Wednesday 22nd October 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (22 Oct 2025)
12:29 - Division on Amendment 55 - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 55 agreed.
12:42 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 120 - Amendment 56 agreed.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Excellent. I am pleased that he has, though I wonder whether he has, therefore, understood it. It is surprising that he has chosen to create legal uncertainty, which is what would happen with his amendment. Its consequence appears to be that developers needing a temporary use of land have in the past had to use compulsory acquisition powers if the landowner was not prepared to provide a temporary use. The Bill provides more assurance for both landowners and those improving or constructing new roads. For us on these Benches, the amendment makes no sense except as a tool to frustrate road improvements, and we will not support it.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for the amendment, which seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to grant powers to an acquiring authority to compulsorily possess land necessary to facilitate delivery of highway schemes. The purpose of the measure is to allow acquiring authorities to temporarily possess land when needed for highway works to the exclusion of others without resorting to permanent acquisition.
Permanent acquisition of land or acquiring the freehold or long leasehold title of the land would mean that the acquiring authority would own the land outright and permanently. This is unnecessary and disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this clause would enable an acquiring authority to compulsorily acquire the right to temporarily possess and occupy the land needed to facilitate the delivery of a highway scheme.
The rights of an applicant to temporarily possess or occupy land are routinely granted in development consent orders and Transport and Works Act orders. Furthermore, the power would use the same land compensation provisions as apply to compulsory purchase, adapting them as necessary to effect the temporary nature of the interest being acquired.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the National Farmers’ Union. It is not a new power; it is an implied right to take land temporarily that already exists and is already used, but the Government’s Bill makes it explicit.
Temporary possession is a well-established legal concept. It provides certainty and practical powers essential for the safe, efficient delivery of infrastructure works. Temporary possession would offer an acquiring authority—being a local highway authority or National Highways—a safe and proportionate route to exclude others from the land temporarily. This is critical when the land is needed for highways works. It could involve storing equipment and construction materials or manoeuvring large construction vehicles, as well as creating temporary routes to keep works traffic off the highway.
Temporary occupation, on the other hand, as the sole remaining power under the amended clause, would not confer the right to exclude others. This would pose serious safety risks and could undermine project delivery. Without clear powers, authorities would be unlikely to use the amended provision. It would risk introducing legal uncertainty, prolonging negotiations, leading to an increase in objections and public inquiries, all of which would increase costs and could delay delivery.
The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33, as I have said, would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession. Clause 33, as currently drafted, provides the legal certainty, operational clarity and safeguards necessary for the safe and timely delivery of infrastructure projects. It does not create a new power; it is about ensuring that highways infrastructure can be delivered safely and proportionately.
Having, I hope, clearly defined the difference between possession and occupation, I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this is not an attempt to own the land. In fact, it is clearly designed not to own the land, so that the title to the land would not change; it would be a right to occupy the land.
Finally, the noble Lord raised the question of how long it would be after works finish that the land can be possessed and whether there would be a need for guidance. That clearly is a subsidiary matter; I will take that subject away and write to him on it afterwards. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. However, I thought I asked some fairly precise questions, and I do not feel that he has answered the questions with the precision that I was hoping for. Therefore, at the appropriate moment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I cannot resist a brief anecdote. When the inner ring road was being built around Birmingham’s city centre in the 1960s, the highways department at Birmingham City Council approached the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham and said that, unfortunately, both the Pugin-designed Catholic cathedral and the Pugin-designed archbishop’s House next door to it would have to go to make way for the road. When the archbishop entered a modest word of protest against this loss, querying whether it was entirely necessary, the result was that the courteous gentlemen of the highways department went away and rethought the plans somewhat and the archbishop was given a choice: he could lose either the Pugin-designed cathedral or the Pugin-designed house. That explains why, to this day, the cathedral still stands but the house has long since gone. Happily, that approach to heritage is not something that we would see today.
At this point, I wish merely to congratulate those Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken so clearly and valiantly against the original proposal in the Bill. I also thank the Government for listening, because what was originally proposed really was unsustainable; what we have now is a great deal more acceptable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 48 and 50, I shall later move government Amendments 49, 51, 66, 258 and 260. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, as well as the other noble Lords who have raised this issue during the Bill’s passage. I also thank Peers for their time during the recess, when we discussed this matter at length.
As I have noted previously, the Government have no interest in loosening heritage protections; indeed, we see this country’s heritage assets as a vital part of our built environment. We are clear that these assets should be conserved and enhanced for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.
Amendments we have laid to the Bill on heritage and the Transport and Works Act order process will ensure that there is no loss of heritage protection while achieving the Government’s goal of streamlining the process to get on with delivering the infrastructure that this country needs.
Through these amendments, we have introduced a new power for the Secretary of State in England to direct that listed building consent is deemed to be granted in relation to Transport and Works Act order projects. This new power follows the same model as the existing long-established power for them to direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for these projects. This means that, in practice, applicants for a Transport and Works Act order can apply for deemed listed building consent at the same time, rather than having to apply separately to the local planning authority. This will streamline the process.
“Deemed grant of listed building consent etc(1) In the Transport and Works Act 1992, for section 17 (listed buildings and conservation areas) substitute—“17 Listed buildings: England(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in England, the Secretary of State may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) Section 16(2) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under this section as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(3) Section 72(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special attention to conservation areas) applies to the making of a direction under this section in relation to a building in a conservation area as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building.(4) The provisions of the Listed Buildings Act apply in relation to any listed building consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Secretary of State under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Secretary of State on an application referred under section 12 of that Act.(5) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 62(2)(a) of that Act (decisions of Secretary of State that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(6) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in the Listed Buildings Act (see section 91(1) of that Act);“controlled listed building works in England” means works to which section 7(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in England) applies;“listed building consent” means consent under section 8 of the Listed Buildings Act (listed building consent in England);“the Listed Buildings Act” means the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.17A Listed buildings and conservation areas: Wales(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled conservation area works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that conservation area consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(3) Section 96(2) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under subsection (1) as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(4) Section 160(1) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to conservation areas) applies—(a) to the making of a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a building in a conservation area, as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building, and(b) to the making of a direction under subsection (2), as it would apply to the grant of conservation area consent in relation to the building concerned.(5) The provisions of HEWA 2023 apply in relation to any consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Welsh Ministers under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Welsh Ministers on an application referred under section 94 of that Act.(6) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 182(2)(b) of that Act (decisions of Welsh Ministers that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(7) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in HEWA 2023 (see section 210 of that Act);“conservation area consent” means consent under section 162 of HEWA 2023 (conservation area consent in Wales); “controlled conservation area works in Wales” means works to which section 161 of HEWA 2023 (demolition of building in conservation area in Wales) applies;“controlled listed building works in Wales” means works to which section 88 of HEWA 2023 (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in Wales) applies;“HEWA 2023” means the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023;“listed building consent” means consent under section 89 of HEWA 2023 (listed building consent in Wales).”(2) In section 22 of that Act (validity of orders)—(a) in the heading, for “under section 1 or 3” substitute “and directions”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) This section applies to a direction under—(a) section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (deemed planning permission),(b) section 17 or 17A of this Act (deemed listed building or conservation area consent), or(c) section 12(2A) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (deemed hazardous substances consent),as it applies to an order under section 1 or 3.”(3) In section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (reference of applications for listed building consent to Secretary of State), omit subsection (3A).(4) In section 94(4) of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 (reference to Welsh Ministers of application for listed building consent associated with Transport and Works Act application), after “application” in the second place it occurs insert “to the Secretary of State”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace the proposed power to remove the need for various heritage-related consents for a Transport and Works Act project with a power to put in place deemed listed building consent or (in Wales) conservation area consent for such a project.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment replacing Clause 41.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for tabling Amendments 52 and 57, which are important. The rollout of public and domestic charge point infrastructure is vital to ensuring a smooth transition to zero-emission vehicles, particularly for those without access to off-street parking.
Amendment 57 seeks to simplify the installation of cross-pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights. The Government have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords on this matter and further support the aim that the noble Baroness intends with this amendment. As such, we will launch a consultation on introducing permitted development in the coming months. It is important that a consultation is undertaken to consider the impacts of such a permitted development right and to develop appropriate mitigations should the proposal be taken forward. Subject to the outcome of the consultations, we will make changes quickly under secondary legislation through the Town and Country Planning Act to simplify cross-pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights.
The second amendment proposes to treat cross-pavement charging solutions as public charge points under Clause 47, allowing installation without a Section 50 street works licence. Section 50 licences provide local authorities with the statutory means to supervise and regulate third-party works on public highways, ensuring that standards of safety, quality and responsibility are upheld. This oversight is especially important in developing areas such as cross-pavement charging to avoid some of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, just outlined.
While the public charge point market is now relatively mature, with over 86,000 installations in the UK, the cross- pavement solution space remains nascent with just a few hundred installations to date. Given this disparity, it is appropriate that Section 50 licences continue to be used for cross-pavement installations. As my department intends to consult on expanded permitted development rights, it would also not be appropriate to remove the need for Section 50 licences at this time, as that would remove those key checks and balances for local authorities.
However, a delivery model that is already available to local authorities is to use their own highways teams. In doing so, they can already access street works permits to directly install cross-pavement solutions and avoid the need for a Section 50 licence. This approach gives local authorities power to make delivery decisions at a local level, while maintaining oversight and the choice of delivery model. Having listened to the noble Baroness’s concerns, my department will write to local authorities in England to highlight that this is an important option that should be considered.
As well as this, the Government are working to improve consistency and accelerate rollout through dedicated funding, clear guidance and sharing best practice. This includes £25 million in grant funding for cross-pavement channels in England, new and additional guidance and the aforementioned consultation on expanding permitted development rights. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
I turn to Amendments 53 and 54 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The purpose of Clause 47 is to support the rollout of essential EV charging infrastructure across England. This clause is an essential measure for simplifying the application and approval measures for public EV charging points in response to increasing demand for charging infrastructure. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord undermines this and adds additional burdens on local authorities, ultimately slowing down rollout.
Only in certain cases does a local authority choose to dedicate a parking bay for EV charging. In such situations, the current framework—such as the use of traffic regulation orders—already enables highway authorities to manage parking on public roads efficiently. Where an EV charging bay is needed, a traffic regulation order can be implemented to allocate the space. The procedure for putting a traffic regulation order in place includes public consultation and the formal announcement of the authority’s intentions. In cases where installation work temporarily disrupts existing parking arrangements, a temporary traffic regulation order may be used. Here, too, authorities must publish their intention to suspend a parking bay in advance. My department also provides statutory guidance: the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street and Road Works, which promotes early engagement and consultation among all relevant parties before works.
It is vital that our regulatory framework supports progress rather than creating unnecessary obstacles. Imposing an additional requirement for impact assessments at this point would place an excessive strain on highway authorities—a challenge that will only intensify as applications for charge point installations continue to increase. Expecting authorities to undertake detailed assessments for every permit application to install a public charge point would not only introduce additional costs and administrative pressure but hinder their ability to meet the timings prescribed in the existing statutory guidance, which sets out the parameters for response times for permit applications.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendment 54 on enabling residents or businesses to request a formal review where electric vehicle installations reduce access to conventional parking. This proposed amendment would require highway authorities to conduct formal reviews of electric vehicle charge point installations at the request of any resident or business, regardless of the scale of concern, within 30 days. This would, again, place unnecessary burdens and costs on authorities, diverting resources away from essential delivery work and risking delays in our drive towards net zero. At a time when we must accelerate electric vehicle deployment, we cannot afford added obstacles. Furthermore, allowing retrospective reviews at the request of individuals risks reopening settled decisions.
The statutory guidance for highway authorities operating permit schemes provides clear powers to assess the impact of street works and to impose conditions aimed at mitigating disruption, including the loss of parking. Authorities are expected to exercise these powers, ensuring that permit conditions are proportionate and aligned with the broader objectives of network management. This amendment would add complexity without delivering meaningful benefit. It would risk slowing the pace of electric vehicle infrastructure deployment and undermining the confidence of delivery partners.
I note the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the future of electric vehicles. The noble Lord is welcome to his views, but the Government do not agree with him. In any event, we need to make provision for electric vehicles that are already on the roads today. The Government’s Bill seeks to do that. Returning to Amendments 53 and 54, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not to press them.
Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, relates to accessible charging. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—indeed, all in your Lordships’ House—that this Government are very mindful of the difficulties faced by drivers with disabilities. The noble Baroness graphically described why we need to take action. Given that there will be an estimated 2.7 million disabled drivers or passengers on the roads by 2035, making public charge points accessible is not just about being fair and inclusive; it is vital.
As a result, the Government are supporting the adoption of accessible electric vehicles—including wheelchair-accessible models—and the infrastructure that supports them by encouraging their production and uptake through regulatory and policy incentives. My department and the Motability Foundation previously co-sponsored the British Standards Institution’s creation of the first global set of standards for accessible charge points—Public Accessibility Standard 1899:2022 —to provide a specification for designing and installing accessible public EV charge points.
However, we acknowledge that the adoption of these standards has not met expectations to date. Given the importance of ensuring an accessible charging network, my department and the Motability Foundation commissioned the British Standards Institution to review the adoption of the standards and any changes needed to accelerate their uptake and to improve accessibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, this review has involved a range of stakeholders, including disability advocacy organisations, consumer bodies, industry, the devolved Governments and others. It has identified challenges with the current standards and will be published shortly.
The review of this standard demonstrated a clear commitment from across the sector to ensure that charging is accessible for all drivers and has recommended changes and revisions to address these challenges. In addition, there are, of course, certain requirements that businesses, including those providing public charging, must follow under the Equality Act. Although the Act sets out these general duties, specific standards, such as PAS 1899:2022, help to ensure charge points are accessible in practice. I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that Newport City Council has done well in this respect; of course, we want all other local authorities and private providers to do the same.
The priority at this stage must therefore be to work with stakeholders across the sector to address the findings of the recent review. We believe that there is clear support for this plan from interested parties and the groups that contributed. Following this, we will monitor the adoption by industry and the impact on accessibility carefully to evaluate whether even further measures may be needed. In the Government’s view, it would therefore be premature to seek legislative measures to mandate the requirements at this stage.
I recognise that these provisions are fundamentally enabling powers, and I am grateful to have been able to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, yesterday afternoon, since he tabled his amendment. Although I cannot currently accept his amendment, and therefore ask him not to press it, the Government will continue to consider this issue. I can assure him that all the groups that I have mentioned will continue to play a vital role in accessibility and taking forward the findings of the review. I will continue to work with him and the noble Baroness on this matter to see what we can do to speed up the process.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister and his team for meeting me a number of times, including during recess, to discuss the amendments that I have tabled. Finding ways to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to move to electric vehicles is so important for our green transition. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a consultation on permitted developments, followed by secondary legislation as soon as possible, and to write to all local authorities to effectively help speed up works to help those seeking cross-pavement solutions. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving this amendment on a new national lane rental scheme. As the noble Lord says, he and I have exchanged correspondence on this issue, for which I also thank him. This Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks.
Lane rental is a valuable tool that enables highway authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. These charges incentivise quicker completion, off-peak scheduling and alternative locations to minimise disruption. Existing schemes, not only that in London with Transport for London—a scheme I happened to have the privilege of introducing in my time as the commissioner at Transport for London—but those in Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex and other applications that are in train, show that lane rental encourages more thoughtful planning and has proven effective in reducing disruption where congestion is most acute.
However, lane rental is not suitable for every area or every road. Many local authorities do not experience the levels of congestion needed to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. We remain committed to empowering local authorities but we must be mindful that there is a risk that extending lane rental powers universally could lead to an inconsistent and fragmented approach across the country. The Government recognise the value of local leadership. That is why, in our devolution White Paper, we committed—subject to consultation—to devolving approval of local lane rental schemes to mayoral strategic authorities. We have consulted on this proposal and will publish the results and next steps as soon as we can.
In relation to proposed revenue ring-fencing, from January 2026, highway authorities operating lane rental schemes will be required to spend 50% of surplus lane rental charges on highway maintenance, including the remediation of potholes, and the remaining 50% on measures intended to reduce the disruption or other adverse effects arising because of street works. These requirements will be set out in legislation and updated guidance, ensuring a balanced and targeted use of funds. For the reasons outlined, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I think we should have a national scheme that can be opted into—and so would still be very much a local scheme—but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. It aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications.
Under existing regulations, a water infrastructure project licence is awarded only if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertaker’s ability to deliver services. The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water company’s competencies, among others, to determine whether specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The amendment’s goal is clear: it is to remove this test.
I have listened to what the noble Baroness said. It is argued that the amendment would allow smaller or less complex projects potentially to be outsourced or treated as specified infrastructure projects, SIPs, and offer better economic efficiency. While we recognise that this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third-party infrastructure projects in the water sector—we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery—we are cautious on this amendment, and I follow the line that we took in Committee. The current regulatory framework, which includes a size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard. Ofwat’s regulations are intended, and the test ensures it, for ambitious projects, if managed by an incumbent company, not to threaten the water company’s fundamental services obligations to its customers.
Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add to this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the Government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector, if crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver.
It is also essential to take note of the Government’s concerns raised in Committee regarding the amendment. They confirmed that they actively resisted this amendment, certainly in Committee. They have already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, SIPR, framework. Our understanding is that Defra intends to amend it to help major water companies to proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The Government stated their concerns that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector’s diversity needs. The Minister assured the Committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe review on water industry modernisation, will be completed in this calendar year.
For those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of Amendment 58A, we believe that the responsible course of action is to allow the Government to complete their committed to and planned regulatory review, so we are unable to support this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 58A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. As we have heard, under the current framework, only projects deemed sufficiently large or complex can be considered for a separate infrastructure licence. This threshold may have made sense at the time that the regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation and investment in the sector, which is already under increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone—a clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models, where they can be demonstrated to give clear public benefit.
Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions and not limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints. This is a modest and targeted amendment that would give Ofwat and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, we support it, and we hope that the Government will think again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to ensure that the specified infrastructure project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.
Two procurement models for delivering infrastructure exist at the moment: SIPR and direct procurement for customers—DPC. I acknowledge that we have to do all we can to make sure that customers get the good value for money that we are all seeking. That is why, in the Government’s response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, we will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models, in the White Paper that will be published shortly. For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am looking forward to the White Paper. I hope, even if it does not come up in the White Paper, that there will be a water Bill coming at some point in the next year or so. If I have not persuaded the Government today, I hope that we will return to this in due course. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 61 in this group is in my name. I will talk to that in a moment, but first I want to say one or two things about the helpful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it points in the right direction, but we need to understand where we would end up if we were to go in that direction.
Some noble Lords will have participated in the debate that we had toward the latter stages of the last Parliament about the new regulations relating to planning fees. One thing that came through quite forcibly from that was that householders—for example, making applications in relation to their own houses—were paying significantly less than the cost of dealing with their application. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there is, and has been subsequently in the Government’s changes to the planning charges, some balancing of that, and that householders are paying more.
If I understand correctly, it is the noble Baroness’s intention that the fees charged should be proportionate to the number of households or the scale of a development—although that is not actually what her amendment says. The amendment simply says that it should be proportionate; it does not say proportionate to what. Basing it on the size of a development could mean basing it in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. I am afraid that when you write legislation, you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his colleagues will take it apart. We do not want that; we want to be very clear about what we are setting out to achieve.
I am sure it is not the noble Baroness’s intention to press the amendment, but it raises an important issue. When Ministers bring forward regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, it is at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble Baroness said and the purposes she was describing.
My amendment is derived from our debate in Committee. I did not have an amendment then, but we had an exchange about Clause 49, which relates to the surcharge that can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. When we reach Clause 49, we see that new Section 303ZZB(6) states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to
“secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons”.
I noticed, in listening to the debate, that new Section 303ZZB(8) says that:
“Regulations …may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.
We therefore have the curious situation where, in the same section, it says that it should not exceed the costs and also that regulations have the specific power to exceed the costs. I have not had a conversation with the Minister, but I have been thinking about this quite carefully. The purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask whether my understanding is correct. If it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly.
New subsection (8), which says that the surcharge could exceed the costs of the listed persons, relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the costs of the work done in relation to any individual application. New subsection (6) tells us that, in effect, it is not just taking one year with another or looking at the costs, but looking at costs across all of these activities and applications, and that, overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. I hope that the explanation of the Bill is precisely that: subsection (8) should only be referenced in relation to an individual application and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur dealing with planning applications.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations be proportionate to the nature and size of the development to which it applies. Proportionate fees are of course vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this amendment as further prescription in the legislation risks reducing flexibility for local authorities and the Secretary of State to respond to changing circumstances. We agree with the principle of proportionality, but we do not think this is the right way. I hope that the Minister will look at our Amendment 103 later today.
Amendment 60 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh would allow the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been properly installed, to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. We are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions, although this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future.
Finally, Amendment 61 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsections (5A) and (5B). I recognise my noble friend’s concerns about the overreach in fee structures and I hope the Government can take the time today to set out the reasons and intentions behind these subsections.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions regarding planning fees. I turn first to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which we had the pleasure of touching on briefly at our meeting last week. I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the type and size of the planning application. However, I respectfully suggest that this amendment is unnecessary and will explain my reasons.
The principle of proportionality already exists in the planning fees regime; in view of the noble Baroness’s comments, I give an example of why I say this. Planning application fees for fewer than 10 new houses are currently £588 per dwelling; for between 10 and 50 dwellings, fees are £635 per dwelling; and, for more than 50 houses, there is a set fee of £31,385, plus £189 for each additional house, up to a maximum fee of £411,885. The fee increases with the number of houses to be built, reflecting the cost to the local planning authority of processing the planning application. This Bill already provides a clear and strong framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate to the type and size of development.
As mentioned in previous debates, the Government plan to introduce a local variation model—I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was not confident of this, but talking to the sector about how we do this will be important—under which a nationally set default fee developed through benchmarking and public consultation will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case with planning fees, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.
To ensure that any locally set fees remain proportionate and reflective of local circumstances, the Bill requires that they must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service and that local communities must be consulted on those proposed changes. Significantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate; this is an important safeguard to uphold consistency and fairness across the system.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is concerned about SMEs. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I had a meeting last week with the APPG for SME House Builders, which raised a number of issues with me. We are all concerned about ensuring that we make things as efficient as possible for SMEs—as well as for those in the charity sector, such as Centrepoint, which the noble Baroness kindly brought to a meeting with me last week—in terms of providing much-needed homes. I assure the noble Baroness that we recognise that SME housebuilders are an indispensable part of the sector. That is why the Government have brought forward a package of financial support for SMEs, including: an extension of £700 million to the home building fund to provide loans and financial support to deliver 12,000 more homes; £2 billion of ENABLE Build guarantees; and a commitment to £100 million of funding for SME accelerator loans. In view of these measures, I am certain that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 60. Well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need. They also safeguard communities from unauthorised or harmful development by ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action where that is necessary. We understand the intention behind this amendment—supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity—but, because planning enforcement serves a much wider public interest, we consider that it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services, rather than for individuals to bear the responsibility.
Additionally, we consider that allowing local planning authorities to set planning fees that included enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees for applicants; indeed, it may have an impact on the very SME builders whom the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, discussed. We are concerned that this may discourage development at a time when we are very committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building. More widely, the Government have committed to a £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will not press her amendment.
Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would remove our ability to introduce a straightforward planning fee surcharge, instead requiring that only the costs incurred in relation to the specific planning application could be recovered. It might be helpful if I elaborated a little more to answer his questions.
We propose to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the planning fee that a developer must pay when submitting an application. We recognise that some applications will require detailed input from half a dozen consultees, while others will require little or no input. As we are not calculating the fee on the basis of application-specific costs, developers may sometimes pay more and sometimes less than the costs incurred by the relevant statutory consultees with regards to that specific application. However, we will be required to set the surcharge so that it does not exceed the relevant costs of the statutory consultees in aggregate. If it costs a certain amount to operate the statutory service, the surcharge must be set so that its income does not exceed that amount. I hope that is helpful.
We fully recognise that direct cost recovery works well for some regimes, such as for NSIPs, where there are relatively few projects. Engagement occurs over a longer period and predominantly takes place prior to the application for development consent being submitted. It also works well for voluntary pre-application engagement. It is important to note that statutory consultation under the Town and Country Planning Act regime is different: it occurs only once the planning application has been submitted. The planning authority must identify which organisations are required to be consulted, and these organisations must respond within statutory timeframes, generally of 21 days.
It is also an issue of high volume. The six largest statutory consultees receive around 50,000 consultations a year, with tens of thousands of unnecessary referrals on top of this. Instituting direct cost recovery by statutory consultees would require a billing mechanism capable of dealing with up to hundreds of thousands of planning application referrals each year, with money and information passing between 300-plus local planning authorities, up to 29 statutory consultees and individual developers. It would significantly increase the complexity of the planning system, increase the administrative infrastructure required and place a substantial pressure on the ability of statutory consultees to deliver within statutory timeframes. Our concern is that instituting this approach would be costly and bureaucratic, create uncertainty for developers over costs and create delays. Just as importantly, it would also remove any incentive for statutory consultees to deliver efficiencies.
The alternative that we are putting forward in the Bill is for a simple, straightforward percentage surcharge on top of the planning fee. This means that, in some cases, as I have said, a developer will pay more through the surcharge than it would cost the statutory consultee, and in some cases the developer will pay less. However, developers will know how much they need to pay upfront, and there will be no unexpected costs. That way we will not be creating more hoops for developers to jump through to get their application considered; they will pay a fee when they submit their application and that is it. Before regulations are introduced, we will consult on proposals to establish the level at which the surcharge will be set and the types of planning application it should apply to.
Lastly, we recognise the risk that charges could be set at inappropriately high levels and that is why our proposed powers make it clear that the surcharge cannot be set at a level which exceeds the relevant cost of the persons, such as the statutory consultees, that the surcharge is intended to cover. That ensures that we limit ourselves to cost recovery in aggregate, even if it does not apply on the basis of individual planning applications. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this amendment but, given the reasons and explanations I have set out, I hope he feels able not to move it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it is of absolutely no surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spotted my drafting omission, which is why we always take his amendments seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board his comments, which I thought were quite pertinent.
I was seeking to make proportionality a clear legal duty rather than a well-intentioned aspiration. So, put very simply, I guess it is about the proof of the pudding and “watch this space”. I hope that we will keep an eye on this, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Although I understand the good intentions behind this amendment, there needs to be a recognition that the planning process is a quasi-judicial process. We also support mandatory training for councillors; we would have supported training for officials and, potentially, for Government Ministers, had my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment arisen, but I will let that pass for now.
Such training must focus on the statutory duties of members, ensuring that those who sit on planning committees are fully aware of their roles; of the legal and regulatory environment; and of the procedures on which they need to make judgment. They need to make decisions based on the legal and regulatory aspects that pertain to the proposals brought to the committee. Climate change, biodiversity, ecology and so on are already embedded in national planning policy. There is guidance on them; that guidance will, and should, be part of the training process.
By expanding the scope of the training beyond the statutory duties—as well as ensuring that consideration of the relevant legislation, planning guidance and local policies occurs in determining an application—the proposals risk adding confusion to the training process and, potentially, undermining the quasi-judicial role of a planning committee. I would have been more sympathetic to proposals around ensuring both that the training is effective and that it covers all aspects of the guidance, policies and legislation—including those highlighted today. However, as I said, having training that is more generic risks confusion. Therefore, I cannot support these proposals.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to noble Lords for providing broad support for the concept of mandatory training for members of local planning authorities.
I turn to Amendment 62, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. As I have set out previously, I am very sympathetic to the issues that were raised by noble Lords in Committee. I reiterate what I said at the time: it would be unthinkable that prescribed training would not include, for example, content on biodiversity net gain. The Government maintain, however, that such specific reference to the content of training should be reserved for secondary legislation. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for once; that is not always the case.
Let me respond to the point about the status quo continuing. This Bill brings mandatory training into force for the first time, so it does move us on from the status quo. Including specific details in the Bill would require the inclusion of an exhaustive list—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, gave some examples of what may or may not be in there—which would have to be kept up to date as we move forward, thus requiring valuable time in Parliament.
I will respond briefly to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on what is being done. The Government are working to bring forward the training package; we consulted on our general approach earlier this year. We will ensure that the training is comprehensive and based on both best practice and ongoing engagement with both industry and local government.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw this amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have learned a lot during the past 15 minutes, some of which I have immediately forgotten. I particularly enjoyed the exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—his stream-of-consciousness, mushroom, anti-Australian cuisine comment —which will live with me for a long time.
I know that my noble friend Lady Boycott did not want to press this amendment. I am optimistic, thanks to what the Minister said about mandatory training being comprehensively in the guidance, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.