Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

20:26

Amendment 70

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

70: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Property flood resilience measures: planning permission(1) Planning permission for the building of new homes at higher risk of flooding can only be granted if property flood resilience measures are implemented as part of the construction.(2) For the purposes of implementing subsection (1) and within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that property flood resilience measures are included in any new homes at higher risk of flooding.(3) Property flood resilience measures under this section may include—(a) raised electrical sockets;(b) non-return valves on utility pipes;(c) airbrick covers;(d) resilient wall plaster;(e) any other measure as the Secretary of State may specify.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 70 and 81. I also say in passing how appealing I find the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There was a much-ignored review by Anna Walker on water efficiency, and the amendments that the noble Baroness has proposed encapsulate the recommendations, so I look forward to hearing her and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, speak to them.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for supporting both these amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for supporting Amendment 70. These amendments are flip sides of the same coin. The Government have a choice. If they are going to build on flood plains, particularly on the most hazardous, the riskiest and the most prone to flooding, they must take the precautions of introducing property flood resilience measures, as I have set out in Amendment 70. These are very practical: raised electrical sockets and non-return valves, among other specifications that I have set out.

In fact, I am sure that many of these could be introduced through building regulations, so would take the form of secondary legislation. I do not believe that we necessarily need to have the detail. But I would like the Government either to make a commitment to increasing property flood resilience measures where we are building on functional flood plains or to desist from building on functional flood plains completely.

When I tabled a similar amendment to Amendment 81 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—now Act— I was very encouraged to have the support of the then Opposition for the proposition now contained in Amendment 81, so I hope that this support can be repeated and that the Government will now support the contents of that amendment. It is very clear. It just seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on flood plains or in areas at a high risk of flooding.

In particular, I have focused on zones 3a and 3b. Why is that important? Some 6.3 million homes in the UK are currently at risk of flooding and this will increase to 8 million, or one in every four homes, by 2050. If the Government continue that trend, 115,000 of the planned 1.5 million homes would be in higher-risk flood areas. Perhaps the core reason it is inappropriate to build on flood plains which are zone 3a or 3b is that, as we know, since the Flood Re scheme came into effect, any house built on a flood plain since 2009 will not be insured under the scheme. They may be able to have insurance, but it will be very expensive indeed. It seems mind-boggling that we would even consider building on those most at-risk flood plains. If the Government persist with their desire to build on these particular flood plains then I am asking that we make them resilient through these measures.

20:30

What has changed, and why I brought this back on Report, is that on 13 October—as the Minister will be aware—the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place published its report, Flood Resilience in England, with its conclusions and recommendations. Paragraph 1 states:

“We are concerned that the current flood risk framework is underpowered and fragmented. The Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy lacks enforceability”.

Paragraph 2 goes on to say:

“Flood resilience must be embedded in statute as a clear responsibility, not left as a discretionary ambition”.

This is becoming increasingly important. In his 2008 review, following the terrible floods of 2007, Sir Michael Pitt set out recommendations to deal with surface water flooding. This flooding is increasing much more than fluvial or coastal flooding, but, as yet, successive Governments have not found a means of dealing with it. It is an ongoing challenge that we face. In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I submit these two amendments this evening. I beg to move.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as noted in the register as a non-executive director of NatCap Research. This declaration is particularly appropriate as I stand to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in bringing back this sensible amendment—indeed, I support all the amendments in this group—because this company, along with many others, provides a scientific evidence base for nature and climate-based risks for companies that are concerned about the changing environmental landscape in which they find themselves, not least because of the costs to their businesses, stocks and shares, and the bottom line if they do not bring in mitigation measures.

I am therefore struggling to understand why the Government feel unable to support such a sensible amendment, which would ensure the same sort of mitigation approach for individual homeowners, especially those in the lower socioeconomic bands who may not be able to afford the high costs of flood risk or have any insurance. We must acknowledge that flood risk is real. We hear many examples, and I could give more— I will not, because of time. It is a rapidly increasing risk. It is not something that might happen; it is something that will happen, and we are seeing yearly changes occurring now. What is being suggested here are simple and low-cost measures that can be taken by developers to ensure that the homes they sell in areas of higher flood risk are future-proofed.

In Committee, the Minister responded that:

“Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice, which includes installing flood-resilient features”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1024.]


What happens when designers decide not to follow this and the burden of repairing homes damaged by flooding falls to the owners and their insurers? Strengthening planning rules to encourage low-cost property resilience measures, such as those proposed in this amendment, means that the risk to individual homeowners can be reduced from the outset, and the costs of flooding—not just financial but to mental well- being—can be avoided.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken, demonstrating the breadth of support for this set of amendments around the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, to paraphrase, this is a common-sense set of measures which are not big-P “political” at all—it just something that obviously needs to be done.

I am speaking to Amendments 70 and 81, to which I attached my name, and for my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who tabled Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B. Briefly, on the first two, we have to set the context. A week ago, the Committee on Climate Change told the Government that we have to be preparing for 2 degrees of warming by 2050. Even more critically perhaps, in the context of this Bill, the Government and the country have not yet adapted to the levels of warming that we already have.

As in so many other areas—not just flooding but heat and cold—we are building homes that immediately need to be retrofitted, or homes that are setting people up for months, if not years, of misery. If a home was flooded and we had the kind of measures proposed by Amendment 70, it would be possible to clean the home up and, potentially, for people to move back in quite quickly. Without those measures, there are issues around the cost of insurance and months or even years of misery before there is any way that the home is occupiable again. We should not be building homes in that condition, and where homes are being retrofitted it should be to prepare them for that.

Those are my views on Amendments 70 and 81. I spoke extensively in Committee on Amendment 81, so I shall just repeat: the flood plain is not beside the river; the flood plain is part of the river.

My noble friend’s amendments are about the other side of this issue. They do not deal with the flood-water rushing down the river, the surface water that is rushing off the hard surfaces that is so typical of many areas, or the impounded soils that reflect so much of our land management now. This is saying that we should catch that water and use it in the right kind of way. It is talking about having infrastructure systems that have sustainable harvesting—we talked a lot about water butts in Committee—in order to distribute fit-for-purpose water among residents. It makes no sense at all that we still use massive quantities of expensive—in both financial and energy terms—treated drinking water for purposes where we do not need anything like that quality.

These amendments are also about reducing costs. We have a cost of living crisis, so if we can use free water rather than water that we have to pay for, that would be a win-win all round. Similarly, Amendment 120 is about water efficiency and making sure that the design minimises the amount of water use. These are all practical things and it is hard to see any reason why anyone could argue that they should not be in the Bill.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests, particularly that I chair a company that advises people on sustainability, and water is central to that.

I want to encourage the Government to move on this subject. I hope that they will allow me to do so by pointing out that the previous Government still have to explain how they managed to get rid of the regulations that would have meant that, instead of building 1.5 million homes that are not fit for the future and that have to be retrofitted, we reduced the opportunities to make our building code insist that, when people sell a house, it is fit for the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for the present Government to show that they have changed that way of looking at things and I am very surprised that they have not done so on this central issue of water.

We know what will happen. There are not many things in life that are certain, but one is that we will have too little water at some times of the year and far too much water at other times of the year. Therefore, I wonder why the Government have not jumped up to say how good these amendments are and that this is exactly what we should have. I do not always agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I agree with her comment that this is obvious: this is what we should be doing and there should not be any argument about it. So why are we not doing it?

When I was chairman of the Climate Change Committee, one of the problems we faced was that the adaptation side did not have the same statutory role that the mitigation part had. There is no doubt that, historically, we have not adapted fast enough, so we need to adapt very much faster.

I say to the Minister: if we do not start putting right the new houses, when we have such a long history of old houses that will have to be done, all we will do is build a greater problem for ourselves and our children, and that is unacceptable. It is much more unacceptable for the Government to say that designers “may” use the best advice. The problem is that, if they do not use the best advice, people will sell houses to others who will have to pay the cost of retrofitting. The housebuilders are therefore making profits by taking the money and not building houses that are suitable. It is the duty of the Government to insist that the standards are such that, when you buy a house, you can rely—at least for some reasonable time—on it being proper and fit for the future.

I hope that the Minister will be extremely generous in her acceptance of these amendments and, if not, that she will promise to come back with amendments that will do what—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said—everybody needs and knows needs to be done.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Willis, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, for resuming this all-important discussion we held in Committee. Indeed, many of the amendments aim to define whether the Bill meets the climate reality of what is happening today or continues to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Amendment 70 strengthens the requirement that planning decisions consider cumulative flood risk. Too many developments are still approved on already saturated land, leaving new residents vulnerable and the taxpayer to pick up the cost of recurring floods. As our colleague in the Commons, Gideon Amos, argued:

“Nobody should have to deal with that raw sewage coming into their home and garden”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/25; col. 416WH.]


when flood-waters surge. However, this remains a lived experience for thousands today, because sustainable drainage rules have not been made mandatory. Amendment 70 ensures that flood plain development decisions properly account for these realities.

Amendment 81 would require local plans to align with catchment-wide flood mitigation strategies. That is long overdue. After all, flooding has no respect for, or understanding of, council boundaries, so planning policies must be equally joined up to match that. The amendment would prevent the patchwork approach that critics have warned has left entire communities at risk.

Amendment 86 focuses on sustainable drainage systems —SUDS—echoing the unfulfilled recommendations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, of the Pitt Review from 2008; and on our own Benches there is a long-standing call to commence Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. These systems manage rainfall where it lands, reduce sewage overload and help alleviate combined sewer overflows, reducing the unacceptable discharge of sewage which has been witnessed so often in flood events.

Amendments 120 and 120A shift focus from drainage to water efficiency and the long-term supply. They would require the Secretary of State to issue national guidance promoting water reuse, rainwater harvesting, greywater systems and distributed storage at development scale. These are pragmatic, tried and tested approaches to reducing both flooding and water scarcity—two sides of the same crisis which increasingly confronts so many of our UK communities.

Taken together, all these amendments turn abstract sustainability pledges into enforceable planning duties, at a time when the Government’s own reviews have concluded that the current policy is simply not working. We on these Benches believe that these fixes are essential, not optional. Our planning system must no longer treat flooding as an afterthought but as a central test of responsible design. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these very useful amendments.

20:45

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her commitment to this flooding issue, which impacts far too many households in this country and which, as our climate changes, is likely to impact far more.

New housing built on flood plains since 2009 is not able to be reinsured under Flood Re, supposedly because that housing does not need it. However, as my noble friend points out, that is not the case. Her Amendment 70 requires greater flood resilience measures if we are not to rule out building on flood plains entirely. It seems eminently sensible to help protect homeowners and ensure that insurance is available at an affordable price, and so we support this amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, makes strong points in Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clean drinking water in our country is a finite resource, and measures to improve efficiency, analyse demand and increase reuse are sensible. I will welcome any comments from the Minister that show what the Government are already doing and plan to do to address these matters. However, we would not be in support of adding this to our already overburdened planning process.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

I will first address Amendments 70 and 81, concerning flood risk and resilience within the planning system. They draw attention to the important matter of how we prepare for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in light of the growing challenges posed by climate change. The Government treat these concerns with the utmost seriousness. We are aware of the distress, disruption and financial cost that flooding brings—so ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender; of the heightened risks associated with a changing climate; and of the necessity to maintain a robust but proportionate framework for managing these risks.

Amendment 70 seeks to require property flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk. As has been made clear in previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House. In support of this, building regulations already promote flood-resilient construction in flood-prone areas through approved document C, while ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens.

Amendment 81 seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in flood zone 3. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas such as Hull and central London, which, although within flood zone 3, are protected by robust engineered flood defences. Such a blanket ban would prevent development coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safeguards, directing development away from the most flood-prone areas, including flood plains, and makes it clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided.

Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted in functional flood plains—flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime, with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear: in 2024-25, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time.

Finally, I highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a 10-year period and unlocking further investment from public, private and charitable sources.

Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am sorry that she is not in her place because it would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the Chamber. The amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, concern sustainable water management and draw attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The Government fully acknowledge the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.

To address that issue, in September the Government launched a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the Building Regulations 2010. This will ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water-stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Reuse of grey water or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration, as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health incident. In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December 2024, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage but helps regulate flow rates from sites.

In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through Amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case-by-case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one-size-fits-all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and home owners, and may slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.

On Amendment 120, planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations. Duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements, could impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities.

On Amendment 121A, planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments, while water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process. We should not duplicate existing planning guidance and building control processes.

Regarding Amendment 121B, the Government support sustainable water management and water efficiency and are already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and wastewater pressures on growth where they are needed—for example, through the current consultation on Building Regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems in new development. In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater.

The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees such as the Environment Agency and sewerage and water undertakers when developing local plans is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy-making authorities and water and sewerage companies. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke in favour of my amendment, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Deben. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister’s response because, actually, she made the case for precisely why these amendments are needed. I hope that, at the behest of my noble friend Lord Deben, the Minister might agree to come back with amendments in her own name at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

Amendment 71

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

71: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 91 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle. (3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for lending his support, and his considerable knowledge and expertise, to Amendment 71. In moving Amendment 71, I will also speak to Amendment 82.

Amendment 82 is a consequential amendment, which would follow on from Amendment 71 if that amendment finds favour with the Government and your Lordships. I draw particular attention to the part of my amendment that says that a

“local authority must have special regard to the desirability of preventing unreasonable restrictions”

for a

“business or facility resulting from the implementation of the development”.

This goes to the argument set out in Amendment 71 as to why the agent of change principle needs to be adopted on a statutory basis.

When I brought forward this issue in the Committee debate, the Minister replied that she felt it was already in the planning framework and that we did not need a statutory footing. I thank her for having a meeting with me in which we briefly touched on the agent of change principle. I draw her attention to the excellent letter from the Music Venue Trust, in which it expressed its concern about the agent of change principle not being on a statutory basis. As many noble Lords will be aware—I spent so longer preparing for my professional qualifications that I never experienced being a raver, but perhaps it is not too late—of the 366 small music venues in which Ed Sheeran played while learning his trade, over 150 have now closed. Of the 34 venues in which Oasis played to launch its members’ careers, only 11 remain. The figures speak for themselves.

One concern at the moment is that the right noises are being made by the various departments, but they are not joined up. The Home Office, which is responsible for licensing, issued updated Section 182 guidance in February, which it went on to say should not be too onerous. I repeat that that guidance is not statutory. The Department of Business and Trade’s licensing task force,

“made up of representatives from government, industry, police and local government”,

published its policy paper report to government for consideration on 31 July 2025, updated on 14 August 2025, calling for reform and wide-ranging proposals, titled, Licensing Policy Sprint: Joint Industry and HM Government Taskforce Report—“sprint” is an odd word to use but is apparently the expression being used—recommendation 10 of which was to

“Make the agent of change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions”.

Then, of course, we have the Treasury which we understand is important in moving this Bill at pace through both Houses in order that it can be on the statute book as soon as possible. We also have the Department for Business and Trade policy paper.

If the Minister is responsible for planning law; if the Government are hoping to have growth, and if we are trying to protect as many of the remaining live music venues as we are, what is the status of the policy? We were very fortunate to have a licensing practitioner advise the ad hoc committee of this House on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. She was firmly of the view, as are all those like-minded practitioners, that where the agent of change is already embedded in the Section 182 guidance, following the 2003 Act, this needs to be put on a strong, statutory basis. I beg to move.

21:00

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I have added my name. I support Amendment 82 as well.

First, I briefly pay tribute to those who have argued for the agent of change principle for much longer than I have, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Spellar, among others—some of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out in Committee, are sadly no longer with us. I am not going to repeat the arguments for the agent of change principle that I made then. Suffice it to say, as I have been making clear, it has been widely supported on a cross-party basis across the whole of Parliament. It has the backing of the music industry, in particular many household names including Paul McCartney. I thank UK Music and the Music Venue Trust among others for their briefings.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said in Committee, the committee led by the noble Baroness looking at the 2003 licensing legislation was delighted—that was the word it used—that the then Government agreed with it. However, experience has since then proved—and it is now widely understood—that the guidance that has been in place is simply not enough. It is not working.

My main point is to take issue with the Minister’s statement in Committee that embedding these principles in law

“risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1031.]

In disagreeing with this conclusion, it is worth quoting fully what the Music Venue Trust says in response to that statement by the Minister. It states:

“In terms of legal challenges, we believe the opposite. The Music Venue Trust mostly makes planning objections because developers do not have to abide by agent of change, and therefore do not. If they had to abide from the off, we think this would greatly reduce the number of objections we would put in … in cases where objections did have to be placed, they would be resolved much more quickly because the objector would have legislation to point to, which would empower the local authority to respond emphatically”.


The Music Venue Trust points in particular to the significant distinction between Scotland, where the agent of change is statutory, and England, where it is not. In comparative terms, the process in Scotland is straightforward and open; in England, it is characterised by avoidance and prevarication.

I want to make just a couple of other points. First, the Government’s consultation that is currently out on pubs, many of which are also live music venues, makes it even more imperative that the agent of change is legislated for to create the certainty which is now required. Secondly, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the London Nightlife Taskforce report, which my noble friend Lord Freyberg referenced earlier today and which will certainly address planning regulations in relation to the current concerns and live music venues. Whatever happens to this amendment, I hope the Minister will look carefully at the recommendations contained within that report, which will have relevance also to the country as a whole.

Finally, this is an important amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wished to take it to a vote, I would certainly support her.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, live music events and things like that improve people’s lives and the quality of life. You are going down there. You may annoy one or two people, but most people will benefit from them. They are an important part of community involvement, and making sure that they remain is something that this House should be taking seriously.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who have expressed their support for this amendment as well as to colleagues in another place who raised similar arguments when the Bill was considered there, not least Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in another place.

As noble Lords have said, these venues are vital parts of our cultural infrastructure. They are the reason that we can look forward with excitement to the musicians, artists and talented cultural figures of the future. They are also vital components in building not just houses and housing estates but communities where people want to live with things to do, things that bring joy to their lives. If the Government want the communities that are being built, with the commendable focus on new building that they have, to be vital living and attractive places, it is important that we encourage space for those who are going to brighten our lives with cultural output. We have also seen in the regeneration of coastal communities and many other places how important it is to have those important bits of cultural infrastructure to help revitalise local areas.

Like others, I commend the work of the Music Venue Trust in this regard. It has campaigned long and hard about the plight of live music venues at grass-roots level. My noble friend mentioned Ed Sheeran and Oasis, whose careers were built on these grass-roots venues. I would like to mention Sam Fender, who, like me, hails from North Shields and last week won the Mercury Music Prize and was spotted in the Low Lights Tavern in North Shields. So many of the artists that we like and enjoy today would not be here were it not for those grass-roots venues.

The Music Venue Trust has pointed out how many venues we are losing through all the many challenges. Some 43% of live music grass-roots venues did not make a profit last year. They operate on very tiny margins. There are obviously contending with the rise in national insurance contributions that the Government have set, and last year’s Budget cut rate relief from 75% to 40%, adding a £7 million tax burden on them. Anything we can do to make it easier for the number of grass-roots music venues and bits of cultural infrastructure to grow rather than diminish is worth supporting, and I add my voice in support of those who have spoken up for this amendment.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and my noble friend Lord Clancarty. As has been said, this is a long-standing issue and it lies at the heart of how new development coexists with existing businesses and community facilities. It concerns fairness and foresight in the planning system, ensuring that when new homes are built near established venues and facilities, the newcomers, not those already there, bear the responsibility for mitigating any resulting conflicts.

The crisis facing grass-roots music venues is now acute. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, according to the Music Venue Trust, the UK lost one grass-roots music venue every fortnight in 2024 and almost half of them—43.8%—now operate at a loss, with a quarter facing imminent closure. This follows the loss of 16% of all such venues in 2023, with 125 spaces for live music gone in a single year. The pattern is sadly familiar. A venue thrives for decades, new flats are built nearby, residents complain, and the venue faces crippling restrictions or closure. The iconic Night & Day Cafe in Manchester and the Ministry of Sound in London have fought costly, protracted battles simply to continue existing.

The agent of change principle is meant to prevent exactly this. After years of campaigning led by the Music Venue Trust and supported, as my noble friend said, by Sir Paul McCartney, Brian Eno, and many others, it was finally incorporated into the national policy framework in 2018, yet seven years on, that policy has fallen short. Why is that? It is because guidance alone cannot override statutory duties under environmental health law. Local authorities must still investigate noise complaints and issue abatement notices, even when the source of that noise long predates the new development. The principle exists in spirit but lacks legal force.

This amendment would put that right. It establishes a statutory duty spanning both planning and licensing functions. It requires developers to submit proper noise impact assessments to mitigate the impact of the schemes on existing venues and, crucially, requires decision-makers to consider chronology. Who was there first must matter in law, not just in principle. This is not only about nightclubs or music venues; the same logic protects churches from complaints about bells, pubs from garden noise and sports clubs from cheering crowds. Indeed, it protects any established community use threatened by incompatible new development. This is a modest but essential reform that will help stem the loss of venues that make our towns and cities vibrant and give local authorities the clarity they need to balance growth with cultural sustainability. I urge the Government to support it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to be extraordinarily brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has explained explicitly what this is about and why it is desperately needed. I add my name to all those who have spoken so passionately in favour of it and look forward to the Minister, with equal passion, agreeing to it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am going to try to be brief, but I am afraid I am going to be beaten by the Liberal Democrats—just occasionally one has to accept this. I offer our support for Amendments 71 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you are the one bringing change, you should be responsible for managing its impact. Yet, time and again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in the live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threatened or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation and proper regard to the context within which they are being introduced. If you build a house on the edge of a cricket pitch, do not be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden.

The reality is that guidance, however well intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold the agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to a licensing regime we would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures. We on these Benches are pleased to support this principle and hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving it a clear statutory footing. I ask the Minister for an assurance that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate on this topic. Next July, I will have the benefit of five days of Oasis concerts in the fantastic venue of Knebworth House, which is just about a mile away from my house, and this summer we enjoyed Old Town Live, a day-long festival for local bands including, I hope, some of the successors to Oasis—we never know. I can hear and enjoy both of these from my house, and they represent the important cultural role of music venues and their place in the ladder of musical talent that not only contributes so much to our culture in this country but makes an enormous contribution to our economy as well. I say that to show that I understand the issue here and the Government share the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long-established businesses in their local area, be they music or other cultural venues.

The agent of change principle is embedded into the planning system. Where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change to put suitable mitigation in place, whether that is engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision.

We are exploring how we can make the agent of change policy in planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision-making, which we will consult on this year. We have recently launched a call for evidence, which seeks views on how we can better apply the principle in licensing. This will reduce inconsistent decisions, while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.

21:15

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

Why will the Government not make it statutory? This is a very simple question.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I have explained several times during the course of the Bill that I do not think it is correct to say that the National Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework in itself: it is not. It sits within the statutory framework of planning. We need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, so it can change as times change. When we bring in these policies, they will not be coming through as pieces of law. They will be planning policies, so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as it changes. That is a very important part of planning. The National Planning Policy Framework must maintain that degree of flexibility: otherwise, every time we want to change it, we will have to come back through Parliament. That would not be agile enough to deal with the changing situation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It is very seldom I am lost for words, but I am hugely disappointed by that response to this short debate. I am grateful to all those who spoke in support of my amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, expressed the considerable cost that is incurred by those who have to take mitigation measures; the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, set out why it is currently not working. To repeat what he said, it cannot override the noise abatement laws. That is why I think that we are failing both developers and residents at this time. I do not believe we are giving the clarity to licensing practitioners that they request. That is precisely what Sarah Clover, who was the expert specialist adviser to the committee looking at the Licensing Act 2003, has pointed out on successive occasions. So, while I will not press to a vote and test the opinion of the House at this stage, I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at Third Reading.

Amendment 71 withdrawn.

Amendment 72

Moved by

[Lord Best]

72: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Delivery of affordable housing(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for ensuring that when planning permission is granted subject to requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes on the relevant site, such requirements are fully implemented.(2) The requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes referred to in subsection (1) shall be satisfied only if the percentage of the total housing constructed let as social rent housing exceeds the percentage set out in the authority’s affordable housing threshold or twenty per cent, whichever is higher.(3) In subsection (2) “social rent housing” has the meaning given in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 together with paragraph 4 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023, as modified by paragraph 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is intended to ensure affordable housing is actually delivered where this is the subject of planning consent, and the proportion of social rent housing is at least 20 per cent.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 72, which addresses the issue of affordable housing delivery. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, wanted to add his name to this amendment. I declare interests as vice-president of the LGA and the Town and Country Planning Association, honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I pay tribute to Shelter for championing this amendment.

The amendment introduces a new clause providing for regulations to ensure that affordable housing actually gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called Section 106 agreement. In Committee, I noted the problem—only too familiar for many of us—that housebuilders agree to provide a quota of affordable homes for local people, but these homes fail to materialise in the developments that actually get built. The housebuilders back out of delivering some or all of the affordable homes they promised, with the excuse of “changed viability”. They say they have encountered unexpected problems, choosing from a long list of possibilities, from increased interest rates to unexpected site conditions. They claim it is no longer possible for them to make a clear profit of 20% or more, and it is the affordable housing element that they insist must take the hit, despite that having been a condition of planning permission.

The Minister may say that this is a matter for local authorities to handle but, as a report from the National Audit Office set out in June this year, negotiations between local planning departments and well-resourced developers are hopelessly unbalanced, with the latter employing expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down. Cash-strapped councils are unwilling to fight expensive legal battles and feel obliged to give in.

This amendment would bolster the position of the planners by ending the arguments and making the agreed affordable housing element non-negotiable. It aims to ensure that developers actually deliver the affordable homes that were a fundamental reason for planning consent being granted in the first place. The amendment adds a safety net by obliging the house- builder to provide a minimum of 20% of new homes in relevant developments to be for social rent, or the percentage set out in the local authority’s policy framework—the local plan, where it has one—if that is higher. Importantly, the definition of social rent housing is that used by the Regulator of Social Housing in its rent standard. Although planners may also require some other forms of affordable housing, such as shared ownership and near-market renting, the baseline of no less than 20% for the all-important social rented housing is secured by this amendment.

The 20% minimum for social rent is also a figure recommended by the New Towns Taskforce, which reported last month. Its report recommends a total of 40% for all the various kinds of affordable housing put together, with at least half of that—20%—for social rent. This important requirement could be applied not just to new towns but to all major developments; this amendment provides for that outcome. Nearly half the nation’s current programme of affordable homes comes from these planning obligations on the house- builders but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, noted in Committee, the CPRE has found that, despite agreements by the housebuilders to produce an average of 34% of relevant developments as affordable housing, the actual figure has turned out to be just 18%.

Shelter’s research has also shown that, in relation to the core social rent product, rather than the more upmarket versions of affordable housing, over the last 20 years less than 3% of developers’ housebuilding has been for social rent. This is despite the fact that, in most parts of the country, only the social rent accommodation is within the means of households in the lower half of income distribution.

The constant reneging by housebuilders on the contributions they agreed to make at the outset makes this amendment an urgent one. Indeed, I wonder whether it is worth all the time, money and effort to achieve so many new homes if so few of them can meet the acute needs of those suffering most from the nation’s housing shortages. Instead, enforcement of an obligation that delivers at least 20% social rented housing would substantially enhance the value to the nation of building 1.5 million homes by 2030. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment, at least in principle, and I beg to move.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Best has given an empirical and quantitative justification for this amendment, which I support, and I will not repeat what he said. What I will say, however, is what social rent housing does and why it is a necessity.

It is a living instrument that improves our society in many ways. It creates the opportunity for stability for young families, and for continuing education for young people in those families. It also creates loyalty to the town where they live, and a history that is developed into the future by those who live in social housing. These days we often hear people commenting on the fact that they are the first person who went to university in their family. Many of those people went to university because they lived in social rent housing with the stability that enabled them, with the support of their parents, of course, to be educated to go to university. I believe that in this Parliament there are many people who fall into that category. This is a living instrument that we are trying to create—a system of social rent housing that produces the growth that creates the flowers of our society, or at least many of them, and gives our society a future we can be proud of.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Carlile, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who is unable to be here this evening—she has been got by the lurgy that everyone is coming down with. I will make some of the arguments that my noble friend would have made.

At its core, this is about trust between developers, local authorities and communities to deliver what the developers have said they would. Does it not make your blood boil to hear and learn how often social housing has been promised and how often it has failed to be delivered? Research from Shelter shows that, in some parts of England, as many as 40% of the affordable homes initially promised are never delivered. The Local Government Association has estimated that, over the past decade alone, more than 100,000 affordable homes have been lost because of renegotiations and that absolute panto villain, the viability assessment, which is used and prayed in aid to stop the delivery of social homes for rent, which are so critical and important to society.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would bring much-needed transparency and restore faith in a promise that has been broken again and again over successive Governments. It would give councils the confidence that when they negotiate for affordable homes, the homes will actually materialise.

I know it is late, but if the noble Lord, Lord Best, moves to a vote, we will be there with him, and I am very hopeful that the Conservative Benches will join him as well. This is an absolute scandal that has gone on for too long. We need to restrict developers to deliver on their promise of social homes for rent.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise for gazumping the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. For the record, I am always happy to take my name off amendments in a case where we can demonstrate political breadth, but I was very happy to sign Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best.

I will give one example. In July this year, Rother District Council received an application from Brookworth Homes to amend its permission for a 20-residence project in Battle, East Sussex, to, of course, zero homes for social rent. That is just one example of a place that desperately needs social housing. I will stop there, because I want to get to a vote if the Government do not give way.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 85 in this group concerns an issue that I first raised in Committee. At the national level, there is much talk of the urgent need to build 1.5 million new homes. They are even promoted with rather empty, Trump-like slogans. Mere numbers of new units will not provide a solution to many families and individuals in our country. What is urgently required is a national debate about the type of housing unit that is most needed, and how these will be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has rightly focused on one area of desperate need: homes for social rent. Amendment 85 throws a beam of light —maybe even hope, if the Minister responds as I hope she will—on those families, and especially the children, living in temporary accommodation.

The numbers should shame us all. Over 170,000 children in our country—one of the wealthiest in the world—are living in temporary accommodation. Some 50% of all those experiencing homelessness are children. This could be a result of domestic violence, family breakdowns, debt or receiving a Section 25 eviction notice—at least, and at last, the Government have outlawed Section 21 evictions.

21:30

The quality of housing provided for temporary accommodation is generally poor. The housing is often substandard and remote from support networks, and it can mean that children of school age either miss school altogether or have to move from school to school. Sometimes, the journey to a new school—daunting for most children—is at least two bus journeys. The accommodation often comes with limited equipment such as cooking and washing facilities. Particularly for families with very young children, any facilities are seriously lacking. The consequence of that is the tragic and horrific statistic that 74 children have died while living in temporary accommodation. In my book, that is a national scandal.

I urgently request that, within the 1.5 million homes to be built, the Government set a fixed target for providing housing for children and their adult carers that is safe, suitable and enables children to develop both socially and through attending school. Amendment 85 deliberately does not provide solutions, because I recognise that this will require a multifaceted approach, but I ask that the Government commit to including the desperate needs of these children within the housebuilding programme.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we support the intentions behind Amendments 72 and 85 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pinnock, and others for bringing them forward.

There is no doubt that we need more affordable housing and more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through and that, too often, affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. Amendment 72 puts forward a clear principle that, if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered, and that social rent should form a meaningful part of that. This is right and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we would want to ensure that any new duty works effectively within existing planning and viability frameworks.

However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities. This is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentages or mix, specialist but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. That is how I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people—freeing up family homes as a consequence—and for those with significant disabilities, as well as short-term accommodation. I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let us make this absolutely clear: we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability for developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission.

Amendment 85 rightly highlights the needs of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation, a group whose experiences are often invisible in planning policy. Ensuring that local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step and we support it, but I refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. Again, I am going to refer to my own experience, and to one of the proudest things I did when I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council. We had about 125 households in bread and breakfast; 10 years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. There were two key reasons for it. One was that we built specialist temporary accommodation and converted some buildings for that; but the second is that we built homes they could move into. So, we also need to consider that we must build the quantum of homes that is needed if we are truly to address the issue of homelessness.

Both amendments speak to the same wider truth: housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the Government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 72. I have to say that the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, when we are trying to sort out a housing crisis that his party created, are a bit rich. But I will park that for the moment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am pleased that the last Government delivered 1 million homes over the last five years. I will be delighted if this Government deliver 1.5 million, but at the moment, they are on track to deliver considerably fewer, increasing that crisis.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s Government left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent, but we take a different view from the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local authorities greater flexibility to deliver the right tenure mix to suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.

I understand the frustrations around the issue of viability, so the Government are also reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure that the system works to optimise developer contributions, and that negotiation or renegotiation of Section 106 agreements takes place only when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under Section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, so they can be enforced by the local planning authority. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing.

Turning to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, while we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we cannot support this approach. The planning system is already complex, and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how laudable, are not required in statute, given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of the people placed there. On World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for Amendment 72. I thank my noble friend Lord Carlile for his eloquent words, and I offer the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, sincere thanks for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is unfortunately unable to support this amendment, which, without his help and that of his colleagues, I fear would not achieve the majority it needs.

I do not accept the noble Lord’s point that having a 20% baseline below which we would not go in terms of affordable housing, and social rented housing in particular, is necessarily a blockage to flexibility. The baseline of 20% at social rents—the typical housing association and council rents—would not put a great burden on the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I do not think it would entail an additional burden.

Sometimes the older people’s housing of the kind that the noble Lord has produced in his own borough—and I strongly congratulate him, as council leader, on achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people; he has done a great job—will be social housing and would count towards the affordable housing quota that I am talking about; sometimes it will be housing for outright sale, which would not be part of this equation so we would not worry about it. Having a baseline of 20% social housing as an absolute minimum is not going to impede—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

If I may just be clear, I apologise but I meant affordable housing that was for older people; I did not mean housing for private sale, when I talked about flexibility. I apologise if that was not clear.

[Lord Best (CB)]

Yes, well, I am sorry that we differ on this because it means that it would be pointless me taking this to a vote.

What I will say is that I am deeply grateful to the Minister for explaining that the issue of viability advice is now under consideration and that we will be getting new advice, which I hope will be much stronger and more positive than in the past. So I am grateful to her, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

Amendment 73

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

73: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a hotel has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is a hotel proposed for use as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 87E tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation.

Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities—divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice.

The principle is straightforward: changing the use of a hotel or a house in multiple occupation—HMO—to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, ensuring proper consultation and clarity for councils, residents and local businesses. At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This is not about the approach of the current or the previous Government; it is about what is right for the British people.

Protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout the Bill. It is a terrible shame that, when the same principle arises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our local communities, people such as the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue. We had hoped that all noble Lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question of asylum policy; this is simply a question of giving communities a voice. The country is watching, and it is vital that we act. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of hotels for asylum seekers, pending assessment of their applications. Amendment 87E in my name offers a different solution to those challenging issues. On these Benches, we recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. I note that the Government have also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament.

21:45

The real solution lies in substantially expanding processing capacity to meet the scale of the challenge we face. The amendment in my name seeks to achieve this by streamlining the asylum application process through the establishment of what we are calling “Nightingale” processing centres—temporary, but purpose-built, facilities designed to increase capacity, improve efficiency and ensure that applications are handled swiftly and fairly. These centres would allow for better use of resources, reduce administrative bottlenecks and relieve the pressure currently placed on overstretched local authorities and accommodation providers.

Importantly, the amendment also provides that such units would be subject to an expedited planning process, developed in consultation and in line with the wishes of elected local government officials, ensuring both accountability and local co-operation. This amendment offers a practical, humane and forward-looking solution to a system that is struggling under its own weight.

The solution on offer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, in the other amendments in this group is very different, as it is not a practical solution to the high cost of using hotels to house asylum seekers. The question is: how did this situation arise? The increased use of hotels for asylum seekers began in 2020, under the noble Baroness’s Government, and has steadily increased from 1,200 in March 2020 to over 100,000 by June 2024, at a cost each year of around £3 billion. I hope the noble Baroness is not going to dispute those figures, because I got them from the House of Lords Library. The next question is: how is it that the Conservatives have only just realised that a change of use planning application may be needed? Why has it taken five years for that apparently to be realised?

My starting point for these amendments is: have the Conservatives finally accepted responsibility for the fact that asylum seekers are being housed in hotels, at huge cost to the taxpayer? When we hear a full apology from the noble Baroness on behalf of her party, and acceptance of responsibility for dealing with this challenge, then—and only then—will we take her proposals seriously.

Of course, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, could provide clarification on how the use of hotels relates to planning law, but they do not propose ending their use altogether. I am surprised that the Conservatives have brought these amendments forward, given that it was their Government who created the very situation we are now trying to resolve.

The final question for the noble Baroness, Lady Scott —I apologise that there have been four in a row—is this. If, as seems likely under these proposals, hotels are not given a change of use permission, where will asylum seekers be housed? The real possibility is that they will be in competition with other very vulnerable groups, as we discussed in the last group of amendments. Then, many will find that their situation has further deteriorated. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and her group, have provided no solution. Meanwhile, Amendment 87E provides a workable way forward.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, there is a danger that this subject tends to generate more heat than light, as I think we have heard just now, so I thought I would—from the perspective of a planning silk—explain what these amendments would and would not do, so that we are all clear about that.

These amendments are not about the principle of asylum hotels, nor are they about the principle of small boats. They are about providing clarity and certainty to the planning regime, which needs clarity and certainty in order to operate effectively. Currently, the position in law under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act is that a change of use of premises requires planning permission only if that change of use is material. There is case law—most recently the Epping judgment, but there are other judgments over the last few years, including cases in Great Yarmouth—to the effect of whether a change of use is material is an evaluative judgment on the facts of the case.

In the context of asylum hotels, that can be a very difficult and unpredictable evaluative judgment, made even more difficult by the mission creep of some of these hotels. They can start off with families, then the nature of their use can change. That uncertainty is disadvantageous to all participants in the planning system. It is disadvantageous to the commercial hotel operators, because they are being asked to invest money to fit out the hotel for asylum seekers, without knowing whether that investment may come back to bite them if it later turns out they needed planning permission and did not have it, and they are enforced against. It creates uncertainty for communities, because they do not know whether particular operations in their neighbourhood require planning permission and are something to which they should be given a right to participate in the decision-making on.

Fundamentally, it creates uncertainty for local planning authorities, which are on the horns of a dilemma. They have to choose whether to turn a blind eye and let a potential breach of planning control continue, or to bring enforcement proceedings, which, if brought in court, can cost hundreds of thousands—sometimes millions—of pounds, putting them and the local taxpayer at risk of significant adverse costs. It is very hard to tell in advance what the prospects of success in such proceedings will be, given the very delicate, nuanced nature of the decision, and the evaluative judgment on whether a particular change of use is material or not.

Fundamentally, the clue is in the name. Planning is meant to be predictable in all forms and all manifestations of the regime. If you cannot plan, the system does not work. Therefore, this amendment would make it very straightforward and provide a clear line in the sand that any change of use to an asylum hotel or an HMO would be deemed a material change of use. Every protagonist in the planning system would then know where they stand: that this needs planning permission.

These amendments do not constrain the decision whether to grant planning permission, and nor do they in any way affect the merits or prospects of an application for planning permission. All they do is let everybody know where they stand. I urge the House, and particularly the Liberal Democrats: let us focus on the real issue that these amendments put into play and cut the rhetoric.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on these amendments. The Government may say that if you stop these conversions of hotels, where will we put the people? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked the same question. That is a fair question. The answer is to use all spare military accommodation, recently used by servicemen and women. From what I read, the Government want to do that, and they must have the guts to stick to it, because they will have public support, even though left-wing immigration lawyers will mount judicial reviews against it.

So, His Majesty’s Government, do not be terrified into closing RAF Wethersfield, but increase numbers there to the maximum possible and reopen Napier barracks. I stayed there 50 years ago, and it is 100 times better now than it was then. Many noble Lords will have experience of military accommodation in the past, including officer accommodation, and it was not up to the standards now available for illegal migrants.

It was deplorable that some lawyers and immigration groups took action to close Napier, which was used only for single men. How did these single men get here? They walked hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles through Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, Romania and other European countries, and lived in appalling conditions near the beach at Calais, before crowding into a little boat. Others have come from Eritrea, Somalia and up through Egypt, Libya, Italy and on to Calais. I am sure they had premium accommodation en route.

How dare anyone suggest that the accommodation in any of our former military bases is not good enough for single men of fighting age, when it was good enough for British men and women of fighting age? If they had to stay in Barry Buddon, stuck out in the coast in Fife next to Carnoustie, where 30 of us were in a nissen hut with one big cast iron potbelly stove, they might have something to complain about, but not in the current accommodation. So, His Majesty’s Government, please do not back down on the use of former military accommodation, or any other spare government accommodation, and that can take the pressure off unsuitable hotels.

On Amendment 87E, I do not trust any Government to use this power anywhere in the country, and put up temporary accommodation all around the land, but if some of the military bases are not big enough, or are regarded as not having quality accommodation, then move in temporary accommodation—caravans, chalets, portable homes, portakabins—and put them on these bases or other military land. That is a better solution and answers some of the question, “If you close these hotels, where will you put them?”. I have suggested it in my comments tonight.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I first turn to Amendments 73 to 75, 263 and 264 brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I thank the noble Baroness for once again raising an important issue but I point out that it relates to ongoing legal proceedings, which I am sure that she appreciates I cannot comment on.

The asylum accommodation system is under significant pressure. While the priority is to end the use of asylum hotels as soon as possible, the Government need to be able to control the number of such hotels and retain the ability to open new asylum hotels—only if and when it is necessary—to manage fluctuations in demand. The amendments would remove the ability to do so.

The Home Office is under a legal obligation to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers while their application for asylum is being considered. We know that this has led to concerns among some people about the use of hotels for this purpose. We are conscious that the use of hotels for the purpose of housing asylum seekers has caused understandable concern. That is why we have an ambition to resolve it in a controlled and orderly way.

Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I was frankly astonished to hear her words about giving local people a voice. Under her Government, as a council leader I pressed over and over again for our hotels in Stevenage not to be used for this purpose by agents of the Home Office, not least because international businesses in my town needed them. Her Government did not listen to our community, its elected representatives or our businesses; they overruled us and ploughed ahead regardless.

This Government have made clear our intention to stop the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. This is borne out by the fact that the number of hotels so used has almost halved since its peak under the previous Government. More broadly, the Home Office is working on a future strategy for asylum accommodation. The department is working in collaboration with local authorities to develop several potential accommodation models that could test a more sustainable, flexible and collaborative outcome. The department is also working at pace to deliver a range of alternative sites, including—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—military sites, that would contribute to a more flexible estate.

Restricting the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation would have the perverse effect of making it even more difficult to end the use of asylum hotels. While we understand why these amendments have been brought forward—I will not comment on why, but we understand it—they would nevertheless result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation, and prevent us proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to.

Amendment 87E, brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to deal with applications for planning permission where temporary asylum application processing facilities were proposed. The amendment is unnecessary, as these powers would be duplicative of existing powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, Section 59 allows the Secretary of State to make a development order that can either itself grant planning permission or make for the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. That includes timescales, publicity and consultation. Section 70 allows local planning authorities to grant planning permission for development, including conditional planning permission, and Section 77 makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State being able to call in applications for planning permission to determine them himself.

In addition, it would also not be appropriate to take such powers for a specific type of development in primary legislation. We are committed to progressing asylum cases in an efficient and cost-effective way. The Home Office’s programme of transformation and business improvement is speeding up decision-making, reducing the time people spend in the system and reducing the numbers who are awaiting an interview or decision and remain in hotels.

22:00

Once again, I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, that we continue to seek to address the concerns about the use of hotels to house asylum seekers and are taking action to progress asylum cases in an efficient and cost-effective way. However, we cannot support these amendments and the I hope that the noble Baronesses will not press them.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak as Leader of the Opposition; I do not wish to interfere with this debate. I have no intention of moving the adjournment of the House, which has been suggested might happen. We will proceed to the end of the debate and my noble friend Lady Scott will respond to the Minister.

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is now past 10 pm, the normal hour when the House rises according to the Companion. We had a discussion last Tuesday, on my initiative, about the sitting times of the House. We were told that it would be to the advantage of the House to meet at 11 am. That was not agreed by the opposition parties or the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. We find ourselves here at 10 pm, having sat in the morning for three hours, still with many groups to consider.

With all due respect to the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, this is not the proper way to conduct the business of this House. We have had Ministers here on duty since 11 am and we have had members of the staff here on duty for 11 hours. If the House chooses, as it chose last Tuesday, to meet at 11 am, we must end at the time when the Companion says that we should end. There is a better way of proceeding, which has to be done by agreement in the usual channels.

I have no doubt that, after my noble friend Lady Scott responds, we will move to a Division in the proper way of your Lordships’ House. However, I expect—and I think many other Members of your Lordships’ House would expect—the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms to come to the Dispatch Box after the Division to explain quite how long he expects the House to continue this evening. It would be to the improvement of us all if we could return to our normal ways of doing things. I therefore give him notice of that.

Let us proceed with and conclude the debate, and let us have our Division. Please let us then, outside this Chamber if need be, reach an agreement on drawing stumps at an appropriate time. Ministers have done enough; my colleagues have done enough; the House has done enough; and the staff have done enough.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

I can very briefly come to the Dispatch Box now. Can I first say how much I respect the noble Lord? We are very clear: I know that the noble Lord and his party did not support the suggestion of starting at 11 am, but that was a decision of the House. My intention is that, when these votes are finished, we will rise. We have three votes, so after about 30 minutes we will be rising; I have no intention of going beyond that. We will have the votes and then go home.

I am also always very happy to discuss things in the usual channels, and obviously we will discuss things in the coming days and weeks. But we will have our votes and then we will adjourn the House.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, going back to the debate, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the Government’s record on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy; it is not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people: the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Will the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, explain to the House why it has taken five years for her party to come to the conclusion that planning permission for a change of use is needed?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

When we were in government, we had a plan—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We did—and the party opposite voted against it. We had a plan and we were bringing down numbers quite considerably in asylum hotels. In fact, we would not have any open now if we were still in government.

At its heart, this debate is about fairness and local accountability. Time and again, communities feel that decisions are being made over their heads and imposed without notice, consultation or trust. This is precisely what this amendment seeks to put right. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to distract from the substance of this issue. The Government’s record on asylum hotels is neither here nor there. What matters is whether local voices are heard and respected in the decision-making process.

On Report, the Minister suggested that I tabled these amendments for a different purpose. She knows me well enough to know that, when I say something, I mean it. The purpose is clear and principled: to ensure that local communities are not treated as bystanders in decisions that reshape their neighbourhoods. Time and again, the pattern emerges: decisions are made from the centre, delivered without dialogue and defended without accountability. This cannot continue. This amendment is about restoring the balance between national necessity and local democracy, and we on these Benches are determined to stand up for local people and local communities. Now I wish to test the opinion of the House, first on hotels and then on houses of multiple occupation.

22:07

Division 5

Ayes: 83

Noes: 113

22:17

Amendment 74

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

74: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a house in multiple occupation has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is proposed for use as a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

22:18

Division 6

Ayes: 84

Noes: 113

22:27

Amendments 75 to 83 not moved.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Question should be that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I was just too keen, after sitting on the Bench since 11 o’clock this morning.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.29 pm.