Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Regret

12:00

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

That this House regrets that under the Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 (SI 2025/409), the new routes for applications for planning permission for Crown developments of national importance will disregard accepted democratic processes and will be determined by the Planning Inspectorate and not local planning authorities.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled a regret Motion on this statutory instrument well before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now making its way through your Lordships’ House, had even had its Second Reading. Many of the issues I am still concerned with in this order have been debated during the progress of the Bill.

However, I make no apology for once again making the case for community involvement in developments that affect their locality. The Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 fundamentally alters the planning landscape in England. While this instrument appears to be merely procedural, it is in fact a key mechanism for cementing a significant power grab that threatens local accountability and transparency.

The SI we are debating is one of three other statutory instruments that implement the new routes for Crown development, which, to be fair to the Government, were introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. During the debate on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, I argued that there had to be community involvement in planning applications, in particular those on behalf of the Crown. Unfortunately, what this statutory instrument does is put central expediency over local democracy and due process in regard to Crown planning applications.

To give a bit of an example, the central purpose of this route for Crown development is to allow government departments—the “appropriate authority”—to apply directly to the Secretary of State for planning permission, bypassing the local planning authority entirely. The rationale provided by the department is that

“Government departments have faced challenges securing planning permission”

through the local planning authority route. This has resulted in delayed decisions for

“nationally important planned projects such as prisons or defence facilities”.

My argument is simple: challenges are the bedrock of a vibrant democracy and, in particular for planning, a vibrant local democracy. When a local planning authority scrutinises a development, it is ensuring that the project is in line with community needs and environmental standards, as well as the national need. By shifting the power of determination from local authority to the Planning Inspectorate, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, the local checks and balances are being sacrificed for the sake of speed of decision.

One of the most startling issues I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI is that there has been no public consultation on the instrument. The department claims this is due to the “technical nature” of the SI. Yet this technical instrument results in a major policy shift, affecting potentially every community in England.

While the statutory instrument sets out procedures for standard Crown development, the legislative package also covers urgent Crown development. For this, the department has indicated that the need for community engagement will be assessed on a case by case basis, meaning that the Secretary of State appears to have it almost entirely in their discretion whether local engagement is needed at all. If they have this discretion, obviously it puts in peril the public’s right to engage with nationally important projects that could drastically alter their neighbourhood.

The entire system hinges on the concept of a development being defined as “of national importance”. The statutory instrument uses the words “Crown development”. So can the Minister provide an explanation of what is defined as Crown development? Is it any development, whatever size is applied for, that takes place on Crown land?

Article 5 of the instrument allows for the Secretary of State to direct that information related to an application can also be defined as “sensitive information”. If the Secretary of State deems that information relates to national security or security measures and its public disclosure would be contrary to the national interest, the provisions requiring public disclosure will not apply. I can accept that sometimes this is the case. However, in the modern world, nothing is secret and nothing stays away from the public gaze. While sensitive projects may require limited disclosure, this provision actually provides a broad mechanism for withholding crucial information from the public under the umbrella of national interest.

The Government propose that this package of reforms will bring benefits to the public sector, enabling faster planning decisions and potential cost savings to capital programmes—but at what cost? This statutory instrument and the supporting ones undermine the very principles of local planning. They centralise power, sidestep public consultation, rely on vague criteria and restrict transparency. We are being asked to accept an instrument that accelerates government projects by silencing local voices.

I urge the Minister to consider the long-term impact on local governance and planning democracy, as I have done throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and to consider enabling communities to have their voice heard before the process is concluded. You can guarantee that local voices will be raised at some point. How much better that those voices are heard during deliberations on a planning application on Crown land, and not after the deal is done? I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. We on this side of the House believe in local democracy. It is why I proposed an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure local democracy where there are valid planning grounds, and why I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment on ensuring affirmative procedures for delegated planning powers was passed.

However, there is a need for balance. Today, we are seeing a government programme for the early release of prisoners. While this is, in large part, due to a failure to manage the prison population and deport foreign-born criminals, the lack of prison capacity is a factor. Importantly, the lack of prison space hampers prison rehabilitation—a matter that I know the Prisons Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is much vexed about. As my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist raised last night, the huge impact that the delays to and additional costs of the UK nuclear programme is having on the cost of energy is a major issue for struggling families and industry. It is therefore right to have a balanced approach.

Section 109 of the previous Conservative Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act added two new sections to the Town and Country Planning Act, creating new routes for Crown development. These provisions allow for an appropriate authority to apply to the Secretary of State for planning permissions, rather than the local planning authority. The intention behind this change was clear: to prevent delay or obstruction to vital national development, such as prisons.

As I have said, we are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but these powers are proportionate and balanced. It is our understanding that the Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 concerns development applications on Crown land that are deemed to be of national importance. The instrument sets out the procedure for such Crown development applications, including applications for planning permissions and approval for reserved matters. Crown development refers to applications made by the Crown bodies for development of national importance.

As so often in matters like these, the key issue is balance between local voice and national need, and between the principle of localism and the imperative to deliver key national infrastructure efficiently. We stand by the intentions of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which expands local voices in the round, taking them seriously by strengthening the role of local plans, creating new opportunities for communities to shape development in their areas and ensuring that decision-making is rooted closer to the people it affects. The Act sought to make planning more transparent, more accountable and more responsive to local priorities. It was never about sidelining local democracy but about creating a system capable of delivering both local consent and national progress.

The provisions on Crown development sit within that broader context. They are not a retreat from localism but a recognition that, on occasion, public interest requires a more streamlined route for developments of genuine national importance. As ever, the challenge is to strike the right balance, to protect local accountability while ensuring that the machinery of state can deliver where delay would carry a wider national cost. That principle underpins this instrument and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act itself. It is right that we reaffirm it today.

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

My Lords, perhaps it is due to the many hours we have spent in the Chamber debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, just said.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this debate, and I thank her and the noble Lord for their contributions. I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see the noble Baroness’s regret Motion on the agenda, as she herself had requested—through her Amendment 87E to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—a streamlined planning process for asylum processing sites. However, she has explained that her regret Motion was tabled before we started debating that Bill.

In May, we brought forward the regulations subject to this debate, along with a wider suite of regulations to bring both Crown development and urgent Crown development routes into force. These are the Crown development route for developments that are considered of national importance and the urgent Crown development route for a nationally important development that is needed as a matter of urgency. Some noble Lords in attendance today will remember when we debated these regulations earlier this year. As I said then, these routes are crucial to ensure that there is a more timely and proportionate planning process for nationally important public services and infrastructure that the state directly delivers; for instance, new defence facilities, prisons and border control—issues that we debated in this House a very short time ago and which are essential for the effective running of this country.

Recent experience, including the response to Covid, exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission for urgent Crown development, which was introduced in 2006, was not fit for purpose. In fact, it had never been used. Further, government departments have historically struggled to secure local planning permission for some nationally important public service infrastructure, such as prisons.

12:15

This is why, when we came to power, we decided to take forward the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that legislate for new Crown development routes in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned. It is worth reiterating that these new routes can be used only where it is justified. Crown development provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act require that applications be accepted by the Secretary of State only if he deems that the proposed development is of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent.

That being said, noble Lords will recall that, when we were in Opposition, we too had our concerns that these powers, which were being taken by the Government at the time through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, would not be used appropriately. Therefore, before we brought the regulations into force, on 13 February the Housing and Planning Minister and I made Written Ministerial Statements setting out the principles under which these new routes would be used and outlining the safeguards and transparency measures that would be put in place. We published the draft regulations to allow scrutiny of their provisions.

Notably, the regulations for both routes require applicants, when submitting an application, to set out the reasons why they consider the development to be of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, why it is needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State, or Ministers acting on his behalf, will then assess whether this justification meets the criteria set out in the Written Ministerial Statement. The gateway process provides an important safeguard, as we as Government Ministers are accountable to Parliament. In the WMS, we committed to writing to the relevant MPs when we accept proposals through this gateway process and when decisions are made under the routes. These letters are deposited in the Library of both Houses of Parliament.

I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is most concerned about public engagement, so it might be helpful if I give some brief information on that. Community engagement is a key part of the Crown development process. Much like an application submitted to the local authority, there is mandatory consultation on and publicity of the application for a minimum period of 21 days. This includes notifying neighbours, affixing a site notice and advertising the application in a local newspaper. This period will be 30 days if the development is subject to an environmental impact assessment. This enables members of the community to view and comment on the application.

Any comments made during the consultation, publicity period and hearing that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process. We expect that the majority of Crown development applications will be subject to a public hearing, and those who made comments will be notified when this is to take place. Interested parties can attend the hearing if the inspector allows it.

The local planning authority will have a role to play. It will need to place the application and associated documents on its planning register. As PINS does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory publicity period and to notify those owners or occupiers who adjoin the site.

The consultation procedure is slightly different for urgent Crown development. We appreciate the importance of community engagement but, given the urgency with which such decisions must be made, we have to assess urgent applications on a case-by-case basis. Where decisions need to be made very quickly, it may not be possible to conduct a meaningful public consultation and reach an urgent decision. However, we emphasise that alternative methods may be available for use and will be taken into account. For example, if necessary, digital methods could be used to consult on a speedy basis.

On an annual basis, the Secretary of State will publish a report of all decisions taken under these routes. Taken together, these steps will ensure that Members in the other House are properly apprised of any applications that relate to their constituencies. It will mean that both Houses will have the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the general operation of the routes.

With regard to the involvement of local planning authorities, the regulations for both routes ensure that the local planning authority that would normally have determined the application is still involved. It is notified when the application is accepted, consulted before a decision is made, and its comments must be taken into account by the decision-maker before issuing a decision. Within the Crown development route, it plays an active role by providing the planning inspectorate with a questionnaire setting out the key policies and site history, as well as publicising the application to the local community by putting up site notices. While it is not the decision-maker, it is definitely engaged and involved.

The noble Baroness asked what Crown land is and what the route to this is. Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act defines who is an applicant, known as an appropriate authority, for the purposes of applications under these routes. For example, this includes where land belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department. That government department is then considered the appropriate authority. For land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the appropriate authority. For land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, such a person as the Duke of Cornwall appoints is the appropriate authority. I hope that explains who the authorities are in this case. The person making the application will be expected to demonstrate that the Crown has a sufficiently high degree of interest in or control over the proposed development for which planning permission is sought.

The noble Baroness also asked about sensitive information and how that is handled. In the majority of cases, it may not be necessary to include sensitive information as part of the application because it may not be relevant to whether planning permission should be granted. However, there may be cases where that cannot be avoided, and where this is so there are provisions to enable that information to be withheld. There is a Crown casework team in the department which is made aware when sensitive information is involved. That ensures that the level of care is appropriate and that inspectors or officials with the right level of clearance can be stood up to deal with that application. I hope that is helpful.

These regulations are important to ensure a more timely and proportionate process for dealing with planning applications of national importance for Crown development in England. The Government are taking steps to ensure that these routes are used appropriately and that there is full scrutiny of the use of the powers. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to explain the basis of Crown development.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for her full and detailed response to my concerns. Unfortunately, the fundamentals remain. The Minister is quite right to say that the local planning authority will be involved in all the notifications and that voices and comments and so on can be heard, but in the end, the decision is taken over there and not where it should be, in the locality. That has always been my concern, as the Minister will know.

The balance has tipped too far in favour of government planning applications on Crown land, rather than trying to speed up processes which still engage local people fully. Having said that—–

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has spent many hours in this Chamber debating what we are doing elsewhere in the planning system to speed up decision-making. While I understand her great championing of community engagement in planning, we are trying to get the balance right here.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I accept that wholly. The Minister has always responded positively to the queries I have raised; it is just that we disagree on the balance.

I shall continue challenging because I think that is always needed. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.