homes for which development permission is being granted, but which are not being built.

Amendment 62A deals with what happens when officials talk about planning applications that do not fit within the boundaries of the plan. We have been told at various stages of the Bill that the real democratic process is in the initial creation of the plan. My experience of various places I have lived in is that communities rarely get involved—councillors do, of course, but there is a lot of consultation—until there is a particular development in their area. Nevertheless, even if the focus will now be put on consideration of where housing can happen—with, we hope, little further argument once that is done—officers should not then be allowed to approve planning applications that sit outside the plan.

The second issue is something I have seen in the Felixstowe area in particular. Land has been set aside for 2,000 new homes on the edge of Felixstowe, but we are already starting to see officers questioning the housing density being proposed, and making recommendations in line with other policies. If the same principle was applied to every single planning application, instead of the land that has been set aside, which is already substantial at a housing density of about 150 per acre or per hectare—I apologise; I cannot remember which—the implication is that three times the amount of land would be needed. That is a huge extension of what communities that have been encouraged to get involved in plans thought they were getting when they signed up to this.

That is why I believe that if councillors want to go beyond the boundaries set out in the local plan and change the density, they should be the ones making that decision, not officers. I am conscious that at this stage, we have not seen any draft regulations or proposals from the Government, and those would be helpful. But my intention today is to press again to make sure that, as and when the regulations come forward—of course, we do not have an opportunity to amend regulations —this issue is covered.

I fully endorse Amendment 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. It makes a lot of sense that this House and the other House at least consider the proposals that are going to be put forward, which will determine the sorts of issues I have just mentioned. I also support Amendment 76 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Again, it seems quite straightforward that if there are valid planning reasons why something should be turned down, the elected councillors should get to say that.

This is a huge change that is coming and we need to make sure that there are safeguards for communities, so that when they vote for their local council, or in the future for their mayor, they have some assurance that these will actually have some powers rather than this being dictated from Whitehall, which has not always proved to be the best way to achieve housing in the past. With that, I beg to move.

16:15

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will confine my remarks to Amendment 63 in my name. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we had quite a substantial discussion about the national scheme of delegation and the extent to which decisions should automatically be delegated to planning officers rather than going to a committee.

I do not really want to dwell on all that, other than to say that we are continuing to wait—in my case, with optimism—to hear about a national scheme of delegation and how it might assist in the delivery of our planning and housing targets. In my view—and I will just reiterate it because presumably Ministers are still considering how to proceed with the scheme—it was a mistake that the Government’s proposal for the scheme for consultation did not follow through on the original plan, which would have meant that where decisions could be made wholly in accordance with the existing local plan, they should be delegated to planning officers, since the democratic input of the planning committee, as my noble friend Lady Coffey just said, is and should be primarily in establishing the local plan and then we should be guided by that, rather than revisiting every decision under the local plan through the planning committee.

We also continue to wait on the Government consulting on national development management policies. I know it is their intention to do so. But, again, once we have national development management policies, by their nature, if they include policies which would determine how an application for permission should be treated—for example, in relation to planning applications in greenbelt and grey-belt land—those should necessarily go to planning officers because the planning committee would have no discretion not to make a decision in line with the national development management policies.

I say that to reiterate those points I feel strongly about, but also because it illustrates that when the scheme is first brought in, it will make substantial decisions about the framework within which the delegation of planning decisions is to be made. When we debated this in Committee, it was on my amendment which would have meant that such regulations were always to be by an affirmative resolution. I completely understand the Minister’s response that there may be quite detailed aspects of these regulations and that as a consequence there may be regular iterations—almost every time, probably, there is a change in the guidance, particularly the National Planning Policy Framework; we tend to have those as a little present just before Christmas every year—so we are probably going to get new regulations on a frequent basis and they may be quite detailed.

However, the first regulations set up the principles and the framework for how this scheme of delegation will work in the longer term. It is not acceptable for that to be subject to a negative resolution. This House should have the opportunity to see, approve and, as my noble friend says, debate the framework for the national scheme of delegation the first time those regulations are made. That is the purpose of Amendment 63: to provide that when the regulations are made for the first time, it is on an affirmative basis, and subsequently on a negative basis. When the time comes, I hope to have the opportunity to move the amendment and, if it secures support in this debate, I may well look to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are firm and constant supporters of the right of locally elected councillors to make decisions in their area based on clear national policies. The proposals in the Bill for a national diktat of delegation are the backdrop to this group of amendments. The Government are ostensibly in favour of devolution of decision-making. However, there is a tendency within the Bill to centralise decisions on planning by making it virtually impossible for local decisions to reflect local need and nuance.

Amendment 62A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is interesting but could be problematic—actually, I thought it less problematic when I heard the noble Baroness’s explanation of the first part of the amendment. Although there are occasions during the life of a plan when unforeseen events arise which mean the local plan is not sacrosanct, on the whole it ought to be, otherwise it will be nibbled away at during its lifetime through precedent.

I have some sympathy with the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment. Too often, housing sites are assessed as being able to accommodate a large number of units, then along comes the developer—with his eyes on the profit line—who applies for a different balance of houses in which larger, more expensive and more profitable units are to be built. The consequence is that the balance that we need, which is somewhere in between, is not met. The result of allowing developers to determine the density of a site is that more land then has to be allocated for development. I will give one example from my own area. A housing site was allocated in the local plan, under the national rules, for 402 homes. Currently, just over 200 are being built, because of the need—apparently—for five-bed exec homes. The local assessment of housing need shows that what are required are start-up homes and smaller homes with two or three beds. I have a lot of sympathy with that part of the amendment.

Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to seek to put safeguards in place in the rush to take the local out of local democracy. As the noble Lord explained, the amendment is to ensure that the affirmative resolution would be required for the initial changes to the national scheme of delegation. That has got to be right, because it will set the tone for the future of what is accepted as being part of a national scheme of delegation and what is okay for local decision-makers. That is fundamental, and the noble Lord is right to raise it in the amendment. If he wishes to take it to a vote, we on these Benches will support him.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has not yet had the opportunity to speak to her Amendment 76, so I hope she does not mind if I comment on it. We on these Benches will support the noble Baroness if she wishes to take it to a vote. This amendment would be another move towards empowering local decision-makers with the right to take planning applications to committee where there is a volume of valid objections to an application, and then to have the debate in a public setting.

Amendment 87F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks a sensible change to help understand where the real problems lie in the failure to build the houses the country needs. As the noble Baroness hinted, it is not with local planning committees or authorities, otherwise there would not be 1.2 million units with full planning permission waiting for construction. Those figures are from the ONS, and I am not going to quarrel with the ONS. If the Government could get the housing developers to start building those 1.2 million units, we would be well on the way to the 1.5 million that the Government reckon they need during the lifetime of this Parliament.

This is an important group because it is about getting the balance between national need and local decision-making, and between a national view of what is acceptable and local elected councillors being able to reflect local need, nuance and requirements in their local setting. I hope that at least the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will put his amendment to the vote. It is fundamental to the democratic process to have local decisions on planning.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 76 in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench. As I have reminded noble Lords before, I have sat on a planning committee many times, I have appointed such a committee as a leader of a council and chosen the chairman, and I know it is a very important quasi-judicial position. Planning exists to arbitrate between the public good and the private interest. I use the word arbitrate purposely because people who sit on the planning committee have a difficult job. They have to weigh up so much conflicting information. It is an adversarial system, because, ultimately, either the proposer wins or the objector wins. There is no grey purpose in the middle.

Much of the Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are the blockers of development and it is only with the ranks of officials that we can get things going. Of course, this is rubbish. Evidence for that assertion was given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which this morning ruled that it was wrong that Governments and quangos had asserted that Ramsar sites had an equivalence to European sites and thus had to have a full environmental assessment, and overturned it on that narrow point. Within an hour, we had officials and Treasury solicitors boasting how this Bill is going to turn that around and reinstall that unnecessary gold-plating—gold-plating that, after four years, the Court of Appeal ruled should not have happened.

The Government’s suggestion that Ministers should usurp planning committees and instead form a national planning committee among themselves in Marsham Street is as fanciful as it is risible. It is a recipe for hurry up and slow down, and it is not fooling anybody that that is going to speed up development.

The premise is that officialdom brings none of its own particular personal or institutional prejudices to bear, but each quango brings its own vetoes. We have Natural England, with a track record of leaving no stone unturned in blocking or delaying development. We have the railways, which ballast every proposal for a new footbridge with £5 million-worth of cost and preposterous delays. We have the highways authorities, which tie themselves in knots over overly precious technical guidance and misdirect themselves that the private motorcar is intrinsically bad, when it is not. And that is before we get to the other bad actors, which time does not permit me to list.

I do not deny the importance of these quango representations, but the problem is that they all claim a veto, and it is from this that we have the £100 million bat bridge or that mitigating trade in great crested newts, which are rare in Europe but commonplace in every pond in my electoral ward in Norfolk. It is the way that planning works: it takes only one of these proverbial blackballs or vetoes from one of the statutory consultees to stymie a proposal.

16:30

This is why we need planning committees: to cut through this nonsense. In my experience, committees appointed by accountable councillors—especially those appointed by me—do more to get Britain building than the faceless dead hand of the state, each member of which is watching each other’s back in some bureaucratic conspiracy to slow things down. We need elected people, local councillors who know their patch and can see a self-serving veto or spurious objection from a quango when they see one. We need people on the ground who know the importance of building homes, economies and places that enhance lifestyles.

That is why my noble friend’s amendment is so welcome and necessary. This, coupled with the other amendments that would fetter and restrict judicial review—I note my noble friend Lord Banner is not in his place, but it is his recommendations that I am referring to—is the right thing. To get to the nub of Amendment 76, the chair of planning should be able to revisit an officialdom’s otherwise fatal objections to get it to committee, so that local champions can take all the evidence into account, listen carefully to objections, balance that public and private interest, and get Britain building, and not pander to self-serving qangos that are only interested in pursuing their own ideologies to the exclusion of all else.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, it is pleasing to hear support for local democracy from around the House, which I can only endorse.

Amendment 63, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concerns the first set of regulations made under the proposed national scheme, which, as drafted, would determine how local planning decisions are to be made in the future. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure that these initial regulations are subject to the stronger form of parliamentary scrutiny, the affirmative procedure. That requirement is important, as the national scheme represents a major structural change in the planning system. It alters fundamentally the balance between decisions taken by elected planning committees and those delegated to officers.

Such a shift in decision-making authority carries significant implications for local accountability, democratic oversight and public confidence in the planning system. Given the scale and significance of these reforms, it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider, debate and explicitly approve the first set of regulations before they take effect. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment seeks not to delay progress but to strengthen legitimacy, to ensure that this House and the other place have a proper role in scrutinising the framework through which these changes will be implemented. In short, the affirmative procedure would provide a vital check and balance at a moment of genuine structural transition in the planning system. I hope that the Government will look favourably on my noble friend’s sensible and proportionate proposal.

Amendment 76, tabled in my name, aims to ensure that the vital role of local democracy in the determination of planning applications continues, while ensuring that spurious call-ins are avoided, by requiring the head of planning and the chair of the planning committee to confirm that the objections are on valid planning grounds. This reflects best practice in many authorities today.

We believe in local democracy because we believe in local people. That means ensuring that the right homes are built in the right places, with the consent and confidence of the communities they affect. Committee chairs and chief planning officers are well placed to judge when wider scrutiny is needed. Retaining their discretion in this way would ensure transparency and trust, without dismantling the efficiency of a national delegation scheme.

Ministers may argue that the amendment would undermine the purpose of national delegation by allowing too many applications to go to committee, but that is simply not the case. It requires the agreement of both the professional planner and the elected chair, and only when the objections rest on valid planning grounds. That is a proportionate safeguard, not a free-for-all. This is about balance and maintaining efficiency in the system, while giving communities the confidence that genuine concerns will be heard and scrutinised. That is how we build trust in planning and how we deliver development that truly has local consent.

Finally, I will briefly speak to Amendments 62A and 87F, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey. Amendment 62A is in a similar vein to my own, as it proposes that an officer should not determine an application outside of an adopted local plan. Amendment 87F looks to the issue of the failure to build out, so can the Minister say why the Government have not moved forward with the parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that sought to address that?

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jamieson was quicker to his feet than I was. I will make a few comments on Amendment 87F, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey.

I served as a councillor for eight years on the unitary Medway Council, working for some of that time on planning, and had the benefit of representing a constituency in Kent in the other place. I am very aware that whenever a substantial planning application is put to the local community there is generally uproar and a lot of concern. There may be a lot of consultation and a lot of money spent by the developer. There are presentations to the local public and local councillors, and everything else that goes with that. It can be quite upsetting for local communities. In my experience, the Liberal Democrats are very adept at exploiting that concern, usually for political advantage.

Having gone through that process, we find that a lot of the planning applications never actually get built out—and at a time when we have a huge demand for housing. Developers then look again at somewhere a bit simpler to develop out. It is not for us in this place to dictate the market—that is obviously for developers—but the terms that my noble friend Lady Coffey has proposed are right. Perhaps we should start to recognise some of the names among the bigger developers that seem to be going for applications and not building them out. We hear, obliquely, about hundreds of thousands of planning applications that have been approved that are yet to be built out. I do not know the exact figure —I do not think that I have ever known it—but we are told that it is in the many hundreds of thousands.

If my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment were to be adopted, it would be very refreshing to know those numbers regularly. It could give local people some pressure to knock on the doors of the developers and ask, “Are you going to do this or not?” In addition, other authorities would be able to look at neighbouring authorities elsewhere in the country and, if they see similar developer names, they might start to wonder what those developers were doing.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. When I looked at the figures last year, I found that 1.1 million homes were approved that were not built. That is quite a few hundreds of thousands.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his clarification. As I said, I was only guessing that the figure was in the hundreds of thousands; I am glad to have the clarity that is 1.1 million. There we have it: there is the potential for the growth that we are looking for and for the supply of housing within a local plan, yet we seem to keep hearing calls for new land and new development. The answer, however, is in our lap. It would be nice for this to be rather more transparent, so that we could consider it more closely.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, that was an interesting debate on these amendments. Believing in local people also means building the homes that they need and the infrastructure to support those homes. This problem with buildout did not commence in July 2024; it has been there for a long time, and this Bill is trying to do something about it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 62A, which would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment; however, it is common for applications to be submitted for development that do not accord with the local plan. That does not mean that all those applications are controversial or that they require committee scrutiny. To bring all such applications to committee would undermine the whole point of Clause 51. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to make initial regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, it is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the Bill and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure.

I recognise that the noble Lord has altered his amendment so that it applies only to the first set of regulations, but I still do not believe that the revised amendment is necessary. We already consulted on our proposed approach in May this year. The Secretary of State, under the Bill’s provisions, will be required to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations and the subsequent changes to them. That means that the Government will conduct another consultation on these very regulations before they are brought into force. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals set out in the regulations to ensure that they will work effectively in practice. They are the practitioners, after all, so I look forward to hearing their comments.

Amendment 76 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seeks to give the chair of a planning committee and the head of planning the discretion to allow any planning application to be determined by committee where there are objections on valid planning grounds. Noble Lords will recall that we debated an identical amendment in Committee, and I can confirm that the Government have not changed their position on this issue. The intention of the amendment undermines the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. Valid planning objections are a frequent occurrence on planning applications—anyone who has ever been on a council will know that only too well. This amendment would therefore mean that almost any application would be capable of being referred to committee. That is clearly something we would not want to support. However, I repeat that the intention behind the national scheme of delegation is not to undermine local democracy. It is simply to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87F relating to the buildout of development, which is a key issue. The amendment seeks to improve the transparency of buildout data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis about the number of planning consents granted where building has not started or completed in each local planning authority. I start by reaffirming to the noble Baroness, as I did in Committee, that I fully support the aim of improving buildout and the rate of residential development. The Government remain committed to making sure that all planning permissions are translated into homes. That said, I remain of the view, as I have previously set out, that we do not need this amendment to achieve that.

When we debated buildout in Committee, I highlighted our publication in May of an important working paper, which sets out a more effective and comprehensive approach to speeding up buildout. It includes greater transparency of buildout rates, new powers for local planning authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort. The working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We have also set up our new homes accelerator, which will help to unblock some of those stalled sites and find out what is causing the problem that is slowing down buildout. We are now analysing the responses to that working paper, and we will set out our next steps in due course. I reiterate that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Therefore, given our strategy to support faster buildout, I hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Can I ask for clarification? I asked a specific question regarding the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and its sections saying that a planning authority does not need to determine an application where the applicant has not built out elsewhere. I think the Minister was hinting that this is what the Government are doing, but will they implement that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We did consult on that very issue. We are still analysing the responses to the working paper. As soon as we have done that, I will inform the House of the outcome.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Are the Government not prepared to implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act sections as they stand now, despite having the power to do so?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can only repeat that, on the powers on which we consulted in the working paper, we want to look at the responses and then implement them.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed on this group. It has been a useful discussion.

I say candidly to the Minister that these are the powers of transparency that, if I had served as a Minister in her department, I would have wanted to know of, so that I could go after those developers, hold their feet to the fire and enact what my noble friend has just said from LURA 2023. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62A withdrawn.

Amendment 63

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

63: Clause 51, page 69, line 22, at end insert—
“(3) In section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations and orders), after subsection (3ZAA), insert—“(3ZAB) The first regulations under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3ZAC) Regulations made under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (except for the first such regulations).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that when regulations for a national scheme of delegation of planning decisions are made for the first time, these should be made by an affirmative resolution procedure.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I beg to move.

16:46

Division 3

Ayes: 246

Noes: 169

16:57

Amendment 64

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

64: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in EnglandIn section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications), in subsection (1)(a), after “grant” insert “or, in the case of an authority in England, the refusal,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission or permission in principle by a local planning authority in England.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 64 and 259 are in my name. They seek to amend the Town and Country Planning Act to address an anomaly in the Secretary of State’s existing powers, allowing him to issue holding directions to local planning authorities.

Currently, powers under the Act allow the Secretary of State to make a provision in the development order that allows him to issue a holding direction to a local planning authority, restricting it from granting planning permission. Such holding directions are used to allow the Secretary of State to consider whether to use his powers to call in the application for his own consideration under powers in Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

This amendment addresses an anomaly. It will enable the Secretary of State to issue a holding direction to prevent local planning authorities refusing an application for planning permission. I should make it clear that this does not significantly change the way in which call-in currently operates. The Secretary of State can already call in any application, provided the local planning authority has not issued a formal decision notice. It merely prevents the local planning authority issuing a refusal and allows the Secretary of State to consider whether to determine the application himself.

It is a well-established part of the planning system that the Secretary of State can intervene in planning decisions. This has been in statute since the inception of the modern planning system. The Written Ministerial Statement of October 2012 set out the Government’s existing policy on call-in. Under this policy, in general, the Secretary of State considers the use of his call-in powers only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Even when an application is called in, it does not mean that planning permission will be granted. The Secretary of State is bound by the same duties as local planning authorities.

To conclude, government Amendments 64 and 259 are minor, but they are no less important in enabling the more effective use of the Secretary of State’s call- in powers. I beg to move.

17:00

Amendment 65 (to Amendment 64)

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

65: At end insert—
“(2) After section 74(1)(a) of that Act insert—“(aa) for authorising the local planning authority, in relation to a direction restricting the grant or refusal of planning permission or permission in principle under paragraph (a), to grant planning permission or permission in principle insofar as the planning application is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan if the latter is up-to-date;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This addition to the amendment tabled would provide an incentive to a local planning authority to adopt an up-to-date Local Plan and, in consequence, to regain control over the grant of planning permission in accordance with the Plan.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 64 relates to a subject that we did not discuss in Committee. It was tabled only at the beginning of last week. Although the Minister said there was just an anomaly, as though it was some sort of gap, I have to confess that, when I looked at it, I found it quite difficult to work out what this gap was. Under the existing powers, if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority is not intending to grant planning permission but wishes that planning permission to be granted, they can issue a direction for that purpose. If the Secretary of State sees that a local planning authority is likely to refuse a planning application, leaving aside the fact that the applicant might choose to appeal such a refusal, the Secretary of State could, if they sought to move quickly, make a direction for the purpose of granting planning permission, or simply call it in, which I would have thought would be the obvious thing to do.

The purpose of my amendment is to test the use case a bit. What worries me is that, on the face of it, the ostensible purpose here might be to give the Secretary of State much clearer power to issue a direction to stop a local authority refusing planning permission for an application that is not in accordance with the development plan. Clearly, the Secretary of State already has the power to grant planning permission not in accordance with the development plan. That is in Section 74, in a later subsection. The Secretary of State can still do that, but it looks to me as if what this actually adds is the ability to stop local authorities refusing permission in circumstances where an application is not in accordance with the development plan. We have spent a lot of time, especially those of us who remember the debates on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, emphasising the importance of local authorities having up-to-date local plans and that decisions should be made in accordance with those plans.

My Amendment 65, as an amendment to Amendment 64, would add into Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act a specific provision that the Secretary of State may issue directions in effect to grant planning permission or to refuse planning permission in accordance with the development plan. That seems to me to be the best way of guaranteeing democratic input into planning and, indeed, that the delivery of planning happens in ways that are relatively predictable and successful from the point of view of local communities. I commend Amendment 65 as an alternative approach, but, in the absence of Amendment 65, it seems to me that Amendment 64 adds risk to the system rather than substantial benefit. I beg to move Amendment 65.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 87A and 87D in this group. Amendment 87D is a bit of an outlier, so I will come to that later in my contribution. In essence, Amendment 87A is supposed to be a bit of a helping hand to the Government in achieving the outcome that they are intending, whereas the Government’s Amendment 64 really is a huge overreach. I should start by thanking Alexa Culver for helping draft Amendment 87A.

Government Amendment 64 would allow the Secretary of State, in effect, to force through planning permissions, even when material considerations such as failing EDPs, water shortages and insufficient infrastructure would normally warrant planning refusal. In the press release that was put out, although it did not directly mention the amendment, the closest explanation that could be found was:

“Ministers will be able to issue ‘holding directions’ to stop councils refusing planning permission whilst they consider using their ‘call-in’ powers. Under existing rules, they can only issue these holds when councils are set to approve applications”.


The suggestion is that this amendment would allow the Government properly to use their call-in powers.

It is possible that this explanation is a red herring and does not match the much broader powers contained in Amendment 64. At the moment, Written Ministerial Statements can govern the procedure for call-in; there is no need for legislation to improve or refine the process. I have suggested an alternative to the Government through Amendment 87A. Planning authorities are allowed to refuse planning permission only when there are justified grounds to do so. If that refusal is appealed, of course, the Secretary of State can call in that appeal, known as recovering the appeal. Therefore, the Government’s stated concern around obstructive or hair-trigger refusal is a fairly minor one to legislate for.

The challenge here is that we need to try to make sure that we improve other parts of the Bill. To give a bit more detail, the clause would permit the Secretary of State to pass a new type of development order that prevents local planning authorities refusing to grant planning permission, for example where there is insufficient water supply or the like. Up until now, development orders have been used only to govern or constrain how planning authorities positively grant consent. This amendment turns that around for the first time and allows the Secretary of State to prevent refusals of planning permission.

Development orders have to be made by statutory instrument—although I believe it is through the negative procedure—but there are no obvious constraints on how the power can be used. The bars to refusal can be used to override local, real-world, on-the-ground constraints to development, and planning authorities may be forced to consent, for example, where EDPs are failing or unimplemented.

On the speed of impact, there are widely publicised water shortage issues in many parts of the country and I am very concerned that, given that this clause is expected to come into force on the day, we could see a flurry of directions being issued. Amendment 87A—by the good help of Alexa Culver, as I say—would not have entire overreach but would potentially help the Minister achieve their aim.

Amendment 87D is on something very close to my heart: considering local communities. They go to a lot of effort to register assets of community value, but at the moment the regulations are such that there are very few examples of buildings being protected from demolition under existing permitted development rights. Those are a pub and, I think, two other examples of some social issues. I think a theatre is a good example. I have seen this at first hand when a community came together. Registering an asset of community value is not the most straightforward of processes, but they did. When the owner of said community assets was starting to get fed up, they literally just pulled the buildings down, not even allowing the local community the chance to buy those assets from the developer.

I am conscious that the Government will have legislation later this year about local communities. I really do not want to have to return at that stage to press the case; I want to get these changes made now. When we bring in legislation to empower communities, which happened in the Localism Act and which I know the Government say they support, let us not continue to have legislation where the rug can be pulled away from those local communities. In the particular case it was a sports centre and a theatre, both much cherished and both used in marketing for housebuilding in that area and as reasons for people to move there. We are talking about all these new communities. Unfortunately, those things could be built and within a day they could be pulled down to make space for more houses—exactly what happened in that community in Suffolk. It may be the only example. I have not investigated right around the country, but I feel so strongly about it and this Bill has been my first opportunity to try to rectify what I genuinely believe is a wrong. I hope that the House will support that later tonight.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the outlier Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I have Amendment 102, likely to be heard on Monday, which seeks to extend the current assets of community value scheme to include cultural assets, so I have a particular interest in how the scheme as it stands at present does and should work.

The noble Baroness’s amendment and mine were considered in the same group in Committee; she pointed out that, as she said just now, some if not all cultural buildings had already been added to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This has been a move in the right direction, but I certainly agree that assets of community value should be added. Strangely, we have a situation where, through the 2015 order, certain cultural venues such as concert halls and theatres are protected but community assets as such are not, which feels incredibly inconsistent, certainly in relation to the community asset scheme as it stands now.

I find what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has described today, and in considerable detail in Committee —about how a new owner can ride roughshod over a community—not just wrong but, frankly, outrageous. Legislation is not always the right thing, as the Minister points out quite a lot, but I think this is a perfect instance of where a gap in the law ought to be plugged and ought to be addressed in the community’s interest. I will certainly vote for Amendment 87D if the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, takes it to a vote.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 64 has been packaged in the media, and even in the Marshalled List, as augmenting the Secretary of State’s power to call in an application, but, as the Minister made clear in opening, in fact it does not do that. It leaves Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the call-in power, unchanged. What it actually does is augment the holding power, under Section 74 of the 1990 Act, so that the Secretary of State can issue restrictions on the refusal of planning permission to facilitate consideration of the call-in power. In that context, I seek some clarification from the Minister as to what is intended procedurally, were this amendment to become law.

Currently, there are procedural safeguards in place in relation to called-in planning applications: there is a statutory safeguard in Section 77(5), which gives either the applicant or the local planning authority the right to be heard before an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. That, plainly, will not be changed, because there is no proposal to amend Section 77, but the obligation for the Secretary of State to cause a hearing to be heard is also the subject of a policy that exists in the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance on call-in proceedings. The policy in the Planning Inspectorate guidance is that the right of a local authority or an applicant to be heard under Section 77(5) is to be exercised by means of the inquiry procedure. The public inquiry procedure, of course, allows for greater scrutiny of the evidence and greater public participation than a mere one-day informal hearing.

Is the Minister prepared to offer a commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no dilution of the procedural safeguard in the Planning Inspectorate’s published policy and that the right of a local planning authority to insist on an inquiry and to exercise its statutory right to be heard through the inquiry procedure, as opposed to a lesser procedure, will not be diluted and will remain?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 64 was billed by the Minister, in the letter that she wrote to all Peers laying it out, as seeking to address a minor gap. I am not sure about that. I think other noble Lords have also expressed different concerns from mine. I take this opportunity to seek reassurances from the Minister. I am grateful for the way in which she presented the circumstances in which call-in takes place, and the safeguards, in her introduction to the amendment, but the amendment could be read as a considerable change in tone on the Government’s intentions and role in the planning system.

I am probably caricaturing it but, under the current arrangements, the Government used to be regarded almost as a knight on a white horse. They would come in at the last minute on planning decisions where the local authority was getting it wrong in granting permission, often in cases which were going to be to the detriment of the environment. That was a rather fine thing, in my view.

17:15

Under this amendment, the intention would flip in the other direction. The Minister can call it in if he feels that the local planning authority may be wrong in refusing the application—for example, if it is insisting on environmental protection—and instead overturn it, or at least consider whether the decision should be called in, in favour of development. I am anxious about that, because the current climate appears to be that the environment is wrong and development is right. That is a sort of modern-day version of reds under the bed.

I think we are all keen on growth and on housing. I heard an impassioned speech recently by another Minister in the Labour Government about the need for housing for communities and families, and for children who live in substandard or overcrowded conditions who do not have a home of their own and whose development is suffering as a result. Getting good-quality, affordable housing is really important for our communities, but this amendment could have several downsides.

I ask the Minister to respond and perhaps reassure me on these points. First, I would not like to be a local planning authority right now: you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. If you make a decision wrong in one direction, it gets called in; if you make a decision wrong in the other, it gets called in. It is a bit of a dog’s life, really, and quite tricky.

My second concern is that while the Minister is, quite rightly, a prime exponent of the commitment that the Government should have to making more decisions in locally appropriate ways—her track record as a leader of a local authority was exemplary in that respect and I know that we are due to get the devolution Bill, which will take this devolution of responsibility and decision-making even closer to communities—this amendment would seem to take that the other way. It seems to imply that there are more circumstances in which national decisions will be made than local decisions.

Above all, it is the change of tone that I would worry about. I express concern about some of the public statements that have been made about nature being a blocker, in a way that is incredibly polarising and unhelpful, and, quite frankly, in many cases not true. I recently received the Home Builders Federation’s list of 10 barriers to housing development. Of those 10, there is really only one that applies to nature; the rest are all sorts of other considerations. Nature should not be demonised in the way that it is. I worry that this amendment could be either seen as doing that or interpreted in practice as doing that.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, in the last group your Lordships’ House gave a pretty strong steer when it felt that the role of councillors and councils in determining local planning applications locally, based on a plan—not acting capriciously but on balance, with all the material considerations taken into account—was a very important principle, not just for the way that we run things in the country but for the fact that decisions are made by accountable people in a democratic way.

I am astonished that government Amendment 64 has come forward—although I am not surprised that the Government’s Back Benches are so sparsely populated. What this amendment would do is emasculate the principle of a proper local planning process. It raises the spectre of political interference, at very short timescales, in what is a quasi-judicial process. Clearly—and this is the reason I will ask for reassurance in a moment—it demonstrates a prematurity that is likely to slow down the process of development, rather than speed it up.

My evidence for the slowing down was given by my noble friend Lord Banner. I did not take down all the different sections and stages, but there are clearly statutory safeguard overrides, as well as practice guidance, procedures and statute, so that when development processes come forward, everybody has their say, in the right way, with the appropriate process. While there will always be a winner and a loser, at least people can say that it was done properly.

My concern with this is what the process will be whereby a Minister may call in a decision for stalling it. What intelligence will be relied on, and on what timescale? Planning committee agendas are normally published seven days in advance of the meeting. So within five working days of a recommendation for refusal from the officers, what is the process by which Ministers will be advised, “You’d better jump in on this one; this one might go wrong”?

What happens if there is a recommendation for approval but, on the basis of hearsay, rumour or possibly a letter in the local newspaper, there is a suggestion that the committee might decide to go the other way? I cannot quite understand how that would normally happen, because, as anyone who sits on a planning committee knows, they keep their mouths shut for risk of predetermination. This is where I am concerned about party-political interference in planning. There may be nods and winks and comments such as, “We think that so and so on the other side might be going this way”.

It all belies the fact that, as we all know, because the planning committee meets regularly and because it is quite an onerous thing and other people have different responsibilities, there is a series of substitutions, which are quite proper, with trained substitutes on that committee. With all those moving parts, I wonder, with a week to go, on what basis would the Secretary of State jump in?

I play to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about a quango report. At what stage are we going to prematurely judge that, of all the different material considerations, one report may be more important than another, when we all know that it is the role of the committee to balance all of them in the round and take in all the material considerations? Are we going to sleepwalk into a situation where Ministers give an additional vicarious respectability to one set of reports over another, with only half the evidence to hand and without seeing in the round the benefit of all the objections, proposals and debate in the chamber? We understand that the purpose of the Bill is to speed up planning, but it seems that its consequence is to slow it right down. How on earth would we end up in a situation where Ministers could be properly advised?

In this House, and in Parliament, there is a proper 12-stage process. We are at stage 10 of 12. For the reasons that my noble friend Lord Banner gave—about the interplay of all the complexity and detail here—this should have been brought forward in Committee or at a much earlier stage. But here we are, at the 11th hour, in Parliament’s revising Chamber, trying to work this out on the hoof. I cannot support this. It rides a coach and horses through established process, principles and democracy. It is half-baked, and it should be thrown out.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to speak in strong support of Amendment 87D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It seeks to address a clear gap in our planning framework: the ease with which valued community buildings can be demolished under permitted development rights.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for reminding us in Committee that, since 2017, it has not been possible to demolish a pub under permitted development rights and that, since 2020, the same protection has rightly been extended to theatres, live music venues and concert halls. But every other community building—from sports halls to scout huts, youth clubs, village halls, arts centres, community hubs, social clubs, rehearsal rooms, day centres and faith spaces—can legally be demolished through permitted development under class B, in Part 11 of the general permitted development order, usually via only a prior approval notice to the council. In other words, a community can spend months achieving an asset of community value status, believing it has secured protection, yet the owner can still flatten the building with no full planning process, and the opportunity to save it is lost for ever.

The Minister suggested in response to the noble Baroness in Committee that local authorities can already protect such assets by issuing Article 4 directions. Although that may sound reassuring, in practice it is neither adequate nor realistic. Article 4 powers are slow, complex and discretionary. They require public consultation, ministerial approval and significant resources that many councils simply do not have. They are rarely used pre-emptively, and too often they are invoked after buildings have already been lost.

This amendment would provide a far simpler and fairer solution: an automatic national safeguard for assets that communities have already demonstrated to be of real social value. These are not sentimental relics but the social infrastructure of everyday life: the places where children learn to play sport, where community choirs rehearse, where food banks and lunch clubs operate and where amateur dramatic societies, after-school classes and local support groups meet. Once demolished, these spaces are almost never replaced.

As has been referenced, the London Nightlife Taskforce, which offers strategic advice to the mayor and will publish a major action plan later this year, has already underlined the urgency of this issue. Its early findings show that demolition and redevelopment continue to erode London’s community and cultural infrastructure, despite existing local powers. The task force, supported by the Night Time Industries Association, the Music Venue Trust and UKHospitality, is calling for stronger statutory safeguards to prevent the loss of spaces that sustain local life and creativity. Although its recommendations are directed at London, the same challenge exists nationwide. Communities in Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow and countless smaller towns face the same slow erosion of shared civic space, too often replaced by development that contributes little to social cohesion.

If we accept that pubs, theatres and music venues deserve protection from demolition, surely the same logic must apply to any building formally recognised by its community as an asset of value. This modest reform would give communities a genuine say before their most valued spaces disappeared.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who is one of the House’s great champions of the arts and cultural life. Briefly, I will express the Green group’s support for Amendment 87D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. This would ensure that assets of community value cannot be demolished. It is worth going back to where the assets of community value started, in 2011. Creating that category of buildings and structures was so hard fought for, and it could, in effect, be lost under permitted development rights. The noble Baroness has identified a really important issue, and I hope the House will back that.

I rise chiefly to speak against government Amendment 64. We have already heard some important points. Both the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fuller, pointed out just how late this is coming in the process and how we have not had the chance to have proper scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is right about a considerable change in tone, but I would go further and say that it is a considerable change in the direction of the entire law, and that should surely not be done this late in the process.

More than that—like other noble Lords, I am sure— I have received a pleas from the Better Planning Coalition, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts to reject this government amendment. If we look at the situation and the arguments they make, absolutely rightly, we see that this amendment embeds into the law a concerning narrative about development at any cost. It does not acknowledge, and it pushes aside, the fact that economic activity and human life are dependent on the environment —the economy is a complete subset of the environment.

The core purpose of planning policy is supposed to be to ensure that developments do not happen in the wrong place or destroy nature gratuitously or without adequate consideration. It really feels, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, that this would open up decisions to politics. Well, this is purely politics: it seems to have been put in to drive headlines that say that the Government are taking a hard line with councils that oppose new housing.

17:30

I particularly note that the clause extends the powers of the Secretary of State to issue directions to restrict the ability of local planning authorities to refuse planning permission, either for particular applications, which we have mostly talked about, or more worryingly, as I understand it—I stand to be corrected by the noble Baroness if this is not correct—for whole categories of development. For example, it could remove the ability to refuse, as a class, data centres, whose environmental impact your Lordships’ House has become very concerned about, or any C3 dwellings in an area of low housing delivery. Taken in combination with the proposed national scheme of delegation introduced by Clause 51, about which we have just had a letter, which seeks to ensure that certain development types are determined solely by officers rather than a planning committee, there is a massively significant undermining of local decision-making. The Green group will oppose government Amendment 64 in the strongest terms and will express that at every opportunity.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, once more, the Government have chosen to add a new clause, through Amendment 64, at this very late stage in the Bill’s progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It really is not acceptable practice, for the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave, which is that we have not been able to give this new clause proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. The new clause has only four lines, and that includes its title. The other two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning decision-making.

When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought that I had perhaps got it wrong. However, we have now heard from across the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Banner, our expert in this House on planning matters, questioning the Minister on the meaning of what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Young, have all raised considerable concerns about the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. In her own inimitable way, the Minister has been able to underplay the clause by saying, “It is just an anomaly. It’s not going to make any difference really”. If it is not going to make any difference really, do not bring it in at this late stage. If it were so important, I am sure the Government would have noticed it, either in the discussions at the other end of the Parliament or at least in Committee here, so I have a feeling that it may not be as unimportant a clause as the Minister has been making out.

Where does that leave us? All noble Lords who have had experience, as many of us have, of the process of planning applications will know that planning committees are rightly required to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework, all relevant national policies and their local plan, which includes local planning policies.

If a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so, as others have said, with valid planning reasons. Failure to do so means that the applicant, rightly, takes that to the Planning Inspectorate for an appeal against that decision. If the planning committee has made a foolish decision, not giving valid reasons for refusal, the Planning Inspectorate, rightly, awards costs against the council, which is why there are not many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils because planning officers in a local planning authority will advise their members accordingly.

Then you ask yourself: if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution of it, why is it necessary to call it in before a refusal has been given? The only reason I can come up with is that the Government wish to push through applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, hit the nail on the head: it substantially changes the tone and direction of planning, so that it becomes more of a national rather than a local decision-making process.

For somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision-making, who wants proper devolution, who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do —as do many other parts of western Europe, which have successful governance as a consequence—to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. We on these Benches will strongly oppose government Amendment 64. I have explained to the Minister, out of due courtesy, that we will be doing so. This is overreach and will not do.

I turn to Amendment 87D. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have referred to it. The noble Baroness and I had a brief discussion the other day. She knows that I support Amendment 87D. If she wishes to take it to a decision of the House, we will support her. But, fundamentally, the balance between local and national decision-making is being tipped too far in the direction of national decision-making on policies, and that is not acceptable. As I have said, we will oppose Amendment 64.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?

The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.

I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.

Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hear the strength of feeling in the House on this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way the Section 31 direction works. It is important to note that a Section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise call-in powers. It is exactly what it says on the tin: a holding direction to enable that process to go through.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helps to prevent exactly the circumstances he described by restricting the issuing of a decision on a planning application—whether it be to grant or to refuse—to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, and to help prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I have dealt with a number of these call-ins of applications since becoming a Minister. Every time we look at a called-in application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call-in of a local application. I hope it will be helpful if I very quickly go through those.

Compliance with the local development plan is not the question here; it is whether the Secretary of State will use the call-in powers, and they will use them only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, may conflict with national policies.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am confused. The Minister referred to Section 31 directions, but surely, we are talking about Section 74 directions. Section 31 is to do with grants for local authorities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies: I got my numbers mixed up there. I am talking about the call-in power.

Such cases could include, for example, those which may conflict with national policies on important matters, may have a significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, could give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy, raise significant architectural and urban design issues, or may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments. However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

17:45

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, I should say that this amendment will not change the procedures for dealing with called-in applications. If the Government intended to change these, we would indeed inform the House.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I appreciate that this amendment would not change the procedures, but the question I was seeking the Government’s clarification on is: will the Government commit to not diluting the policy commitment that the right to be heard in a call-in process is exercised through the rigorous public inquiry process, which allows for public participation, rather than the lesser process of a hearing? Will the Government commit not to diluting that policy requirement for an inquiry?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Of course we keep the procedures under review in order to ensure they are fit for purpose. It is very important that we would inform the House in the proper way if we were to make any procedural changes in regard to the issues he raises.

Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as an amendment to government Amendment 64, seeks to incentivise local planning authorities getting up-to-date local plans in place and to allow them to determine applications subject to a holding direction where an up-to-date plan is in place and the proposal accords with this plan. I assure the noble Lord that we appreciate the sentiment behind his amendment. As I have often said, we too want to ensure that local planning authorities make positive decisions and grant planning permission for development which is in accordance with up-to-date local plans. However, we are not convinced that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to restrict refusal of planning permission or permission in principle. Where the Secretary of State has not also restricted the local planning authority from approving the application, they will be free to reconsider the application and grant it if they wish. We believe that this addresses the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 87A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would amend secondary legislation to enact government Amendment 64. I assure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not needed, as we will bring forward the necessary changes to secondary legislation shortly following Royal Assent of the Bill.

Amendment 87D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove assets of community value from the permitted development right which grants planning permission for the demolition of certain buildings. I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments, so I understand her issue about where this has been grouped, but we will debate it as it is in the group before us. I very much appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, and I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that local communities do not lose the community assets which are so important to them. We do not have many old houses in our town, because it is a new town, by its very nature. However, I have relayed before my story of a beautiful old farmhouse in my own ward of Symonds Green. An application came in for that property, and we tried very hard to get it listed before the application was considered. Unfortunately, the inside of the property had been amended; so much work had been done to it internally that we could not get a listing for it and, unfortunately, it was, sadly, demolished. The reason I am saying that is because there are a number of routes that local communities can take to protect properties, which I will come on to in a minute.

It is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings which are particularly valued by local communities. We know how important these buildings are, and Members across the House have stated this both this afternoon and in previous debates. These include pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and many other buildings of local value.

Local planning authorities, as I have stated before and as I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, can use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area, where it is appropriate to do so. While I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about Article 4 and the possible complexities of dealing with that, it is possible for local authorities to apply for these in advance.

There is also another route that local authorities can go down, which is to set up a register of buildings of local community interest, which, while it does not carry the weight of statutory protection that Article 4 does, provides a checklist for communities and planners for buildings that cannot be listed, against which they can be checked, should proposed development come forward.

We believe that the current approach is the right one. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep permitted development under review, and this and other matters related to that are always under review. With these assurances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I think we are debating Amendment 65, which I moved.

The debate has illustrated that, in effect, this is the debate we ought to have had in Committee. There is one set of people—I count myself among them—who cannot understand what the Government are trying to achieve, and why the amendment is necessary, and another set who are saying that it gives the Government powers to do things that might be objectionable.

Actually, of course, the Government have all those powers. If they wanted, for example, to grant planning permission to all data centres, they could issue guidance for that purpose. They could issue national development management policies, for which they have powers. The question I keep coming back to, which is where I started, is: what is this trying to achieve? Calling it an “anomaly” seems to be completely misleading. If you put it alongside a holding direction to stop the granting of planning permission, that stops a local authority giving planning permission because, once it is given, you cannot take it away. Having a holding direction to stop the refusal of planning permission simply stops the local authority saying no, and then the applicant has the opportunity for appeal or a further application, and many other routes—and the Secretary of State has many routes to deal with it. I am afraid that I cannot see the benefit.

The Minister was kind enough to say that my amendment was not necessary, as she wants to do the things that my amendment calls for, so that is fine. So I do not need to proceed with my amendment and will beg leave to withdraw it, in expectation that we will focus on Amendment 64 itself.

Amendment 65, as an amendment to Amendment 64, withdrawn.

17:53

Division 4

Ayes: 163

Noes: 236

18:05

Amendment 66

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

66: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets(1) In section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions deeming planning permission to be granted for certain development with government authorisation), after subsection (2A) insert—“(2B) Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (special regard to listed buildings) applies to a government department or the Secretary of State in considering whether to make a direction under this section as it applies to the Secretary of State in considering whether to grant planning permission.”(2) In section 90(2B) of that Act (inserted by subsection (1))—(a) for “applies”, in the first place it appears, substitute “and section 58B of this Act (special regard to other heritage assets) apply”;(b) for “it applies” substitute “they apply”.” Member’s explanatory statement
There is currently a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and their features of special architectural or historic interest when deciding whether to grant planning permission. This new Clause would apply that duty to certain powers to put in place deemed planning permission (including in relation to a Transport and Works Act project).

Amendment 66 agreed.

Amendment 67

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

67: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 91 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), for subsections (3A) and (3B) substitute—“(3A) In subsections (3B) to (3BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which a development to which a planning permission relates must be begun (see subsections (1) and (3));“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of a grant of planning permission or of a deemed grant of planning permission.(3B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(3BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (3B), (3BA) or (3BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(3BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BF) The references in subsections (3BA) and (3BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(3) After section 92 insert—“92A Extension of outline planning permission etc in event of legal challenge(1) This section applies where a person is given permission by a court to bring proceedings challenging the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of—(a) a grant (or deemed grant) of outline planning permission, or(b) the approval of reserved matters under such a permission. (2) Any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running when the court gives permission to bring the proceedings is extended by one year.(3) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by one year.(4) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by two years.(5) Any extension of a period under subsection (2), (3) or (4) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(6) Any extension of a period under subsection (3) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) (if they would otherwise overlap).(7) Any extension of a period under subsection (4) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3) (if they would otherwise overlap).(8) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (4), an implementation period that is determined by reference to an approval of a reserved matter starts to run when the reserved matters application is made (and the reserved matters application period ceases to run at that point).(9) Subsection (10) applies if a reserved matters application is made without taking advantage of an extension under this section.(10) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of days by which the reserved matter application period is extended under this section.(11) Subsection (12) applies if a reserved matters application period is extended (or further extended) under this section and the reserved matter application is made taking advantage of the extension but before the end of the period as extended.(12) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of whole days remaining in the reserved matters application period (as extended) when the reserved matters application is made.(13) In this section—“implementation period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which development to which the permission relates must be begun (see section 92(2)(b), (4) and (5));“outline planning permission” has the same meaning as in section 92;“reserved matters application” means an application for the approval of a reserved matter in pursuance of section 92;“reserved matters application period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which a reserved matters application relating to the permission is required to be made (see section 92(2)(a), (4) and (5)).(14) In this section, references to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).” (4) In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in section 18 (limit of duration of listed buildings consent), for subsections (2A) and (2B) substitute—“(2A) In subsections (2A) to (2BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which works to which a listed building consent relates are required to be begun in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2);“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity of a grant of listed building consent or of a deemed grant of listed building consent.(2B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(2BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (2B), (2BA) or (2BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(2BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (2BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BF) The references in subsections (2BA) and (2BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(5) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not operate to extend any implementation period that has already expired.(6) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (2) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 91(3B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected;(b) subsections (3B) to (3BB) of section 91 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (2)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.(7) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (3) comes into force, section 92A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by subsection (3)) applies so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under that section occurs on or after that day, but not otherwise.(8) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (4) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 18(2B) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected; (b) subsections (2B) to (2BB) of section 18 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (4)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the time for implementing a planning permission or listed building consent where the permission or consent is challenged in legal proceedings. There would be an extension of one year in all cases, with a further year where the case goes to the Court of Appeal and a further two years where the case goes to the Supreme Court.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 67 and 261.

The Government listened carefully to the persuasive arguments made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, about the unfairness that occurs when planning permissions lapse simply because they are caught up in lengthy judicial or statutory review proceedings. We agree that the current provisions are too limited and do not reflect the realities of modern litigation.

At present, Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides only a single one-year extension when proceedings are begun to challenge a grant of permission or consent. This is narrow in scope; it does not apply to outline permissions or reserved matters approvals, and it does not cater for cases that progress through the appellate courts. In practice, this means that permissions can expire during prolonged legal challenges, forcing applicants to reapply and causing unnecessary cost and delay.

Our amendment introduces a more comprehensive and predictable approach. Where a court grants permission to bring judicial review or statutory challenge proceedings, the commencement period will be extended by one year. If the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal, there will be a further one-year extension, and if it reaches the Supreme Court, an additional two years will be added. These provisions will apply to all types of planning permissions and listed building consents, including outline permissions and reserved matters approvals. They will also apply to existing permissions subject to legal proceedings.

This approach provides clarity and certainty for applicants and developers. It avoids permissions expiring due to delays entirely outside their control, reducing the need for costly and time-consuming repeat applications. It also ensures that the planning system remains fair and proportionate, supporting investment and the delivery of development while respecting the judicial process.

We considered the “stop the clock” proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. While we agreed with the principle, that approach would have required complex calculations based on the start and end dates of proceedings, creating irregular and unpredictable timeframes. Our tiered system offers a simpler, more transparent solution that achieves the same objective without introducing administrative complexity. The amendment strengthens the Bill’s overall purpose: to streamline planning processes and to remove unnecessary barriers to development. It balances the right to challenge decisions with the imperative to deliver homes and infrastructure efficiently. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for all the meetings we have had to discuss this and for his constructive approach to this matter.

I will come to the other amendments in this group when they have been spoken to. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 77 to 79 propose to limit applications for judicial reviews that are without merit. It is proposed that they may be blocked by a judgment of the High Court. The amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and me. In the likely absence of the noble Lord, I have undertaken to speak in support of them.

On Monday, the first day on Report, I spoke to Amendment 83, which describes a means of circumventing lengthy and costly judicial reviews that can affect infrastructure projects of national significance by giving the associated development consent orders—DCOs—the status of Acts of Parliament, which would be legally incontestable. There was no intention in that amendment to curtail meaningful processes of scrutiny and consultation. The purpose was to protect projects from costly and dilatory legal reviews initiated by tendentious factions that are liable to promote their own interests at the expense of those of the wider community or the national interest.

In recent years, the planning system has become increasingly sclerotic. The average time it takes to obtain planning permission for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. A judicial review with a minor or frivolous justification may occasion a resubmission of an application for a development order. The revised application might become subject, in turn, to a further judicial review. Despite the eventual dismissal of these appeals, the legal processes can be so costly and cause such delays that the infrastructure project goes into abeyance. Then the contestants have effectively won their case, despite its lack of legal merit.

I should say that I am not averse in principle to judicial reviews. Many of them do have merit. However, a very large and increasing number of requests for judicial reviews are rising nowadays, and hearings are granted in 75% of the cases. They form a lengthy queue and pre-empt the legal resources.

The fashion for judicial views may have been greatly stimulated by the experience of the Archway Road protests, which took place over a period of 20 years from the early 1970s to the 1990s. These protests were prompted by a proposal to develop a motorway dual carriageway in Archway, where the A1 trunk road effectively begins. It was said the purpose of the scheme was to expedite the escape from the centre of London of politicians, senior civil servants and a body of secretaries in the case of the threat of a nuclear missile strike. They were to be conveyed to a secret nuclear bunker in Kelvedon Hatch in Essex, where they might continue to govern the country, while the rest of us perished. It was said that they might have the task of regenerating the population that had been obliterated.

The road scheme would have destroyed 170 houses, for the loss of which the residents would have been given very meagre compensation. It was said that they would have been given no more compensation than would have enabled them to purchase a one-bedroom flat in Tottenham Marshes. A question has to be asked about whether compensation tends nowadays to be more generous. Does its inadequacy continue to provide an incentive to resist infrastructure developments and to resort to judicial procedures to block them? This unpopular scheme has had a long legacy. It established a precedent for judicial reviews that has been followed ever since, for good and for bad reasons.

Amendment 83 did not receive favour from the Government, and in withdrawing it I was clear that I was somewhat disappointed by their response, because we are facing a crisis caused by the wilful delay and obstruction of virtually every important infrastructure project. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming from the Government that will address the crisis adequately. We are left with nothing more than the present group of amendments which propose that, in various circumstances pertaining to the Town and Country Planning Act, the listed buildings and conservation Act and the hazardous substances Act, the High Court may deem an appeal to be unworthy of further consideration. I believe that the Court of Appeal already has this prerogative, so there may be very little substance in these amendments, but nevertheless they serve to highlight the problem.

18:15

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 104 and the government Amendments 67 and 261, which would extend the time for commencing a planning commission which is subject to judicial review.

I start by saying to the Minister that the feelings are entirely reciprocated. I am very grateful to the Government for the continuous engagement on this issue over quite a long period recently. The Government’s amendments, although differently worded to mine, would have essentially the same effect and would make a significant difference, as would my amendment, to mitigating the prejudice to developers whose planning permissions are subject to challenge, and indeed land promoters and landowners too, and to reducing the incentive on claimants to bring and perpetuate meritless challenges. So I support the government amendments and I do not need to press mine.

However, this amendment was not the most impactful of my package of amendments. The planning world is watching what the Government will do on Hillside; it is going to be debated next week, and I reiterate my encouragement to the Minister and her colleagues to roll out the same level of engagement and co-operation as we have had in relation to “stop the clock” for JR to the Hillside amendment, because that is the one that will really make a massive difference.

In the interests of time, I do not want to say very much about the other amendments in relation to totally without merit judicial reviews for non-NSIP judicial reviews other than this. I supported the sentiment and principle of those amendments in Committee. The difficulty I have with them on reflection is that, given that to be workable and constitutionally appropriate, the striking out of any right of appeal for totally without merit cases would need a hearing, the problem with extending it to all planning judicial reviews is that it would eat up the very limited bandwidth of the planning court. The planning court simply does not have the resources to deal with the proliferation of hearings that apply the Clause 12 procedure to all planning judicial reviews as opposed to the NSIP judicial reviews, which are much narrower. There have been only about 40 NSIP judicial reviews ever, whereas in the planning context it is a lot greater. So reluctantly, I do not think those amendments are workable at present stage, but if there were to be a new planning Bill in future, it should be looked at.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, briefly, I have a simple question about government Amendment 67, which would allow an extension of time to implement a planning permission or a listed building consent where there has been a legal challenge. This returns to the ecological surveys which got such a discussion in the group before lunch. Ecological surveys are taken at a particular point in time, and, particularly in this era of the climate emergency, species are moving and appear and disappear. How are the Government planning to deal with the fact that the ecological survey may become profoundly out of date and so, if this goes on for a long period, the grounds on which the decision was made initially may need to be redone? Is there some plan to deal with that issue?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I point out that this is yet another late-in-the-day government amendment. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that this time I am in agreement with Amendment 67.

To extend the time limits from implementing a planning consent where there has been a legal challenge seems right and fair. I did not quite catch whether the Minister explained the full extent of it, but I assume that it means that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review it will be a one-year extension, a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal, and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court. The noble Baroness nods. So that is right and fair. That is a balanced approach, which is one of my ways of judging things: “Is it right, fair and balanced?” I think that is fair to the applicants. So, with the nod that I had from the Minister, I agree with Amendment 67 and with Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which is very similar.

The other amendments in this group, Amendments 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would make serious changes to the ability of citizens to go to law where they feel that due process has failed them. Restricting those rights does not feel to me acceptable without further and full consideration by those who are expert in these matters—which is not me. With those comments, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.

These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.

The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.

Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I withdraw my criticisms.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is not here, I shall put on the record that there is work ongoing on the Hillside issue, as he is very aware. We continue to engage with him on that issue.

I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, off the top of my head, but I will provide a written answer. I appreciate that two years is quite a long time. If surveys have been done, they may need to be done again. I will come back to her on that issue.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendments 77, 78 and 79, introduced by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. These seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed as totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects the intention of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008. The measures being taken forward in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence, which made clear the case for change in relation to major infrastructure projects. We do not currently have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore, we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of changes made in Clause 12 would be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.

Amendment 77 seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court. As mentioned in Committee, this is not necessary as it is already clearly set out in the existing relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. In light of these points, while I agree with the intent behind the amendments, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not move them.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I am happy not to move the amendments. However, I observe that the government amendments are occasioned by the very problems that I have been describing.

Amendment 67 agreed.

Amendment 68

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

68: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities(1) The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 4 (advice)—(a) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Natural England is not required by subsection (1) to give advice in response to a request to which subsection (1B) applies that is made by a public authority other than a Minister of the Crown.(1B) This subsection applies to a request for advice relating to—(a) a specific development that requires, but has not been granted, planning permission under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”),(b) an application for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition imposed on a grant of planning permission required under that section,(c) permission in principle for a specific development under section 58A of the 1990 Act, and(d) the approval of a reserved matter within the meaning of section 92 of the 1990 Act.(1C) Natural England may give advice in response to a request to which it is not required to respond as a result of subsection (1A).”;(b) in subsection (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1C)”.(3) After section 4 insert— “4A Supplementary provision(1) Natural England must prepare and publish a statement setting out how it intends to deal with requests for advice which it is not required to give as a result of section 4(1A).(2) Natural England must review the statement before the end of—(a) the period of five years beginning with the day on which it is first published, and(b) each successive period of five years.(3) Natural England may review the statement more than once during any of those periods.(4) Natural England may revise the statement following a review.(5) Natural England must publish any revised statement.(6) Before publishing a statement (including a revised statement) under this section, Natural England must—(a) consult the Secretary of State, and(b) make any changes to the statement that the Secretary of State may require in response.(7) But the duty in subsection (6) does not apply in relation to the publication of a revised statement which, in the opinion of Natural England, contains no substantial revisions.(8) The Secretary of State may require a change as mentioned in subsection (6)(b) only if the Secretary of State considers that the change would promote Natural England’s general purpose.”(4) The duties imposed by section 4A(6) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as inserted by subsection (3), may be satisfied by consultation carried out, and changes made, before this section comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would permit Natural England not to respond certain to requests for advice under section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and require it to publish a statement about how it intends to deal with requests to which it would no longer be required to respond.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two government amendments in this group. I will introduce government Amendments 68 and 262 and respond to the other two amendments at the end of this debate.

Government Amendments 68 and 262 seek to provide Natural England with discretion when considering how best to deal with requests for advice from public authorities relating to planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Currently, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires that Natural England must provide advice to all requests from public authorities, regardless of the level of environmental opportunities or environmental risk related to the project. This requirement exists despite the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 already setting out a narrower scope for when Natural England should be consulted on planning applications for Town and Country Planning Act casework.

Amendment 68 removes this “must” requirement and provides that Natural England must produce an operational statement setting out how it intends to deal with such requests for advice in relation to Town and Country Planning Act casework. This approach will avoid Natural England having to provide advice to routine and duplicative casework and instead allow it to prioritise higher-risk and higher-opportunity casework. This will help to resolve issues up front, which will speed up decision-making and embed opportunities for nature recovery within plans and projects. It will also allow growth and nature to be delivered together.

In parallel, Natural England will continue to expand its suite of standing advice, providing local planning authorities with easier access to guidance from the outset. This helps to avoid unnecessary consultations and ensures that engagement is focused where bespoke advice is most valuable. It also brings the requirements on Natural England in line with those on other statutory consultees, which are not required to provide advice to all queries.

In 2024, Natural England wrote to all local planning authorities setting out its aim to focus effort on higher- risk and higher-opportunity planning casework. This amendment supports this strategic shift, which Natural England welcomes. Crucially, this does not remove Natural England’s advisory role but refocuses it from handling large volumes of low-risk casework to more strategic engagement that can deliver greater environmental impact. This aligns with government ambitions as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by Matthew Pennycook MP in March. This stated a need to reconsider the means of engagement and provision of expert advice, and that in some cases this could be done through undertaking more effective strategic engagement at local and strategic level, reducing the need for comments on individual planning applications. This corresponds with recommendations made by Dan Corry in his independent review of Defra’s regulatory landscape.

To provide clarity for local planning authorities, the amendment would require Natural England to produce an operational statement that sets out how it intends to deal with requests for advice relating to Town and Country Planning Act casework. This will make it clear to local planning officers and authorities how they can expect to receive Natural England advice. This operational statement would be produced in consultation with the Defra Secretary of State. Natural England will provide further information to local planning authorities on the implementation of this change in due course.

18:30

Natural England plays a vital role in ensuring that environmental impacts are embedded into planning decisions, and this amendment will allow it to target its input where it is needed most. I trust that noble Lords will agree with this pragmatic amendment and will support it forming part of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the premise on which the amendment she moved is based. My Amendment 194 seems to be a little out of place. I should have asked for it to be taken with the rest of Part 3, because it seeks to amend Clause 86 in Part 3 to insist that the power to designate a person to exercise functions under this Act should indeed belong to a public body.

Clause 83 provides the power to acquire land compulsorily, including new rights over land, to Natural England, subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides that the power can be exercised only if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an EDP. This came as a surprise to many, not least, as the Minister will be aware, the NFU, which is deeply anxious about the purport of Clause 86, in particular the definition of a “designated person”. It is alarmed that Clause 83 gives Natural England the compulsory purchase powers set out in that clause. It is further exasperated by Clause 86 allowing the Secretary of State to designate “another person” to exercise Natural England’s functions, potentially giving another party compulsory purchase powers. On what basis would those powers be given and who would these people be?

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for lending her support to this amendment. I am grateful to her, and indeed to the Ministers, for agreeing to meet us to discuss this amendment last week. I would like to understand what bodies the Government have in mind. Are they individuals? Are they organisations? Can the Ministers name them this evening, so that we have an idea who they are? Is it an indication that, as I understand it, Natural England is losing staff over the coming months and therefore the Government are accepting that, possibly, Natural England will not have the capacity to cope with the volume of work set out in Part 3?

We will go on to consider the whole remit of compulsory powers in Clause 83 onwards. I think that will be next week, unless we are here all night. I would just like to understand the basis on which it will not be Natural England, when these powers are being given to Natural England for the first time, who the other bodies or individuals might be, and to make a plea that, for the purposes of that clause, a “designated person” must be a public body.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group. Government Amendment 68 would permit Natural England to not respond to requests for advice under Section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, so that it can prioritise more important cases. That reflects pretty well what is happening at the moment, if the truth were known, because the reality is that Natural England’s resources are very thinly stretched and, in many cases, it provides advice simply on the basis of standing guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. I want to probe the Minister a bit further on this and I apologise for giving her grief when she is clearly beset with some affliction.

I have three questions. The first is, it is my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice. Should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions?

The second question is: has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities when we know that only one in three local planning authorities now has in-house ecological advice? We are facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I know that they can buy that in, but it is less flexible and less readily available.

My third question is: should we perhaps wait for this change to happen once the Government’s forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place? This is a consultation about consultation—this is the sort of world we live in these days.

Noble Lords are being asked to approve this change, which it is intended will come in immediately on the passing of the Bill, and there is a specific clause that effects that, without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of prioritisation would sit. If a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England is supposed to produce were placed in the Bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled. So I think that hastening rather more slowly on this would make for a much better decision.

I support Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State of Natural England’s role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body. In talking to the Minister—I was pleased to be able to talk directly to both Ministers about this issue—the only examples that so far have been put forward for this power of delegation have been either to National Parks England or the Marine Management Organisation, in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP. That is entirely appropriate. If a reliable public body is publicly accountable and has the right sort of expertise to draw up and implement an EDP, it is appropriate that that happens. But, if it is normally going to be a public body, why do we not just say “a public body” in the Bill rather than “another person”?

There needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to “another person” to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships that I am sure most EDPs will involve, where Natural England can partner with or delegate the delivery but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners, including businesses, including some of the natural resources businesses that are growing up, NGOs, landowners and farmers. I am sure that there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs and that that will happen widely. But that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, co-ordinating the delivery by partners in line with the EDP.

That partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision. Clause 86 is, in reality, about taking the development and/or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the body that is the Government’s statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation and potentially giving extensive responsibilities and powers to a person or persons as yet unidentified. If they are to be public bodies, why not state that in the Bill? If they are not, can the Minister help us understand a bit more who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue from doing these things successively over time, and which they will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.

If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might, in the future, have all these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs; not knowing their background and expertise; not knowing the extent of the powers they are to be given, and their stance on and approach towards compulsory purchase. Public bodies are, to a large extent, known quantities; another person or persons unknown are not. If public bodies screw up, the Government can sack the chairman. I know all about that. The Government have no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. Can the Minister tell us how they will hold them accountable? Can she reassure landowners about their concerns? If Ministers are pretty clear that, in reality, they would delegate these important duties and powers only to a public body, I would suggest that the safest way forward is simply to reassure everybody by saying in the Bill that it will be a public body.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to speak to all the amendments in this group. I want to speak to Amendment 200 and make just one remark about Amendment 194.

I am not persuaded by Amendment 194. Our day- by-day experience of working with organisations which provide environmental impact assessments and environmental outcome reports, and that have all the expertise we might need in this context, is not to be found exclusively in public bodies, so I would not support this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 200, in Committee we had a short debate about the relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Clearly, as we noted then, Natural England has to have regard to these. The sooner Natural England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. They do not necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity. The pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. My Amendment 200 is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England when they have potential sites for development. I interpret this as being at Regulation 19 stage. If they are coming forward with the development sites they are proposing for consultation, they should tell Natural England. Natural England can then factor into the thinking about environmental development plans what might emerge, typically a year or more after that point, as the adoption of a development plan. It gives them access and time.

I completely understand if the Minister says that this is not necessary because they can already do this. We are talking about statutory processes and local planning authorities who are so pressed that they will not do what they are not required to do. In order to make this system work, a Regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to inform the process of EDP making would be a helpful addition.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a very important, practical point.

I shall speak chiefly against government Amendment 68. I shall also briefly reflect on Amendment 194, following the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about these powers being delegated to another person. I hope the Minister can reassure me that this is not in the Government’s mind. I hope she can guarantee that there will not be the outsourcing to giant multinational companies that are expert in bidding for contracts but terrible at delivering on them that we have seen in so many areas of government, and that we will not see another outsourcing disaster follow the many other outsourcing disasters. When we think about what has happened, for example, with building control, it is really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who then end up marking their own homework.

18:45

Chiefly, I want to address government Amendment 68. I have received briefings from the Wildlife Trusts, the Bat Conservation Trust and the Better Planning Coalition, all of which are opposed to this government step. The respected commentator, Guy Shrubsole, writing in the Guardian last year, noted that Natural England had been undermined by austerity and was incapable of carrying out even its basic functions because of a simple lack of resources. As other noble Lords have said, local government has been heavily hit by austerity and a severe lack of resources and does not have the capacity to assess ecological issues. Another noble Lord said that Natural England is effectively already streamlining its responses, often replying in a codified way because it does not have the resources.

The idea that we should be putting something in the Bill that cuts down oversight when we are one of the most nature-depleted corners of this battered planet cannot be defended and is deeply concerning. This requires real skills, knowledge and training. Most local authorities say that they do not have those resources available to them. Indeed, they are scarce overall, so it is better if they are concentrated in one place, with real expertise. It would also limit the opportunities to deliver win-wins from development. We need proposals that would actually improve development for people, and for nature as well.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, saying that she is opposed to the measure, I feel it is my turn to stand up and say that this is a very sensible amendment. Based on my time in Natural England, I strongly support it.

Generally, it was my experience that local authorities bounced over to Natural England tens of thousands of planning applications, most of which were irrelevant to us, in that we had no real reason to give a view. If the application affected an SSSI, a national nature reserve, a national park or AONB as they were they called, something protected by the habitats regulations, or developments on the finest agricultural land, then Natural England was duty bound to respond, and always did so—in complex cases sometimes not as quickly as some would have liked. However, we had to get it right, or as right as possible, since it could result in the rejection of the application by the council, leading to appeals and judicial reviews and possibly the loss of a good infrastructure project.

What are the statistics to justify this change? In its 2023-24 annual report to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Natural England reported that it had received 24,664 planning application consultations; 20,503 consultations—91.7%—were responded to within 21 days or to an otherwise agreed deadline. Some 754 deadline extensions to planning application consultations were granted—that is 3.7%. Natural England sent 20,370 responses to customers, with the average time taken to provide a substantive response being 11.9 days. In addition, Natural England received 1,096 pre-application consultations, either directly from developers or via local planning authorities. They responded to 68.9% of these within 21 days or to otherwise agreed deadlines.

Natural England now deals with a high proportion of complex cases, mostly relating to impacts on habitat sites or protected landscapes such as national parks and national landscapes. In 2023-24, this included receiving 161 consultations for nationally significant infra- structure projects, or NSIPs, 895 local plan consultations and 96 environmental impact assessment requests relating to screening and/or scoping.

In the past few years, there has been a 40% increase in NSIPs, and they require a lot of work and, in some cases, site visits and meetings. However, as the Minister said, Natural England is legally bound to respond to all requests. All told, in that year, Natural England had more than 32,000 planning consultations, and in 47% of them, it had no statutory remit, since they were very low risk. That is 15,000 cases where Natural England had to spend time writing back, saying that it had nothing to comment on. I got the clear impression, and I am not that cynical, that many local authorities bunged applications to Natural England to tick a box and show their local representatives that they were investigating every avenue before granting permission and that even Natural England was happy because it did not object.

Therefore, I was very keen for Natural England to move to this new strategic approach and shift to focusing on high-risk and high-opportunity casework, with an emphasis on strategic engagement and delivering solutions up front. Natural England also wants to emphasise the importance of high-quality applications as well as the need to reduce the level of unnecessary consultations that it receives. It can do that by signposting local planning authorities to its new impact risk zones delivery advice service.

This is an exciting and long overdue shift. I have no time to dig into the details tonight, but there are three main thrusts in my opinion. First, low-risk, routine applications must be put on what I would call autopilot so that Natural England can concentrate on planning advice work and moving on to a more strategic place. There need to be standard responses for lower-risk work, and the supplementary provisions that the Minister has outlined in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment 68 will set out how local authorities can determine these applications themselves based on criteria published by Natural England and approved by the Secretary of State.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tremendous experience of this from her time at Natural England, but I assure her that this is very low-risk stuff. My shelves are full of books called, “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Work Your Mac”, “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Work Your iPad” and “The Idiot’s Guide to Switching on Your Mobile Phone”. I am not making an insinuation about local councils, but I can see the Natural England advice being something like “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Grant Planning Permission in Local Councils for Low-Risk Applications”, and I hope the guidance will be that simple.

The second thrust is that Natural England needs to concentrate on the big strategic stuff. This is where it can make the biggest impact for nature recovery, recognising that nature and economic growth co-exist and need to thrive together. Thirdly, Natural England is keen to do much more upfront, pre-application engagement and sees the importance of securing opportunities and mitigation for nature within development policies. It needs to focus its efforts on where the opportunities are greatest as well as addressing significant environmental risks. This means having as much time as possible to advise on high-risk and high-opportunity casework. If it can take that approach now, it will secure lasting environmental outcomes and create wider economic and social benefits for communities.

I must tell noble Lords what justifies doing this upfront work. It was just before I joined, but I understand that Natural England reached out to HS2 as soon as it got the original Bill passed to say, “Come to us as soon as possible with any and all the plans you’ve got which may impact on protected sites or habitats along the route, and we’ll work on mitigation measures to head off the problems”. I understand the answer that came back was, “We are HS2; we do not need your input, so just butt out”. Then, when it was too late, HS2 came along to say that it had hit a problem with protected bats and to ask what it should do about it. It was HS2’s plan to build that £100 million tunnel, not Natural England’s, but we had to approve it, since HS2’s arrogance meant it had run out of options.

I see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his place. He might agree that we would all say that £100 million for a bat tunnel is obscene, but to HS2 it was just pocket money that it was spending. I must say to some of my noble friends that Natural England’s decision on this and other things was not an out-of-control quango doing it for the hell of it or doing it because it thought it could do it. It was following United Kingdom habitats regulations. I say United Kingdom habitats regulations because we incorporated them all into UK law. I said to Conservative Ministers at the time, “If you don’t like Natural England implementing the law, then change the law”.

Finally, nearly every official I spoke to was certain that if HS2 had involved Natural England eight years ago, the problem of the route and the bats would have been headed off and it would have solved it without that expense. That is why pre-planning engagement is so important: it speeds up planning and avoids crises arising at the last minute because organisations have found that they have hit an environmental problem. Natural England must be freed from the 15,000 irrelevant low-risk cases so that it has time to deal early on with the big strategic stuff that will make a difference and promote growth while safeguarding our biodiversity. That is why I support the amendment.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and it reflects well the view that there are differences of opinion on this late Government amendment, Amendment 68, around the House. It also reinforces the point that it is disappointing that at this late stage in the Bill a significant shift in policy is being introduced by this Government. This is not tidying up, this is not in response to anything that anybody raised in Committee; it is clearly something that is driven by political aims, as was made very clear in the press release that accompanied the indication of the Government’s new amendments at this stage of the Bill.

It is very disappointing that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, a large consultation by the department on statutory consultees is upcoming, and if there was going to be a detailed look at the role of Natural England as a statutory consultee, it could have fitted into that. There could have been a proper consultation with those most affected, local authorities, whereas instead it is just foisted on us at this late stage with no consultation in the meantime with the LGA. I have spoken to the LGA, so I would be delighted if the Minister could tell me that she has any views from it. She was very keen to tell us what the view of Natural England was, as was the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but what are the views of those most affected, which is hard-pushed local authorities? The absence of planning advice is not going to speed up planning. They are still going to have to make the decisions. It is not going to do what the press release said, which is,

“helping to accelerate approvals for new homes and infrastructure”.

They are going to be struggling around to find the advice that they have previously had.

I have a couple of questions to put to the Minister. First, in her opening remarks, she talked about the fact that, last August, Natural England sent a letter to all local authorities telling them that there would be a cutting back in planning services. Given that Natural England already has an established modus operandi from last year, which was about cutting back in a progressive way, what is the problem since then that needs solving? Why do we need legislation given that there was a perfectly reasonable non-legislative means for Natural England to prioritise cases?

Secondly, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, and looking at the wording of the amendment, the only person that Natural England has to consult in determining the statement on dealing with requests for advice is the Secretary of State. For a Labour Government—a Labour Government—to be saying that Natural England will do a consultation on something that will fundamentally change the resources available to local authorities, which are in the vanguard of protecting our countryside and building the homes we need, and the only people it is going to talk to are people in the department is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace that new Section 4A(6) just says:

“Before publishing a statement … Natural England must … consult the Secretary of State”.


It does not have to talk to local authorities, and yet they will have to live with these decisions.

I go back to my central point. I do not see why this is needed, given that a perfectly reasonable process was put in place by Natural England to streamline the advice that it gives to local authorities. It leads me to believe that there is something more lurking behind this amendment that we cannot quite see. It is absolutely wrong that a Labour Government are putting this forward without consulting the very people at the heart of our communities who are responsible for doing this.

19:00

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a landowner and a housing developer. Before addressing this group of amendments, I would like to ask the Minister whether her Government have considered the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case that was released today. This question is relevant to this and other debates we will have today and in later days on Report in your Lordships’ Chamber. For the benefit of the House, the judgment found that Ramsar sites impacted by development do not have the protection in law previously assumed to derive from the habitats regulations.

From that I have several questions. If the Minister does not yet have answers, I wonder whether she would be able to write to me before the next day of Report or perhaps comment in a later group. We know that this decision releases 18,000 housing units in the Somerset Levels alone. Of the 160,000 units currently blocked nationally by Natural England advice on nutrient and other neutrality, how many are due to Ramsar and how many to European designations, where the rules still apply? In other words, how many houses nationally have now been released from blockage by nutrient neutrality rules?

The Bill, as drafted, imposes the legal obligations of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Therefore, the effect of the Bill now becomes to block housing development rather than allow it. We on these Benches will seek to amend the Bill to remove this effect. My Amendment 208 would take Clause 90 out of the Bill, and I will table further amendments as needed. Have the Government’s intentions towards Clause 90 and Schedule 6 now changed as a result of this ruling? On these Benches, we are delighted with this ruling as it releases much-needed supply into the housing market. I hope the Government are equally delighted as it is a step towards their target of 1.5 million houses. It also highlights the issue that the small nut that is being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 of this Bill has just been shrunk even further, and we will return next week to the many questions around Part 3.

I turn to the amendments in this group and begin with government Amendments 68 and 262. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to reduce the obligations of Natural England as a welcome streamlining of the planning process.

Amendment 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is important, and we would welcome clarity from the Minister in her response that the intent is that Natural England’s powers can be delegated only to public bodies and which bodies those might be. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it should say public bodies in the Bill. We will oppose the powers being given to Natural England in this Bill as they risk creating an authoritarian empire. The idea that these can then be delegated to private sector entities or potentially unsuitable bodies really is intolerable, and we will return to this later, if necessary, in my Amendment 195.

Amendment 200 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley is a sensible amendment that would allow for better planning of EDP requirements. I look forward to the responses from the Minister.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will first go through the responses to the government amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his support.

My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked why we feel this amendment is needed now. I remind noble Lords that Natural England currently receives around 22,500 town and country planning consultations every year. Many are low to medium risk and about 30% of them do not actually need Natural England’s input because they either fall outside the statutory remit under the development management procedure order or do not relate to its general purpose as set out in the NERC Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, specifically asked what problem this was trying to solve. It is mainly because, over the last decade, the volume of planning casework received by Natural England has increased by 75%. There is nothing lurking behind it—it is just the huge amount of extra work that Natural England now has to deal with. Because of this, there is less time available for the work that makes the most impact, such as shaping local plans, advising on major infrastructure and protecting nature where the risks are greatest.

My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked about local authorities. We are looking to work with LPAs in advance of any change coming through and work through the details of exactly how it is going to work and what it is going to mean for them, so we are involving local authorities.

Regarding access to sufficient ecological advice, Natural England will continue to provide advice to local planning authorities in cases where bespoke advice is necessary, which will include any high-risk and high-opportunity casework. In addition, Natural England will still be required to provide a response under the development management procedure order, which is not affected by this amendment. This includes where a development is likely to affect a SSSI or would involve the loss of more than 20 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, local planning authorities are ultimately responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of individual planning applications in line with relevant planning policy and legislation, and this will remain unchanged.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked specifically about the Supreme Court judgment in the Fry case, which was handed down this morning. We are very grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarification. We will continue to drive the delivery of the homes and infrastructure the country needs but, as we move forward with the Bill we are debating today, we are clear that the planning system has to do everything it can to support sustainable development. On his more detailed questions, the judgment was only this morning so we need time to analyse the decision; I am sure we will be coming back to this.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would provide that only a public body could be designated to exercise the functions of Natural England under this part. Obviously, we have discussed this previously and debated it in Committee. While I absolutely recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns, I reassure her that the policy expectation is that this power would only be ever used to designate a public body to carry out such functions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, sometimes there could be unforeseen circumstances where it could be appropriate for a private body to take on some functions under this part. My noble friend Lady Young and others asked about examples. As I said in Committee, it could be national parks, the MMO and others as appropriate. The noble Baroness reminded us of the examples I had given earlier. This is not to do with shifting decision-making away from Natural England and has nothing to do with it not having the capacity. It is entirely to do with expertise and having the most appropriate body making these very important decisions. That is why we do not want to remove the possibility of it going to a private body. However, our expectation is that it would always be a public body because it would be unusual for a private body to have an expertise that a public body did not.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The reason for bringing the amendment back is that we do not seem to have moved on from Committee stage. If the expectation is that it will be a public body, then I go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that it should be in the Bill. I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that there are circumstances in which it would be entirely inappropriate for it to be given to a private company.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is why the delegated powers are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation. It is not just Natural England’s decision; it is subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and the use of the powers is subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. That is why I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the ongoing role of Parliament will be sufficient and allow her not to press her amendment. This is not just about a Natural England decision; it is really important that that is clear.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I know this is against the rules on Report, but I think this is such an important issue. I do not understand what the Government are saying now because the Bill is very clear. It actually says that the Secretary of State will make decisions about who the powers will be delegated to, not Natural England. If it was Natural England doing it, I would be entirely content. That is not what the Bill says at the moment, so I am unclear as to exactly what the Minister’s last couple of sentences mean.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I was trying to clarify that it is the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State will consult on this and that Parliament will be given an opportunity to comment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

What I am saying is that any delegated powers from Natural England are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and that the use of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. I hope that is clear.

I will now turn briefly to Amendment 200 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would add a duty on local authorities to inform Natural England, when making development plans, of potential sites for development that may require an EDP. As we mentioned in Committee, Natural England is already required to have regard to relevant development plans when producing an EDP. We have also ensured that local authorities will be required to co-operate with Natural England during the process of preparing an EDP, which will ensure that information on site allocation can feed into the design of EDPs. We share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that EDPs dovetail into the wider planning system, and I understand where he is coming from with this amendment, but we believe that placing a further duty on local authorities to provide such information is unnecessary, given that the Bill requires Natural England to proactively consider such plans when designing an EDP. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord is content not to press his amendment.

Amendment 68 agreed.

Amendment 69

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

69: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Promotion and use of mediation etc(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 323A insert—“323B Promotion and use of mediation etc.(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance in relation to the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique in relation to the following—(a) the preparation of local development plans and related evidence reports under Part 2,(b) a prospective applicant’s compliance with any requirements in respect of pre-application consultation imposed under or by virtue of sections 61W or 61Z, (c) assisting in the determination of an application for planning permission, including related planning obligations or their variation under sections 106 and 106A, and(d) any other matter related to planning that they consider appropriate.(2) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision about—(a) the form of mediation or other ADR technique that is to be used in a particular circumstance, and(b) the procedure to be followed in any such mediation.(3) Local authorities must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1).(4) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) planning authorities, and(b) such other persons that they consider appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must make any guidance issued under subsection (1) publicly available.(6) The power under subsection (1) to issue guidance includes power to—(a) issue guidance that varies guidance issued under that subsection, and(b) revoke guidance issued under that subsection.(7) For the purposes of this section, “mediation” and “ADR technique” includes any means of exploring, resolving or reducing disagreement between persons involving an impartial person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under subsection (1) within the period of two years beginning with the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that guidance must be issued on the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of ADR in the planning process. It is intended to engender a culture of informal resolution of disputes, in order to reduce the risk of the delay and expense caused by litigation.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this group is on the principles of planning. I speak to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to which I have added my name; I also added my name to this amendment in Committee. This amendment seeks to place mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution at the core of our planning system. It represents a vital opportunity to transform a process that is all too often adversarial and cumbersome into one that resolves disputes quickly, locally and constructively. Indeed, I might dare to say that the power of mediation has brought us together on this amendment, which otherwise might be unlikely.

As a local councillor, I have sat on a planning committee and witnessed at first hand how adversarial planning can be and how complex it is—a zero-sum game. More importantly, I have worked as a community mediator and a caseworker for a number of years, specialising in neighbour disputes. That has taught me a lot, which I continue into my politics to this day. The first thing I learned as a mediator is that the problem is never what people tell you it is.

Our current planning processes revolve around conflict, often forcing developers, residents and authorities into these zero-sum games. It can be very difficult for those involved to escape from those processes themselves. This, ultimately, can lead to long legal battles, rising costs, delayed homes, immense frustration and broken systems. These are exactly the kinds of problem that this Bill is intended—and the Government state that they want—to resolve. This amendment is here to try to offer a way forward. My wish in speaking again to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is that I really want this Government to be open to considering a large-scale trial of mediation so that adequate data can be found and the Government can make an assessment as to the true usefulness of mediation in the English planning system.

In Committee, the Minister rejected this amendment on a number of grounds. The first was that it was not new and that the Government had explored it before. That might be true, but I believe that, when it was explored before, it was not done fully and properly. Mediation is embedded in the Scottish system and has been since 1997, with updated planning guidance in 2020-21. There it is a voluntary process, and the Scottish authorities have found that it has been very useful at all stages of planning, including in complex cases and developer-community discussions.

Research conducted by the University of Strathclyde has found that 65% of mediated Scottish cases were settled successfully in 2024, saving vast amounts of money for the courts, avoiding delays and helping to get infrastructure and homes built. Equally, the Scottish Government have commissioned independent research that found that mediation, where it was used, fostered trust, reduced conflict and helped to achieve earlier agreements compared with traditional legal routes.

19:15

The Minister argued in Committee that the statutory duty to regard mediation guidance would be inappropriate across planning activities, especially in application determinations where consensus is not always achievable. That, I feel, fundamentally misunderstands the point of mediation and its very nature: it is about not forcing consensus but fostering dialogue, allowing these conversations to take place so that solutions can be found that, because the parties own them and take part in them, are more likely to last and stay the distance.

The Minister suggested that existing appeal processes involving independent inspectors might provide better transparency. I recognise the importance of transparency, but confidentiality is equally a strength in the mediation process, allowing frank dialogue, free of reputational damage, where conversations can happen outside the public spotlight. Where agreements are reached, they can often be made formal and public. Mediation complements these appeal processes—it does not replace them.

The Minister also suggested that local planning authorities already engage positively with applicants. I do not disagree with that, but there is no clear guidance and therefore such interaction lacks consistency. Embedding mediation into the planning framework for all local authorities and supporting it properly would make those systems more efficient and ensure that they worked better.

I will draw to a close because of the late hour, but I urge Ministers to reconsider this and to take the time to look at a trial of mediation. If we desire a planning system that is quicker, fairer and more humane, and properly equipped and tooled up with what we need to get these things moving, the Government should seriously look at supporting this.

Very briefly, I will turn to the other two amendments in this group. We support the intent of Amendment 119 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is about ensuring that public bodies discharging duties under this Bill pay consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. What is not to like about that? Amendment 103 from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on the principles of proportionality in planning among decision-makers, applicants and consultees, is about ensuring that things are more focused and effective for public participation. Again, that is something that we are minded to support. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as time is short, I will simply focus on the lifeblood of local communities: small enterprises, or SMEs as we call them. A journey of a thousand leagues starts with a single step, we are told. Equally, major corporations driving economic growth did not start as large enterprises. That is why I always seek to “think small first” in regulating, and indeed why I supported the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on planning fees. I trust that the Government will deliver on the lowest possible fees for SMEs.

My Amendment 119, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has kindly supported, seeks to build on the constructive discussions we all had with the Bill Ministers, in which they expressed their wish to support SMEs and small developments in the planning system. The fact is that such enterprises are at a disadvantage in our system. We need to do something about it and to bring about a culture change in the attitude to SMEs. It is a chilling fact that, according to the Government’s SME plan, SME housebuilders’ share of the market has declined from 39% in 1988 to 10% in 2020, yet they contribute disproportionately to local communities and local employment, helping to fill the skills gap in construction.

My amendment in Committee focused on giving new guidance to Natural England, because I want it to support smaller players and to take a more balanced view than its current remit permits. On reflection, I thought Ministers might prefer a more general duty that would give SMEs a special role in the whole planning system. This would require all involved to “have regard”—not the strongest of words—to the fact that SMEs

“may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process”,

and to “consider”, again a gentle word,

“whether such barriers can be removed or reduced”.

It is derived from a similar duty that we introduced to the Procurement Bill, in which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, were involved. This was widely welcomed by businesses and charities. In my amendment I have kept the definition of such enterprises modest to make it more acceptable—

“between one and nine residential dwellings”—

but I would be happy for the Government to amend this at Third Reading or ping-pong.

The role of SMEs in development is a serious omission from the Bill. This is bad for community cohesion and a lost opportunity for growth. The Government said in their own small business plan that accelerating the growth of SMEs could boost growth by 1% a year. Unfortunately, what we heard from the Minister in Committee does not cut the mustard. An example would be the requirement to consider the viability of development in making levy regulations. I cannot see how this would make a big difference to SMEs. The truth is that none of the considerations, nor the financial support she has mentioned, have any chance of reversing the adverse trend in SME housebuilding or changing the culture in local authorities and agencies, let alone in Marsham Street.

Unless the Minister can give an undertaking to bring forward a suitable proposal on SMEs in the planning process itself, I will want to test the opinion of the House when we reach that clause.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 119 and agree with the excellent case set out by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. My support comes from two cases in my constituency some years ago, caused by the forerunner of Natural England. I think it was the Countryside Commission at the time, and then it was the Countryside Agency, before being amalgamated into Natural England. These two cases simply demonstrate the point that my noble friend has been making. They were a couple of years apart, but the issues were the same, and they have annoyed me to this day because I was absolutely powerless to help small businesses in my constituency.

The first was on creating the Pennine Bridleway, and later a national trail alongside Hadrian’s Wall, both of which had many miles in my constituency. Some of that opened in 2002, some in 2006, and some is not opened yet, but the approval process in principle started either in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The plan was to make these national trails and encourage thousands more people to use them—no bad thing in itself, and I liked the idea. Local farmers were generally not opposed, since they thought they could get involved in providing services to the walkers and riders.

Farmers and householders along Hadrian’s Wall said that, without toilet facilities en route, their stone walls—or behind them—had become toilets. With no cafeterias for miles, sandwich wrappers and uneaten food were dumped in their fields and were a hazard to sheep. They said it would be good for them if they could convert a barn into a coffee shop or toilets, as a quid pro quo for letting thousands of people march over their land. It seemed a very good idea to me at the time to assist small farmers in this way. This was in the wilds of northern Cumbria, near the Scottish border, where some farms had more rushes than grass. It used to be called marginal land but the EU terminology is “severely disadvantaged area”. The lush land of East Anglia it is not. They need every opportunity there to make money and survive.

Farmers on the route of the proposed Pennine Bridleway also wanted to convert some barns into tack rooms, providing food and water for people and horses, and parking space for their trailers. Only a few riders would want to traverse its whole length, or at least the stretches which were open; most wanted to park up and ride a loop of about 15 miles or so. Again, that was a reasonable suggestion which I thought would benefit everyone: walker and riders, the local farmers who would have them on their land, and the environment, which would not be desecrated with rubbish. But that was not to be.

The Countryside Commission said, “Nothing to do with us”. Its job was the trails and bridleway, and it did not care about helping the rural businesses along the route. It was purely a local planning matter. To hear that from a body set up with a remit of helping rural businesses, I was appalled and angered. It would not even publish a statement suggesting to local councils that it might be a jolly good idea to support planning applications which would provide those small infrastructure developments. I approached the local councils, which said they could not comment until an official planning application was received and would not bend the rules to look favourably on them in principle.

I ended up opposing something that I thought was a good thing because of the recalcitrance of government bodies and local councils that would do absolutely nothing to help small businesses in their own patch. I may be wrong but to this day I do not think that a single farm or private building on either of those routes has been given planning permission for even a simple tearoom. That is why I support my noble friend.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 103, in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner, who I see is now in his place, on proportionality in planning. In Committee, his amendment was rejected out of hand.

This is a Bill promoted by several departments. We have spent the last hour with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, from Defra, justifying government Amendment 68 strictly on the grounds of proportionality between good governance, effective value for money and so forth. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, from the other department, that the Government cannot have it both ways. Government Amendment 68 having been pressed so hard on the positive angle of proportionality, I now challenge her to accept Amendment 103, which makes exactly the same grounds, but of course from my noble friend Lord Banner’s perspective rather than the other.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I wish briefly to support Amendment 69, for the reasons advanced by the noble Earl. I just want to raise one question. The amendment would provide for guidance promoting the use of mediation. I would like to know whether the expectation of that amendment, if agreed, is that mediation should become mandatory, as is really the case in much civil litigation. If it is to be mandatory, what would be the sanctions for non-compliance with a direction for mediation?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I welcome that question. It is not that mediation would be mandatory. I strongly believe that mediation should be a voluntary process. The idea is to have guidance to make sure it is available and consistent where it is required.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jamieson and me. At present, planning processes have become anything but proportionate. The precautionary principle is too often applied as though it requires zero risk. Environmental statements run to thousands of pages; inspectors demand reams of questions; statutory consultees require unnecessary detail, even at outline stage; and consultants, fearful of liability, produce overlong reports that few people will ever read. None of this improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence.

This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle; it would preserve it in its proper sense by ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It would help to strip out duplication, shorten an unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future-proofing. In Committee, the Minister conceded the main point. She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and that the system has become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable. If we agree that the system is disproportionate, we should act to correct it.

This amendment does exactly that. It would embed proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way. When the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment.

I turn to Amendment 119, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this Act give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system.

19:30

Small and medium-sized developers are the backbone of our construction industry. They bring diversity, innovation and local knowledge to development—qualities that large national housebuilders, however efficient, cannot always replicate. These firms are essential to revitalising brownfield sites, supporting local supply chains and maintaining competition in the market, which has been dominated for far too long by just a handful of large players. Yet too often the reality is that the planning system works against them. Smaller developers face disproportionate administrative burdens, unpredictable decision-making and rising compliance costs that they are far less able to absorb than their larger counterparts. Delays in processing applications can prove fatal for firms operating on tight margins.

This amendment is a modest but meaningful step towards recognising those challenges and encouraging a more level playing field. Public authorities should be required to consider how their policies and practices affect smaller operators, not as an afterthought but as a matter of good economic sense. If my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe were to test the opinion of the House on this amendment, we would be minded to support her.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This amendment seeks to introduce statutory guidance on mediation and dispute resolution into the planning system.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his continued engagement with us on this matter since Committee. I have had a meeting with him this week on this subject. He is a passionate advocate for mediation and I appreciate the insights he has shared on this issue. I think we both want the same thing: fewer disputes on matters of planning. There are certainly areas where mediation and alternative dispute resolution can play a valuable role in the planning system—for example, on the compulsory purchase and Section 106 agreements, where negotiating and reaching consensus is required.

However, we feel that third-party mediation would not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. For example, it would not be applicable to planning decisions, as planning law requires the decision-maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development plan and weigh them with other material planning considerations. Furthermore, a statutory approach to mediation may add a further layer to an already complex planning framework.

Much of what we are both seeking to achieve can be done through national planning policy and guidance. Our National Planning Policy Framework actively encourages proactive and positive engagement between applicants and local planning authorities, including pre-application consultation. This is a well-established part of the system and only 4% of all planning decisions lead to an appeal. On larger-scale schemes, planning performance agreements have also played an increasingly valuable role, and we actively encourage them as a tool to assist co-operation between all parties.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted the example of the way that Scotland deals with mediation. Section 286A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 enables Scottish Ministers to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation. Planning Circular 2/2021 sets out this guidance. Importantly, this guidance promotes the use of mediation rather than requiring its use. It clearly states that the use of mediation is not a requirement on local planning authorities. We do not need legislation to encourage the use of mediation, especially for all planning activities. As I said, there are examples of where we have used guidance to encourage the use of mediation, particularly on compulsory purchase orders.

Amendment 103 from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the courts confidence that less can be more in the planning system. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter. He will know that we are taking forward regulatory reforms to this regime, removing the need for mandatory pre-application consultation and overhauling the permission stage for judicial review, which we discussed earlier.

Elsewhere, we are introducing the new nature restoration fund, reviewing the role of statutory consultees, removing the statutory consultation requirements relating to preliminary environmental information within the environmental impact assessment regulations for infra- structure planning and examining regulatory and policy requirements for small and medium-sized sites.

I again reassure the noble Lord that we agree with the sentiment of this amendment to remove unnecessary layers of duplication, and our actions show this. However, as I said in Committee, we still do not think that this amendment, though well intentioned, would provide the remedy for the lack of proportionality in our planning system. It would create a new legal test for decision-makers that risks more opportunities for legal challenge and more grounds for disagreements. It is better to promote proportionality through regulatory and policy reforms, which I know the noble Lord is aware we are committed to. It will be a key principle driving our new National Planning Policy Framework, which we are committed to publishing for consultation later this year.

Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under the Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am sure she will know that we appreciate the intention of the amendment and recognise the crucial role that small and medium-sized businesses play in driving up housebuilding rates, particularly by supporting a diverse housing market, responding to local housing needs and supporting faster build-out rates.

We also recognise that this part of the sector has faced incredibly significant challenges in recent years and that the planning system has become disproportionate, contributing to delays, costs and uncertainty. However, this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates the emerging reforms to the planning system.

The amendment would create a statutory obligation for public bodies to have regard to SME-specific issues. This approach is neither necessary nor proportionate. It would impose a legal duty on authorities to demonstrate how they have considered SME concerns and barriers when exercising their planning and development functions. This would create a new burden for local planning authorities and other public bodies. It would also further complicate our complex planning system and create a new avenue by which legal challenges to decisions could be brought.

That said, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving the experience of SMEs in the planning system. In May this year, we published a site thresholds working paper, seeking views on how we might better support small-site development and enable SME housebuilders to grow. This paper proposed introducing a medium-site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process.

For applications within this new medium threshold, we are considering simplifying BNG requirements, exploring exempting these sites from the proposed building safety levy; exempting them from build-out transparency proposals; maintaining a 13-week statutory time period for determination; including the delegation of some of these developments to officers as part of the national scheme of delegation; ensuring that referrals to statutory consultees are proportionate and rely on general guidance that is readily available online where possible; uplifting the permission-in-principle threshold; and minimising validation and statutory information requirements. We are currently analysing all the comments received on this working paper, which will inform a consultation on more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach.

An amendment seeking to define SMEs in an alternative way and adding further steps to the process risks adding further complexity to the planning system and undermining the efforts to support proportionality. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This has been an interesting and, dare I say, different group of amendments. It is always important to look at principles, particularly first principles, that underline and guide what we do and why we do it. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I take her points about mediation and that we all want fewer disputes. We share all those things in common. I will go away and think about what more could be done with guidance. We want the Government to go a little bit further and support trials and rollouts to see what more can be done to better incorporate this as a tool within our planning system.

On Amendment 119, it is important that we raise these issues. The need to do more for small and medium-sized developers is widely felt among all parties across the House. I recognise what the Government have done on the site threshold paper, and it is welcome that they are looking at the results that have come back from that. I think the House as a whole would welcome further developments from that.

On Amendment 103, obviously the principle of proportionality is important. Less can indeed be more. We wonder what more can be done in this space on regulatory and policy reforms going forward.

With that, I reserve the right of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to bring back his amendment, should he wish to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 69 withdrawn.

19:41

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.21 pm.