(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
12:49 - Division on Amendment 117 - Ayes: 97 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 117 disagreed.
13:01 - Division on Amendment 119 - Ayes: 133 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 119 disagreed.
Lord Ravensdale
“Duties in relation to mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in relation to planning(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in preparing—(a) national policy, planning policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,(b) a national development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.(2) A planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the planning Acts shall have special regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change.(3) When making a planning decision relating to development arising from an application for planning permission, the making of a development order granting planning permission or an approval pursuant to a development order granting planning permission, a relevant planning authority (as defined in section 91 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023) must have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.(4) For the purposes of interpretation of this section“the mitigation of climate change” includes the achievement of—(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(c) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets)(5) “adaptation to climate change” includes—(a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(b) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause places a duty on the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities respectively to have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change with respect to national policy, local plan-making and planning decisions.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank my supporters on this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter. I also thank the Minister for all the engagement we have had on this issue between Committee and Report. I feel a slight sense of déjà vu bringing this amendment before the House, because it is very similar to one tabled to the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill a few years back. We have made some really good progress in the intervening period across both guidance and legislation. I will concentrate my remarks on some of the issues I have discussed with the Minister between Committee and Report. I think we and the Government agree on the general direction of travel; our differences may be in how this should be implemented.
I come back to the point raised by the Government that we now have guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework, which is really positive, that climate and nature should be considered within planning decisions. The difference between having the duty in the NPPF and having the special regard duty in statute is that, with the NPPF, a climate and nature duty is just one consideration among many others for decision-makers on the ground to take account of. It does not have any elevated weight within the planning system. This is quite analogous to issues I have talked about earlier in Committee around duties on regulators; at the moment, regulators do not have that specific strategic direction in line with the Government’s goals, which has led to some of the issues around consenting of large infra- structure, for example. Our duty, using that “special regard” wording, would effectively prioritise or upweight climate within the planning system, which would really make a difference in ensuring that it is adequately considered. That is the core of our difference with the Government. They need to consider how climate can be better embedded and have weight within the planning system.
The other area we have talked about is the concern around litigation and possible legal cases in the court because of an amendment such as this. Actually, since this amendment was first debated during the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, around eight other legislative or regulatory frameworks—ranging from pension scheme trustees to financial regulators, NHS trusts, Ofgem, the Crown Estate, Great British Energy and Ofwat—now have climate and nature duties. As far as I am aware, that has not resulted in any legal cases. On the contrary, the feedback from organisations with these duties appears to demonstrate that they are effectively driving the decision-making and delivery of climate and nature-friendly policies and strategies in these institutions.
The amendment has been reviewed by planning and legal experts and has been derisked by using that well-established legal term “special regard”, which has been tried and tested in the courts over many years in relation to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It also provides clarity. We have had a number of cases go through the courts that are stopping sustainable developments in the UK. It would go in the reverse direction and provide welcome clarity to the planning system. The amendment has had wide support, including from the Chartered Institute of Housing, Rights Community Action, UK100 and the Town and Country Planning Association.
We have a potential way forward here in that the National Planning Policy Framework, is being updated between now and the end of the year. There is a good opportunity here for the Government to consider the wording of the NPPF in the updates they are making. I have proposed some wording to the Minister for how the NPPF could be updated to go back to that point about adding weight to climate and environment within the planning system. If the Minister could consider those updates in the revision to the NPPF and meet me and other stakeholders after the passage of the Bill, that would be a good step forward and a good way to address the outcomes aimed at by this amendment.
In the final analysis, this is about letting local authorities get on with the job of building sustainable developments and infrastructure right across the country to support growth and support our climate and nature targets. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, when I saw Amendments 206 and 114, I knew that I had to table my Amendment 121F, so that biodiversity was not forgotten again as all attention focused on climate change. I say again, and for the last time on this Bill, that with enormous political will and expenditure, it is possible to reverse climate change, but when a species is lost, it is gone forever.
Local authorities have no locus on climate change—no climate change laws apply to them—but they have many obligations under the Environment Act 2021 to save biodiversity. Therefore, I risk saying to the distinguished and noble Lords who have signed Amendment 114, and are far more expert on this matter than I am, that my amendment is more important than theirs.
Proposed new subsection (2) is, I would assert, rather vague. It states:
“A planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the planning Acts shall have special regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change”.
I think the Government already have all the powers and housing regulations to impose standards on insulation, heat pumps and issues relating to net-zero targets. Indeed, a House of Commons 2023 report stated that the role of local authorities is already defined, namely:
“Implementing enforcing minimum energy efficiency standards for new builds … Delivering funding to retrofit existing homes and improve their energy efficiency … Shaping housing, infrastructure and renewable energy development in their area in their role as local planning authorities … Developing and delivering heat network connections … Encouraging active travel, decarbonising public transport and installing public chargepoints for electric vehicles”.
That is why I say that Amendment 114 is unnecessary.
Although there is only one target on climate change—net zero by 2050—the UK has 23 targets on halting and reversing biodiversity loss. They were published in March, as referred to in my amendment, in the policy paper Blueprint for Halting and Reversing Biodiversity Loss: the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030, which is the UK plan to implement the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, agreed in 2022, in which the UK played a leading role and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee played a very important role.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 206 and apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as I might add more ad nauseam to the debate. I very much take his point on biodiversity; of course, climate change and biodiversity are not either/or. They are interlinked, interconnected and completely dependent on each other. I very much welcome his amendment and the other amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, in this group.
My amendment gives a duty to have regard to the Climate Change Act. This is a light-touch, non-prescriptive amendment, but it is a vital step to ensure that all of our planning and infrastructure decisions are aligned with our binding climate targets and commitments. The Climate Change Act sets a clear target for us to get to net zero and it is important that these targets are not held with the Government. I also support the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which is making its way through this House. Too much in the original Act is still too centralised around government. The Government need everybody’s help to ensure that we make the progress we need to make in the little time we have left to do it on these matters. That means that we need devolution of these responsibilities. The Government need to work in partnership with all these associated bodies and authorities to make sure that all this urgent action that we have to take can get done.
My amendment is not prescriptive; it is not telling the Government what to do. I think it has power, because it would be a general overarching duty—and a light-touch one, as I say. We know that our infrastructure and buildings contribute significantly to our carbon. We also know that, if we do not get this stuff right in the face of a warming planet, we will have roads that flood, railways that do not work, houses not fit for people to live in in a warmed climate, greater health and other inequalities, greater illness and an inability to conduct the business of state and to lead our lives in the way that we want to. This stuff is not a “nice to have” and it is not additional; this has to be core and fundamental to what we are building today, to make sure that it still works and is fit for purpose tomorrow. This is not just a “nice to have”; this is essential. I do not think that this is overly prescriptive. It would not in any way prevent the Government reaching the growth and progress that they want. We share that goal as well, but we have to make sure that the things we build today are fit for purpose, have a lifespan and can achieve their desired outcomes.
I also greatly welcome Amendment 114. I recognise the wording in this amendment, which is crucial. The “special regard” wording is important. I note that the noble Lord said that it has been through a number of processes to make sure that the wording works. It is important that the Government bring forward more guidance on the NPPF and that it is updated as part of the broader suite of documents on planning.
I also support Amendment 121F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. To go back to where I started, we must not forget about biodiversity in these matters. It is important and the noble Lord is correct that, when species go, they are gone forever—they will not come back and we are the worse off for that. I will bear in mind his comments that they must not be an afterthought, and I hope that we can continue to all work together on these matters.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 114 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, to which I have added my name. I thank my noble friend for his excellent introduction to the amendment and also for his hard work in the background with the Minister. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment, which I support—it has a similar intent to Amendment 114—and I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his reminder that biodiversity is also important. I was a little surprised, in fact, because when we debated my Private Member’s Bill, which placed a climate and nature duty on all public authorities, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was not totally supportive. Perhaps in the meantime he has reflected and come to my side—I welcome him.
I want to make one specific point, because I do not want to extend the debate beyond the limited time that we have. I will focus on an illustrative example to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already alluded: the problem of overheating in buildings. We should all remember that the climate change agenda is not just about mitigation, but adaptation; so there are in fact multiple targets. The Government are committed to net zero by 2050 on the mitigation side, but they have also committed in a variety of ways to adapting us to the inevitable consequences of climate change, however good we are at mitigating it. One aspect of adaptation is to future-proof our buildings in the face of more extreme climate events.
I make particular reference to overheating because, in Committee in September, I asked the Minister how many homes being built today are resilient in the face of overheating, which is highly likely to become increasingly important. The noble Baroness kindly wrote to me on 18 September to answer the question, and the short answer is that in 2025, roughly 50% of new homes are future-proofed in relation to heating. That means that half the people who have bought new homes will find them very hard to live in during the decade ahead. That is shocking. We should be really embarrassed about allowing people to spend their valuable money on homes that will be unsuitable in the decades to come.
However, the Minister also pointed out that Part O of the building regulations introduced in 2021 requires new residential buildings to be built in a way that reduces the risk of overheating. The letter goes on to explain how that is done, and it includes making windows that can be opened when outside temperatures are cooler. When outside temperatures do not get cooler—when it is 25 degrees at night and 39 degrees in the day—opening windows will not help you: the ingress of heat must be prevented during the day. Therefore, although Part O of the building regulations alludes to making buildings resilient in the face of excess heat, it does not go far enough.
The recent letter from the Adaptation Committee to Emma Hardy, the Environment Minister, written by my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge—my successor as chair of that committee—emphasises that the risks of overheating will double in the decades ahead. In the foreseeable future, there is an 80% chance of extreme heat in the summer in this country. It is unacceptable for us to allow builders to build houses, and indeed other public buildings such as hospitals and schools, that are not resilient in the face of excess heating. I hope that the Minister will go back and discuss with her officials how we can strengthen the building regulations, or the NPPF, to ensure absolutely that people do not move into new homes or new public buildings today that will be unhabitable in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly add one further point to the support for Amendment 114, to which I put my name. I am sure the Minister will tell us that local authorities and Ministers already have responsibilities for the roles outlined in the amendment, including in the NPPF, but this would bring the responsibility up to date and in one place. In these times, when one could infer from “build, baby, build” that only development matters and nothing else, this amendment would provide clarity and a long overdue appropriate sense of the importance of balance.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments at this stage of the Bill and, clearly, we are heading towards Part 3. I am trying to understand why bringing aspects of this into primary legislation is necessary, given existing legislation and, indeed, a plethora of programmes put in place by government. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 121F, because we were successful with the Environment Act, and we put in place a biodiversity duty through regulation, similar to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to do with Amendment 206 in applying the Climate Change Act. But there are very different circumstances here. Through climate change and carbon budgets, we have national programmes that in effect already control what is happening for local authorities in carrying out their duties. When it comes to biodiversity, what is significant is quite how different parts of the United Kingdom are—or, in this case, in terms of the legislation in England. The beauty of the local nature recovery strategies—which we are yearning to get into place—is that the principal thing a local authority can do is to decide how land is used, and what planning permissions are granted to enhance biodiversity. That is the whole point behind the local nature recovery strategies.
There is merit in my noble friend’s amendment trying to link that directly—in primary legislation, not a regulation—to the achievement of the requirements of the 2021 Act, to achieve, in effect, the stopping of the halting of biodiversity by 2030. Combining the direct links and helping local councils to continue to navigate that way is why I think there is a lot of merit in Amendment 121F. If my noble friend Lord Blencathra were to consider testing the opinion of the House on it, I would of course support him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond on this group of amendments, I convey my get-well wishes to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, who, as noble Lords will realise, very much hoped to be here with us today, but unfortunately is unwell. I know that she wanted to take part in today’s discussions. We all send her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I am grateful to hear the passion around the Chamber on both climate change and biodiversity, and the healthy tension that seems to have arisen between the two in this morning’s discussion. The key issue is that they are, of course, interdependent, and we have to consider both.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Amendment 114, which seeks to require the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in national planning policy, local plans and planning decisions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject and other matters concerning the Bill.
We support the principle that both central and local government should be held to a high standard of accountability in considering climate change throughout the planning system. Of course, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that local government has a vital role in all this. However, as made clear in previous debates, planning policy and existing statutory requirements already cover much of the content of this amendment. For example, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires local planning authorities to include in their local plans policies that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. There is also a requirement in the Environment Act 2021 that environmental factors are considered in the planning system. It also includes the environmental principles duty, which applies to Ministers when making policy.
Furthermore, the Environment Agency produces the flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, in line with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which all risk management authorities, such as district councils, lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards, are required to act in accordance with.
The National Planning Policy Framework incorporates the principles of sustainable development, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. We have committed to consulting this year on a clearer set of national policies to support decision-making. This will fully recognise the importance of the issue, set out more explicit principles to be followed in the planning system and include further consideration of how the planning system can best address and respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation. I encourage the noble Lord to engage with this consultation when it is launched. The exact wording of these policies and how they interact with other policies in the NPPF will need to be subject to careful consideration, so it would not be appropriate to commit to a specific wording in advance of this or prior to the public consultation that needs to take place.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about overheating. As he will know, we always keep building regulations under review, but I will take his comments back to the team about what more we need to do to promote the issues around overheating and how we deal with it.
It is crucial that we address climate change in an effective way that avoids being unnecessarily disruptive or giving rise to excess litigation. A legal obligation to give special regard to climate change across the planning system risks opening many decisions to potential legal challenges, especially given how broad climate change is as a concept. I understand the noble Lord’s good intentions, but there is a very real risk that the potential for legal challenge opened by this amendment could impede the production of the policies and decision-making needed to tackle this important issue.
I should stress that, although planning policies do not at present carry specific legal weight in decision-making, this should not obscure the significant influence they carry in the operation of the planning system as important material considerations that must be taken into account where they are relevant. I have written to all noble Lords on this matter.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions related to the NPPF, and I am happy to continue meeting him about that. Although we agree that climate change is an extremely serious matter in the context of planning, I hope your Lordships will agree that the approach I have set out is the more appropriate route to ensuring that this happens. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 121F, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 when preparing national planning policy. It also seeks to require relevant planning authorities to have special regard to the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan for 2030. I welcome the principle of the amendment, as it seeks to embed the environment in planning policy. However, it is unnecessary because it duplicates existing legislation. When setting policy, Ministers must have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement. This applies to all new policy, including planning policy. It sets out a robust framework on how to embed environmental decision-making into policy-making.
Current national planning policy is clear that local development plans and individual planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment, including by protecting sites of biodiversity value. Individual planning applications are assessed against national policies to ensure that decisions are made considering the natural environment. For example, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.
Where relevant, legislation such as the environmental impact assessment regulations and habitats regulations also applies, which ensures that the environmental impacts of individual planning applications are considered thoroughly before relevant planning authorities decide whether to grant consent. Local development plans themselves are subject to strategic environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, which require the likely significant effects of a plan or programme to be reported and include reference to biodiversity.
As the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 says, we have created
“powerful new tools such as Biodiversity Net Gain in England, a mandatory approach to development which makes sure that habitats for wildlife are left in a measurably better state than they were before the development”.
I therefore trust that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, agrees that existing legislation and policy is in place and this amendment is not needed. I ask him to consider not pressing his amendment.
Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require those performing functions under Part 3 to have regard to the Climate Change Act 2008. I recognise that the noble Earl is seeking to deepen engagement with the Climate Change Act but suggest that the existing approach in the Bill is sufficient to ensure that such matters are properly considered where appropriate.
Clause 88(3) already requires Natural England or the Secretary of State to have regard to relevant strategies and plans, which would include the Climate Change Act where it was relevant to an EDP. This ensures that the Climate Change Act is factored in where appropriate but avoids adding undue burden to the preparation of EDPs where it is not relevant. The noble Earl will be aware of the wider consideration of the Climate Change Act throughout the planning process, so I hope he understands why including explicit consideration in the EDP process in this way is not necessary. On that basis, I hope he feels able not to press his amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, provided an excellent sum-up about climate change not being the only game in town. That is an important consideration, which is why I attempted in my Amendment 114 to join things up and include the Environment Act alongside climate change considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also made an important point about systems join-up and said that we need to consider adaptation very strongly as well in how we take all this forward.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. She listed a number of other areas of legislation and guidance in which this issue is mentioned. But, of course, that is partly the point of this amendment—that it would provide a link-up between all the scattered mentions of climate and environment throughout the existing legislation and guidance.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the “special regard” wording has been well tested in respect of heritage buildings. I recognise that it is already reflected but I am trying to drive at the fact that it needs weight within the planning system.
I am encouraged by what the Minister had to say about the NPPF and the opportunity to engage with that process. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Local plan compliance with Habitats Regulations assessmentsWhen developing a local plan, a local planning authority must—(a) consider whether the plan complies with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012); and(b) conduct strategic environmental impact assessments for all sites being proposed as suitable for development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable local plans to guide developers towards sites most appropriate for development and speed up and simplify the subsequent planning application process by conducting Habitats Regulations strategic environmental assessments at local plan stage
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I have retabled slightly amended versions of Amendments 115 and 116, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. These amendments try to ensure that compliance with habitats regulations assessments happens earlier in the process, at the local plan and spatial development strategy stage. This would better direct development away from the most vulnerable habitats and would help speed up the pre-planning process for developers by enabling them to focus on sites that are more suitable for development.
This approach is very much in line with conversations I had a number of years ago when, as a biodiversity scientist in Oxford, I was asked to provide advice to senior officials from a certain extractive industry. They made the point that, in looking for areas in which to work, they often get extractive rights for around 10 kilometres but their footprint is only half a kilometre. I asked them what information they needed from us biodiversity scientists, and the answer was, “We want to know, where can we damage?” As a biodiversity scientist, I was slightly alarmed by that reply, but that is the nub of the problem, and it is a really good question. Can we inform people before the pre-planning stage which areas are suitable for development and which are not, based on the ecological risk they would carry if they were damaged? This is about looking in a totally different way at where to put our energies, and it would do what it did for those extractive industries and provide, in this Bill, a pragmatic and fast way for developers to move on.
These two amendments are very much in line with that sentiment. We already have in place a mechanism that should be doing this—land use frameworks— but in the absence of that, I bring forward my Amendment 115. It would provide that, when developing their local plans, local authorities must consider the habitats regulations and conduct strategic environmental assessments for all sites proposed for development. Amendment 116 seeks to ensure the same with spatial development strategies, so that local authorities will have already done the work on the habitats regulations, and planners can then move on to the areas where they know they are not going to get huge pushback the minute they submit their plans to the planning authorities. Such measures would highlight the areas that can be developed, streamline the process and protect those really important areas of biodiversity—all things that the Bill’s key objectives set out to do. They would just change where these things sit in the process to ensure that it is good for building and good for nature.
Finally, although the majority of planning delays are caused not by environmental regulations but by other pressures, such as lack of resource and expertise in our planning departments, I want to emphasise that my amendment would also reduce costs. The work would have been done already, so we would not have a whole slew of environmental impact assessments, for example, coming in at a later stage, and the duplication that causes much of this delay. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her introduction to this amendment, to which I put my name.
I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee and during the various meetings that have taken place, which she kindly arranged. I am comforted somewhat by the assurances given that both local plans and spatial strategies will be required to take account of the habitats and species regulations and to conduct appropriate environmental assessments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, outlined, the aim of these amendments—in conjunction with Amendment 130, which we will debate later—is very much to encourage as much of the heavy lifting on habitats regulations compliance as possible to be undertaken in advance of planning applications, in order to guide developers away from more sensitive sites so they can achieve a faster trip through the planning process.
There is, however, one issue that remains unresolved in my mind, which is the question raised by Amendment 116 as to whether the spatial strategies will be required to take account of the land use framework. I was encouraged on Monday when the Minister spontaneously referred to the land use framework. At least that must mean that the land use framework is still alive; I thought it might have been parked by new Ministers. Perhaps the Minister could assure us about the relationship between strategic spatial plans—and indeed local plans—and the land use framework, and when we might expect to see the land use framework. If used properly, it would obviate many of the requirements of Part 3 by having a rational approach to competing land use demands.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 115, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is of course our total champion on the land use framework. I share her desire to see progress in that area as soon as possible.
I will just highlight what this is about and why we should have these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said that the question being asked is, where can we cause damage? That is what will happen. We are talking about the sites and species protected by the habitats regulations, which are of the highest international importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that we have had reassurances from the Minister that this is taken into account in local plans. I would be interested to hear what further reassurances the Minister can provide, because I do not think that that is what is happening. We are continually told, “Don’t worry about this. We don’t need this amendment because this is already happening; it is already covered by existing rules, regulations and laws”, but we all know that these things are not happening. Perhaps the Minister can answer that question. If those are indeed the rules, why is this not happening and what will the Government do to make sure that it does?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I rise to address Amendments 115 and 116, introduced with such eloquence by the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown, Lady Young and Lady Bennett. These amendments attempt to reinforce safeguards within our planning system on a very strategic level. They are precise and would embed formal compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and they go directly to the preparation of local plans and spatial development strategies. They would ensure that environmental due diligence is not left until the late stages, when it is most vulnerable to oversight or to legal challenge—an aspect of the Bill that makes us very nervous.
Amendment 115 would oblige local planning authorities to conduct strategic environmental impact assessments for every site considered for development during plan making, and it would require that the plan’s compliance with habitats regulations be established from the beginning. This would ensure the first step of something close to our hearts in this Chamber, and which I hope we will discuss later in considering other groups: the all-important mitigation hierarchy. Avoidance of harm to sensitive habitats in advance would be actively enforced before development locations are finalised. The current system’s reliance on site-by-site reactive checks too often leaves nature protection exposed to the risk of retrospective fix or reactive compensation.
Amendment 116 would extend this by compelling authorities to guarantee habitat regulation compliance at the highest strategic levels. Both amendments would make environmental improvement an explicit statutory purpose within planning, a principle that aligns tightly with our belief on these Benches that operational planning must be future-facing and nature-positive, rather than solely a mechanism to accommodate growth. Their adoption would help steer development to appropriate places, supporting broader non-negotiable national goals to halt and reverse nature decline by 2030 and double nature by 2050. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to both amendments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I would like to convey from this side of the House our hopes for the swift recovery of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
As I raised in Committee, spatial development strategies and local plans should be the strategic documents that map out development in an area. This could be the stage where all the complex issues and trade-offs can be addressed to deliver the housing, commercial infrastructure and community facilities that we need, while also addressing the environmental impact and other issues. As such, there is a strong argument that these should include the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation and strategic impact assessments, as well as many other regulations that must often now be carried out on a site-by-site basis.
It would also be an alternative, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, to the Government’s proposed EDPs. This, if done correctly with the appropriate legislation, regulation and powers given to those local plans and local authorities, could deliver both better outcomes for the environment and a faster, simpler planning system, particularly had some of our previous amendments been included—for instance, my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment on proportionality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, pointed out, this could facilitate at an earlier stage a focus on areas and sites more appropriate for development. For landowners and developers, it could reduce the cost and speed up the process.
We support the intentions of these amendments, however—unfortunately, there is a however—the amendment as laid out does not address the key second part: ensuring that developments in line with an approved spatial development strategy or local plan satisfy the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, with no further need for environmental impact assessments on a site-by-site basis. To address this latter part would require substantial additions to the Bill, which are not being proposed. As such, these amendments risk adding stages and processes while still needing to substantially repeat these subsequently on a site-by-site basis, with that additional burden adding delays to the planning process and further costs for no particular benefit. For those reasons, while we support the intentions, we cannot support these amendments.
I should also like to take this opportunity, as we are discussing habitats regulations, to ask whether the Government still intend to block the development of tens of thousands of much needed homes by giving force to the habitats regulation in Clause 90 to Ramsar sites.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to ensure that local plans comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and that an authority which prepares a local plan carries out a full environmental impact assessment for all sites designated as suitable for development in that plan.
I hope I can deal with these matters quickly and reassure the noble Baroness that local planning authorities are already required to undertake habitats regulations assessments where there is the potential for impact on a site or species protected under the regulations. Additionally, local plans need to undertake strategic environmental assessment, which will form part of the local plan that is consulted on and then considered for adoption. The noble Baroness’s amendment would go further and would require not only a strategic environmental assessment of the plan, but project-level environmental impact assessments of sites designated as suitable for development under the plan.
As I mentioned in Committee, this would require a depth of information about a specific development proposal that simply would not be available at the plan-making stage, and it is adequately captured by any development that comes forward, which meets the threshold for requiring this further assessment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance, and I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 116, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted an important matter regarding the application of habitats regulations to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, I reassure her that the amendment she proposes is unnecessary. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already ensures that the requirements of the habitats regulations are applied to spatial development strategies. This provision obliges strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments where appropriate.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to mandate habitats regulations assessments for specific site allocations within spatial development strategies, but the Bill explicitly prohibits such allocations. As a result, strategic planning authorities will not be in a position to carry out site-specific habitats regulations assessments during the preparation of SDSs. Such assessments, if required, would need to be conducted at a later stage in the planning process, even if this amendment was accepted by the House.
I shall answer a couple of the questions asked. My noble friend Lady Young asked about the land use framework. This is being actively worked on by Defra and is due for publication next year. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about Ramsar. We shall have a debate about that later in the course of the Bill, so I am sure he will have his questions answered at that point. Given those clarifications, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not pressing her amendments.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall make a couple of points. What we are talking about here is a matter of both scale and timing. If we had a land use framework in place, it would look, I hope, at the habitats regs for different areas that had been earmarked as appropriate for development, farming and all the other land uses that we need in this country. But we do not have it in place, so it comes down to a matter of scale.
We can argue that we have to wait until we get to the very fine detail of a plan coming in from a developer and then, at that point, they have to get the habitats regs in place but—this is where I am afraid I disagree with the Conservative Benches—that is not the point of these amendments. The point is to do it before the developers go in. If you do it before, it makes it faster and cheaper, and they can then move in quickly. Right now, there is one barrier after another for the developer, so I do not understand this matter of timing and detail. We keep coming back to the detail, but we have to take a strategic approach. Is that not what strategic plans are for? If we are not going to put them in strategic plans, where will they be?
However, I appreciate the response from the Minister and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Permission for gambling premises: cumulative impact assessments(1) A planning authority shall, when considering any application for planning permission or change of use for premises which are to be used for gambling, take into consideration any relevant cumulative impact assessment published in accordance with subsection (2), and where such an assessment has been published they shall in the absence of very special circumstances refuse the application.(2) A licensing authority may publish a document (“a cumulative impact assessment”) to inform the planning authority’s decision under subsection (1), stating that they consider that the number of premises licences granted under section 163 of the Gambling Act 2005 (determination of application) in one or more parts of their area described in the assessment is such that it is likely that it would be—(a) inconsistent with the licensing objectives in section 1 of that Act, or(b) harmful to the wellbeing of the community,for there to be any increase in the number of such premises in that part or those parts, and where it does so it shall include a summary of the evidence on which it based its assessment.(3) Before taking a cumulative impact assessment into consideration in accordance with subsection (1), the planning authority must satisfy itself that the licensing authority, before it published the assessment or a renewed or revised version of the assessment, consulted any persons who in the licensing authority’s opinion have business interests which might be affected by the assessment, and provided them with the following information—(a) the reasons why they were considering publishing a cumulative impact assessment;(b) a general indication of the part or parts of their area which they were considering describing in the assessment.(4) The planning authority may only take a cumulative impact assessment into consideration in accordance with subsection (1) if the assessment is less than three years old.(5) In section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005 (principles to be applied), at the end of subsection (1) insert—“but this subsection does not prevent a licensing authority from publishing a cumulative impact assessment as described in section (Permission for gambling premises: cumulative impact assessments) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025”.”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. I intend to speak only to Amendment 117 in my name. I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support for the amendment.
I raised this issue in Committee and explained the urgent need to give local authorities additional powers to limit the number of gambling premises on our high streets. It is no coincidence that gambling operators wish to locate their premises in deprived areas where people can least afford to gamble yet sadly gamble most. Research shows that the most deprived local authorities have three times as many gambling premises per head of population as the least deprived local authorities. There are not only clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and the problems that this creates for individuals, their families and those communities.
But councils that wish to reduce this harm by limiting the number of gambling premises come up against the most pernicious part of the Gambling Act 2005: Section 153, which actually requires them to permit the use of premises for gambling in the absence of very specific reasons not to do so. Therefore, the power they need, which they already have in the case of alcohol licensing, is to be able to conduct prior evidence-based assessment of the impact of the number of gambling premises in particular areas. If that assessment shows that in any area there are already so many gambling premises that any more would be harmful to the well-being of the community, they can publish that assessment—a cumulative impact assessment. Once they have done so, it then acts as grounds for refusing permission for yet more gambling premises. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the relevant Minister at the time, knows that it is exactly what the Conservatives supported in their 2023 White Paper. It is also what the current Government have said they want to achieve. On 9 June, in reply to a Written Question in the other place, the DCMS Minister said that
“cumulative impact assessments … would allow local authorities to take into account a wide range of evidence to inform licensing decisions and to consider the cumulative impact of gambling premises in a particular area. We will look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to licensing of gambling premises … when parliamentary time allows”.
Even the Prime Minister has made clear that he supports it on behalf of the Government. He said:
“It is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments, like those already in place for alcohol licensing, and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and numbers of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/25; col. 281.]
The Minister and the Prime Minister both spoke about local authorities, and so have I. However, we have to bear in mind that, where a gambling operator wishes to open new gambling premises, it needs both planning permission from the local authority, wearing its planning authority hat, and a gambling premises licence from the local authority, wearing its licensing authority hat. Because this is a planning Bill, the amendment that I moved in Committee would have given the powers to make the cumulative impact assessment to the planning authority. In reply, the Minister said:
“The Government are … of the view that the most appropriate body to assess the cumulative impact of licensed gambling premises is the local licensing authority, rather than the planning authority”. —[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1449.]
That is why they were not willing to support it.
The amendment that I am now moving would accordingly give the licensing authority the power to make a cumulative impact assessment, exactly as happens for alcohol licensing, and the planning authority the duty to take it into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission for gambling premises, again, exactly as applies to alcohol licensing. I have been absolutely assured that this falls within the scope of the Bill.
This is a power that local authorities urgently need to prevent the undue proliferation of gambling premises. On Monday, in the other place, the Minister from MHCLG, in a Written Answer, extolled the virtues of cumulative impact assessments to tackle these issues. She said:
“We will introduce Cumulative Impact Assessments when parliamentary time allows”.
The Bill provides the parliamentary time, and the amendment can deliver what the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister and the Government say that they want.
I am more than happy to accept that the Minister may say there are some technical deficiencies with the amendment. I genuinely do not think there are. But if that is her response, and if she is willing to agree to have a meeting to discuss it before Third Reading, I assure her that I will not delay the House and will be willing later to withdraw the amendment. At this stage, to enable the debate, I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister also send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Sorry, Lady Hayman. The noble Baroness is always an ally on the topic of small businesses, which is the subject of my Amendment 121G; I will concentrate on this rather than on gambling premises, which are also considered in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, spoke with great eloquence, for which I thank him.
I tabled Amendment 121G following our discussion on Amendment 119. It is an attempt to persuade the Minister to think again. Although it was a late debate, there was considerable support in the House for my attempt in Amendment 119. I continue to prefer that formula and am planning to divide on it; however, this alternative formulation would ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under the Bill gave due consideration to the difficulties often faced by SME developers in engaging with the planning system. Such businesses, spread across the country, could make a much larger contribution to the Government’s house- building target of 1.5 million homes. The achievement of this target is going backwards—as we know from the leaked letter sent by the Home Builders Federation to the OBR—with productivity, which I care a lot about, also adversely affected.
Small entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country. If they are freed up, as we recommended in the cross-party report by the Built Environment Committee on demand for housing, they can make a huge difference. The difficulties that they face have meant that, in the past 30 years or so, the share of smaller operators in housing has officially declined from 39% to 10%; actually, I heard from a noble Lord last week that it has now declined to a new low of 9%.
The good news is that there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that we must reverse this trend. I believe that we must use the Bill to make things easier. My new amendment, to which it may be easier for the Government to agree, would introduce a duty to reduce the difficulties faced when engaging in the planning process, but it would do so in planning guidance. This would leave the Minister much more room for manoeuvre than my previous amendment did. It would ultimately be for MHCLG Ministers to decide how best to achieve the shift towards SMEs, and to translate that into guidance, but we must have in the Bill a reference to reducing barriers for SMEs if such businesses and their charitable counterparts are to start resuming their historical place in housing.
The changes in the site size thresholds working paper, which the Minister referenced, are generally welcome. However, we need something more concrete to deliver the crucial diversification of housing. For example, perhaps we could have an SME target for local authorities, Homes England and/or Natural England—or some other means; that can be decided on later—but a reference to the SME mission, which the Government purport to support, is needed because, in Whitehall and among these bodies, there is limited support for small businesses. I know this from my long career in dealing with all of them.
As noble Lords know, I am passionate about reducing barriers for SMEs. Referring to this in the Bill is, I believe, the way to inject more competition, diversity and enterprise into the sector. SME building in small developments is good for community cohesion, local employment and, above all, growth. It is extraordinary that there is nothing in the Bill to promote it. I hope that the Minister will be willing to agree to amend the guidance accordingly, either in a formal undertaking to the House—going beyond the consultations that are going on—or through a government amendment. She would gain many plaudits, and I encourage her to think again.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak solely to Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to which I have attached my name. The noble Lord has already introduced it eloquently and powerfully, but I want to add a bit of context and a little more information to what he said.
The context is that, at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday—it was, of course, talking about taxing gambling rather than licensing it; none the less, this is a relevant comment—the head of the Betting and Gaming Council was asked about the social ills of gambling. She said that there is no social ill and that the industry is doing
“everything that it possibly can in order to mitigate any harms that may be caused by our products”.
I would suggest that that testimony is either not honest or is astonishingly, unbelievably ignorant. What the industry is doing is everything possible to make money. We have an extreme inequality of arms. You have the industry, and then you have local authorities—particularly those in deprived areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said—that cannot do anything to stop the social ill and the damage that they can see being done.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a few remarks on Amendment 121G in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I also support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on gambling premises. I am a former MP who represented a town centre, Redditch, where we often saw these challenges in maintaining a healthy mix of shops and businesses. Thinking about planning decisions on a holistic basis would have been very beneficial. These challenges cannot be fixed by planning alone, but planning can play a part.
Turning to Amendment 121G, I declare my interest as someone who was a small business owner and an entrepreneur for more than 30 years. I thank my lucky stars that that was not in the construction sector because, honestly, that is one of the hardest sectors to operate in—particularly for a small business. When I was the Housing and Planning Minister, I spent a lot of time with small and medium businesses. It was really difficult to hear their stories, which were often frustrating, heartbreaking and tragic. Ultimately, we as a country are losing out if we fail to support and nourish these incredibly hardy and resilient people. Many of them are at risk of losing their livelihoods; in fact, some recent statistics suggest that around half of SME construction businesses are at risk of insolvency by the end of this Parliament. That is why I support this amendment.
What my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has put forward is very sensible. She makes the point that, too often, the system defaults to one-size-fits-all requirements, which land heaviest on smaller firms. We talk about the NPPF. It has 76 pages and is relatively concise, I agree, but it sits on top of a very large and complex ecosystem of guidance. This is one of the concerns that businesses repeatedly raise: the real burden lies in all of that additional guidance, not just in the 76 pages of the NPPF. Volume housebuilders can navigate such things easily, but it is not so for SMEs. For instance, negotiating Section 106 agreements hits them disproportionately harder, on top of all of the cost burdens that they face.
Anyone who has been a local representative—whether a councillor or a Member of Parliament—knows well that opposition exists to virtually all housing of any kind, no matter where it is. However, in my experience, SME local builders with roots in the community are in a much better position to overcome these hurdles and contribute to desperately needed housing.
In conclusion, these are practical amendments that support local authorities to plan for places in which families want to live, shop and invest.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I am appalled by the statement read to the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Noble Lords have to understand that it is very embarrassing for me to be on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I have to say that what she just read out shows what a disgraceful industry this is and how much money is being made out of the poorest and most deprived places.
I have lived with this problem for many years. My father was a clergyman in one of the worst slum areas of Britain. He always said that gambling was much more damaging than drink or any of the other things to which referred. It was particularly damaging in his parish, which contained a large number of military personnel, both retired and present.
I hope that the Minister will not make the speech that I suspect I might have had written for me as a Minister. It goes like this: “This is a planning Bill, and this amendment refers to the licensing duties of a local authority. I know that we already said that it was more appropriate for licensing authorities than the Planning Bill but, because this is a planning Bill, we really believe that it should be left for a different piece of legislation”. Yet the Government have said that they will make these changes immediately when there is some opportunity in Parliament to do it.
This amendment is an opportunity. What is more, it has been shown to be within the long title of the Bill, so, if the Minister says that it cannot be done because it is not appropriate, I will have to say to her that I do not believe the House should accept that. The House should simply say that it is clearly appropriate and that this is a clear opportunity. If the Government do not support that, I say something very tough to them: this is about the very people whom this Government are always banging on about and are supposed to be supporting. These are the people who are most at risk from the bloodsuckers who run the gambling industry and know what they are doing. They are applying to the very people who are most vulnerable and from whom they get most of their money.
I say this to the Minister: there is a growing anger around the country at what is happening and at the vast sums of money that some of the people who own these companies make. The biggest payer of income tax in Britain runs a betting company. That says something deeply offensive about our society; I do not believe that any of us should stop the battle to change this.
I wish also to say one thing about my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment. I hope that the Government will not say that it is not necessary to make the point about small businesses. My noble friend has concentrated on the construction industry but, very recently—in the past three years—I applied to the local authority to change a residential building back to what it had originally been since 1463: a public house.
That piece of planning change for a very small business —I do not know what I was doing starting a small business at my age, but there we were—for the benefit of the community, took a year. It was the year in which construction prices rose faster than they had for generations. At the end of that year, the cost of what one was trying to do for the community was significantly greater than at the beginning. The reasons for holding it up included the conservation officer complaining that we were going to use second-hand pamments and bricks; we were obviously going to do so because that is my attitude to these things. My architect said, “My client is strongly concerned about climate change and wishes, therefore, to use second-hand materials”. He got back from the conservation officer a note that said, “I don’t care about climate change; I’m interested only in conservation”.
Even if you know something about these things, it is very difficult to put up with a year of that kind of conversation. I merely say to the Minister that it is essential that we have in this Bill a clear statement that small businesses must be treated with the consideration that they do not have the means to do things that big businesses have. I really hope that we can resurrect small construction businesses, but we will not do that unless they have special understanding as far as planning is concerned.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief; I had not intended to speak but I want to say a few words.
First, I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s excellent amendment; I pay tribute to her persistence and indefatigability in defending small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I find myself agreeing with my noble friend Lord Deben—not always a common phenomenon—and with his excellent, passionate remarks in support of Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I say this only because my own experience leads me to believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that there is balance and fairness in the planning system between betting companies, which have significant resources at their disposal—in particular, legal resources—and planning departments, which are often in small local authorities and do not have the capacity to push back against some of the planning policies that allow betting companies to put fixed-odds betting terminals in very deprived areas, for instance.
I raised this issue when I had the privilege of serving in the other place with, among others, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, the Member of Parliament for Chingford and Woodford Green. As a communitarian, not a libertarian, I believe that civic society is about protecting those people who are most likely to be the victims of market dysfunction. This is another example of market dysfunction. It is zeroing in on people who have very little money; advantage is being taken of them. This is not a draconian proposal to close down betting shops, gaming arcades and other facilities; it is about redressing the balance to allow there to be a cumulative impact assessment on issues around adult social care and on the depression, illness and penury, frankly, with which many people suffer; I saw this in my constituency of Peterborough a number of times.
You do not have to be liberal, anti-capitalist or anti-free market to support this amendment. It is about fairness and equity, treating people equally giving planning officers, in our local councils and on planning committees, the weapons to make a reasoned, fact-based case for preventing development that would be undesirable and damaging to their local communities. It is on that basis that I support the noble Lord’s excellent amendment. I hope that the Minister will give it a fair hearing, because it is well thought through and considered. I know that my Front Bench will do a similar job in analysing the amendment. I think there is consensus that fair play should be at the heart of this and that planners need weapons to deal with potentially very unsuitable developments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on getting a permission within a year—perhaps he could give us all a few tips on how to achieve that. I really want to support Amendment 119, but I am concerned that it is so general. It does not specify what the barriers are—we may know what they are from personal experience—or how to overcome them. I have a question about what its practical impact would be. If I can be persuaded that putting in the Bill that they must “have regard to” and “consider” the barriers will not simply be a tick-box exercise and one more thing for the planners to get over, I would be happy to support it. At the moment, however, while I entirely agree that there are issues for SMEs in this sector, it is difficult to see what real impact this amendment would have.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and, by extension, the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I was for six years the chairman of a local enterprise partnership. It is often overlooked that the prosperity of the parts of this country that are having greatest difficulties can be majorly improved by enabling SMEs to take forward their projects. As has been said, the rules are the rules for everyone. It is much easier for big enterprises, which have large head offices and all the rest of it, to deal with the very considerable amount of administrative and other paperwork that is increasingly a part of the planning process. That in turn makes it discriminatory. We should not allow that discrimination. The kind of impact that major projects have on a place is very often qualitatively different from the impact that smaller, much more minor and modest proposals will have.
The underlying point behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is a very good one, because we are favouring the big boys over the small boys. I come from a part of England that is a long way from many centres of population; there is a very real concern that, increasingly, with the way the local economy is going—thanks to the activities of venture capital and large companies, for example—the profits that may be made from activities in these areas are being expatriated to other parts of the globe, or certainly to more prosperous parts of our country. It is an essential component of balancing the interests of the various parties engaged in these things that we look very carefully at the way in which the administration of the system is carried out, to make sure that the small man gets a fair crack of the whip. It is as simple as that.
As I have been listening to the debate on this and other parts of this Bill, I have remembered the words of Robert Burton in The Anatomy of Melancholy, a now almost unread book from the 17th century. He said: “Are not men mad to write such stuff who intend to make others so?”
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in Committee we were sympathetic to the intentions of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. The Government should consider this carefully. We have heard some powerful speeches on it that I will not repeat. I will go back on just one point that the noble Lord raised. A few weeks ago, the Government reassured the House from the Dispatch Box that cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing would be considered when parliamentary time allows. We will hold them to account on this promise. Will the Minister give the House a timescale for it?
I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendments to support small and medium-sized businesses. As we have raised elsewhere, the planning process is overly bureaucratic and time consuming, and I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that 12 months is frequently a very short time. This places a significant financial and resource burden on applicants, which falls particularly hard on smaller businesses that do not have the resources and expertise of larger enterprises.
As we debated previously on Report, the cost per property of the planning process can be significantly higher for smaller developments. It is right that planning authorities should have regard to this, and I ask the Minister what the Government will do to ensure that this burden is lowered, particularly for SMEs. Supporting SMEs is one of the most effective ways to inject greater competition and diversity into the sector and, ultimately, to strengthen the wider economy. Therefore, we will support my noble friend’s amendments should she choose to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I would be enormously grateful if he would make it clear to the House what his position is on Amendment 117. He said that he will hold the Government to account but wants to know what the timescale is. Well, the timescale is a couple of minutes, if we have a vote on this. Will he just explain where he stands, bearing in mind that noble Lords behind him have made very clear their intention to support this amendment?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I believe I have made our position very clear, and we will hold the Government to account.
Lord Deben (Con)
Before he sits down, will my noble friend accept that he has not made the position clear? The Benches behind want to know why we are not supporting this but merely giving the Government yet another chance to get off the hook. Can we not be a bit tough and actually do what we are here for—to oppose them when they have got it wrong?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will put the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, out of his misery. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his Amendment 117. He raises a very important issue, and I will explain how we intend to address it. I assure him that the Government intend to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when parliamentary time allows; I will elaborate on that in a moment. He will have noted that we reiterated this commitment in our Pride in Place Strategy, published since we last discussed this issue. I imagine that is what prompted the comments from my honourable friend in the other place, which the noble Lord referred to.
There is no doubt in my mind about the potential harms that can come from gambling, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts. I heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about what was said in the Select Committee, but I think there is consensus across this House that harms undoubtedly come from gambling. Cumulative impact assessments will strengthen local authorities’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets. We intend cumulative impact assessments to be used to assess gambling premises’ licence applications, rather than applications for planning permission or change of use, as in this amendment.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill concerns the planning system rather than the licensing system— I will come to further points on the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in a moment—and it is unfortunately not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of cumulative impact assessments for gambling premises licensing. Under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the cumulative impact assessment would be published by the licensing authority but be used during the planning process by the planning authority. I am concerned that his amendment would risk creating inconsistencies between the approaches of the local authority’s planning policies and the licensing authority’s statement of licensing principles. The Government’s view is that it is essential for the licensing authority to consider the cumulative impact assessment in the exercise of its licensing functions when considering whether to grant a premises licence, rather than at the planning stage. This is a planning Bill, not a licensing Bill—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can I just finish what I am saying? It might help. The issue is out of scope, but we have Bills coming forward where licensing will almost certainly be in scope. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are actively working to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when we have a suitable vehicle. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Just before the Minister sits down, she has said that it would cause confusion between licensing and planning. However, the amendment that is now before the House took account of all the concerns that she raised when we debated it earlier. It has now changed in such a way that it would absolutely replicate what is already in statute in relation to alcohol licensing. That has not caused a problem, and I do not begin to understand the difference she is now saying there is between my amendment and what already exists in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. It would be helpful if she could explain.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As drafted, the amendment would require planning authorities to make decisions based on assessments published by the licensing authority, effectively placing planning and licensing authorities into potential conflict with one another. It would also not provide for the licensing authority to assess licensing applications with respect to its own cumulative impact assessments. I hope that that is helpful. Turning to Amendment 121G—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Just before the Minister moves on, I am puzzling over the use of the word “scope” here. We seem to have two different understandings of scope. This is within scope of the Bill; that has been agreed by our experts in the Legislation Office. Yet the Minister is saying that, in the Government’s view, it is somehow not in scope. Can she say what the difference is between scope as defined legally and scope as the Government are defining it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am loath to explain the Legislation Office’s rationale. I am surprised that the amendment was allowed for the planning Bill, but we are where we are. I am trying to respond as straightforwardly as I can: we want to put this cumulative impact assessment in as quickly as we can, but we do not believe that this Bill is the right place for it. We want to put it in a Bill where it is in scope and will do that as quickly as possible.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can I help the Minister on this? Why does she not just say that she will accept this in the same terms as the regulations on alcohol? Then she would not be promising anything that is not there. Frankly, it is very worrying for us that she cannot accept, having listened to the debate, that the Government have got the measurement of scope wrong and have said something about gambling which, if it were true, would mean that the present law on alcohol is wrong. I am sure that she does not mean to say that to the House. Therefore, is not this the moment for her to say to the House: “I will take this away and come back having looked at it”? In that case, we would not need to have a vote on it, which would be much more sensible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is Report, and I believe that the Government’s position that this should be related to licensing and not planning is right, so I will hold my line on it. I know that that will be disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but it is very important that we take the issue of cumulative impact assessments as part of the licensing regime. We will endeavour to bring that forward in an appropriate way when the relevant legislation comes forward.
I turn to Amendment 121G, which seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her strong championing, as ever, of this sector. I share her passion for ensuring that we do all we can to support it. I also commend the work of my noble friend Lord Snape on the APPG for SME House Builders; he continues to keep me informed on the concerns and challenges within the sector. I welcome the recent launch of its report setting out all the issues that they are facing and what the Government can do.
The Government are committed to increasing support across the housebuilding sector, especially for SMEs. SMEs have seen their market share shrink since the 1980s and this long-term decline raises concerns about the sustainability of the construction sector and the loss of weaker firms weakening market diversity and resilience. I gently point out to the noble Baroness that there was a period of 14 years when her party was in government and might have looked to support the sector a bit better during those years.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will join me in thanking all noble Lords who participated in the debate. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Maclean, and the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Jackson, for their support for my amendment.
I want to make it clear to the House that I have spent many hours in the Public Bill Office discussing various iterations of this amendment to ensure that it is absolutely in scope for this legislation. I absolutely assure the House that this amendment replicates exactly the procedures already in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. I assure all noble Lords that local authorities around the country support passing this amendment as quickly as possible, and that Ministers and the Prime Minister have categorically said—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Is the noble Lord going to push his amendment to a vote or withdraw it? We are at that stage now.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
We are at that stage, but I want the House to be aware that there is support from all quarters to ensure that this is passed. The Minister has said that she does not accept my offer of further discussions to see whether we can find a way forward before Third Reading. She has not accepted the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I am disappointed that the Front Bench of the Conservative Party does not appear to be listening to what Conservative Back-Benchers are saying. Since there is no opportunity to bring this back at another time, the time for decision is now. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Planning process: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises(1) When discharging any duty under this Act relating to planning and development, the people and bodies in subsection (2) must—(a) have regard to the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process, and(b) consider whether such barriers can be removed or reduced.(2) The people and bodies are—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) mayors,(c) local authorities,(d) Natural England, and(e) all other people and bodies with duties under this Act.(3) In this section, “small and medium-sized enterprises” are companies with fewer than 250 employees involved in the design, application for planning consent or construction of between one and nine residential dwellings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Act pay consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have tried to get a reference to SMEs in the Bill and I thank everybody who has supported me. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, Amendment 119 is workable, but I know the system and, if we pass it, the Government with the help of parliamentary counsel will amend it suitably. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on this important amendment.
“Play sufficiency duty(1) A local planning authority in England must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions.(2) In fulfilling the duty under subsection (1), a local planning authority must—(a) undertake and publish play sufficiency assessments at intervals to be defined in regulations;(b) integrate the findings and recommendations of such assessments into local plans, relevant strategies, infrastructure planning, and development decisions;(c) not give permission for any development which would lead to a net loss of formal or informal play spaces except where equivalent or improved provision is secured;(d) require new developments to provide high-quality, accessible, inclusive play opportunities which incorporate natural features and are integrated within broader public spaces;(e) consult regularly with children, families, communities, and play professionals regarding play provision.(3) A play sufficiency assessment produced under subsection (2)(a) must specifically evaluate and report on the quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration of play opportunities within the planning authority’s area.(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, specify—(a) the frequency, methodology, content, and publication requirements of play sufficiency assessments;(b) minimum design standards and quality expectations for formal and informal play provision;(c) developer obligations regarding play infrastructure contributions to be secured through planning conditions.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) For the purposes of this section—“play” means activities undertaken by children and young people that are freely chosen, self-directed, and carried out following their own interests, in their own way, and for their own reasons;“play opportunities” include formal and informal play spaces, parks, open spaces, streets, schools, neighbourhood spaces, natural green areas, active travel routes, supervised play settings (including adventure playgrounds), and community recreation facilities;“sufficient” means adequate in quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration within community infrastructure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that planning authorities must take all practicable steps to ensure a sufficiency of play opportunities for children.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it was my intention, as signalled, to call a vote on this amendment. I believed we would have significant support from other parties, as I knew I was going to have from the Cross-Benchers. But without this, I am left in a position where I can do nothing but see the children in England fail to get the support for their health and development through play that those in Wales and Scotland now enjoy.
Lord Roborough
“(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Natural England, and/or a person designated under section 86 of this Act, about the making of an EDP.(5) Natural England, or a designated person, must comply with any such guidance.(6) Guidance issued under subsection (4) may include—(a) where and how draft EDPs should be published for public consultation,(b) guidance on minimum development thresholds for an EDP, (c) the types of measures that may be included as conservation measures,(d) the need to define the proposed conservation measures relating to an EDP during a pre consultation period and to seek expressions of interest from appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them, and(e) the use of its compulsory purchase powers, with a particular view to ensuring that—(i) the powers are not used in a manner which would threaten the viability of an existing agricultural business,(ii) the use of the powers takes account of the need to protect domestic food security, and(iii) the impacts of the use of such powers on important social and cultural traditions, such as those that exist around common land, are protected.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that the Secretary of State has a power to issue guidance to Natural England, and/or a designated person about the preparation of an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will also introduce Amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments in this group propose alternative solutions to environmental blockages to planning and development, either as replacements for Part 3 of this Bill or as substantial improvements to it. To my mind, the most important amendment in this group—and the most important to Part 3—is Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I added my name in Committee and on Report. For transparency, I again refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as a farmer, a forester, a landowner, a residential, commercial and renewable energy developer and a shareholder in various natural capital-related businesses and partnerships.
I am very grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—who, sadly, is unwell today; we send her our best wishes—for their time during the passage of this Bill and for listening to our concerns. We have fundamental objections to Part 3. First, it undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy and is a retrograde step in nature protection. Secondly, it attacks the rural economy by giving Natural England enhanced CPO powers without explicitly saying that the private sector should be engaged in delivery, as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets. It gives little or no accountability by handing all that responsibility to the arm’s-length body of Natural England, which appears highly unlikely to have the capacity to deliver the environmental delivery programmes, as is envisaged.
Not only is there no evidence that this will have any immediate benefit to the housebuilding sector, but, after the CG Fry decision by the Supreme Court last week, this part of the Bill will reimpose habitats regulations on decisions related to Ramsar sites and immediately reblock tens of thousands of houses. We also hear concerns from industries that should stand to benefit from Part 3 that there is no visibility of the level of the nature restoration levy or control over outcomes of environmental delivery programmes, and therefore reputational issues if they were to go wrong.
The amendments in this and further groups will address these and other issues, but there is a bigger question that I challenge the Minister to answer. What exactly is Part 3 designed to solve that cannot already be solved through existing structures and more targeted tweaks to that system, as we and others propose? We asked this repeatedly in Committee and I do not yet feel that I have had a satisfactory answer. It would also be helpful to the House to have some comfort that the Government are listening to our concerns, which echo every interested wildlife and rural organisation outside this Chamber. I am grateful to all that have provided briefings—there are simply too many to list.
Amendment 122 is designed to force the Secretary of State to take final responsibility for the actions of Natural England and place parameters around that responsibility, to provide greater protection to the rural economy, our food security and rural community and traditions. We on these Benches distrust these supposedly independent arm’s-length bodies and, for that reason, would like the Secretary of State to take this responsibility and be answerable to Parliament and the wider community for the performance of these EDPs. Why do the Government not want the Secretary of State to take this responsibility?
Amendment 201 is a simple amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the nutrient neutrality issues that are said to have been blocking 160,000 new houses. This is a repeat of our amendment that was defeated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I have two questions that I have previously put to the Government that have not yet been answered. Without this amendment, how many of those 160,000 blocked houses can be released immediately on Royal Assent? How many houses will be reblocked by Clause 90 reimposing habitats regulations restrictions on Ramsar sites, beyond the 18,000 already identified in the Somerset Levels?
Amendment 203 would require the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to publish a report on how to consolidate the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to allow us to have a framework dealing specifically with nature protection in the UK. There have been news stories that the Government are considering a nature Bill. That would appear to be in line with what we suggest. Would that not be the appropriate place to undertake such a far-reaching re-evaluation of the protections that our natural environment deserves, rather than a planning Bill?
I will leave the introduction of Amendment 130 to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, but I want just to highlight the benefits of the approach that we see in this amendment and to underline our support. We hope that this approach will find favour with all Benches, given that it addresses so many of the concerns from different viewpoints. Nature and species would not be put at risk should this amendment pass. CPO powers would be much less likely to be required for Natural England. The private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims. Finally, nutrient neutrality appears to be the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning, as emphasised by the Home Builders Federation in its briefing; Natural England could focus on this particular issue and increase the chances of success.
We hope to hear a constructive response from the Minister to Amendment 130. We would like to hear that the Government might at least accept the principle of limiting EDPs to these impacts until they are proven to work. We on these Benches are a responsible Opposition and would like to work in the manner in which this House works best in order to improve the Bill and to make it both workable and successful in the real world. The Government’s approach to data in Part 3 does not give us full confidence that they are approaching this in the same manner. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 128 and 129 in this group, which are in my name. I suggest to noble Lords that, if they want to follow the purposes of these two amendments, it is best to have a look at Clause 55(1), since they are, in essence, about understanding how the drafting is intended to work and what that means in relation to the practices of an environmental delivery plan in due course.
In Committee, we had a useful probing debate in relation to these issues to try to understand whether all of the environmental impacts of a development should be identified in an environmental delivery plan. The debate showed that it was not the Government’s intention that an environmental delivery plan—EDP for short—should identify all of the environmental impacts resulting from a development to which that EDP relates. Relevant in this group is that, for example, the EDP could focus on a specific subset of environmental impacts, or one or more environmental impacts, such as river quality or nutrient neutrality. Given that that is the intention—I am arguing not with the intention of the Bill in that respect but, simply, with the drafting of this provision to give effect to that—how should that potential focus be reflected in the structure of the power for making an environmental delivery plan?
Clause 55(1)(a) provides that the EDP will identify
“one or more environmental features”.
An environmental feature is either a protected feature of a protected site—Clause 93 can be seen for interpretation —or a protected species. An example that I think is relevant and useful, not least to the debate that we are shortly to have on Amendment 130, is the effect of a development on a protected site, such as through nutrient pollution arising from a development in, say, south Norfolk, which might have an impact on the nutrient level in the Broads. The Broads, as the protected site, and the nutrient level, as the feature concerned, could be the environmental feature to which the EDP relates. That being the case, if that feature is the subject of the EDP, should each of the ways in which a negative effect on that feature arises be identified in the EDP? I think that it should.
Amendment 128 would change “one or more”. I direct noble Lords to Clause 55(1)(b), where it refers to
“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”.
That defines the environmental impact. I propose in Amendment 128 that we take out “one or more”, so that the sentence would read
“the ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”—
that being the environmental impact.
That would preclude the possibility that there may be ways in which the development causes the negative effect on that feature but they are omitted. I do not understand why it would be at all reasonable for them to be omitted. That being the case, I hope that the environmental impact is always defined by reference to the ways in which a development impacts on a protected feature of a protected site or species. The focus can be narrow—which precise feature?—or it can be wide.
However, the next line after Clause 55(1)(b) says:
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”.
It feels a bit as though Ministers have decided not only to not necessarily to deal with all the effects of a development—they can focus down; we have accepted that—but that they definitely do not even need to explain to us in the EDP how the negative effects on a protected site, or a protected feature of a site, are to be understood and incorporated into the work of the EDP.
Instead of taking that out, I have chosen, in Amendment 129, to define it a little more precisely. Why are the Government doing this? I think they are trying to say that we might be looking at an environmental feature, such as algal bloom in the water in the Broads resulting from a change in the nutrient level, but we do not want to focus on the question of allowing things to be left out of a count in the EDP because they simply relate to that effect; we want to focus on where the development gives rise to the effect.
Amendment 129 proposes adding to Clause 55(1) so that after
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”,
it states,
“unless they are environmental impacts expected to result directly from the development to which the EDP relates”.
I hope that clarifies the purpose of the Bill, which is to focus, in an EDP, on the feature that is concerned and the specific ways in which a development might create a negative effect in relation to the feature that gives rise to the EDP.
I hope that makes clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. I hope that what this does is in line with the Government’s intentions in relation to an environmental delivery plan and that, from the Government’s point of view, Amendments 128 and 129 would therefore do no harm to the purposes. Even if Ministers are not immediately able to accept them, I hope that they might reproduce something of this kind at Third Reading.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 130 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their support. When preparing this speech, I went back to remind myself of the core objectives of the Bill: to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure and, as part of this, to simplify the process by which we address impacts on the natural environment.
I would argue, however, that what we have before us is a further layer of potential bureaucracy. I say that because, if the Bill passes as it is—this has been confirmed in the other place but also in this House—developers will have to take on an additional layer of assessment. They will now need to do an environmental impact assessment, a habitats regulations assessment and a biodiversity net gain assessment, and then apply for an EDP for specific features, before they even pay into this nature restoration fund. I struggle to see how that streamlines the process for developers, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us how this will speed up the process.
Lord Markham (Con)
I speak to my Amendment 132 and fully support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which is trying not to add another layer to what we would all hope would be a streamlined process. With my amendment, I am trying to make a very simple point on proportionality: where there is an environmental assessment, there should be some sort of indication on how reasonable the cost within it is.
We all know about the very famous £100 million High Speed 2 bat tunnel story. What we do not know is the cost per bat saved. As a former Health Minister, I am very familiar with being asked these questions in the health space all the time: which medicines should we approve? We have a process for this called NICE. It very explicitly puts the value of a human life at somewhere between £20,000 to £30,000 per year in terms of a quality adjusted life year. It will approve medicines if they cost less than that and will explicitly say that we cannot afford a medicine on the NHS if it is above that. It explicitly puts a value on a year of a human’s life, which leads to difficult discussions, conversations and analysis. You end up saying to people that, unfortunately, the state will not pay for a type of medicine even though it might be life-saving. We have put a value on a human life in that and we have made that open to public debate.
We should have a similar reference point when talking about the environmental impact of the life of a bat or some other species, with reference to the value that we put on a human life. I am interested in the Minister’s views on what we can learn from the NICE debate in terms of proportionality, to make sure that we are not valuing the life of a bat, say, much more highly than the life of a human.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. It is supported by those champions of nature, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Grender. I only wish I could have signed it myself.
I am not particularly interested in making things easier for developers—streamlining their processes is not my primary aim—but I strongly agree with the issues listed in Amendment 130: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource and air quality. Humans need these things for health. All our concerns about Part 3 have been supported by quite a lot of organisations, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Bat Conservation Trust, the Better Planning Coalition, the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society, which have all raised concerns just as we in your Lordships’ House have done.
Our concerns and our amendments to Part 3 are a demonstration of how much we do not trust this Government to care about the countryside, nature, wildlife and human well-being. I trusted some in the previous Government to protect the countryside because they owned so much of it—they probably had its interests at heart and in their wallets—but many in this Government clearly prefer bulldozers to bats and beavers. To me, that immediately signals that we have a problem with this Government. Labour has been disappointing on nature, the environment and climate change. It occasionally talks about those things but does not understand them, and that is a source of real anxiety to me.
I have no trust in this Government doing the right thing to protect nature. They are opposing a series of very moderate, sensible suggestions to make our planning system more nature friendly. When I say that, I mean human friendly as well. We are nothing without nature—we need it very badly—but Labour has rejected the most minor of measures, for example over swift bricks in new buildings. It has said no to the most basic protections for our precious and rare chalk streams and fails to do the most obvious things, such as stopping developers attaching new buildings to already overloaded sewage systems.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, decides to put this amendment to a vote, we on the Green Benches will support her very strongly.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 122 in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, because it is important that guidance is issued to Natural England on a number of issues that are going to be relevant. I am particularly keen on proposed new subsection (6)(d) on
“the need to define the proposed conservation measures relating to an EDP during a pre consultation period and to seek expressions of interest from appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them”.
It is hugely important that the private sector is involved. I hear good words from Natural England about getting on with farmers and trying to work with the private sector. The results are absolutely appalling when you look at them, and the private sector is very fed up with Natural England. This rather echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who said that those of us who are keen on preserving and improving the countryside and biodiversity are very disappointed with how the Labour Government have behaved. It comes in stark contrast to what they said a few months ago when they were in opposition, which is where they will be again in a few years’ time; then they will be back in favour of the countryside.
I like Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, very much. I hope that she will press it.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, given the time, I will be brief. I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis; that is because I went to some of the very useful briefings on how EDPs will be prepared.
A couple of things stood out to me. One is that Natural England proposes to base its EDP preparations on modelling much more than on actual monitoring and measuring on the ground; it will not require demonstration of the success of EDPs before the destruction of habitats is allowed. The other is that, given the voluntary nature of EDPs, the proposal is that the scale of the conservation measures will expand or contract in proportion to how much is paid into the relevant restoration fund.
Relying on modelling is hard when it comes to species. Modelling physics, such as on the flow of nutrients or the spread of air pollution, is complex but it is nothing like as complex as modelling ecology. We can measure for the presence or absence of chemicals much more easily and reliably than we can for species. Further, models are only as good as the data you base them on, but we just do not have the biological records to support really precise, accurate modelling. I cite the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, which says:
“It should be emphasised that biodiversity datasets are, by their nature, incomplete … access to private land to collect such information is frequently difficult or impossible”.
Just imagine how much private land has never been properly surveyed, even for notable species.
I turn to my second concern: the scalability of EDPs depending on the money paid in. When we heard from experts at a briefing for Peers, it became clear that the intention is that, if only a few developers paid to use an EDP, the provisions would be scaled accordingly. This relies on the fact that the ecological requirements—and, therefore, the benefits—would scale by the same proportion, as well as the money, but that is very unlikely to be true. Ecology does not scale linearly. If you halve the size of a habitat, you degrade it by more than half, and you often hit thresholds below which things are not viable. That is one of the reasons why this kind of strategic, joined-up planning can help, but the lack of detail on exactly how this measure will work makes me fear that it has not been fully thought through.
All in all, it seems very risky to try to undertake using EDPs, as I understand them, as part of the planned work for species because the consequences of us being wrong are so high. By the time we know something might not be working, it will be too late to do anything about it because we will have lost the habitat and the animals and plants in it. Restricting EDPs to physical modelling, where we can have a lot more confidence in our accuracy, precision and scalability, seems a much more sensible way to progress.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I declare my interest as a director of my family farming company. I will not make a long speech.
I looked at my notes on Amendment 122, which is an important amendment. They read: “Guidance simply needed to stop the commissars of Natural England running amok”. That probably covers it. The amendment seeks to ensure clearer definitions, parameters and accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, outlined so eloquently; it also addresses the potential abuse of compulsory purchase. I will say no more on that amendment.
The vital amendments in this group are Amendments 130 and 201, which focus on the clarity, deliverability and efficiency of the EDP process. I also support Amendments 128 and 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is seeking once again to make specificity, rather than generality and vagueness, the hallmark in the construction of EDPs.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who laid out the case for it very eloquently. It is a rather elegant solution to the tensions over Part 3—and there are undoubtedly tensions, not only here in the Chamber but out there in the country. Confining EDPs only to those issues to which the EDP process lends itself and which are best resolved on a strategic landscape scale—such as nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource and air quality—would deliver multiple benefits.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support Amendment 130. It is absolutely crucial that we get this system to a point where developers see EDPs as something they can live with. At the moment, as I evidenced in a meeting that the Minister very kindly allowed me, they clearly do not. They see this as a huge additional complication, which will slow down development enormously. I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said. No one who has ever tried to manage a garden would think you could model biological processes out in the wild. You can model the watering of a garden, but you cannot model what the plants are going to do; it requires observations on the ground. Natural England are not going down a road that will work.
That brings me to Amendment 122. I was on the Front Bench for MAFF when most of that department’s business was run through the EU. If you do not have control of what is happening in your own department, it produces a dysfunctional political process. You cannot respond to what people are saying from outside. You cannot even influence what is happening internally in the department. The department should not be doing this to itself; it should not be inshoring so much of its business to an unaccountable body, as we have seen with bat tunnels. There is nothing you can do with Natural England when it goes wrong. You cannot just pick up the phone and say, “Come on, be sensible, guys”. It does not work. What we are doing is producing an unstable political situation which will have to be unwound. Let us not create it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, given that time is short, I will contain our remarks to the standout amendment in this group, Amendment 130, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. It is a means to address a fundamental question we all have on the Bill: how do we help the Government deliver the win-win for nature and the economy by giving developers certainty about this new process, given that we are moving away from an established process which has served for many years, while at the same time ensuring that the environmental protections we want are locked in? The approach taken by the noble Baroness is to curtail the scope of this new process by saying that an EDP can happen only where it has been shown that those approaches will work, benefiting conservation at the strategic landscape scale.
I have to say that we, as Liberal Democrats, thought long and hard about supporting this amendment. It is our contention that we should always follow the science, so if there were scientific evidence that there could be conservation benefits for a species, for example, it would normally be our position to support that. Therefore, this approach to curtail it by area rather than evidence is not one that we would normally support. But as noble Lords will see, after thinking long and hard, we put our Front-Bench name to this amendment. The reason is that we are not convinced at this point in the debate that there are sufficient safeguards about how that scientific evidence will be considered by Natural England to ensure that the environmental safeguards that we all want will be in place. Therefore, we on these Benches will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say in response to this amendment but, if the noble Baroness is minded to move to a vote on it, at this point in time, we would support her.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, the usual channels have agreed that we should pause now to allow for a short break before Oral Questions at 3 pm. Although unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned, and we will return to it later this afternoon.