Wednesday 29th October 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-IV(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (28 Oct 2025)
20:26 - Division on Amendment 182A - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 182A disagreed.
20:44 - Division on Amendment 183A - Ayes: 50 / Noes: 115 - Amendment 183A disagreed.
Lord Lansley
(2A) An EDP can be amended if the following conditions are met—(a) the EDP applies to a development with multiple developers,(b) a commitment to pay the levy by one or more of those developers would render it no longer reasonably practicable for other developers to opt not to pay the levy and otherwise to meet their environmental obligations, and(c) the EDP is to be amended to make the payment of the levy mandatory for the other developers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows EDPs to be amended after a developer has committed to pay the levy, if it is to make the levy mandatory where (1) there are multiple developers and (2) some but not all have committed to pay the levy. This would avoid conflict in the delivery of the EDP between (a) developers relying on the levy, and (b) developers abiding by existing environmental obligations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group consists of amendments relating to the circumstances under which the levy for the nature restoration fund should be made mandatory. The Minister may recall that, in Committee, this was not the subject of an amendment or substantive debate but of an exchange to try to better define the circumstances. At that time, the view was that this would be under exceptional circumstances. The question is: under what exceptional circumstances?
I am very grateful to officials who gave me the benefit of time and advice yesterday. I have tabled Amendment 158A because it was not apparent to me that an amendment to an environmental delivery plan could be made simply to make the levy mandatory after the EDP has been made. I am assured that the powers are available in Clause 62 for the purpose of amending it, and that that can be done to make the levy mandatory in circumstances where the EDP has already been made. I hope the Minister is in the happy position of being able to assure me that Clause 62 can do that.
Amendment 164A, in my name, is the substantive amendment in this group, in my view. I tried to establish in discussions with the department the circumstances in which the levy should be mandatory. To paraphrase, these came down to two things. The first was that there would be occasions when Natural England, in order to fulfil the objectives of its environmental delivery plan, would need full coverage of the levy to deliver the plan. If there was not full coverage—namely, if some developers chose to go down the route of not offering to pay the levy—then the EDP would not be able to be delivered, and those who had made such a commitment to pay the levy would not be able to fulfil their environmental obligations through that route. Secondly, in a large project, such as a nationally significant infrastructure project with, essentially, one developer, if Natural England were to make an environmental delivery plan and that developer or project controller chose not to go down the route of paying the levy, then all the work done on the EDP would be pointless and it would make no progress. I have tabled Amendment 164A to try to arrive at a point where we can specify much more clearly in the Bill the circumstances in which the levy can be made mandatory. This is not unimportant; it is a very important issue.
I remind noble Lords of my registered interest, but I rely not on that but on the submissions and representations made publicly to the Government about this from the Home Builders Federation, among others. It is very concerned. From the point of view of the development community, the whole purpose is to give developers the choice between meeting their environmental obligations through the habitats and other regulations or going down the route of an EDP, with the opportunity to meet their obligations through the payment of the levy. If it is made mandatory, the choice simply does not exist anymore. For that reason, I want to define the circumstances in a clear way in the Bill.
The latter circumstance, with a single developer, is not a substantive problem. If Natural England goes down the route of consulting on a potential EDP, it would be a matter of necessity that the developer concerned was part of that consultation. Natural England would arrive at a considered view as to whether the developer in that instance was going to pay the levy and go down that route. That would determine whether the levy can be made, and the Secretary of State could rest upon the results of that consultation.
However, I believe that there is a case where, if there are multiple developers associated with a particular area—the EDP might cover a number of development sites and range across a wider area—one or more of those developers may commit to pay the levy. It may be that it is literally not possible to meet the objectives of the EDP without the others paying the levy. If they choose to go down an alternative route, they may not be able to meet their habitats regulations requirements, because they would be mitigated through the mechanism of the EDP. Alternatively, they may be trying to freeload off those who are paying the levy by saying that they will meet their habitats regulations requirements, but in practice they would be met through the EDP managed by Natural England and paid for by other developers. There is therefore a case for a mandatory levy, but I do not believe that the Bill says what those circumstances are.
I am afraid that it is not at all satisfactory to leave the power unspecified, because it will increasingly be a temptation for Natural England to initiate an environmental delivery plan, do the work, set up the potential draft, consult on it and then reach the conclusion that only by making it mandatory will it secure the necessary coverage to fund an EDP. Far from it being an exception, we will find that Natural England is increasingly defaulting towards mandatory levy payments as the basis on which it can proceed with its ambitious environmental delivery plans. That is not where we were told this would be going.
I will not press Amendments 164A or 158A, as I do not believe that what we require in the Bill is as yet specified in those amendments. I can well see that my noble friend, with his Amendment 164, could do us a great service, because if we were to take out these provisions it would press the Government to reinsert them with the necessary detail on how and when the mandatory levy should be imposed by way of substituting for what is currently in Clause 66(4) and (5).
However, if my noble friend were to take the view that it would be better for the Minister to give an assurance that she will consider whether there is scope for specifying the conditions under which the levy is mandatory—and narrowing that down to the kind of examples that I have referred to in my introductory remarks—I would be happy with that. I do not want us to take out the mandatory levy entirely; I want us to be able to specify it in more detail. I beg to move Amendment 158A.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have been sitting for the last eight minutes next to my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I am slightly concerned by what he said. He accurately painted a picture that shows that there will be a drift, an expectation and a move by Natural England towards mandation for an EDP. I have been concerned for a while that the process by which an EDP might be consulted on and have consensus built could take a long time; I believe that it is very unlikely that we will get any EDPs operational in this Parliament, such is the process that is outlined, with multiple grounds of consultation and so forth.
I will paint an alternative picture to that of my noble friend Lord Lansley that involves a developer who just has to get on. The site that he is trying to develop is eating its head off in interest and there might even be demand for the homes—who knows? The developer has to get on and cannot afford to wait for that third year, so they cut and run. They go with a private operator under the habitats regulations; it is a proper scheme—I am not talking about shortcuts—but it means that they can get on with it.
The problem with mandation is they could end up paying twice, and that is no good. The Bill is meant to be speeding up development. So if they could have a route to develop more quickly while delivering the environmental benefits, without going down the EDP route, it should be open to them. I am concerned that mandation—and the slippery slope towards mandation being the default position, which my noble friend laid out—would see development being slowed down when it could be speeded up. Who wants to pay twice? Rather than get on with it, they hold back on the supposition that, in due course, the EDP will somehow come to the rescue. This is working against the role of the private sector in innovating and bringing in new techniques, and it is reinforcing the notion that only Natural England—that dead hand of the state—has a monopoly on how these things should be delivered. That is dangerous.
I am not going to speak against my noble friend, but I do not feel that he entirely covered the double jeopardy point, which is the logical conclusion of the amendments he has laid. In accepting that my noble friend Lord Roborough may press his amendment, I note that it will come back at Third Reading. If it does, we will need to consider the double jeopardy point about paying twice.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 158A and 164A, which seek to understand why the nature restoration levy may be mandatory. That would appear to go against the sense of the whole of Part 3, which is supposed to offer an alternative to the existing system of dealing with environmental planning matters.
If Natural England has the power to make the NRL mandatory, what is to stop it from exercising that power unfettered and in all cases? The solution to not getting reassurance on these amendments is to take out this power entirely, which is the effect of my own Amendment 164. My noble friend made a point that is worth the Minister considering, so can she reassure the House that those conditions could be tightened up and made more explicit, in order to inspire more confidence? I hope that she can reassure the House, and I will follow on from her response in my approach to my Amendment 164.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, just in case there is a move to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. While we understand the intent behind the proposal, we on these Benches are not persuaded that removing the provision for mandatory payments to the nature restoration fund would be a step in the right direction. If developers choose to proceed through an EDP route, it is only right that they contribute to the environmental mitigation and restoration measures that make those plans effective. Allowing them to opt out of such payments risks undermining the consistency and fairness of the system and could weaken the overall purpose of the fund to ensure that development contributes positively to nature recovery. Therefore, we approach the amendment, and a possible vote on it, with considerable caution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to examine the circumstances in which an environmental delivery plan, and the associated levy payment, could be mandatory. Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would wholly remove the option for an EDP to be mandatory. Amendment 164A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Langsley, would significantly restrict the circumstances in which an EDP could be made mandatory. I assure noble Lords, as I previously stressed in Committee debates, that the scenario of mandatory EDPs and levy payments will arise only in limited, exceptional circumstances. I will explain that in a bit more detail—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested that I would say that again—to try to reassure noble Lords.
A key purpose of the NRF is to offer developers an alternative way to meet their environmental obligations, so it is not our intention to make EDPs the only route available. As I have set out, Natural England is able to recommend that an EDP be mandatory only where it believes this is necessary, and it would be required to set out its reasoning within that EDP. That would form part of the consultation on that EDP—allowing developers and others to support or oppose this approach —and the responses to that consultation would of course form part of the Secretary of State’s consideration before making that EDP.
We consider that these steps represent a significant consultative and democratic safeguard. However, we also recognise that there is interest in what circumstances the Government consider may be necessary for an EDP to be mandatory rather than optional. We consider that there are two broad possibilities, the first of which is in instances where the ability to make an EDP mandatory provides a crucial assurance to Natural England and the taxpayer. For example, were Natural England to work with the developer and invest significant resource into preparing a bespoke EDP to address the impacts of a single large development such as a piece of energy infrastructure, that EDP is not likely to be usable by anyone else. If the developer or promoter subsequently chose to discharge their environmental obligations via a different route, that cost of developing the EDP would be wasted. It is important, therefore, to have a mechanism to provide certainty that an EDP will be used in such a scenario.
Secondly, if an EDP could only secure the right conservation measures to pass the overall improvement test and if all developers in scope paid in, but consultation showed that a small minority of developers did not wish to do so, it may be reasonable for Natural England to recommend and for the Secretary of State to agree that the EDP should be mandatory. A consideration of the overall benefits to growth and development would be properly in the gift of the Secretary of State in this scenario.
It is also important to note that the Bill contains a duty on the Secretary of State in drafting the levy regulations to ensure that even where payment of the levy is mandatory, it does not make development economically unviable, as this would not deliver the win-win the NRF is seeking to achieve.
Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. They are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which will enable stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on regulations before they are made. In developing the regulations, we will, of course, work closely with stakeholders to ensure the effective operation of the levy system. Given this reassurance as to the limited circumstances where the levy could be mandatory, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Amendment 158A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to limit circumstances where an EDP could be amended so as to make payment of the levy mandatory. I assure the noble Lord that while we do not envisage Natural England amending an EDP to make payment of the levy mandatory, the Bill already provides that an EDP could be amended in this way. Such a scenario would be very unlikely to materialise, because the Secretary of State would need to consider whether making an EDP mandatory meets the high legal bar of this being necessary. However, if it did, the Bill as drafted already allows for this to happen, crucially, following further public consultation and, of course, the consent of the Secretary of State. With this reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate; it is a really important one. What the Minister said certainly added something new in terms of the operation of the viability test as a way of mitigating the risk that the mandatory levy would put developers in a disadvantageous position. Otherwise, what she said was what I had previously understood.
Personally, I do not think that Amendment 164A significantly narrowed the scope; it simply expressed what I hoped was the intention. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister continued to consider—if not in the Bill itself, then certainly in the regulations and guidance—whether Natural England is deterred from constantly pressing the Secretary of State to think of making the levy mandatory, simply in order to justify the fact that it put all its effort and money into preparing EDPs in the first place, which is, I am afraid, part of the argument it will inevitably present. But, subject to that request, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 158A.
Lord Banner
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable developers to use an EDP after development commences, for example, in cases of applications for alteration of planning conditions, planning applications for developments already carried out or applications for changes to a planning permission.
“(1A) If a development to which a request relates has already commenced, Natural England must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to accept the request.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State when considering whether to accept a request from a developer to use an EDP in cases where the development has already commenced.
“(a) section 125 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs) insofar as it applies to any function of a public authority of determining an application (whenever made) relating to the development, and(b) section 126 of that Act”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the general duties on public authorities in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 when exercising decision-making functions that may affect marine conservation zones. Those duties require authorities to further the conservation objectives of each MCZ, so an EDP containing network conservation measures may cause a public authority to breach the duties.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
“(3) Natural England must pay another person to take conservation measures with regard to its duties under subsection (1)(b), or to monitor EDPs with regard to its duties under subsection (1)(c).(4) Before commissioning another person to take conservation measures or monitor EDPs with regard to subsection (3), Natural England must first set out which private market solutions were explored to address an environmental impact on an identified environmental feature, and why no existing and available private market solution was deemed sufficient or suitable.(5) When commissioning conservation measures or monitoring under subsection (3) with regard to subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), Natural England must undertake an open competitive tender process.(6) Natural England cannot undertake conservation measures itself unless it can show that no individual or body is willing to undertake conservation measures on its behalf. (7) In the event that Natural England undertakes conservation measures itself, it must first attempt to purchase the land in question at market value.(8) In monitoring an EDP under subsection (1)(c) Natural England must take sufficient measures to monitor —(a) the effectiveness of the conservation measures that have been implemented, and(b) the effects of the EDP in general.(9) When commissioning monitoring with regard to subsection (1)(c), Natural England must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s response. I do not think it took us forward, and it does not move us on. I am still deeply concerned about the ability of Natural England to deliver this, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Caithness
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of the Earl of Caithness to clause 77, seeks to ensure that both statutory undertakers and private individual land managers are given equal treatment as regards the powers of entry to be exercised by Natural England.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 183B in my name. These are identical amendments to those tabled in Committee, when, as one will find in Hansard at col. 2327 on Wednesday 17 September this year, the Minister gave some encouraging words to me. It was one of the few amendments to which she responded positively, as though she had listened to what we said, and I was extremely grateful to her then. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments I made. She said she wanted to consider both these amendments further. I have not heard from the Minister, which saddens me. I do not blame her; her officials should have picked this up and made certain that I was informed of what the thoughts were before we came to Report, and I think that is discourteous, to say the very least. I hope that the Minister has given this careful consideration and that on reflection she will be able to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I must say, I smiled when the Bill first came out and I saw this clause. It shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of rural life. Someone working for Forestry England, which is probably the statutory undertaker most likely to be affected, will visit his forests probably three or four times in 80 years—it depends how many operations are going on. The guy working for Forestry England who leaves his desk gets 21 days’ notice. But the farmer, who owns his land and has to make every square metre of it count and pay the income that his family depends upon, probably gets back at nine o’clock at night, opens his computer, tries to have a meal and catches up with family life, and he is informed that Natural England is coming on to his land tomorrow. It is oblivious of what the farmer actually intends to do with the land; maybe he has people visiting, because he could be an environmental farmer. He could be ploughing the land, harrowing or harvesting it, and at nine o’clock at night it is far too late to tell anyone or do anything about it.
I do not think Natural England would naturally behave like this, because it has more sense, but it is strange that this clause gives 21 days to the statutory undertaker and 24 hours to the hard-working farmer. Mind you, as it is only notice that you are going to enter, a 10-day period would probably be enough for both, to be honest. These two amendments need to be supported.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of both amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. The arguments were made powerfully and comprehensively in Committee and well summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Farmers, in particular, should be given adequate notice of entry in order to take necessary precautions to manage their liability towards those entering the farm and to manage the biosecurity risks that entrants to the farm pose to their animals. If my noble friend is dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, we would support him in testing the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I apologise for any discourtesy to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I take responsibility for that myself. Although he was kind enough to say that it was not my fault, it is always down to the Minister to make sure that Peers are responded to. I apologise if he did not receive the response that he should have.
I thank the noble Earl for tabling Amendments 183A and 183B, which would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land. This is currently set at 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases. While we agree that it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry requirements in other legislation. Through aligning with other legislation, we have minimised the risk of confusion for landowners, while also recognising the justified difference in how we treat statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and may require additional preparation to protect public safety and prevent disruption. There are also additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these powers cannot be used to gain access to a private dwelling. These safeguards further ensure that these powers cannot be used in any manner other than for carrying out surveys or investigations as specified within this part of the Bill. I hope that, with this explanation and the assurance that the NRF is in line with standard practice, the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and for taking responsibility for the inefficiency of her officials. The rest of her remarks do not please me so much; I am very disappointed. There is no different argument to what was used in Committee. I just want the Minister to reflect. Does she really want to treat farmers in the way that they are being treated at the moment? This is not emergency legislation. There are, rightly, cases in legislation where emergency access is required and less than 24 hours’ notice is needed. That is not the case here. I disagree with her entirely that it will be confusing for the landowner in this instance. This is just sheer discourtesy towards the hard-working farmers of this country. I think that she would resent it if she was a farmer and was treated like this. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I did ask the Minister whether she might reflect on the debate we had earlier, and I would be very interested to hear whether she has anything to add. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The noble Lord asked for further assurances in respect of how land acquired under CPO could be returned where the land is no longer required. The Crichel Down rules are existing non-statutory arrangements under which surplus land that was acquired by, or under threat of, compulsion should be offered back to former owners, their successors, or sitting tenants.
In reference to land acquired under CPO in respect of Part 3, as I explained, it is very unlikely that land acquired by compulsory purchase under an EDP would not be used. It is unlikely to be surplus. This is because, if an EDP were revoked, the land might still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Where land that has been compulsorily purchased is genuinely surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply, as they would for land purchased under any other CPO power.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that addition to the debate. On that basis, I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading on this matter, but I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
“Sustainable drainageThe Secretary of State must bring into force in England all uncommenced parts of Schedule 3 of the Water Management Act 2010 (sustainable drainage) within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
In England, developers have the automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for this. Implementation of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) would end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is my moment; I have waited all day and all night. It gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 197 and to speak to Amendment 198. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for lending her name to both amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for lending their support to Amendment 197.
I hope that the amendments are self-explanatory. They are flipsides of the same coin, and they have huge amounts of support among interested parties, such as insurance companies, environmental managers and others, as I shall explain. Amendment 197 explains that developers have the automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is a capacity for this or not.
Both Houses of Parliament approved Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the purpose of which was to end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems. It has not yet been implemented in England, but it has been implemented with a degree of success in Wales.
Similarly, Amendment 198 links the right to connect to the public sewer to first having followed the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, to provide a more robust incentive to developers to follow this guidance in the absence of full implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who waited with such patience to present this terribly important group of amendments. It is disappointing that the length of the day and the hour mean that this group will not get the kind of attention it deserves, but it is worth highlighting the breadth of political and non-political support for this amendment. It is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, one of our acknowledged experts in this general space, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
I will make two additional remarks. We have already had a comprehensive introduction to the background, the very long history and the arguments for this. I am sure some noble Lords here were at the Lord Speaker’s Lecture this week, given by the noble Baroness, Lady May, who is not currently in her place. One of the MPs there asked: “Isn’t it really a problem that constituents today expect the Government to fix things in an hour or a day, just like they get something delivered from the internet?” Maybe it is, but I think 16 years is quite long enough for people to wait for the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act.
There is a real issue here. The public often think that once the Government have announced something it is going to happen—and that is something we need more political education on and awareness of—but surely they have the right to believe that, once a law has been passed, having been through all the scrutiny and effort such as we are putting in now, it will be implemented. It has been carefully examined and is understood to be a good idea, and the people expect it to be delivered, and it brings politics into disrepute when it is not—that is the small “p” political argument for this amendment.
On the broader argument for SUDS generally, I have visited many such schemes, but the one I point noble Lords to—it is well worth visiting for those who have not seen it—is at the LILAC co-housing scheme in Leeds, which is essentially built around a central pond that all the water on the site drains into. We have spent many hours talking about how important green spaces are and how important supporting biodiversity is. We unfortunately did not get to vote, but we spent a lot of time talking about how important play space for children is. This is a way you can use SUDS. Well-designed SUDS can deliver so many other things that the Government say they want and that the House has said it wants. This is simple, practical common sense on how we should be designing the kind of communities—not just housing—that we desperately need.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have a particular attachment to this amendment. I think it is fair to say that, when I went back into Defra, I was pretty surprised that we had not made any progress in getting Schedule 3 sorted. Yet again, it was the part for housing that had put a block on it, on the basis that apparently it was going to cost more money. But all that does, in a different way, is transfer the costs, both societal and financial, from a developer trying to put together a community to the billpayer, and those costs are potentially higher. I know that we managed to secure, and the Government have continued with it, over £96 billion from the water companies to address certain things to do with sewerage. This is one of those ridiculous situations where there is an obvious answer. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh has already mentioned, Sir Jon Cunliffe has said this should be done. Why has it not been done?
Actually, not just the committee from the Commons but also the committee in this place were very supportive and delighted that, when I was in post briefly for that year, we were going to get things done. We did the review, managed to get DLUHC over the line, and then managed to put out confirmation of a policy we were going to do. We were going to do a consultation. That got going as well, and then the election happened. Do not get me wrong: I understand why this might not be a top priority for a Government coming in, despite this whole issue being one of their key campaigning messages in the 2024 election. Here is the solution, ready-made, that they could just do at the stroke of a pen. That is why it a concern that we are not at this point yet.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, on this group of amendments I feel as if I am on my own. I agree absolutely that SUDS, or sustainable urban drainage systems, can play a wonderful role for smaller-style developments—for ones and twos, miles away from the mains in rural areas, they are obviously the way to go and oftentimes they are the only way to go—but I cannot see for the life of me how promoting SUDS and accepting these amendments will be proportionate when we are talking not just about connecting 10 or 15 homes but building 1.5 million. We will never solve the housing problem by connecting 1.5 million homes to SUDS. We have to connect them to the mains; it is the only way forward.
Lord Fuller (Con)
But I am concerned, listening to this, because we will be letting the water undertakers—the sewage firms—off the hook if we are not careful. I say to my noble friend that I have looked carefully at the amendments. This whole Bill is about speeding up development; we have to get these homes going. It seems to me that we are potentially having a perverse incentive in allowing the sewage treatment firms to have a veto over new development.
The sewage treatment works and the operators—the water undertakers—are going to be the tail that wags the dog. If they say, “We haven’t got enough capacity, therefore you can’t connect”, no new homes will be built at all. I am really concerned about this. I went to the world heritage site at Iona in Scotland and its sewage treatment works were at capacity. It ended up with the visitor centre being forced to have its own package system that drained straight through the public areas, making it worse. In Norfolk, Anglian Water is saying that its sewage treatment plants are at capacity and it cannot contemplate any new homes. It is the blocker: 40,000 new homes in the greater Norwich area, as well as other areas, are now at risk. So far, so much for speeding development. This is going to slow it down, because it gives them a get-out—a perverse incentive not to invest in what they should be doing, while taking the money from business rates and so forth.
In aggregate, we are going to end up with more polluting package systems rather than connecting. That is no good for places such as Poringland, in my own area, where there is clay and the drainage is really poor. This is really important because by promoting a multiplicity of much smaller package systems, rather than incentivising the main sewerage providers to invest, we are going to avoid scale—and we need the larger, better-structured sewage treatment works brought up to scratch, because it is only then that they would address the phosphate problem. Phosphate is very difficult to do in a package system because there are harsh chemicals, so you have to wear face masks, gloves and all the health and safety paraphernalia. It all has to be carefully handled. This is where we get the economy of scale, which is what we should be encouraging.
Another point is that if we are to allow the sewage companies to say, “We think we’re full now, so you can’t have any more”, we will end up with more small package schemes. There is the smell. They are also unreliable and expensive to maintain. It is difficult to get them adopted.
I am really concerned about Amendment 198. I do not want to put the black spot on it entirely, but it needs to be improved. We would end up with a perverse situation in which there was a lack of capacity and we incentivised the sewage treatment companies and water companies to take it easy, rather than go the extra mile. This is not some theoretical risk. In places in Norfolk such as Heacham, Docking, Snettisham, Horsford, Brancaster and the entirety of the greater Norwich area, Anglian Water is holding up the delivery of tens of thousands of houses.
This is an infrastructure Bill, so there would be unintended consequences. While the amendment is well meaning—I accept everything the noble Baroness said about what is in the Water Act, and I accept that for smaller schemes this is it—if we are to have an infrastructure Bill, we need to remove the excuses for the sewage treatment companies and the water undertakings not to invest in that most basic infrastructure. It is as if we are going back to the days before Chamberlain in Birmingham and Bazalgette here on the Embankment in London. We spent ages on the Water Bill, and there is widespread concern about sewage discharge, but sewage discharges will be solved only if we hold the water companies’ feet to the flames and get them to invest. It is a real problem if they just say, “Well, it’s a bit difficult. We’re not going to invest, and therefore you can’t build houses and can’t get the economy moving”.
In summary, we need to make sure that we take into account that SUDS has a role for smaller schemes, but we should not allow the pressure to be taken off the large companies for the big schemes—the schemes that will deliver the homes this nation needs by getting roofs over people’s heads. Otherwise, we will never meet the targets. As it is, in the Times yesterday there were questions about whether we will even get half way to delivering the housing targets, let alone all the way.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I will speak briefly to this group. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her resilience in the face of some opposition from her own Benches.
Amendment 197 seeks to end the automatic right for developers to connect surface water from new homes to the public sewerage system, regardless of capacity, and would instead provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems.
Amendment 198, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would go further by linking the right to connect to compliance with the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, creating a stronger incentive for developers to follow this guidance, in advance of full implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I believe that some of this was developed by the All-Party Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities, among others, and we certainly support what the noble Baroness is attempting to do with these amendments. Managing surface water is a huge challenge. It is such an irony that we have the problem of lots of surface water, but we also do not have enough water.
Protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity and reducing flood risk are really important priorities. We see the merits of these amendments. While they are not the only steps needed to achieve a fully resilient water system, they represent a constructive approach to improving drainage management in particular, and to encouraging developers to take responsibility for sustainable practices.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendments in this group. I know that the whole House respects her for her commitment to the issue of sustainable drainage, and I pay tribute to her for her persistence in raising this particular matter, because it is about time that we made some progress on it.
Our water system is put under pressure when developments are built out and connected up, and my noble friend is right to raise this. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to set out the Government’s ongoing work on delivering a sustainable future for our water systems? We would also be interested to hear what active steps the department is taking to engage with the development sector, including small and medium-sized developers, to ensure that existing non-statutory standards for sustainable drainage have been implemented.
My noble friends have mentioned 2010. I can beat that. I think it was in 1992 that, as Environment Minister, I was shown a revolutionary new system whereby the downpipes from our houses are connected to a soakaway and a system of seepage pipes about a foot underground, where the water then slowly leaked back into the soil. For big commercial car parks, the seepage pipes were put down a metre, so they were not crushed.
Those systems were in development then, and I said, “This is a jolly good idea, we should do it”, but the word was, “Oh no, Minister, it is not quite the right time to do it yet”. So I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say about that particular area. What development work is going on for seepage systems in ordinary domestic houses? We have millions of gallons of pure raindrops falling on our roofs, we put it into the sewerage system and then the water companies spend millions of pounds taking out the clean water again. Seepage systems must be the way to go in the near future.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for proposing these amendments, and for her persistence in these matters. I remember having long discussions with her on the same subject over the course of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
Proper implementation, adoption and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems can significantly reduce the pressure on sewer networks from new developments by as much as 87%. This creates capacity for further development in areas where conventional drainage alone would be insufficient. There is growing need for SUDS in more developments, with designs that can withstand changing climate conditions, support broader water infrastructure goals and contribute to addressing the water pollution challenges.
Progress has already been made through the planning system to improve SUDS delivery. I am afraid that I do not accept the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that MHCLG has been holding this up. The updated National Planning Policy Framework, published on 12 December, now requires SUDS for all developments that have drainage implications.
Sewerage companies have the authority to reject connection requests if they believe that the mode of construction or condition of the drain or sewer will prejudice their network or fail to meet reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to the sewer system.
The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, has reviewed the regulatory framework for the water sector in England and Wales. Both the UK and Welsh Governments are assessing the findings, including any potential impact on the right to connect. Any legislative changes to Section 106 should take into account the findings of the Independent Water Commission’s report before moving forward. The Government remain strongly committed to requiring standardised SUDS in new developments and increasing rainwater management strategies to mitigate flood risks and to adapt to climate change.
In June 2025, the Government released updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS, which have been positively received by stakeholders as a very constructive development. Later this year, the Government plan to consult on national planning policies, including those related to flood risk and SUDS. Additionally, a consultation will be launched on ending freehold estates which will explore ways to reduce the reliance on private management arrangements for community assets, such as SUDS. When we bring those national planning policies forward, I hope that the noble Baroness will take part in the discussions. As she has such a detailed knowledge of the subject, I am sure that she would be very helpful in the preparation of those national planning policies.
For all these reasons, the Government cannot accept Amendments 197 and 198. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment 197.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in favour of the amendments—and to those who did not. I will take my colleague aside and teach him the error of his ways, perhaps acquainting him with Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
As a newly elected MP, I was surprised at two things: first, that we do not make new laws but amend existing ones; and, secondly, that, having passed a law, we do not implement it. I listened very carefully to the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. She has made the points for me: these are guidelines in the non-statutory National Planning Policy Framework and in the national standards for SUDS.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have explained many times during the course of the debate on the Bill that, although the planning policy statements and the NPPF are not statutory in themselves, they are part of a statutory planning framework and they must be taken into account as local plans are developed. They cannot be statutory documents because they have to be amended frequently, but they sit within that statutory planning framework, and that is what makes them powerful.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. It is not me that she has to convince, but the insurance companies out there, and the likes of CIWEM, who have to pick up the pieces when there is a combined sewage overflow. We have not plugged the gap of the highways runoff, either. I would like to reserve judgment about bringing back the amendment at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
“Heritage tree preservation orders(1) A local planning authority may make a heritage tree preservation order in respect of a heritage tree.(2) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations for heritage tree preservation orders, which must include provision— (a) for a heritage tree to have all the protections afforded to a tree by a tree preservation order under section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (power to make tree preservation orders);(b) requiring the owner of a heritage tree, or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands, to advertise appropriately its status as such, and the penalties for harming it, to persons approaching the tree or planning activities in its vicinity;(c) enabling the responsible planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner of a heritage tree or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands to take specified reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree and, if the owner or occupier does not take such steps in reasonable time, to take such steps itself and to recover the reasonable cost of doing so from the owner or occupier;(d) for the responsible planning authority, Natural England, the Secretary of State or another prescribed responsible body to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier about the care and preservation of the heritage tree (a “heritage tree partnership agreement”), including about costs;(e) for additional or higher penalties for breach of a heritage tree preservation order.(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for the creation, publication and maintenance of a register of heritage trees in respect of which heritage tree preservation orders have been made.(4) For the purposes of this section, “heritage tree” means a tree listed as such by Natural England on grounds of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecologic importance.(5) Natural England must create, publish and maintain a list of heritage trees in England for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides for the protection of heritage trees.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 199 is about heritage trees, and I thank everyone who has stayed for this debate. A special thank you goes to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has worked on this for far longer than me.
The existing mechanisms for tree preservation prove consistently inadequate when confronted by development pressure. To halt the continual attrition of irreplaceable ecological and historic assets, we must introduce specific mandatory, statutory safeguards. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for also signing Amendment 199, which achieves this by empowering local planning authorities to make heritage tree preservation orders: HTPOs. A heritage tree is precisely defined as one listed by Natural England based on its exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological importance. They are exceptional—not just any old tree in somebody’s back garden.
Natural England is explicitly tasked with creating, publishing and maintaining this register of heritage trees in England. The measure would guarantee that these assets were afforded all the protections of a standard TPO but mandate significantly more rigorous enforcement and proactive care. Under it, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying that breaches of an HTPO incur additional or higher penalties. Crucially, the system would move beyond reactive enforcement; the regulations must specifically enable the responsible authority, the planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner or occupier to take specified, reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree. If the owner failed to comply within a reasonable timeframe, the authority could execute the work itself and recover the reasonable cost.
This proposal would ensure that these vital historic assets were kept for future generations. It would be financially enforceable and remove uncertainty. Furthermore, transparency would be mandatory: owners must publicly advertise the tree’s status and penalties for harming it in the vicinity. The provision also encourages collaboration through heritage tree partnership agreements between the responsible body and the owner concerning care and costs.
The mechanisms within this amendment would deliver the focused legal protection required for irreplaceable features, moving accountability from discretionary planning guidance to a mandatory framework of enforcement and proactive conservation of our vital heritage trees. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, it would be exceptional if I did not support this amendment, in that it takes the provisions of my Private Member’s Bill and puts them into the amendment—so it would be a bit two-faced of me if I did not support it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has laid out clearly what the issue is. It is a very important issue in the public domain. We saw the outpourings that happened at the Sycamore Gap, and we see every year in the Tree of the Year competition just how many people exert themselves to vote for their favourite heritage tree. We have the beginnings of a register of these trees already in existence. I believe that my optimism, which was raised when the Government commissioned the Tree Council to put forward a report on what should happen, deserves a bit of encouragement, because, as yet, we have not had a very satisfactory response to the Tree Council’s research.
In Committee, I summarised the Government’s position as being that they felt that by saying that these trees were irreplaceable habitats was simply sufficient—but it is clearly not, as they are increasingly being damaged either by demolition or by poor management, so being called an irreplaceable habitat is not having any impact whatever. The second worry that I had in Committee was that, although the Tree Council had come forward with recommendations, it was clear that the Government were not planning to do very much as a result of them. It would be good to hear from the Minister tonight that, with this having been reflected on, there has been a change of heart, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having also attached my name to this amendment, for reasons I shall get to in a second, let me say that it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender —and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in particular, as she has been our champion in this space.
I am going to speak about two groups of trees in Sheffield. Members of your Lordships’ House may remember the great Sheffield tree controversy and the struggles that the whole city went to to defend its street trees. Two groups of those would, I think, have been covered by a heritage tree preservation order. One was about 40 trees on Western Road that had been planted in 1919 as a living memorial for the soldiers killed in the First World War from that community. The council planned to cut them down. There were paintings by artists underneath the trees and a huge march in World War I-style uniforms from the trees down to the town hall, and a huge campaign that demonstrated just how important those trees were to the community, and nearly all of them were saved.
On the other side of the city, in a much more deprived area, there were two cherry trees that were planted to commemorate two brothers killed in the Second World War. They were just cut down and people were deeply shocked. We have talked a lot in your Lordships’ House, throughout the passage of this Bill, about how nature is terribly important to people’s health and well-being, but here we are talking about individual trees that communities have an individual relationship with and that desperately need protection. They are part of their history, part of their future. At the moment, we do not have ways of protecting them, except for communities going to the kind of extraordinary efforts that the people in Sheffield had to go through to save those trees that they did manage to save.
I will make one other point. Poland has a green monument system that marks tens of thousands of trees across Poland, and Romania has a similar scheme. Britain is supposed to be really keen on nature and really keen on heritage, and look how far behind we are.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 199 because I think it is important that we protect and recognise our historic trees. I am thinking not just of the highway and byway trees; there are some really special champion oaks in South Norfolk, where I was the leader of the council. We took steps to recognise them, bring them into the local plan and give them special designations. They form the basis of the strategic gaps between settlements, which is not just a good thing for the landscape; it also maintains that spirit of community.
I am thinking in particular of Kett’s oak, which is a champion oak said to be over 500 years old—it might be more—sat there on the B1172 between Norwich and Wymondham. It was the site of Kett’s rebellion, where Robert Kett marched 16,000 people to Mousehold Hill in Norwich, having had a petition of 29 demands. I expect the Government to want to knock this one back, but I note the context of that historical nature, as well as the landscape importance. Some of Kett’s demands were to limit the power of the gentry and to prevent the overuse of communal resources. It did not do him any good—Kett was executed on 7 December 1549 —but it is part of the lexicon. I am conscious that my noble friend Lady McIntosh is going to take me outside and duff me up afterwards. I hope I do not suffer the same fate as befell Robert Kett.
My serious point is that having a national register of important trees is not just important for biodiversity and all that sort of thing; they are part of our history and culture, and these are things to be celebrated. I warmly endorse and support Amendment 199, with my personal knowledge of Kett’s oak, and other noble Lords will have similar stories from their own areas. I suppose the salutary lesson is that when that Sycamore Gap tree was felled, quite terribly, in Northumberland last year, there was a national outpouring. Amendment 199 attempts to capture that sense of pride and purpose, and it has my full support.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we all share an appreciation of our heritage trees. The Fortingall yew in Perthshire is estimated to be around 2,300 years old, and there are oaks on the Blenheim estate that are estimated to be over 1,000 years old. Of course, the iconic Sycamore Gap tree, which I was driven past the day before it was cut down, was over 100 years old, but while it was a relatively young tree by comparison, I think it was probably the most famous iconic tree we had, loved by millions.
Whether they be ancient yews or oaks that have stood in Britain for hundreds if not thousands of years, our heritage trees are a link to our past. That is why we have robust tree protection laws. While we are committed to maintaining those protections, will the Minister please confirm that the existing protections for trees will not be swept away inappropriately without due consideration when developments are considered? It would be unacceptable to have an EDP that meets the overall improvement test but necessitates cutting down one or more heritage trees. I think we all agree that that would be unacceptable. Will the Minister please set out the Government’s view on the current penalties for breaches of tree protection orders? Do the Government feel that these remain appropriate, or do Ministers have plans to review them or introduce new regulations and new laws?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for the debate and the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. Obviously, trees and the natural environment are very important to all of us, especially the Government. Trees offer profound environmental and societal benefits; they are instrumental in our efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, they support human well-being, and they provide important habitats for wildlife. We have considered the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, which seeks to establish a new category of “heritage trees”—those of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological significance—and give them additional statutory protection.
As mentioned in previous debates, the tree preservation order system remains a vital mechanism for safeguarding trees and woodlands in England. Local authorities are already expected to consider the historic, cultural and ecological value of trees when making such orders. Local planning authorities are required to notify relevant parties when an order is made, and they are empowered to encourage good tree management, particularly in the context of making planning decisions. Enforcement powers are available to local officers and it is a criminal offence to cut down, uproot, wilfully damage or top or lop so as to destroy a protected tree without written consent from the authority.
We also recognise the value of trees in planning policy as a core component of natural capital. It is our position that trees should be incorporated into new developments wherever possible, and that existing trees should be retained. Furthermore, development that would result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, or ancient or veteran trees, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.
Given these existing provisions, the amendment does not, in our view, offer sufficient additional protection to justify its implementation. The creation of a new category of heritage trees risks introducing confusion and placing an additional burden on both Natural England and local authorities, without delivering commensurate benefits.
In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response. I will not be testing the opinion of the House, because I have a sense of clarity as to what the outcome would be right now. However, I do feel that there is a need to push for greater rigour and content within a Bill of this nature, and we will look to see whether there is further work that we can do to perhaps get it into a nature Bill in the future. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Nuclear power station development(1) Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).(2) In subsection (2), insert at the beginning “Subject to subsection (3A),”.(3) In subsection (3), for “(4)” substitute “(3A)”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (2)(a) to (c) does not apply, and this subsection applies, in the case of an application for an order granting development consent for a nuclear-powered generating station with a proposed nameplate capacity of 500MW or higher, if and to the extent that the Secretary of State considers it is necessary and appropriate to disregard any provision of—(a) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,(b) the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, or(c) any environmental delivery plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025,to secure the provision of the generating station in an economic, efficient, proportionate and timely manner.”.(5) By the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to provide for a bespoke regime for the environmental impact assessment of any proposal for an order granting development consent for a nuclear-powered generating station with a proposed nameplate capacity of 500MW or higher. (6) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (5) must make provision for—(a) a page limit for environmental statements, not exceeding 1,000 pages for the main body of the statement and a total of 4,000 pages for any appendices, and(b) any person or body consulted on an environmental impact assessment to respond to the consultation within 21 days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes special provision in relation to large-scale nuclear power station developments by allowing the Secretary of State, when determining an application for a Development Consent Order, to disregard regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, habitats regulations assessment, or any environmental delivery plan, if this is considered necessary for the delivery of the nuclear power station. It also requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to put in place a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime for proposed nuclear power station development.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 202 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. It addresses the pressing need to streamline and speed up the delivery of new nuclear power stations, currently burdened by heavy-handed regulations. It aims to correct this and ensure that our planning system facilitates rather than fetters the delivery of affordable, accessible and secure energy for the British people.
Energy is the fundamental deciding factor in the success of an economy and that has never been truer than it is today. Energy is indeed now the currency of AI. Progress is decided by whether innovation can be supported by a cheap and accessible supply of energy, and in the present day, with round-the-clock data centres, AI start-ups and an economy that runs non-stop, that is all the more important. If we want to be a growing and prosperous economy, we cannot resign ourselves to be a nation that accepts intermittent and expensive energy.
Unfortunately, we—I include successive Governments in that—have so far done just that. Our international counterparts have been busy reducing their costs and securing their domestic energy supply. At the same time, we have been busily engaged in a somewhat blinkered and self-defeating ideological pursuit. The result is that our costs are now some of the highest in the world, and our shackled planning system does not let us correct this.
This is not an attempt to play politics; the empirical evidence proves the point. Wind and solar energy now account for nearly 40% of our national grid generation. We have commandeered fields and tarnished the countryside to reach this outcome. The result is that even if wholesale prices halve in the next five years, electricity prices will be 20% higher. The policy costs of this Government’s initiatives add around £300 to the average annual bill and cost companies twice as much to deliver it as it does in France. This is not the result of an efficient energy system.
The obvious solution to this is to build more nuclear power plants. They may have large upfront costs, but that is offset by relatively small variable costs. There are potential economies of scale, and they are infinitely more productive than the sources of energy we currently rely on. Once built, they are entirely domestic and provide a secure and sovereign energy source. Replace wind with nuclear power and we have a source of energy that uses up 3,000 times less land—that is an environmental change that will have a noticeable effect on the people of this country.
The problem lies in the fact that we have not taken the necessary steps to realise nuclear’s benefits. The last nuclear power station to come online did so 30 years ago, and of the five in use, four are scheduled to close by the end of the decade, as it currently stands. Hinkley Point C, currently under construction, is set to become the most expensive power station in human history, at an exorbitant £44 billion in 2024 terms. It uses the same EPRs as counterparts in France and Finland, yet they pay 27% less per kilowatt hour than we do.
I spent yesterday in Finland at Olkiluoto 3, the first nuclear power station to have been opened in 15 years. It began electricity production in 2023. It is estimated to last for another 100 years and is the third-most powerful nuclear power generator in the world. It produces almost a third of all electricity in Finland, regardless of the weather or the time of day. It is the same design as Hinkley Point and that proposed for Sizewell C, so we should learn from the engineering challenges faced by the Finns.
The environmental lobby has undertaken a two-pronged attack on energy security, the first of which is the endless sprawl of wind and solar farms, the second being the endless stream of consultations, challenges and appeals that are now a given with every new planning application. This amendment would go a long way to answering that problem, putting progress over paperwork and allowing vital national infrastructure to be built.
If we seriously want lower bills, a dynamic and growing economy and a Britain that attracts investment, we must be brave in bypassing the self-sabotaging legislation which holds us back. This amendment would not dangerously free the market. It is a balanced approach that gives the Secretary of State the choice—it is a choice—on whether the benefits of nuclear power must outweigh discretionary environmental concerns. It would allow us to achieve energy security, embrace the new technologies that come with industrial development and enable the growth that this Government have for such a long time promised. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 207, 220 and 230, which are all linked. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for supporting them. I am also grateful for all the constructive engagement I have had with the Minister and her teams between Committee and Report. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, cannot be here this evening and wish her a speedy recovery.
I reflected on the Committee debate which highlighted the contentious nature of these amendments. Of course, noble Lords are concerned about rolling back protections for nature for infrastructure build, and the delays we have seen to large infrastructure in the UK are a multifaceted problem, but we cannot get away or escape from the fact that poor interpretation of environmental regulations is causing excessive cost and multiyear delays to many of our large infrastructure projects. The evidence here is clear—I will not go through the examples again that I cited in Committee.
The root cause of the delays to many of our offshore wind and nuclear programmes, and the other examples that I cited, and their excessive costs, comes down to an overzealous interpretation of the habitats regulations. Ironically, those regulations are causing long delays to much of our net-zero infrastructure and much else besides. They are impacting our national security, because energy security is national security.
My amendments offer a way through that, while maintaining protections for nature, by attempting to take the regulations back to their original intent by reversing case law and clarifying interpretation of existing law. These changes would move the dial significantly by ensuring that regulators are guided towards a more sensible and proportionate interpretation of the regulations and compensation, streamlining the programme for getting infrastructure through the system.
Finally, these points relate to a substantive proposal that the Minister has offered related to these amendments, so I look forward to hearing her proposal in detail when she sums up.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I should be clear at the outset that the amendments in this group seek to amend substantively the habitats regulations beyond the context of EDPs and the nature restoration fund, and beyond the current focus of the Bill. I am aware that these amendments, and the desire to make changes to the wider system of the habitats regulations, stem in part from a concern that the NRF will not deliver for infrastructure projects. I want to be very clear that this is not the case. We are all well aware of cases where vital infrastructure has been held up by specific environmental issues. We are currently identifying opportunities where EDPs and the NRF can have the greatest impact on infrastructure delivery, particularly addressing common challenges that are currently difficult for developers to resolve alone.
I stress that the Government are already taking action. We believe that the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately, with decisions based on the best available scientific evidence. The Government are working closely with stakeholders to improve the functioning of the habitats regulations, including by acting on the recommendations of the Corry review and the post-implementation review of the habitats regulations.
We know that there are particular issues with the delivery of suitable environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind projects. The consultation, which closed in September, covered proposed reforms to deliver a more flexible approach to this. We will make it clear in guidance that only relevant information needs to be considered in reaching conclusions on the risks to a protected site. The updated guidance will also make it clear that small effects that do not have any prospect of risking harm to a protected site can and should be screened out.
Finally, we will take the opportunity to set out more clearly where there is already flexibility in law in considering appropriate compensatory measures under Regulation 68 of the habitats regulations. Should guidance not be sufficient to make clear how the regulations should be applied, we may consider whether legislative change is needed, in careful consultation with developers, planners, ecologists and other relevant stakeholders. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I very much welcome her commitment to address the points raised in the amendment through guidance and her recognition that legislation will be required. I look forward to working with the Minister and her team on that. Nevertheless, I stress the urgency of bringing forward guidance quickly in this area, due to the delays we are seeing. Can she offer any more information on the timescales for the issuing and release of that guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making. I will take the subject back and discuss it with the teams in Defra and my own department, and then write to him, if that would be helpful. I am loath to make a time commitment from the Dispatch Box without doing that first.
Turning to Amendment 202, as previously noted I share the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to support new nuclear development, which will be critical for economic growth and achieving our clean energy mission. However, providing the Secretary of State the ability to completely exempt nuclear power stations producing more than 500 megawatts from requirements in respect to the habitats regulations, environmental impact assessments and any future environmental delivery plans would create uncertainty for developers and erode public support for such projects. These are important tools for making sure that the environmental impacts of projects are considered. The environmental protections they contain relate not only to nature but to the broader community impacts. This blunt approach to disregarding these obligations would put decision-makers at a disadvantage and prevent developers taking important steps to address the environmental impact of the development.
I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness; we need to do more to reform the planning system to accelerate nuclear development in this country. We are in the final stages of designating a new national policy statement for nuclear energy generation, EN-7. That will provide a robust and flexible framework for new nuclear developers seeking development consent and, alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), will provide the Secretary of State with some discretion when considering habitats regulations and the environmental impact assessment during decision-making by defining low-carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, as a critical national priority. We are also awaiting the final recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce.
I hope, following my explanation, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 202.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Although I do not entirely agree with her arguments, I have made my case as well as I can and I do not propose to detain the House any longer, given the lateness of the hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.