Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (5th Day)

Scottish legislative consent granted, Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 28th and 35th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

19:08

Clause 90: Amendments relating to this Part

Amendment 208

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

208: Leave out Clause 90

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to my Amendment 231A. I address Amendment 208 individually, rather than as a group as in Committee, because the facts have changed following the CG Fry Supreme Court judgment. This creates an opportunity to accelerate home building, which the Bill currently threatens to eliminate unnecessarily. I will speak to the application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites from the Back Benches, and leave the policy area of housebuilding to my Front-Bench colleagues, as it is their speciality. My amendments would remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill, preventing the legal imposition of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Before I go on, I refer the House to my register of interests as an owner of development land, which, as far as I know, is not impacted by nutrient neutrality or Ramsar.

We in government chose to apply the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites through policy as a well-intentioned move to recognise the special international status of these wetland sites. I do not see evidence that our largest neighbours, such as France and Germany, have chosen to do the same. Since then, we have all watched in horror as Natural England’s advice on nutrient neutrality within the habitats regulations has led to as many as 160,000 new homes being blocked. We know that 18,000 of these are through the application of the habitats regulations to the Ramsar site on the Somerset Levels. I and my noble friends have asked the Government several times: how many more homes than this 18,000 are currently blocked by the unnecessary application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites? I hope that we can receive that answer today.

The CG Fry judgment, that simply adopting this as policy does not carry legal weight, was right. The habitats regulations derived from EU law and were designed to apply to sites with protection under EU law and no further. Natural England has been able to advise for years that specific land should have SPA or SAC designation and be brought under the habitats regulations. The fact that many Ramsar sites have only partial or no protection as European sites is because, so far, Natural England has judged that they do not need it. Ramsar sites already have protection under paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework. If, after the CG Fry judgment, Natural England were to advise that more European designations were necessary on the Ramsar sites and the Government accepted that, the habitat regulations would apply at that point. Should my amendment be passed, I am sure that Natural England will want to evaluate that point, and I would urge it to be highly scientific and evidence-based in that process, because the eyes of those needing houses will be on them.

The Natural England advice in the CG Fry case relating to the Ramsar site was not even that development would add to the level of phosphates in the Somerset Levels but that it would slow the rate of improvement in phosphate levels. Natural England had no objection based on the SPA designation for the Somerset Levels. This appears to be a pretty tenuous argument.

I urge the Government to accept my amendments, not to blindly block new housebuilding, and allow the habitats regulations to perform more closely to their original intention. Clause 90 and Schedule 6 unnecessarily and voluntarily gold-plate the application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites, for which they were not intended, to the detriment of the broader interests of our country. Without my amendments, this planning Bill, designed to accelerate housebuilding and growth, will actually block housebuilding. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have heard time and again during the passage of this Bill from the Government Front Bench that this is a Bill to streamline the obstacles for anybody who wants to get anything done in this country. That is what Amendment 208 does, and I support it entirely.

Just under two weeks ago in the Supreme Court, as my noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned, four years of litigation concluded in the Fry case. The case revolved around the protections of Ramsar sites. In essence, the court was asked to judge whether Ramsar sites were subject to the same onerous requirements as sites protected by the EU habitats directive, including the potential for developments to be blocked at the stage of discharging planning conditions, many years after they have obtained that planning permission.

For over 50 years—since 1971, when the Ramsar treaty relating to over 2,500 wetlands in 172 nations was signed in the town of Ramsar in modern day Iran—it has never been the case that EU habitats directives apply to these important places. For that period, over the entire world, Ramsar sites have been protected without any reference to the EU, EU regulations or any of the other state paraphernalia that flows from Brussels. Why would they be? There are 23 such sites in Brazil, six in Cameroon, one in Mongolia, three in Equatorial Guinea and 39 in Japan. The EU is irrelevant to these places.

Natural England, as the Government’s statutory adviser, quite wrongly asserted that EU habitats regulations were relevant when they are not. Do not take my word for it: take the word of the Supreme Court. It concluded that the regulator had no business in making the equivalence between Ramsar and the other nature sites covered by the habitats directive. The Supreme Court held that Ramsar sites were not subject to this level of protection as they fell outside the habitats directive. Twelve days ago, a regulatory burden was lifted. Inexplicably, the Government now seek to undo that pro-growth judgment by bringing the Ramsar sites back within the habitats regulations, even though they fall outside the regulations’ parent directive.

We need a moment to see what has happened here. The justices concluded that Natural England had overreached itself in its advice to government, that it could not interpret the legislation accurately, that it misdirected itself and, crucially, misadvised the entire development industry as to the truth. Natural England’s dossier had the effect of holding up tens of thousands of homes. The evidence before the court in the Fry case was that 18,000 homes had been held up in Somerset alone, many already with planning permission, owing to Natural England’s misplaced concerns.

19:15

The economic consequences have been crippling. Housing affordability is worsening. The scientific analysis behind Natural England’s objections remains questionable. I know this from its approach to nutrient neutrality in Norfolk. In effect, a global treaty was used to gold-plate EU legislation when it had no business doing so in the UK. This is not me saying it: it is what the Supreme Court found. Natural England got it wrong—badly wrong. Even when it had the chance to throw in the towel and admit its mistake, it pressed on for four years.

Let us get this right. The quango the Government tell us could be trusted to get Britain building again is exposed as a blocker, not a builder—not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of law. That is not to say that there should be no regulation at all—in fact, quite the reverse. We on these Benches believe strongly that Ramsar sites should be protected, as they currently are in government policy under paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework, subject to the ordinary principles of planning law. It is just that this organisation, which will simultaneously be the adviser, regulator, operator, price-setter, enforcer and promoter of all the EDPs being contemplated by Part 3 of this Bill, is making a complete Horlicks of it again. Tens of thousands of homes, quite unnecessarily and wrongly, have been held up and fewer affordable homes have been built, especially in the rural communities that need them most, because Natural England lacked the competence and professionalism properly to read, interpret and advise Ministers on the regulations.

With that court case to hand, you would imagine that the Government would have been delighted with the court’s decision. They are the ones who keep saying we need to sweep away all the gold-plating of the regulations that holds back growth. The Government tell us that they have chosen a path to lower regulation. By this Bill they have sought to persuade the OBR that they are sincere in this aim. But what is this? Within an hour of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Treasury’s own solicitors were boasting online that they were going to reapply the gold plate that had been summarily removed by the court justices with the implementation of Clause 90.

The Government have kidded the public and the press that they are interested in sweeping away bureaucracy. Instead, they lard on ever more regulation and delay. So I invite Members of this House to support this amendment, in line with the judgment of our learned friends; to agree that we already have all the protections we need for Ramsar sites in the NPPF; and—here is the important thing—that the UK should be consistent with our treaty obligations and the custom and practice of all the other 172 global signatories to the Ramsar Convention from all around the world. We should not be an outlier in this, yet that is what the Government are intending by their own Clause 90.

The Prime Minister tells us that he wants to follow international treaties and international law. He has said it not once, but a hundred times. Both the treaty and the law are clear: Clause 90 is not needed. Let us see whether his Government are a builder or a blocker, whether they are sincere about streamlining regulations, or whether they will have our economy stuck in the mud.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These Benches are not supportive of these amendments. While we appreciate the arguments that have been made about streamlining and simplifying the legislative framework, it is more important to recognise the significance of Ramsar sites and to treat them in the same category as European sites when it comes to environmental protection.

These wetlands—there are 176 designated sites in the UK—are often of extraordinary ecological value, supporting biodiversity that is not only nationally but internationally important. To remove the relevant provisions at this stage would risk sending the wrong signal about our priorities and would weaken the coherence of the overall environmental protections.

The Government’s goal all along has been to preserve sites that are of environmental importance. The arguments about Part 3 of the Bill have not entirely gone the way we had hoped, but they have gone a long way towards raising the importance of the environment as far as the planning system goes. We are keen to uphold the value of Ramsar sites, alongside other protected areas, and to dismiss the arguments made by those who, on one hand, say that we need more houses on these wetland sites, but, on the other hand, argue for other sites—perhaps in the green belt or designated sites—not to be built on. Let us be clear: the environment comes first, and protecting biodiversity and our precious environmental heritage is of key importance to us.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. These may appear as technical provisions, with Clause 90 dealing with temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase and Schedule 6 making consequential changes to Part 3 of the Bill, but, as we have heard from the speakers so far, their combined efforts risk damaging the very housing and infrastructure goals that this legislation is seeking to advance.

The Bill, as currently drafted, extends the legal obligations of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites. In practice, this means further restrictions on housing development and a fresh layer of uncertainty for local planning authorities and developers alike. The result, as my noble friend Lord Roborough warned, is that a Bill meant to get Britain building risks doing totally the opposite by tying up housing delivery in yet more red tape and delay. This point cannot be overstated: the country faces a housing crisis—not a crisis of ambition, but a crisis of delivery. By removing Schedule 6, we would avoid further complexity in the already overburdened environmental assessment framework, a system that too often paralyses local authorities and developers in costly uncertainty rather than securing real gains for nature.

The Government’s own target of 1.5 million new homes will not be met if planning reforms continue to tangle it up with excessive regulation and unintended consequences. Of course, environmental protection must remain a central consideration in planning, but, as my noble friend rightly observed, the small nut being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 has now been shown to be even smaller. The recent ruling to which he referred has already resolved many of the issues these provisions sought to address. What remains, therefore, is unnecessary bureaucracy and an additional drag on housing delivery.

However, I reiterate that the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case has now shifted the status quo. Following the judgment, Clause 90 and Schedule 6 will have the perverse effect of blocking development rather than facilitating it. This surely cannot be the Government’s intention; we are minded, therefore, to seek to test the opinion of the House when Amendment 208 is called if the Government have nothing further to say on this issue.

These amendments are not anti-environmental. They are proportionate, pro-clarity and, most importantly, pro-housing. They seek to ensure that this Bill does what it says on the tin: to plan and deliver the infrastructure and homes that this country so desperately needs. I urge the Minister to look again at Clause 90 and Schedule 6. Are they truly necessary to achieve the Bill’s goals or are they, as the evidence increasingly suggests, just obstacles in their delivery?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, both tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These relate to Ramsar sites, as we have heard, and noble Lords will be aware from the debate that these are wetlands of international importance that have been designated under the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.

To date, in England, these sites have been given the protection of the habitats regulations assessment process through policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. To support the effective operation of the nature restoration fund, we propose placing protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing, with Part 1 of Schedule 6 amending the habitats regulations so that protections for Ramsar sites align with the protection of other internationally important sites. Placing protection of Ramsar sites on a statutory footing will ensure that the NRF can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites, and this has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance.

The Government have, of course, carefully considered the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgments, which we have been debating, that distinguished in very specific circumstances between the legal protection provided to European sites under the habitats regulations and the policy protection afforded to Ramsar sites. This ruling has led to some commentary suggesting that placing Ramsar protections on a statutory footing will serve to prevent development from coming forward. This belief was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her speech just now; this, however, is mistaken.

Noble Lords who have followed the judgment will know that it found that habitats regulations protections for Ramsar sites should not have been applied, as a matter of policy rather than legal obligation, to developments that were already in possession of planning permission prior to the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020. While some—and the noble Lord, Lord Robrough, mentioned this in his introduction—have suggested that large numbers of homes will be unlocked if Clause 90 and Schedule 6 are removed from the Bill, this does not bear up to scrutiny. The reason is that no new planning applications have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020 that are affected by the Supreme Court’s judgment or by the protections for Ramsar sites proposed in the Bill. Furthermore, while this case has been progressing through the courts, the Government have provided significant investment to deliver local mitigation schemes, including in Somerset, which has ensured that mitigation is available to allow development to come forward.

I want to respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who suggested that 18,000 homes in the Somerset catchments are delayed by nutrient neutrality. That is actually the number of homes in existing plans from 2020 to 2032, so we are talking about a 12-year period. It includes homes that already have mitigation and homes for which no application has yet been submitted. Therefore, this overstates the number of homes affected.

We also know that developers can access nutrient mitigation in Somerset. For the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2025, 5,747 dwellings have been permitted within the Somerset Levels and Moors catchment area, and phosphate credits are available to mitigate a further 2,900 dwellings. That demonstrates that mitigation is already available and that this is not blocking such development.

The NRF will now deliver on the Government’s manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports more efficient and streamlined development, but with better environmental outcomes. We want the NRF model to be available to support development that impacts Ramsar sites as well as SACs, SPAs and SSSIs, while also driving the recovery of, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, put it perfectly, these internationally important sites. The amendments would actually prevent the NRF being used to help development in circumstances such as those in Somerset.

19:30

Finally, the amendment would have unintended consequences for the whole of Part 3 of the Bill. Part 2 of Schedule 6 makes a number of crucial consequential amendments to ensure that the NRF is operable, from amending the period of validity of species licences to removing the ability of planning conditions to be deemed discharged. Removing Schedule 6 would therefore not have the targeted effect that some may think it would. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, to my noble friend on the Front Bench for her support and to the Minister for her well thought-through and considered reply.

I have to say that I am not convinced. The fundamental principle of the habitat regulations is that they are supposed to apply to EU-designated sites. Should these Ramsar sites be deserving of that protection, then surely it is up to Natural England to advise the Government that that is the case and to put in place those protections. Without that, it is really not clear why we alone among the major European economies should be choosing to hamper our building in this way.

I am grateful for the detailed response regarding which houses are being held up. These are still material numbers of houses. The effect of the CG Fry judgment alone was to release 650 houses, and, while that may be over a 12-year period, that is still a lot of houses. The country needs those houses, and the Bill is supposed to deliver them. So we on these Benches cannot sit on our hands and watch this happen. Given that the Government are determined to plough ahead with this, I am forced to test the opinion of the House.

19:32

Division 2

Ayes: 162

Noes: 178

19:43

Schedule 6: Amendments relating to Part 3

Amendments 209 to 219

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

209: Schedule 6, page 180, line 26, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where it appears to Natural England that a notice of a proposal under section 28E(1)(a) of the WCA 1981 relates to an operation which is or forms part of a plan or project situated wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site,it must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.(2B) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, Natural England may give consent for the operation only after having ascertained that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is the first of a number of amendments to Schedule 6, the effect of which would be that the Habitats Regulations would give protection to Ramsar sites (wherever situated) where they are affected by any plans or projects in England (rather than protecting only Ramsar sites in England).

210: Schedule 6, page 180, line 28, leave out “Ramsar sites in England” and insert “certain Ramsar sites”.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

211: Schedule 6, page 180, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
(a) in paragraph (1)—(i) after “where” insert “—(ii) at the end insert “, or(b) a consent for an operation situated wholly in England has been given under section 28E(3)(a) of the WCA 1981 (or has effect as if given under that section) in relation to land included in a site of special scientific interest which, after the date of that consent, becomes land within a Ramsar site.”;(b) in paragraph (3)—(i) in sub-paragraph (a), after “24(1)” insert “or (2A)”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), after “24(2)” insert “or (2B)”;(c) in the heading, after “European sites” insert “or Ramsar sites”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

212: Schedule 6, page 180, line 35, leave out from “63,” to end of line 36 and insert “for “and European offshore marine sites” substitute “, European offshore marine sites and certain Ramsar sites”.”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

213: Schedule 6, page 180, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project situated wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site,must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

214: Schedule 6, page 180, line 41, at end insert—
“(ba) in paragraph (9), for “paragraph (1)” substitute “paragraphs (1) and (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

215: Schedule 6, page 180, line 42, leave out from “heading,” to end of line 43 and insert “for “and European offshore marine sites” substitute “, European offshore marine sites and certain Ramsar sites”.”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

216: Schedule 6, page 181, line 4, at end insert—
“(b) after “63(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

217: Schedule 6, page 181, line 6, at end insert—
“(za) in paragraph (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

218: Schedule 6, page 181, line 13, after “project” insert “in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

219: Schedule 6, page 181, line 14, leave out “in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

Amendments 209 to 219 agreed.

Amendment 220 not moved.

Amendments 221 to 229

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

221: Schedule 6, page 181, line 28, leave out paragraph 14 and insert—
14 “(1) In regulation 75 (general development orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) at the end insert—“(2) It is a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order made by the Secretary of State on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force that development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,must not be begun until the developer has received written notification of the approval of the local planning authority under regulation 77 (approval of local planning authority).”(2) In regulation 75(2) (as inserted by sub-paragraph (1)), after “force” insert “or a street vote development order”.14A In regulation 76 (general development orders: opinion of appropriate nature conservation body), in paragraph (7), for “75(a)” substitute “75(1)(a) or (2)(a)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

222: Schedule 6, page 181, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where a simplified planning zone scheme for an area in England is adopted or approved, that scheme is not to be taken to grant planning permission for development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,unless adopted or approved in accordance with the assessment provisions.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

223: Schedule 6, page 182, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where an order designating an enterprise zone is made for an area wholly in England, or where a modified enterprise zone scheme is approved for such an area, that order or scheme is not to be taken to grant planning permission for development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,unless made or approved in accordance with the assessment provisions.”;(aa) after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) Paragraph (2A) does not apply to an order made or a scheme approved before the day on which this paragraph comes into force.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

224: Schedule 6, page 182, line 9, at end insert—
“22A In regulation 85A (assumptions to be made about nutrient pollution standards: general), in paragraph (6)(a), after “63(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

225: Schedule 6, page 182, line 12, leave out from “works),” to end of line 13 and insert “at end insert—
“(4) Section 3(10) of that Act is not to be taken to deem planning permission to be granted for development wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,whether or not the development authorised by the permission has been begun, unless the competent authority has agreed to the plan or project in accordance with the assessment provisions.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

226: Schedule 6, page 183, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Where a land use plan relating to an area wholly in England—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,the plan-making authority for that plan must, before the plan is given effect, make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

227: Schedule 6, page 183, line 6, leave out “after “European sites” insert “, Ramsar sites”” and insert “for “and European offshore marine sites” substitute “, European offshore marine sites and certain Ramsar sites””
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

228: Schedule 6, page 183, line 14, at end insert—
“(za) in paragraph (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”;(zb) in paragraph (3), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

229: Schedule 6, page 183, line 24, at end insert—
“37 In regulation 110A (assessments under this Chapter: required assumptions)—(a) in paragraph (5)(a), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”;(b) in paragraph (5)(b), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.

Amendments 221 to 229 agreed.

Amendment 230 not moved.

Amendment 231

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

231: Schedule 6, page 185, line 39, at end insert—
“Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
41A (1) The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is amended as follows.(2) In section 125 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs), after subsection (12) insert—“(12A) This section does not apply to the exercise by a public authority of functions under or by virtue of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (development and nature recovery).”(3) In section 141 (exceptions to offences under section 139 or 140), in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) was done by a public authority exercising functions under or by virtue of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (development and nature recovery);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the duties in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 where a public authority exercises functions under Part 3, such as drafting or approving an EDP. This is necessary to enable an EDP to include network conservation measures (see further the explanatory statement to my amendment to Schedule 4 (at page 171, line 28)). It also makes a consequential amendment to s.141.

Amendment 231 agreed.

Amendment 231A not moved.

Amendment 232

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

232: After Schedule 6, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleMayoral Development Corporations for planning and development purposes: amendment of the Localism Act 2011Introduction
1 The Localism Act 2011 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.Part 8
2 In the heading of Part 8, after “London” insert “and areas of other mayoral strategic authorities”.Interpretation
3 In section 196—(a) before the definition of “the Mayor” insert—““CCA” means a combined county authority established under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“combined authority” means a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“constituent council” means—(a) in relation to a combined authority—(i) a county council the whole or any part of whose area is within the area of the authority, or(ii) a district council whose area is within the area of the authority;(b) in relation to a CCA—(i) a county council for an area within the area of the authority, or(ii) a unitary district council for an area within the area of the authority;and here “unitary district council” means the council for a district for which there is no county council;”;(b) for the definition of “the Mayor” substitute—““the Mayor” means—(a) the Mayor of London,(b) the mayor for the area of a combined authority, or(c) the mayor for the area of a CCA;”;(c) after the definition of “MDC” insert—““strategic authority area” means—(a) in relation to the Mayor of London or a mayoral development area designated by that Mayor, Greater London;(b) in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the combined authority, or(c) in relation to the mayor for the area of a CCA or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the CCA;”.Designation of Mayoral development areas
4 (1) Section 197 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “Greater London” substitute “a strategic authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may designate a Mayoral development area only if—(a) the Mayor considers that designation of the area is expedient for furthering economic development and regeneration in the strategic authority area,(b) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by subsection (5B) and, if applicable, subsection (5C),(c) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees,(d) in the event that those comments include comments made by a constituent council or a district council consulted under subsection (5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance,(e) the Mayor has laid before the combined authority or CCA, in accordance with its standing orders, a document stating that the Mayor is proposing to designate the area, and(f) the combined authority or CCA approves the proposal.(5B) The persons who have to be consulted before an area may be designated are—(a) the constituent councils,(b) each Member of Parliament whose parliamentary constituency contains any part of the area, and(c) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.(5C) In the case of a combined county authority, any district council whose local authority area contains any part of the area also has to be consulted before the area may be designated.(5D) For the purposes of subsection (5A)(f) the combined authority or CCA approves a proposal if it resolves to do so on a motion considered at a meeting of the combined authority or CCA throughout which members of the public are entitled to be present.”.Exclusion of land from Mayoral development areas
5 (1) Section 199 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Before making an alteration, the mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA must consult—(a) the constituent councils, and(b) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.”.Transfers of property etc to a Mayoral development corporation
6 (1) Section 200 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “a person within subsection (3)” substitute “an eligible transferor”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferor” means—(a) a London borough council,(b) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,(c) any company whose members—(i) include the Mayor of London and a Minister of the Crown, and(ii) do not include anyone who is neither the Mayor or London nor a Minister of the Crown, or(d) a person within subsection (3).(1B) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority, “eligible transferor” means a person within subsection (3).(1C) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a CCA, “eligible transferor” means—(a) any district council whose local authority area is within the area of the CCA, or(b) a person within subsection (3).”.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraphs (a) and (b);(b) in paragraphs (d) and (e), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”;(c) omit paragraph (k).(5) In subsection (4), for “liabilities of—” substitute “liabilities of an eligible transferee.(4A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferee” means—”.(6) Before subsection (5) insert—“(4A) 20 In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA, “eligible transferee” means—(a) the combined authority or CCA, o(b) a company that is a subsidiary of the combined authority or CCA.”.(7) In subsection (9), after “(4)(c)” insert “or (4A)(b)”.Functions in relation to Town and Country Planning
7 (1) Section 202 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (7), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(7A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may make a decision under any of subsections (2) to (6) only if—(a) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by section 197(5B) and, if applicable, section 197(5C), in relation to the area,(b) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees, and(c) in the event that those comments include comments made by the constituent council or a district council specified by section 197(5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance.”.Arrangements for discharge of, or assistance with, planning functions
8 In section 203, in subsections (1) and (4), after “City of London” insert “, or a county council or district council”.Acquisition of land
9 (1) Section 207 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”.(3) For subsection (3) substitute—“(3) Before submitting a compulsory purchase order authorising an acquisition under subsection (2) to the Secretary of State for confirmation—(a) 15 an MDC for an area in Greater London must obtain the consent of the Mayor of London;(b) an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA must obtain the consent of the mayor for that area.”.”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 232 relates to mayoral development corporations. Noble Lords will recall a debate in Committee about this precise point. To remind noble Lords, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, presently in the other place, the Government have proposed that the powers available to the Mayor of London in relation to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation should be provided to all mayors of established strategic authorities—I think that is correct. Noble Lords will also recall that I previously tabled an amendment to this effect back in July, so I was pleased to see that the Government were proceeding in exactly the same direction, but disappointed that this has been included in the English devolution Bill rather than here in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where Part 4, which we have now reached, is devoted to development corporations. It was certainly my understanding and intention that we would debate and, I hope, adopt the measure of giving all the mayors access to the same powers.

As a simple way of bringing that forward, I took Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and transposed it into what would become a new schedule to this Bill. I anticipate that it is not the Government’s intention to disagree with the content of Amendment 232, since they wrote it; however, they appear to be set on resisting the idea that it should be included in this Bill and, on the basis of our anticipation of Royal Assent being reached only in a matter of weeks rather than months, be brought into force rapidly.

As it happens, since Committee, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee has had the opportunity to consider Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill and has not amended it, so there is no requirement for us to think of it having changed. I suspect, based on the discussion in that Bill Committee, it will not be returned to in substance on Report. I do not anticipate that the English devolution Bill, when we see it, will have any different text from what we see here now.

I put it once more to Ministers, but will not press it because what would be the point? It is their Bill, their language, their schedule that they can have now, in my view—and why would they not? It seems to me that most mayors, certainly the ones I have spoken to or their representatives, would like the powers sooner rather than later.

Quite early in the new year, probably before the English devolution Bill has received Royal Assent, we will be discussing the question of which new towns will be mayoral development corporations as opposed to government development corporations or locally led ones. These are precisely the issues which are the subject of this part of this Bill. I put it to noble Lords that it would be better to take this provision, include it now, and bring it into force at an earlier stage. I beg to move

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we have much sympathy with the core principle behind this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, regarding mayoral development corporations. The purpose of Part 4 of this Bill is to create a more flexible, and perhaps more robust, framework for development corporations. The existing way that development corporations work has limitations with regard to some of the development that all of us seek—transport infrastructure, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has helpfully reminded us that this selfsame wording is in the devolution and empowerment Bill, currently going through its stages at the other end of the building, so those of us who will have the joy of debating that Bill, when it comes here, will be coming back to this issue.

The main concern we have, though, is about the decision being vested in the hands of the mayor and the rather narrow representations of the leaders of the constituent authorities—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister. This is an erosion of meaningful local planning influence, reducing local authorities to mere consultees whose considered objections can be dismissed. This amendment could grant substantial planning control over designated areas by placing the decision-making at the mayoral level, with its minimal approach to democratic engagement and consultation. While mechanisms exist for arrangements concerning the discharge of planning functions, this shift inherently concentrates strategic planning functions away from the local level.

Amendment 232 is a way forward in potentially accelerating growth plans, but it is achieved at the expense of local democratic involvement and, crucially, would lose having a strong voice from those residents directly affected. In a nutshell, this is an interesting and important proposal, but it bypasses local democracy.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s expertise on development corporations is, as ever, formidable, and the concerns he raises deserve full and careful consideration. This amendment speaks to the wider question surrounding the Government’s devolution agenda, particularly the potential to give metro mayors the tools they need to deliver housing projects, attract private investment and cut through the bureaucratic fragmentation that so often stifles local ambitions. In many ways, it would build upon the principles set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and the work that we have done collectively to champion place-based solutions to the challenges that this country faces. As my noble friend says: equality for mayors.

I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment. It is clearly defined and purpose driven. However, to sensibly empower metro mayors or development corporations further, the Government must provide clarity on their plans for local government reorganisation. Without this clarity we risk legislating into a vacuum, creating overlapping authorities and confusion where coherence is needed. On these Benches, we strongly support greater local oversight and a faster route to regeneration, but the real obstacle remains the Government’s opaque approach to LGR. Until there is a clear framework for how local government structures will interact with devolved authorities and combined counties, progress will be piecemeal at best. The Government must work this out, and quickly. We are all waiting for clarity.

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

My Lords, Amendment 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I understand why the noble Lord has brought his amendment forward. The Government are bringing forward equivalent provisions via Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and I understand his view that inclusion of this amendment would expedite the legislative change. I welcome that enthusiasm: it is essential that all mayors have powers to establish and oversee mayoral development corporations, which are a key tool to drive large-scale development and regeneration in their regions.

None the less, the amendment would not save significant time. The Government are committed to ensuring that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill reaches Royal Assent in spring 2026, at which point there will be no delay. The relevant provisions will commence on the day that the Act is passed, providing relevant mayors with the powers to establish development corporations. The amendment would also have minimal impact because, except for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority—I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might be particularly interested in that one—all mayoral strategic authorities currently have powers to establish and oversee MDCs. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, as well as any new mayoral strategic authorities, will automatically receive mayoral development corporation powers following Royal Assent of the English devolution Bill.

Finally, and I think this reflects the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises provisions providing mayors with mayoral development corporation powers, as part of the wider package of powers being granted to mayors through the devolution framework in the English devolution Bill. Therefore, while I understand the reason that the noble Lord has brought Amendment 232 forward, I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to this short debate, and particularly grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I heartily endorse what he said about the importance of trying to resolve the relationship between the processes of local government reorganisation and the rapid progress we want to achieve in implementing planning reform in order to get on with building the houses and developments we are looking for.

I should have previously referenced my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister is absolutely right: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor should have access to development corporation powers—even though the Government’s apparent intention, as I think was stated last week, was that the Cambridge Growth Company will be turned into a development corporation in the Cambridge area. We have yet to know in what designated area and with what powers, but that is for another day.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s assertion that the delay will be so limited. Let us hope that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does not get at all bogged down in the new year, because we want to be sure that those powers are available to mayors where they come forward to take up the potential new town designation. I was wrong when I said “mayors of all established strategic authorities”; I know it is my amendment, but I have just checked, and it does not say that. It refers to all mayors of strategic authorities. Whether they should be established strategic authorities is a question we might have a look at when we get to the English devolution Bill. But for the present, while looking forward to returning to these interesting issues in the new year, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 232.

Amendment 232 withdrawn.

Clause 91: Regulations

Amendment 233 not moved.

Clause 92: Application to the Crown

Amendment 234 not moved.

Clause 94: Areas for development and remit

Amendment 235

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

235: Clause 94, page 124, line 33, leave out “and” and insert “to”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another amendment in Lord Lansley’s name to clause 94.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this group containing, happily, not only my amendments but Amendment 238 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, is about the designation of new towns. The purpose of Amendment 236, which is the substantive one in my name, is to provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny of the designation of new town development corporations—those controlled by the Government. It is particularly about those under Section 1(1) of the New Towns Act, whereas elsewhere in that Act, locally led new towns, for example, were subsequently inserted. This provision would not apply to them; it would apply only to those controlled by the Government.

The point is that there are substantial implications in having a new town controlled by the Government. Designating the area and, for that matter, the powers that are to be given to that development corporation, and therefore by extension taken away from a local planning authority and vested in a development corporation, is a highly significant issue.

The super-affirmative procedure which the proposed new clause would introduce is, as the parliamentary guide would tell us, intended to be reserved for highly significant statutory instruments. I think this fits that bill. We are talking about the potential transfer of powers, potentially for relatively large areas, away from democratic control for decades.

For example, in the recent report by the New Towns Taskforce we saw a proposal for a dozen new town sites, some of which are pretty substantial. If we look at the area described as Brabazon and West Innovation Arc, it comprises three substantial areas to the north of Bristol. If all the planning control in that area were to be taken out of the hands of local authorities for what might be decades, it would make a very big impact in that area. The scrutiny of that by Parliament at the outset is important.

20:00

In short, the super-affirmative procedure allows for a 60-day period that can be used by each House of Parliament to conduct a committee’s scrutiny of the proposal—the draft statutory instrument—and report to the House, which would give rise to a debate before the draft is laid for approval. I therefore hope that it will commend itself.

Perhaps at a better hour and with more opportunity, we will want to talk about the “new towns” designation quite a bit. I hope that, in replying to this short debate, the Minister might say that it will be the Government’s intention to have a substantive debate on the new towns programme in the new year. The Built Environment Committee very recently published a report that contributed to what we have already read in the New Towns Taskforce report and the Government’s interim response.

The Government have established a strategic environmental assessment for the programme as a whole, which, as I understand it, is an essential preliminary to a consultation on the sites that the Government are going to propose, not least because the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 make that necessary, or would potentially prejudice the Government’s initial decisions, because they would not necessarily have incorporated the environmental effects. That means that we will probably be looking at the Government’s proposals for consultation in the new year. I hope that the Minister will say that it is the Government’s intention for us in Parliament to be consulted, and that we will have a debate on the new towns programme itself.

Briefly, there are proposals such as that from the Built Environment Committee for the New Towns Taskforce to be turned into a new towns agency—not just a unit in the ministry that works with Homes England but something that has a long-term existence and an identity of its own—to support the new towns programmes. In addition, there are issues that it is important for us to clarify before we get into the detailed question of which new towns will be among the first to get building on the ground. For example, it seems that the question of the relationship between the homes expected to be built in a new town by a new town development corporation and the housing needs and requirements in that area is one that the New Towns Taskforce and the Built Environment Committee have said needed to be clarified, but the Government have not done so yet.

Clearly, the homes being built in a new town should form part of the housing requirement of a relevant local planning authority. As a consequence, that local planning authority must accept that it should not rely simply on the standard method. Instead, there should be an addition to the standard method figure for that local planning authority to take account of the fact that it is contributing additional homes as part of a new towns programme. In each area, a complicated analysis is therefore required to assess how many of the new homes to be built should be added to a local planning authority’s standard method.

Currently, we look at places such as Crews Hill in Enfield and Brabazon, which is north of Bristol, that will potentially be part of a new town designation, but which already have homes that are part of a local plan. It would be an outrage if those homes were taken out of the housing requirement of that local planning authority and exposed to the risk of not having a five-year housing land supply in their area. That is just one example.

Another example—which I will not dwell on, because my noble friend Lord Fuller will want to talk about it—is the upfront funding and financing of development corporations. In Cambridge, which is not part of the new towns programme but will, none the less, be the location of one of the Government’s priority new towns, £400 million of funding for infrastructure was announced, which was extremely welcome. The question is whether other new towns will have upfront funding for infrastructure after the Budget, which, in the view of the New Towns Taskforce, is an essential component of what is required for the new towns programme.

Additionally, the Government have referenced the possibility of loans, to support the provision of early infrastructure in these new towns, and of tax increment financing as a long-term mechanism for funding. I will leave the question of further funding to my noble friend, who I know wants to talk about that when he speaks to his Amendment 238.

Finally, in my experience, the reason we need this important scrutiny is the importance of early engagement—not just local engagement but engagement with what are now quite wide communities. Their parliamentary representation has an opportunity to be heard on the designation of these new towns and the programme with which they should be engaged.

As a Member of Parliament, I was responsible for Cambourne, which had no homes when I started out as an MP but now has, I think—I shall be there on Sunday—approaching 6,000 homes, and for the establishment of Northstowe, which was meant to have 6,000 homes by 2016. In fact, it had none, but it is now having homes built. Both tell us a great deal about the relative importance of early infrastructure and early community engagement. A process by which Parliament is thoroughly consulted about the new towns programme at an early stage, and in detail when the statutory instruments to designate a new town have been drafted, would substantially assist the process of reassuring the communities that will be most affected.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 238. I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations contemplated by the Bill. In fact, I think it is the best part of the Bill.

Clause 96 seeks the achievement of sustainable development and the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. However, there will be no sustainable development without sustainable financing of the proposals that the development corporations bring forward. Since Committee, the New Towns Taskforce has published its report, and only this afternoon at Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, gave warm words to the principle of private investment in local infrastructure, perhaps by development corporations.

The magnitude of the task ahead of us is nothing short of generational. The state alone will not be able to build these new settlements; neither will councils, nor, as noble Lords heard in the previous group, will the mayors—not quickly, anyway. Only by harnessing the power of the financial markets and other private sector actors at home and abroad, including perhaps private households, will the promise of building these places become a reality. My amendment, supported by my noble friends on the Front Bench, recognises this simple truth. Some 50 years since Milton Keynes and 80 years since Stevenage were designated under the first new towns Act, it is time to bring the development corporations up to date.

I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised, that mayors may be created, and that the day-to-day financial pressures they both face have never been greater. In a former time, the development corporations would hold out their hand, perhaps to central government or to local councils, for funding. Of course, that route may be still open in some parts, but we know that the PWLB is capped and, at a time when Nestlé can borrow money cheaper than our Government can, the PWLB is not necessarily the cheapest, best value, or most available source of long-term infrastructure finance for the generational opportunities that my noble friend Lord Lansley so ably identified. Building new towns is the work of generations—it goes beyond political cycles—and relying on national and local politicians will not be enough in a world where a new secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover £100 million.

So we must help the development corporations in the single-minded pursuit of sustainable development, and we must help them get the money right. That means giving them the powers to exploit the distinction between funding and financing. Funding is simply writing the cheque, but financing is putting that deal together. It is no surprise that the financiers in the City of London have the most highly paid professions, because they have the hardest task: putting those deals together. It is not easy to finance difficult prospects but, to get Britain building, we will have to grasp that nettle.

I will not dwell too much on the significance of governance in development corporations, but I will make the factual observation that strong governance, established by statute—that is why I tabled this amendment—leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash early on for infrastructure at lower prices. That is why my amendment is so important. We need to make it easy for the development corporations to raise the funds and for the pension funds to put their shoulders to the wheel, helped by the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body.

The development corporations must be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the issue of bonds, shares or similar, and we should contemplate other sources of finance as well. In my view, that extends to entering into joint ventures with landowners on a territory. Their land could be incorporated at the heart of financing as an in-kind contribution, so they would not enjoy the upfront benefit but they would have a return that is sustained over a long-term period. That may be good for them—it is certainly good for the taxpayer—and it enables us to get the infrastructure built up front more cheaply. It should not be the default position that a development corporation just goes for CPO powers and then ponies up a premium price—10% more than the market value—sustaining all the unpleasantness of the process. There must be a better way. My amendment pathfinds that opportunity.

In Committee, the noble Baroness—rather complacently in my view—said that the amendment was unnecessary because corporations could always borrow from the PWLB, and that was that. The bond markets are suggesting that there may be limits to that approach, which is why we need more flexibility. So I want to place finance in the widest possible context and, without central or local government necessarily acting as a banker in the traditional manner, the development corporations can be empowered.

So, although I accept that development corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve at the best value and the greatest certainty, with the cheapness and value that come from statutory provision.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 236. This gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend and his work in this House. I declare an interest as chairman of the Greater Cheshire Development Forum.

On new towns and the new town of Adlington, I have to say that it was a wee bit of a shock. I am Lord Evans of Rainow, and Rainow is not far away—it is in the Peak District—and as you look out from the Peak District at the Cheshire Plain, Adlington is in the foothills. It is green belt, so it was a bit of a shock for me and the local communities. It is not every day that between 14,000 and 20,000 houses are set to be built in England’s green and pleasant land of east Cheshire. It was also a real shock to the Macclesfield MP, Tim Roca, as he had got married and was on his honeymoon at the time, but he was quick off the mark and put together the inevitable petition to Parliament against this proposal. It really flies in the face of democratic community empowerment—it is a coach and horses through local government. There are three outstanding local parish councils in that area: Poynton Town Council, Bollington Town Council and Pott Shrigley Parish Council. If you go on their website, you can see clearly that a lot of what they say has been articulated here today: a lack of consultation and accountability.

20:15

Cheshire East Council is struggling in many ways. One of the things it does not have is a local plan. You would expect the local town councils to point out that there is no town plan, and they would like to help it to do this in an open and transparent way. But there was no engagement with local people whatever—there was no forum—so your Lordships’ House can appreciate the shock. There is no local plan or mayor until 2027, so who will put this new town together and build between 14,000 and 20,000 homes?

There are several issues. There are issues in Cheshire East, like there are in communities throughout the country. Cheshire is a prosperous community, and Cheshire East is particularly prosperous, with pharmaceuticals, good-quality manufacturing and employment, but there is a housing shortage for young people. There is a net export of young people who leave Cheshire East to go to university and do not return. One of the biggest reasons for that is a lack of affordable housing. It is simply unaffordable.

In terms of infrastructure, what sort of energy will there be and how will we get it to 14,000 to 20,000 homes? Water supply is becoming a particular issue in many shire counties in the north-west and north-east of the country, as is drainage and so on. There is a huge number of areas that the local parish councils pick up on, because they have that local knowledge, but they have had no consultation whatever.

This is an opportunity to put some of those things in place and reinvent that part of Cheshire. There are fantastic business opportunities, but there are already large developments. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester may be aware of Woodford Garden Village, which is part of the Greater Manchester development area, with approximately 10,000 homes. That is on the site of a former aerodrome, where they used to make Lancaster bombers and be part of the nuclear deterrent—and it is a very good development, but on brownfield. The Adlington new town will all be on greenfield, so there is a marked difference. If we look at that area from the air, we can see the old airfield being developed, and then we look at the green belt of Cheshire and see that it will be an expansion of the urban spread from Greater Manchester into east Cheshire.

To summarise, there has been no local plan, there is no mayor, and there has been no consultation, so for the people of the Cheshire East area—that wonderful and excellent community—the local politicians think that the Government really need to think again. They are not against any development, but they would like some consultation and to rethink this proposal.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just said. Unlike my predecessor, I have no intention of trying to petition for parts of the diocese of Chester to become parts of the diocese of Manchester, just because of the urban sprawl extending—but I rise to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller.

I have served on the boards of a lot of large institutional investors. One of them, the Church Commissioners, had a particular interest in one of the major landowners in the country. I can well see how for an institutional investor that wants to invest in something that is a social good, like building towns, and wants to do it for the long term, because it is interested in long-term return and not just what the next quarter’s figures are going to be, being able to invest in these kinds of things would be the right way to go. Should the noble Lord put this to the vote, I would hope to be with him in the Lobby.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. As a general principle, we are in favour of any amendments that are genuinely about devolution and not just decentralisation. As we are all aware, there is a significant difference. However, we are aware that this brings issues of governance and accountability that are new to much of the sector at this level, with the difference in governance arrangements and in geography.

We also support the Government’s ambition and political will to build new towns to meet our challenging housing need. But—and it is a big “but”—we nevertheless feel that something as significant, important and impactful as designating a large amount of land for a new town should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Everyone’s voices deserve to be heard—and I understand that there is a difference between being heard and being listened to. However challenging and difficult that might be, the process is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, outlined. Increased scrutiny and the opportunity for revision are essential. We have to get this right for the people and for Parliament. Thus, we too welcome a debate on the new towns agenda and on the sites already designated.

I turn to Amendment 238. It seems to us an inevitable consequence of the new development corporations’ ambitions, roles and responsibilities. If devolution is to really mean something, it must also mean fiscal devolution. It is very unlikely in the present economic climate that any new major developments are going to be totally government funded, so it makes sense to cast the financial net as wide as possible. But—and, again, it is a big “but”—given some local government history on these and related matters, we assume that the Treasury will be concerned about rising debt and potential poor financial controls. With the discredited PFI funding also in the background, it will be concerned also about potential poor value for money. We are concerned that there should be the necessary protections and processes for good government, transparency and accountability. I wonder whether the Government may envisage a more proactive role in this regard for the National Audit Office before investment decisions are made.

Finally, a key question, which my noble friend Lord Shipley raised in Committee, is who picks up the tab if there is a loss on a project, or on several projects, or if a mayoral development corporation is running generally at a loss. Is it the council tax payer or the Government? There was no answer in Committee. It would seem likely to be the Government but, if so, it would be reasonable for them to be involved at all stages of project delivery, which makes Amendment 238 insufficient without explaining what controls would be in place. However, we would still support Amendment 238, because it gives a sense of the direction that we should go in, even if the detail is not yet in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, all I can say is that we support all the intentions of these amendments so ably introduced, as always, by my noble friend. I do not think there is anything more that I can add to what he has already said, apart from saying to the Minister that I think these important questions need answers tonight.

Alongside my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I have co-signed Amendment 238, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller. Ensuring that development corporations have access to sufficient finance will be critical, as we have heard, if we are truly to deliver the high-quality new towns and new developments that we would all like to see. Having access to a range of finance resources is a key component to this, empowering development corporations to seek finance from the widest possible range of sources. This amendment would allow them to do precisely that—to access funding not only from the Public Works Loan Board but from private capital, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, and through value-in-kind contributions as part of joint ventures. Crucially, it would also give them the ability to issue bonds, either individually or collectively with other development corporations.

Why does this matter? I suggest three key reasons. First, it enables collaboration. Development corporations could work collectively across areas, pooling capacity and scale to unlock investment in major regeneration and infrastructure projects that would otherwise be out of their reach. Secondly, it opens the door for local pension funds, particularly the Local Government Pension Scheme, to invest directly in their communities. This builds on the Government’s own commitment to mobilise LGPS capital for local growth. It would mean that people’s savings are working to deliver tangible, long-term benefits in the very places where they live and work. Thirdly, it aligns with the Government’s broader ambitions on devolution and local growth. Page 29 of the English Devolution White Paper makes clear that strategic authorities will have a duty to deliver on economic development and regeneration. Local authorities will be required to produce local growth plans, and LGPS administrating authorities are expected to identify local investment opportunities and put them forward to their asset pools.

This amendment would therefore help the Government achieve precisely what they have set out to do: to channel more of the nation’s long-term capital into productive place-based investment. It would empower development corporations to be proactive, innovative and financially self-sustaining, drawing on both public and private sources of finance to deliver growth, regeneration and prosperity for local communities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but interesting debate. Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to change the parliamentary procedure for designating areas to be developed as a new town by new town development corporations from the affirmative procedure to the super-affirmative. They would also require that the Secretary of State reconsults if a proposal for an area to be developed by a new town development corporation is changed following an earlier consultation.

The Government agree that proposals to establish development corporations should be subject to consultation and proportionate parliamentary scrutiny, but this is already the case. The New Towns Act 1981 already requires that the Secretary of State consults with relevant local authorities prior to designating an area to be developed by a new town development corporation via regulations. Consultations and decisions to designate are also subject to public law principles. Further consultation would therefore already be considered should the proposal fundamentally change.

I will just comment to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on his points about Adlington. He may have looked at the report of the New Towns Taskforce, which sets out very clearly the principles under which new towns must make provision for infrastructure, including energy, water and all the facilities that make communities work and be successful. As I have said, there is consultation set out in law for those decisions to designate. Designation by regulations is also already subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses. As these regulations neither amend nor repeal an Act of Parliament, which is the usual super-affirmative process, the Government do not believe that they require the high level of scrutiny of that super-affirmative procedure.

The noble Lord’s amendments would also have the unintended consequence of adding significant time to the process of designating areas as new towns. The super-affirmative procedure would add a minimum of two months and the duty to reconsult could add significantly longer, depending on the number of reconsultations required. I was grateful to the Built Environment Select Committee and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for the thorough way he looked at the subject of new towns. His work has been very helpful. I will give thought to the request for further discussions within your Lordships’ House on all the issues arising from this new generation of new towns. Both the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, have made this helpful suggestion. I will take that back to the team and look at parliamentary schedules to see when a further discussion on that might be possible.

20:30

In relation to existing housing targets being taken into consideration for new towns, the Government are working on our full response to the New Towns Taskforce report. I hope that may offer more insight into how housing targets will be taken into account as we move forward with the new towns programme.

In the meantime, I turn to Amendment 238, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. At present, most types of development corporation have powers to borrow, including through private finance, subject to the consent of the oversight authority. Mayoral development corporations outside London are the exception. They cannot borrow directly, although the parent mayoral strategic authority can borrow and lend to its mayoral development corporation. Mayoral development corporations within London can borrow as functional bodies of the GLA. The noble Lord’s amendment would change this, giving all mayoral development corporations powers to borrow, by placing a duty on all mayoral development corporations to fund and finance development proposals, with the option of doing so through private finance.

I welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment. It is, we agree, crucial that development corporations are sustainably funded. However, requiring mayoral development corporations to fund and finance development directly would unnecessarily constrain their use. In some cases, mayoral development corporations may not need to directly fund development to achieve their purposes, as has been demonstrated, for example, by the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation, which has successfully brought forward significant regeneration by primarily playing a strategic and co-ordinating role.

On the issue of borrowing and raising private finance directly, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned the Local Government Pension Scheme, and we had a question on that this morning in Question Time. I agree that it is worth exploring how the Local Government Pension Scheme can help with these types of investment. That will all come as part of a wider funding toolkit. It requires careful consideration to make sure that we properly balance the benefits and risks, including the possibility that mayoral development corporations could accrue significant debt and liabilities—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. We must also consider how the proposed borrowing powers would interact with mayoral strategic authority borrowing. We will need more time than is available on this Bill, but I can commit that the department will consider these changes in the future. For the reasons I have given, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short, as the Minister said, but I thought very interesting debate—a preliminary to the further debate that I hope we will have, not least if we can contrive to have an early debate on the Built Environment Committee’s report in the new year at a time when we can incorporate the Government’s full response to the task force report and the Government’s actual proposals for new towns. We learned from my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow that if there is that range of issues to be considered in relation to one of the new town proposals, we can expect a lot of contributions when we get to a dozen such proposals, not even including Cambridge, from my own point of view, which is beyond the task force’s report.

What the Minister had to say was encouraging from the point of view of getting parliamentary debate to take place without impeding or delaying the programme in any way. I hope that, when we have that debate, we will come back to some of the important issues raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller. He made some important points, in my view, about the capacity for financing this. Tax increment financing and the ability to borrow against the future development value will be a key part of that.

From my part, in relation to parliamentary debate on the new towns programme, I was grateful for the Minister’s response, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 235.

Amendment 235 withdrawn.

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

I gently remind noble Lords that, as stated in the Companion:

“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and”


should not

“respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”,

or pressing,

“ the amendment”.

Speeches appear to be getting longer at this point. I respectfully urge noble Lords to be brief so that we can continue to make progress and get to the votes.

Amendment 236 not moved.

Amendment 236A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 237

Moved by

[Baroness Willis of Summertown]

237: After Clause 95, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of green and blue spacesIn section 4(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 (objects and general power of development corporations), at end insert“and to provide green and blue spaces which are publicly accessible to local communities”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require development corporations to provide green and blue spaces when securing the layout and development of new towns.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief in speaking to Amendment 237 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their support.

Amendment 237 is on a similar theme to my earlier amendment, relating to the delivery of green and blue spaces in spatial development strategies. I will not repeat the arguments that I made previously, other than to say that the provision of accessible green and blue space in urban areas has been identified by many different organisations as a critical component that can support health and well-being for urban populations.

This amendment deals with the same issue. However, this time, it seeks to put the statutory requirement for the provision of accessible green and blue spaces into the objectives of the development corporation responsible for delivering new towns. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to create blue and green space in new towns.

This point was emphasised most recently by the New Towns Taskforce report, published in September 2025, which stated that:

“New towns provide a rare opportunity to plan holistically”,


and that they should have,

“easily accessible green spaces and recreational facilities”.

The Government responded to this report by saying that they are

“committed to ensuring that all new towns are thriving and sustainable places”,

and that they will

“consider how best to ensure expectations are set and managed at a national level”.

However, similar to the spatial development strategies in the NPPF, I imagine the Government will respond to say that the new town development corporations are sufficiently equipped to deal with the provision of blue and green spaces. I will give three counterpoints related to this. First, exactly the same as the NPPF, this is only guidance. It is toothless unless it is written into law. Secondly, there is no clear, mandatory, legally binding standard for equality of access to blue and green space. Over the last five years, yes we have seen more green spaces created, but more and more they are created in rich areas compared to in poorer areas. We have to take this seriously, or inequality of access to green space will get worse.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the recommendation of the New Towns Taskforce was that new towns could be delivered by the introduction of special development orders. That would mean that the Secretary of State could determine a planning permission for a new town and grant it directly through this special development order, with the potential to override the provisions of local plans and the NPPF. We do not even have the NPPF or the local plans any more to ensure blue and green space in cities and equality of access to it.

This is a fairly simple amendment, which would not cost anything. I hope we can find a way to move forward, and that the Minister will accept my amendment. It offers a reasonable and non-burdensome way to implement what the Government recognise is an important issue: to hardwire blue and green space into new towns so that they can deliver critical spaces for health and well-being for everyone in those cities. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have put my name. I will talk briefly about the opportunity that the new towns offer by ensuring that they are beacons for providing green and blue space close to where people live, especially for deprived communities. With her depth of experience, the Minister has seen green and blue spaces and placemaking in Stevenage and, not that far away, in the historical examples of Letchworth Garden City and others, including, more recently, Milton Keynes, which indubitably is full of green and blue spaces.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, I am sure that the Minister will restate her faith in the NPPF requirements—although the noble Baroness raised a question about that—and refer to the New Towns Taskforce report and the strong emphasis it put on placemaking principles and green and blue open space. There is no doubt that new town development corporations are already equipped with sufficient legal powers to provide blue and green spaces, but powers are one thing and commitment is another. I want to see some provision of this sort in the Bill to ensure that, in the push for new towns that the new towns programme represents—to provide housing, businesses and places to live—there is also a push for accessible green space, especially for more deprived communities.

I would like our new towns, in respect of this green and blue open space, to be praised by future generations in the way that the Victorian model towns were praised, in the way we praise the garden cities and in the way that some of us, grudgingly, praise Milton Keynes and, dare I say it, Poundbury.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I have the honour to serve on your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee. It is no coincidence that two of us who have added our names to this amendment are on that committee, the second being the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who is its chair.

An issue that we have come across as we have made our inquiry into new towns—the first module of which was published recently, as was the New Towns Taskforce report—is that there is a lack of vision. There is no vision for blue and green space in the New Towns Taskforce report. Obviously, it is integral that houses are part of a new town; that goes without saying. It should be integral that green and blue space is part of a new town; that should also go without saying.

Last week, we had a fascinating debate in your Lordships’ House on swifts and swift bricks. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, taught me a lot about why swift bricks were perhaps less important, because they could not be positioned in the right place. But the fact is that if those swifts do not have any food, because there is no green space or blue space to produce the insects, all the debate we had about swift bricks is completely meaningless—and that goes for every single species.

It is not just about the species. I will not repeat all the arguments we made in Committee and last week about the other amendment concerning green and blue space being in the NPPF. I simply say that it is equally essential, for all those reasons—for human health and well-being and for children—that green and blue space is as integral in the vision of development corporations as the houses themselves.

20:45

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, seems to be amazingly modest. If I had written it, it probably would have been far more complicated and have no chance of being passed by this House. But it really needs to be in the Bill.

New towns will be on the map and inhabited for hundreds of years—we hope, if we manage to solve climate change—so it is crucial that the elements that make them up are there at the beginning. Those need to be statutory, compulsory and mandatory because, as we all know, at various points in the evolution of these new towns, there will be financial issues and constraints. That would also allow us to consider not just biodiversity but human health in those new towns, which is absolutely key. I hope that the Government will take heed of this, and that those green and blue spaces will be additional to any biodiversity net gain.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, unlike the previous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, her Amendment 237 omits the word “network”, and we believe that she was right to do so. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities become responsible not only for safeguarding individual sites but managing and maintaining the functional and spatial connections between them.

I will not repeat at length the importance of green and blue spaces—that has been thoroughly debated and supported by this side in debates on previous groups of amendments—but I commend the noble Baroness for the clarity and practicality of her approach to them. If she is minded to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 237 would update the objectives of new town development corporations to include the provision of publicly accessible green and blue spaces for local communities.

Our position remains that national policy is the best mechanism. Development corporations are subject to the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets clear policies for green infrastructure. As noted in Committee, we have seen this work well in practice. The Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has provided almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.

To repeat what I have said many times in our debates on the Bill, the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself because it needs to be flexible. We brought in a new version of the NPPF last December and we will publish another one shortly, so it is very important we have flexibility within it. However, as I have said before, it sits within a statutory framework of planning, which means that it carries the weight of that statutory framework.

The Government expect development corporations to work within the framework of national policy taken as a whole. It would be inappropriate to single out blue and green infrastructure in primary legislation, and it is unmanageable to include all relevant national policies within the objectives of development corporations at this level of granularity.

I understand that a driving concern behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to ensure that the Government’s programme of new towns includes accessible green and blue spaces. However, her amendment would not guarantee this. New town development corporations are only one possible vehicle for delivering new towns; urban development corporations and mayoral development corporations are also under consideration, as well as public/private partnerships, where this is right for the place.

I would also say to the noble Baroness that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her role as Defra Minister, that a program is being drawn up on access to green and blue spaces as well, which is coming along very soon.

I fundamentally disagree with the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that there is no vision for new towns from the Government. The independent New Towns Taskforce recommended, alongside its overview, that there were 10 key placemaking principles, including that new towns should have easily accessible green spaces. The initial government response set out that we support the placemaking approach recommended by the task force. The final selection of placemaking principles will be subject to environmental assessment and consultation, as many noble Lords have mentioned.

The Government are committed to ensuring that new towns are well designed and have the infrastructure communities need, including green spaces. Implementation will, of course, be key. The task force recommended that government provide guidance on the implementation of placemaking principles and establish an independent place review panel to help ensure that placemaking principles are translated into local policies, master plans and development proposals.

My officials are developing policy ahead of a full government response to the taskforce’s report next year. I would very much welcome further engagement with the noble Baroness on the issue of new towns to better inform our final position. That said, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their really thoughtful contributions to this debate. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks, but I still have a very big problem here: every time, we come back to the NPPF, and every time there is recommendation and guidance. Unfortunately, when economic costs come in, particularly with developers, those recommendations and guidance disappear. We see it time and time again. At some point, we as a country have to be able to say, “These spaces are so important that they should be in the Bill”. They should be there, because without them, we will have no green spaces left in cities. So, while I appreciate this response, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

20:52

Division 3

Ayes: 107

Noes: 136

21:03

Clause 96: Duties to have regard to sustainable development and climate change

Amendment 238

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

238: Clause 96, page 130, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the funding and financing of development proposals, which may extend to the issuance of bonds, debt or similar financial instruments.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to empower development corporations to seek finance from the widest number of sources whether from PWLB, private money, sovereign wealth, pension funds or value in-kind as part of a joint-venture together with the ability to issue bonds, individually or severally with other development corporations.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the development corporation parts of the Bill are the best parts of it, and my intention is to make the best of that and to support it. I came here with an open mind, not really knowing whether I was going to press the amendment but. in her winding. the Minister said two things which I am uncomfortable with, so in due course I wish to test the opinion of the House. The first was that there is an apartheid in this country in so far as development corporations are concerned.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord made his speech earlier. We do not need to rehearse what has been said during the debate—I spoke on this issue at the beginning of this particular debate. Perhaps he can let us know whether he will move this to a vote.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am getting there; I just wanted to give the two reasons. The first was—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Your Lordships are only delaying it.

First, the development corporations outside London should have the same financing as those within and, secondly, the Minister mistakenly interpreted my amendment to mean that it required development corporations only to take private finance, whereas it was to give it the option. As I am dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, I wish to put the matter to a vote.

21:05

Division 4

Ayes: 72

Noes: 147

21:15

Clause 100: Required content of newspaper notices

Amendment 238ZA

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

238ZA: Clause 100, page 141, line 23, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (interpretation), after the definition of “local authority” insert—““local news publisher” has the meaning prescribed to it in Schedule 2ZA.”.(A2) After Schedule 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, insert—“Schedule 2ZALocal news publishersDefinition of local news publisher
1 The term “local news publisher” means a business that—(a) has as its principal purpose the publication of original, local news content, where such material, whether or not publication is done with a view to making profit—(i) is published, online or in print, no less than once every 31 days;(ii) is subject to editorial control;(iii) is regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), or by IMPRESS;(b) is legally resident in the United Kingdom;(c) is owned and operated within the community; and(d) is considered by the relevant local authority to be an effective means of drawing the notice to the attention of local people who would be interested to read it but are not actively looking for it.2 An organisation is a relevant local authority if it is—(a) identified as a principal council within the meaning of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1978 for England or section 21 of that Act for Wales, and(b) required by law (such as section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to issue a public notice relating to any powers it exercises.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with two others to this Clause in the name of Lord Lucas, is to update the 1981 definition of newspaper so that it takes account of the substantial changes in local media this century, in relation to newspaper notices required under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

First, my Lords, I note with unrestrained delight from the annunciator that Parliament is being presented with the opportunity to spend another £10 million on a new door, and I look forward to the announcement shortly.

My amendments concern the advertising requirements in the Bill and indeed elsewhere in legislation. The purpose of the advertisements is to tell people what is happening, and there are two main routes through which that information has to flow. One should be a central database of all such announcements run by the Government so that all the professionals can immediately go where they need to in order to look at it every day, see what is happening and be completely up to date without having to faff around.

The other is that they ought to go in publications that ordinary members of the public read so that they can say, “Oi! What’s going on? I need to take an interest in this”. It is that second section that particularly concerns me because the rules as to where these advertisements can be put were set down in 1881 and need updating. The Minister has kindly promised me a meeting—which has yet to be arranged—with her department and DCMS; I look forward to that very much, but this needs doing.

There are a number of other amendments in this group, the presentations of which I will listen to with interest. The only one that I have a particular interest in is Amendment 250, which seems an undesirable bit of retrospective legislation designed to enable the All England Lawn Tennis Club not to have to negotiate fairly with the people it is disadvantaging as a result of its plans. I hope the Government will reject it, but I declare in saying so my interest, in that I am a resident of Eastbourne, which has been disadvantaged by the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s plans, and I have numerous friends and relations who are Wombles. I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 238A in this group, which is in the same terms as an amendment that I tabled and withdrew in Committee, reserving the right to return to it later. I have decided to bring it back for further consideration and will seek to reinforce the arguments for it.

This takes us into the largely unexplored Part 5 of the Bill and concerns the scope of exceptions to home-loss payments in what is now Clause 105. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a drastic step for which clear and proper justification should be required. Normally the person displaced from a property that is his or her dwelling receives the market value of the property, together with compensation by a statutory home loss payment, which provides some modest recognition that the person concerned is being compelled to leave his or her home.

However, in Clause 105, a proposed new section of the 1973 Act stipulates exceptions to the right to a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair or there have been other failures to comply with notices or orders which have been served. Homeowners caught by those exceptions will be denied any home loss payment. Of course, the assessed amount which the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect the lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment would be therefore in addition to the reduced price reflecting a poor state of repair.

Repairs or improvements to a home may not always get done, for a variety of reasons. There may well be situations in which denial of home loss payments would be justified when there has been a significant, culpable failure to comply with statutory obligations to maintain, repair or safeguard a property wholly or in part. But the proposed list of unqualified exceptions in the Bill as drafted could operate unduly harshly and punitively, taking no account of individual circumstances or any underlying reason for non-compliance with the notice or order, which would automatically trigger forfeiture of the home loss payment.

The Bill does not allow for the exercise of any discretion in depriving the homeowner of that payment. In her helpful response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that it would be for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the 1973 Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the owner. I am sure that is correct, but the situation contemplated by my amendment is that arising at a later stage, after the order or notice has been served, when the homeowner to be displaced may reasonably want to show why personal circumstances do not then allow him or her to comply with the notice or order.

I wish to stress as quickly as I can three points. First, the amendment would not place any obligation on the local authority to investigate the reasons for non-compliance in any way, unless and until the person concerned tried to show that the omissions were not deliberate and that the cause of non-compliance was either that the required work could not have been carried out because of that person’s ill health or infirmity or that it could not have been afforded because of financial difficulty, such as an inability to obtain or afford funding. The burden of proving any of that would remain on the person to be displaced and would require credible evidence. The only obligation on the local authority at that stage would be to look at the realities of the cause for non-compliance.

Secondly, in these cases the property being compulsorily acquired is a home, and the displaced homeowner will almost certainly need the home loss payment to help find a replacement home. All this amendment seeks to do is obtain some modification of the blanket application of exclusions from such payments in an attempt to make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable when there has been what might be called no-fault non-compliance.

Thirdly, of course it is important to consider the financial implications for local authorities, but compulsory acquisition of homes in disrepair where notices have not been complied with is rare and, if the amendment is accepted, the number of cases in which the claimant could show genuine inability to comply with the required work because of ill health or lack of finance will be rarer still. This amendment would allow those people some opportunity to show those reasons and receive the payment which the Bill would otherwise take away from them. If the Government are not minded to look at this again and reconsider the amendment or something like it, I at least hope there would be an indication that guidance would allow such circumstances to be considered. If it were possible for that to happen, I suggest that unnecessary appeals could be avoided.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 242 and 243 are in my name. The purpose of these amendments is simply to eliminate the ability of the Government to ignore hope value when assessing value on compulsory purchase orders. The Minister has kindly laid out in writing that this will happen only in limited circumstances and, by implication, that it is of little concern. That is wrong. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, put it far more simply and elegantly than I when he said that hope value is actually market value. He is right. Other government departments accept this. When land is valued for inheritance tax or capital gains tax on non-financial transfers, hope value is explicit. Tax is paid on that hope value, so why should another government department be entitled to disregard it?

Under this Government’s family farm death tax, greater inheritance tax will be paid based on this hope value of land that might lift it, in certain circumstances, from around £10,000 per acre to as much as £50,000 per acre. What happens if the Government then turn around two years later and compulsorily purchase that land at £10,000 per acre because they want to disregard hope value? This is surely absurd; that hope value has not disappeared. The Government should pay for it.

This is a power of confiscation and, as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is probing with Amendment 251, and as I raised at Second Reading and again in Committee, it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister’s previous responses that the ECHR allows for CPOs is right, but it does not allow them at less than market value. His Majesty’s Government appear to put the ECHR on a pedestal; I am curious whether that is only when it suits them. CPO powers are, of course, essential to a modern Government carrying out their duties, but this cannot be a tyranny of the majority. The rights of the individual have to be respected.

Can the Minister assure us that, should she reject my amendments, CPO valuations will include all elements of market value attributed to that land under historic valuation parameters, as I believe the Red Book valuations already incorporate? I refer the House to my declaration of interests as a landowner, among other things.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 250 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Grabiner, who are unable to be here this evening but who continue to support it, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell. This amendment would address the wide-reaching consequences for persons who acquire former open-space land in light of a Supreme Court decision in 2023, R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council [2023] UKSC 8. Given that this amendment has been misunderstood by some and mischaracterised by others, I need to explain what it is and is not about.

Open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to that land for the purpose of recreation. Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that the local authority may not dispose of

“any land consisting or forming part of an open space”

unless before it does so it advertises its intention in a local newspaper for two weeks and considers any objections received in response to that advertisement. Section 123(2B) provides that the sale of the land post advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust.

If a local resident or community group considers that the disposal of land is unlawful for any reason, including but not limited to a failure to comply with the requirement to advertise, they have a remedy: they can bring a claim for judicial review of the local authority’s decision in the High Court. If they have good reason for bringing the claim late—for example, if they were not aware of the decision at the time it was made—they can draw the court’s attention to that in support of an application for a discretionary extension of time.

In public law, the normal position is that, if a public body’s decision has not been successfully challenged by way of judicial review, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision. However, in Day, the Supreme Court held that, even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged, and even if it was made many years or even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertising requirements means that the statutory trust continues to exist, and therefore continues to frustrate the beneficial repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question.

Crucially, that is the case even if the land was sold in good faith by the authority to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements when it was sold.

21:30

The effect of this is deeply unsatisfactory and a blocker to growth. It means that land that has been sold on the basis of an unchallenged decision that it is in the public interest to disposed of it and that may now have lawful planning permission for beneficial repurposing is none the less permanently bound by the statutory trust and cannot be put to its intended beneficial reuse. Given that the advertising cannot be done retrospectively, the land is potentially blighted forever. This sits uncomfortably with the public law principle that unchallenged public decisions should be treated as valid, and it sits equally uncomfortably with the property law principle that a bona fide purchaser, without notice of equitable interest, takes land unencumbered by those interests.

This issue is causing huge uncertainty in relation to land purchased from authorities in good faith, sometimes decades ago. The evidence about whether the land in question had been properly advertised prior to sale may no longer be readily available, particularly in historic cases.

This is holding up many developments across the country that already have planning permission. One high-profile example—although I stress it is only one of many— is the current proposal to expand the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s internationally renowned facilities at Wimbledon to include an adjacent former private golf club site, the planning permission for which was recently upheld by the High Court. Claims that it is subject to a statutory trust in light of the Day judgment are holding up the development, and with it the benefits that the planning decision, which has been upheld by the High Court, said it would deliver. It is very important to appreciate that this is not just about Wimbledon. There are other instances in, for example, Bristol, Winchester and Shrewsbury. Across the country, there are instances of developments in the public interest being held up due to this issue.

Amendment 250 would deal with this by providing that bona fide purchasers of former open-space land and their successes in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. Yes, it has retrospective effect, but only in response to the Day judgment, which itself retrospectively changed the understanding of how statutory trusts operate. It is far from unprecedented for Parliament to legislate with retrospective effect, either in response to a court judgment, for example, the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed the effect of Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] 2 AC 572 in relation to mesothelioma claims, or to deal with an important problem, a recent example being the Building Safety Act 2022, the retrospective effect of which has been upheld by the courts.

The amendment would not remove the local authority’s duty to advertise before disposing of open-space land. It would not remove any of the other legal safeguards on the decision-making process relating to such disposal, such as the need for the land to be surplus to requirements. It would also not interfere with the public’s right to challenge a decision by way of judicial review, either within the usual three-month window or subject to an extension of time where there is a sufficiently compelling case for that to be granted. Nor would it alter the onerous restrictions in the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to the redevelopment of open-space land. The planning policy protections on open-space land would remain entirely unchanged. Nor would the amendment apply to transactions that were not made in good faith.

What it would do, however, is ensure that where there has been no challenge to the disposal and the transaction was made in good faith, the purchase is not subject to the deleterious uncertainty and potentially permanent burdens that I have outlined.

I understand that the Government accept the case for a legislative solution in response to Day as part of a wider consideration of the statutory protections of open space—but that they intend to bring forward that solution in another MHCLG Bill in the near future. The obvious candidate, I would suggest, is the English devolution Bill. That is encouraging to hear, but I must confess that I am a little disappointed that the Government have not grasped the nettle now, just as they have not on my amendment in relation to the Hillside judgment. It seems ironic—as the Home Builders Federation and the Land, Planning and Development Federation observed in a letter to the Chancellor last week—that, in relation to those two Supreme Court decisions that add to planning regulation, the acknowledged need for a solution is left to a later Bill, but in relation to last week’s Supreme Court decision in CG Fry, which reduces planning regulation, the Government have immediately amended this Bill so as to reverse it straight away. I did not speak in the debate on Amendment 208 because I was leading counsel in Fry, and I did not vote on it either, but it seems to me that the Government will live to regret their decision to extend the habitat regulations to Ramsar sites to which the parent EU directive does not apply.

All that said, I am very keen to continue working with the Minister and her officials, and with Minister Pennycook, and I am genuinely grateful for the engagement on this issue so as to ensure as swift and effective a resolution of this issue as possible. With that in mind, and depending on what the Minister says in winding up this debate, it may be that the reassurances she provides mean that I do not need to press the amendment now, although I really encourage as much pace as possible in dealing with this issue.

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 250 because I believe that it is a necessary and proportionate measure to remove a legal blockage to sustainable growth—a blockage that is holding back both our national well-being and our economic prosperity. I declare my relevant interests. On the well-being side, I am a member, unpaid, of the board of the World Wellbeing Movement and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics. On the economics side, I am a professional economist with decades of experience at the Treasury, and unpaid president of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, I naturally view this issue through the twin lenses of economic growth and fiscal sustainability. Of course, I am a member of the committee of the All England Lawn Tennis Club, which is obviously where I have experience that others can, I hope, learn from.

Regrettably, the decision that this House made in April, that we must exclude our non-financial interests from the register, has led to a degree of misunderstanding and, in some quarters, to unwarranted personal attacks on me—hence my need to put these matters on the record at my first opportunity. This is the first time I have spoken on this issue. I note that I asked the registrar’s office about this on 6 March: I wanted to carry on including my non-financial interests in the register, because they are really important, and I was told that this was not possible. It is ridiculous, so I am stuck with this.

I go back to the point of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, mentioned all the KCs and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the rest of them have all the legal arguments; I will not even try to rival their expertise. I am an economist—that is what drives me—and I care about well-being. As was said, this amendment responds to the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Day case. In essence, that judgment created a new and retrospective uncertainty over land ownership, affecting potentially innumerable development sites across the country. This is the important thing to get across. This is important for the economic growth of the country. The Wimbledon example is an important one, but it is only one among a number. The Minister is very aware of the long list of projects—because I sent it to her—that are now held back by this legal shadow. Because the problem is itself retrospective, the remedy must necessarily also be retrospective if we are to restore the legal clarity that the market and our communities so badly need.

I will go to my area of expertise: the real-world effects are best illustrated, to me, by the experience of that much-loved British institution, Wimbledon. I declare again that I have been a long-standing member of its main committee and put this in the register for many years, until that April change. The Day judgment has created significant delay and uncertainty for Wimbledon’s ability to transform the land that has, for more than a century, been a private members’ golf club.

I stress that there are lots of other examples but, in the Wimbledon example, the expansion already has planning permission from the Greater London Authority; it has been upheld by the High Court, yet progress is now halted because of the uncertainty surrounding the Day case. But this is about far more than economics. Wimbledon is a jewel in the crown of British sport. The other Grand Slams are investing heavily in their facilities and the fan experience. For Wimbledon to maintain its place at the pinnacle of world tennis, it must be allowed to evolve as they are. This expansion is crucial to that future. It is not only about elite sport; it is also about national well-being. The proposed development would turn qualifying week into a festival in its own right, offering three weeks of world-class tennis and community celebration rather than two. It would enhance the experience for the thousands who camp out each year in the queue. Let us remember that Wimbledon is not a profit-maximising organisation: 90% of our surplus goes back into the LTA and the other 10% goes into improving Wimbledon every year. So it would allow fans to have a better experience and capitalise on one of the country’s finest examples of soft power by extending the celebration of Britishness that the nation holds so dear.

Yet, perhaps most importantly of all—I stress this to my colleagues to my right—the benefits extend to the environment and local community. This is not an act of overdevelopment but of restoration, environmental enhancement and the opening up of new green space. Let me be specific: the project will convert 27 acres of private land into publicly accessible park land—a 50% increase in green space for local residents. It would restore the historic Capability Brown Wimbledon Park lake, which is terribly silted up at the moment, creating a circular boardwalk and reviving a landscape feature of national heritage. It would help to deliver a substantial biodiversity net gain, with the planting of at least 1,500 new trees and the creation of rich habitats for wildlife. These arguments were made at the GLA planning stage, and the environmental case won the day. As someone who massively believes in green spaces and in well-being, I am afraid that I have to disagree with those who think that somehow this development will do the opposite of that. It is not—it will make things better.

I urge the Government to swiftly find a way to support the amendment, which is a modest and necessary measure to restore certainty, enable sustainable growth, strengthen our national well-being and help to deliver the kind of forward-looking development that future generations will thank us for. I honestly do not understand why the Government, who accept that the current situation needs to be changed via legislation, cannot bring forward at Third Reading in their own wording, taking account of any issues that they may have, something that can solve these problems.

I have experience of these matters; there are more there are more than 50 brilliant and excellent draftsmen in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Every department has additional drafters. It is not beyond the wit of man to do this reasonably quickly. When I am told that we might do this in some future legislation, I remember the words of my successor as Cabinet Secretary, alas, the late Jeremy Heywood. When faced with issues like this, he would say to me, “Gus, we need to get a grip”. He was right. Can we please get a grip, get on with it and solve this problem, which will enhance national well-being, improve the environment and stimulate economic growth?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I do not want to take up the time of the House at this stage of the evening, but I want to speak against Amendment 250 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Pannick, Lord Grabiner and Lord O’Donnell. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in one respect, that it is a backwards step for what the register of interests now represents, in that non-financial interests absolutely ought to continue to be highlighted. We have just had a prime example of that tonight, if I may say so.

I was slightly nervous about saying anything against such an illustrious line-up as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has lined up, but my understanding of the situation is not that, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, tried to persuade me, we are all misunderstanding the position. I do not think we are; there is a real need for this to be gripped, but this is not the way to do it. This amendment has caused substantial concern that it erodes the protection of green space and removes long-standing public rights to green spaces, where the land is sold by local authority, with or without consultation. For the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to say that a judicial review is the way forward, frankly, misrepresents the position of many local communities, which are absolutely incapable of bringing a judicial review, either by degree of organisation or financially.

21:45

This is an important problem but the amendment is the wrong answer and I would support the Minister in having further discussions and not rushing to grab the nearest passing parliamentary draftsman who can write a better amendment than the one we have. We have to remember history in this issue to some extent. Until 1980, local authorities had to get parliamentary approval to make these sales, so it was a big concession to get to the point where a public consultation was granted, rather than the need for a parliamentary decision. Now we are talking about sweeping that away; I think it ought not to be swept away without further discussion. We have to make sure that the community’s ability to challenge the intention to repurpose land remains, and we must make sure that the signals are right for local authorities, which may be—would you believe?—short of funds and looking to dispose of recreational land.

The Minister, my noble friend Lady Taylor, said in Committee that the Government will

“require engagement with the sector”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 1986.]

I was not quite sure which sector she meant. I do hope it includes the open spaces sector, and I urge her to make sure that any future consideration of this issue does not make local authority disposal of these sites easier and does not reduce the democratic input on any sales through public consultation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with pleasure and particularly agree with her point about judicial reviews. I have visited more local communities than I can count, where they have desperately been trying to bake cakes and to collect pence and pounds here and there, struggling to stand up a judicial review and simply unable to do it. I have no nervousness at all in opposing Amendment 250, because I bring voices from the community, something I often seek to bring into your Lordships’ House, as represented by the Wandsworth and Merton Green parties and Merton Friends of the Earth, which are strongly opposed to the development by the All England Lawn Tennis Club and opposed to the kind of changes that this amendment would bring. It is also, of course, strongly opposed by the Open Spaces Society.

I want to make two specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, talked about “beneficial repurposing”, saying, “Oh, it’s fine if it’s beneficial repurposing”. Beneficial repurposing, I am afraid, is often in the eye of the beholder, and there can be many different perspectives on what it is. The other contextual point I wish to add—these are figures from 2018, which will undoubtedly be out of date—is that what has been described as “the new enclosure”, from the late 1970s to 2019, has seen 10% of what was public land in Britain transferred into private hands. That is 2 million hectares of land. This is probably not large in terms of scale, but it would be yet more loss of public good for private profit, not for the people who have already lost so much. I finally note the strong vote for the recent amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, on protecting blue and green spaces: that is the House strongly showing what it wants to do.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 250. I know that many noble Lords are much better versed in the law around this than I am. However, I want to touch on the point about land held in trust for enjoyment by the public. In situations where such a purchase will mean that the public’s rights of enjoyment will not be maintained, surely there should at least be extensive consultation with local communities, with their views taken into account, and where there is strong objection, surely at the very least some alternative provision should be made.

Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, I am concerned that this amendment will erode the rights of the general public and that they will not have a suitable, easily accessible mechanism to defend their rights or negotiate a solution to satisfy both parties. The law is beyond the reach of most normal people as it is so expensive. Judicial review would probably be off-putting to local communities not familiar with law.

If I have read this amendment correctly, it would appear to backdate this right. Surely that is very unusual and we ought to be looking to the future. I hope that when this issue is given further consideration by the Government, they will consider the rights of local people and ensure that their voices are heard and they are given primary consideration.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee. I want to follow up briefly, because in this debate we are getting a more comprehensive view of the problem and, potentially, of the solution. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to the fact that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 brought in the provisions now in the Local Government Act 1972. Last time we were told about these ancient pieces of legislation: the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906. The fact that they are ancient pieces of legislation is neither here nor there. The thing we are dealing with was inserted in 1980, which is why the amendment refers to 1980.

What should happen in the future? In future, if land to which the public have some rights of enjoyment and access is to be disposed of by a local authority, the local authority should consult. And what the legislation requires is not too onerous: it is to advertise for two weeks and consider any objections raised. This is hardly too much. That is for the future. Clearly, the public benefit should be incorporated into whatever decisions are made as a consequence of that.

For about 45 years local authorities thought, because of what is in Sections 122(2B) and 123(2B) of the Local Government Act 1972, that if they did not do that, not only was the sale still valid but the trusts relating to that legislation were extinguished. They were wrong about that, so we have to put them back in that situation. Essentially, we have to look back and say, in all these decisions made over that period, where local authorities operated on what turned out to be a false basis, they must take into account the public benefit that might have been derived from the trust and find some other way of doing it. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, explained to us how, in one instance, it is the intention of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to ensure that significant public benefit continues to be provided by way of access to open space and public enjoyment. That is exactly where we need to go. But the legislation needs to reflect both the requirement for consultation and that there may be some continuing necessity for the public benefit either to be enjoyed in that open space or by some alternative means.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just said. Philanthropists in the past gave areas of green space and there have been scandals where councils have sold them off for money, and we all complain that there are no more playing fields, for example. This smells a bit like that. It is almost land that has been protected by accident by a legal quirk that has prevented it being developed subsequently or sold on for development unwisely.

To my mind, this is surely a case-by-case matter. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, made a very powerful case for Wimbledon. Maybe he is right, but I am sure that plenty of sites around the country are not quite so green and lovely in their eventual outcome. I find it difficult to support an amendment that alters everything across the board. Going back, almost in a time machine, doing a proper consultation and the substitution of what is being lost has to be the approach, rather than what is proposed in this amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is quite a wide-ranging group of amendments, and fairly disparate at that. I will first briefly focus on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In Committee he raised those issues about the publication of public notices, with which I had, and continue to have, some sympathy.

The sad demise of the printed local newspaper means that fewer and fewer people will have access to the public notices. This is partly in reference to Amendment 250, because where would people read the notice about Wimbledon Park or any other site of that sort? I am sympathetic to the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes in his amendment.

Moving to Amendments 242 and 243 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I remember the long debates we had on this very issue during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I recall that it was the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who passed the levelling-up Bill, now Act, and included in it the very issue he now wishes to undo.

We have been listening to arguments about growth and economic development, but for many parts of the country, without access to land at affordable prices for the public good, those sorts of developments, such as community health centres and so on, will never come to fruition. We had those arguments on the levelling-up Bill. For me they are still important issues that we ought to respect, so for the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I am afraid it is a big cross—I cannot support those amendments.

This leads us on to Amendment 250. It is always worth looking through the other lens of an issue of development, or no development, whether it is for the public good, public well-being and economic development, or the lens of the residents who live in the area. I have used that theme throughout discussions on this Bill. It is very important to those of us on these Benches that the views of local people who are affected by a development, be it a national strategic infrastructure project, a local planning application, mayoral development corporation plans or this issue, should and must be at the heart of those decisions.

What happens on the land affects their lives. It might be that the development is beneficial but, unless you take local people with you, it will not be, because they will constantly oppose it. I hear the legal arguments, but let us listen to people. I have been a local councillor for many years, and one thing I know for certain is that if you try to impose a decision on people—certainly in Yorkshire, anyway; I do not know about the rest of the country—and say, “It’s to do with the law. This is what’s been agreed. It’s bound to be good for you”, they will make their voice heard loud and strong and long. You need to take people with you on these big issues.

22:00

As far as I can see, that has been the utter failure of what is happening, particularly in the Wimbledon Park issue. There may be other similar sites across the country; they are not cited in the amendment. But you cannot make decisions of this enormity without proper, full consultation: listening to voices, hearing what they have to say, responding to them and not just doing a steamroller job, which too many developments seem to want to do.

I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, suggested that people can go to judicial review. Call me cynical, but lawyers love people going to judicial review because it helps their income line. Perhaps they have missed this point but, during the course of the Bill, we have discussed how fewer recourses to judicial review ought to be permitted.

It seems that we are closing out local voices and making it more difficult for them to go to the law to have their case heard, none of which is acceptable. Without the merits of the issue in question, it seems that what is needed is a full, proper and open consultation with local people to hear what they have to say—though I fear that, because we have had this steamroller going on, we will lose the ability to be heard when making rational arguments, because people will feel that they are not being listened to by folk who want to make a lot of money out of development.

I am getting the hard stare from the Government Whip, but these are important issues. Listen to people, and then we might get some of this right.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will say just one sentence in support of Amendment 238A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is a deeply humane, very minor amendment, and I hope that the Government will get behind it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 238ZA, 238ZB and 238ZC from my noble friend Lord Lucas seek to change the definition of a local newspaper for the purpose of compulsory purchase orders. I listened carefully to his argument for these changes, but we have some concerns that these amendments might be overly prescriptive and place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. That said, we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on improving the transparency of public notices relating to CPOs. Clearly, where CPO powers are exercised by Ministers or Natural England, the public should be made aware, so can the Minister set out the Government’s assessment of the current requirements and confirm whether Ministers have plans to strengthen them?

Amendments 242 and 243, in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, seek to return to the position whereby farmers are paid the market value of their land when it is subject to compulsory purchase. As we have heard, these amendments seek to reverse changes made under the previous Government, but under this Government the situation of farmers has changed significantly. The Government’s policies have put farmers in an impossible position. Noble Lords listening to this morning’s “Today” programme will have heard James Rebanks’s comments on the challenges faced by farming communities across this country.

We have spoken consistently of the need for food security, and Ministers need to deliver a fairer deal for farmers. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will consider giving farmers whose land is subject to compulsory purchase the fair market price for their land? While we may not get an agreement this evening, we hope that Ministers will take on board these concerns and seek properly to support farmers across this country.

Amendment 251, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, also speaks to fairness in the compulsory purchase system. The amendment calls for a report on the compatibility of compulsory purchase powers with the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes a specific right to property. Given the expansion in compulsory purchase powers in the Bill, we agree with my noble friend that the impact of these powers on landowners’ rights should be considered carefully and in full. We hope that the Government can give an undertaking that they will commence a report on that.

Finally, Amendment 250 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. Listening to our proceedings, I am not quite sure whether the things I thought we would be debating have been debated. None the less, this amendment seeks to establish legal clarity. We have seen too many examples of development being blocked after permission has been granted, based on historic technicalities. There will be circumstances where historic constraints are appropriate and should be heeded, but there have also been some very high-profile examples of historic technicalities resulting in perverse outcomes in the planning process, inappropriately blocking the delivery of much-needed homes.

I will take this opportunity to describe my understanding of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked a lot about consultation, but it is my understanding that this amendment would not change in any way the requirement for consultation. Also, if there is a change of use for any piece of land, planning permission will still be needed, and the things we have discussed in this debate can be relooked at, discussed and consulted on, and decisions can then be made on the proposed changes.

I understand that the Government are looking seriously at that, which I welcome. These are complex and technical issues, but I hope that the idea that the decision will come in future legislation can be made much clearer. Perhaps the Minister could say that it could be brought back in the devolution Bill, which is in the other place and is likely to come here in the new year. That would be an ideal way forward in our opinion.

We need legal clarity. Given the hour that this amendment will come for a decision, we may not get a final answer tonight. However, I hope that Ministers will continue to talk to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments, take them away, look at them in detail and, very soon, in the next available Bill, establish a better way forward.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that very interesting debate on a wide-ranging set of issues in the Bill. There are a number of amendments in this group relating to compulsory purchase. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about that subject as well as the other issues raised in this group. I hope noble Lords will understand that, out of respect to you, these require a fuller response than I would otherwise have given at this late hour, because I think it important that I respond to the points that have been made.

Amendment 238A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, relates to compulsory purchase compensation rules and home loss payments. The amendment would ensure that homeowners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action required.

A home loss payment is a separate payment made to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. It is an amount paid in addition to compensation for the market value of a property subject to a CPO. Under current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with notices or orders served on them to make improvements to their land or properties, their right to basic and occupiers loss payments is already excluded.

As mentioned in the previous debates on this issue, there are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments, which is an inconsistency. Clause 105 of the Bill amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 to apply this exclusion to home loss payments. Where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be paid compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation and other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. Clause 105 does not prevent these other heads of compensation or costs being claimed. It will be for local authorities to decide whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order, taking into account the circumstances of the property owner.

Furthermore, individuals are able to challenge improvement notices or orders served on them by local authorities, and Clause 105 does nothing to interfere with this right. The provision introduced by Clause 105 will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring substandard properties back into use as housing where there is a compelling case in the public interest, and this will enable more empty properties to be used as family homes and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.

Amendments 238ZA to 238ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper which notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain criteria. As mentioned in previous debates, the legislation already requires authorities to publish notices in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. As introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, CPO notices are also published on the acquiring authorities’ websites. The purpose of this change was to modernise the CPO process to ensure that local people are fully informed. I agree with the comments made by Peers in the debate on these amendments that there are significant costs associated with publishing newspaper notices, and we therefore have to be mindful of adding new burdens to already hard-pressed local authorities.

That is why the Government have introduced Clause 107 in the Bill. The purpose of Clause 107 is to simplify the information required to be published in CPO newspaper notices, to reduce administrative costs and to improve the content of such notices. The amendments would also increase the complexity of the CPO process. Amending the existing requirement by stipulating in primary legislation a certain type of local newspaper would create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process and increase the potential risk of legal challenges, resulting in additional costs, and in delay in decision-making and in the delivery of benefits in the public interest.

I reassure the noble Lord that DCMS has committed to a review of statutory notices as part of the local media strategy. I, for one, really welcome that; it is very much time we did it. It is important that a coherent and co-ordinated approach be taken to this issue, rather than picking it up piecemeal. For these reasons, while we agree with the intention behind the amendments, I hope noble Lords will not press them.

Amendments 242 and 243, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, relate to compulsory purchase compensation. The amendments would repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, where justified in the public interest, for certain types of schemes. They also seek to omit Clause 107 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient.

22:15

The amendments would remove the power introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on behalf of the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Gove, which allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by compulsory purchase to pay reduced value for land where it is justified in the public interest.  The public interest test ensures authorities are not permitted to unjustifiably interfere with the human rights of individuals via the use of the power to remove hope value by directions.

As mentioned in previous debates on this issue, to support the delivery of housing that the country desperately needs we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. Many local authorities share this objective, but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations on land values. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused, meaning that the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, enabling infrastructure and schools is more costly.

The Government are committed to improving land assembly, speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of our communities.  We believe it is right that landowners, including farmers, receive a fair value for their land, but that authorities should not have to compensate landowners for the value of the prospect of a hypothetical planning permission being granted for certain types of development, when to do so is demonstrated to be in the public interest.

On Amendment 250, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, I am grateful to him for raising this important matter both in Committee and during this debate. The amendment relates to the disposal of land by local authorities and extinguishing the trust under which the land is held for public enjoyment, whereby it is preserved for recreational use and cannot be repurposed without following statutory consultation procedures.  Open and green spaces, including public parks, are an essential part of local social infrastructure. They are the lifeblood of local communities. When people are asked what they value about their local area, parks and green spaces are consistently cited as a priority, particularly for those living in urban areas.

The Government are committed to continuing to explore how we might seek to resolve the issues that have come to light following the Supreme Court’s judgement in R (Day) v Shropshire Council. We welcome the ongoing engagement with Peers to that end. Irrespective of the outcome of this debate, our exploration of this issue has revealed the fragmentary and complex nature of existing legislation relating to the protection of public recreational space. The Government are therefore announcing a wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected. We will aim to bring coherence to the legal framework, making protections more transparent and accessible, so that communities can protect their most valued open spaces.

The Government recognise that the issues relating to statutory trusts need to be resolved. We have engaged proactively with Peers on this matter and have had productive discussions. As a result, we are committed to working at pace to find a solution that works for developers and councils, while safeguarding the local spaces that are most valued by communities. We will seek to resolve this issue in future legislation.

However, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, will not resolve this issue effectively. It would create a contradiction to the procedures in the Local Government Act 1972 and would operate retrospectively, which could have unintended consequences. It would not provide robust safeguards which would ensure that local authorities are not incentivised to sell land without following the statutory consultation process. The duty to consult before disposing of land subject to a statutory trust remains an important safeguard, as it gives local communities an opportunity to speak up in favour of preserving their most important local spaces. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, would impact on other government priorities, such as increasing tree canopy and woodland cover to 16.5% of total land area by 2050 and ensuring that everyone lives within a 15-minute walk of green or blue space.

Our cherished public green spaces must be protected for future generations, and we need to find a solution that will balance this duty while enabling the development of land to house our young people and drive our economy. I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.

Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, relates to the use of compulsory purchase powers and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a report assessing whether the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights are adequately protected in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities.

As mentioned in previous debates on this topic, the power to compulsorily acquire any person’s land is a draconian power which engages the European Convention on Human Rights and raises questions of common law fairness. It is a fundamental principle of the compulsory purchase process that the decision-maker must be sure that the use of the power justifies interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. In every instance of the use of a CPO, authorities must demonstrate to the decision-maker that such an interference is so justified.

When making a decision on whether there is a compelling case in the public interest, the decision-maker will always give consideration to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to, and in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of, the ECHR and the impact of the proposed CPO on the individuals affected. To uphold the rights enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR, the compulsory purchase process enables the exchange of written representations and the holding of inquiries and hearings into objections conducted by an independent inspector reporting to the Secretary of State, whose decision is subject to legal challenge.

When justifying their CPOs, the government guidance on compulsory purchase is clear that acquiring authorities should address the potential harm to private rights and how the impacts on human rights from the respective order have been considered. To help justify and limit infringements of ECHR rights, a person who is entitled to compensation may request an advance payment of that compensation from the acquiring authority. If an advance payment is requested, the acquiring authority must make the payment once it has begun implementing the CPO and within a specified timeframe.

To address the noble Lord’s comments from Committee directly, first, where a CPO is made with a direction for the non-payment of hope value, for the direction and the CPO to take effect there must be a compelling case in the public interest as the CPO and the direction itself must be justified in the public interest. Where the land subject to a CPO with a direction had a long-established realistic prospect of planning permission for future development, any hope value direction would need to be justified by a sufficient public benefit.

Secondly, in relation to safeguarding the interests of landowners who have had land acquired without being compensated for hope value, where an authority has not fulfilled the commitments it relied on when obtaining the CPO and the direction which allowed it to acquire the land without hope value, landowners can seek directions from the Secretary of State for the payment of the compensation they missed out on. Where the Secretary of State decides that such compensation is payable, it must be paid by the acquiring authority.

The noble Lord invited me to say plainly that, where property is taken by compulsion, there must always be fair dealing. Compulsory purchase should only ever be considered where efforts to acquire land by agreement have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for the use of a CPO. In addition, directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation must always be justified in the public interest. There are no exceptions to these principles.

The compulsory purchase process provides necessary protections for the rights of individuals affected by compulsory purchase. It already requires that individual CPOs are consistent with the ECHR, which is the aim of this amendment. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a full and helpful reply to my amendment. I look forward to the meetings which we are in the process of arranging. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 238ZA withdrawn.

Amendments 238ZB and 238ZC not moved.

Clause 105: Home loss payments: exclusions

Amendment 238A not moved.

Amendment 239

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

239: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection of villages(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages from over-development and change of character.(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—(a) preventing villages from merging into one another, and(b) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages, under the National Planning Policy Framework.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we debated this issue on a previous day on Report. On this side of the House, we have grave concerns over the importance of the protection of our much-cherished villages across this country. Pressures will come from new town developments, changes to the green belt and a lack of support for neighbourhood plans. This simple amendment seeks to provide existing villages with the protection equivalent to that which we already provide for our towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We do not understand this and are going to stand up for our rural communities and villages. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

22:25

Division 5

Ayes: 58

Noes: 125

22:35

Amendment 240

Moved by

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

240: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Land purchasing: duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land(1) Any developer or company approaching a landowner to buy or lease land for the purpose of development must declare whether they are also approaching other owners of land in the vicinity to buy or lease land for the purpose of development.(2) The declaration required under subsection (1) must include whether the combined amount of land intended to be purchased or leased will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project as set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008.(3) In subsection (1), “in the vicinity” means any land immediately adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing or whether there are others being approached so that the total sum of the land obtained may result in application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 241. Amendment 240 is a return to the debate that we had about the issues of transparency and the right of landowners to be fully informed of the potential scale of a project. It would insert a new clause after Clause 106, creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land in the vicinity. Proposed new subsection (2) states that that declaration

“must include whether the combined amount of land … will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project”,

while proposed new subsection (3) provides a definition of what is meant by “in the vicinity” in this context; namely, anything adjoining or within 10 miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased. The amendment would not prevent land purchasing from occurring but would force better practices, bringing in transparency and accountability to the process for potentially very large projects.

In Committee, the Minister argued that the amendment could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on development projects. I disagree. I am not asking the developer to provide each potential partner with chapter and verse on other negotiations but simply to indicate that the land in question might form part of a larger project connecting to neighbouring land. That is a simple statement that would not be an onerous burden on developers; it would be a way of ensuring that all of them acted within the spirit of professional behaviour that we would expect, although sadly, as examples given in both Houses during the passage of the Bill have confirmed, that does not take place.

All too often it is the actions of a few that tarnish the reputation of the many, but surely it is only morally right and fair that landowners and the local communities potentially impacted have a true sense of the potential scale of the project being proposed and how it might have a bigger impact beyond the one plot being discussed. Anecdotally, I have heard of a case where the developer failed to notify those selling or leasing their land that they would be part of a big project; when it was discovered, there was considerable anger from the local community, with those who had agreed to lease their land being ostracised. Not only is this therefore the right thing to do, because surely all deals of this kind should be open and transparent, but it is also in the interests of community cohesion. I have since checked this with a land agent, who said that he thought it was eminently sensible.

The Minister referred to the book of reference and how it is available for public view—if indeed anyone knows about it—and that it should list all land and interests in land that may be affected by development. I reiterate a point made by others throughout our discussions: to the general public, development jargon and process is all a bit of a mystery to start with. However, the Minister herself mentioned the problem here: she implied in her Committee response that the book of reference is available for public view only once the application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State. Transparency after the application is too late and not transparent at all.

While some landowners may jump at the chance of being part of a nationally significant project, others may not wish to be. If they do not know what is being proposed, how can they make an informed choice? In this House, surely we should not be enabling corporate underhand behaviour. We need to ensure that consideration is given to those being approached for land with projects and the communities that will all have to live with the consequences.

Amendment 241 requires a similar simple statement, which again has the principles of transparency and good practice at its core. It seeks to prevent land banking, the practice of purchasing undeveloped land and holding it for future development or resale, rather than immediately building on it. Its proposed new subsection (1) would create an obligation on the developer or company to declare whether they held planning permission for similar developments within a 10-mile radius of the new site they were seeking permission to buy or lease. Proposed new subsection (2) would give the power to refuse development if any similar sites identified by proposed new subsection (1) had not been activated for over a year.

I remind the House that we must not conflate housing delivery with granting planning permission. Planning permission will not meet targets if it is not acted on. I will not reiterate all the stats from the debate we had in Committee, but suffice to say that, as another noble Lord highlighted, around four years’ worth of the Government’s current target is sitting in land banks. Better transparency will only help build trust and confidence in what our planning system can deliver.

I was pleased that the Minister expressed that the working paper is looking to see that permissions given are built out as quickly as possible and I suggest that this amendment could only strengthen the incentive for this to happen. It was also mentioned that a form of use it or lose it could be brought about by implementing the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Why has this not been kick-started already? Can the Minister give us a timetable in which she hopes that this will be implemented? How many other land banks will be approved before this comes into force? I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for bringing these amendments, particularly Amendment 241. The noble Baroness raised the issue of land banking in Committee and I am pleased that she is raising it again on Report. As she rightly said, land banking is one of the blockers of development. I will repeat one of the stats I gave in Committee: 1.2 million housing units with full planning permission are waiting to be constructed. Those figures are from the ONS. One of the reasons is that developers want to keep prices high and therefore phase development over a sometimes inordinately long timeframe. Indeed, in my own town there is a development of nearly 300 homes that the developer wishes to develop over 10 years, which explains, I think, as much as anything, why this country is short of the housing that it needs.

There are other consequences of land banking, apart from the crucial one of failing to supply the houses that the country needs in a timely way; it also has an impact on local plans. Where developers have full planning permission for all the allocated housing sites in a local plan, they can, and do, argue that they therefore need more sites, sometimes with preference for sites in the green belt, even though there is no intention of beginning, let alone completing, the sites they currently have with full planning permission. That is a really important issue on which I hope the Minister will give some comfort for those of us in local councils. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on these important issues.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson for her constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill, her close attention to its detail and her ambition to improve the legislation in a number of important areas. Amendment 240 needs to be considered carefully; I will be interested to hear what the Minister has on it. Where the total land being assembled could ultimately lead to an application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project, there is a real need for greater clarity at an early stage. That would only help to build trust between developers, landowners and local communities, and my noble friend’s proposals rightly highlight that need.

22:45

Amendment 241 addresses the concern about land banking, which I know many noble Lords share. The practice of acquiring undeveloped land, holding it for speculative purposes then drip-feeding it into the market, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, understandably attracts attention, particularly where there are strong pressures to deliver housing or infrastructure more swiftly. My noble friend is right to seek reassurance that the powers in the Bill cannot be used in a way that enables or encourages such behaviour. As my noble friend did, I too ask the Minister again: why have the Government not progressed the powers that are already in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act on land banking?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for Amendment 240. This amendment seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land, developers must declare their interest in purchasing or leasing adjoining land. We appreciate the noble Baroness’s continued interest in promoting transparency and discouraging speculative land banking. However, we maintain that this amendment is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.

There is existing guidance on the procedures in the Planning Act 2008 for the compulsory acquisition of land in connection with NSIPs. This guidance supports applicants to seek to acquire land by private negotiation, where practicable, using compulsory acquisition only where attempts to acquire by agreement fail. The guidance also encourages early engagement with affected parties to help build up good working relationships, to treat landowner concerns with respect and to help reduce the mistrust or fear that can arise in such circumstances.

Land acquisition for NSIPs can be highly sensitive and often involves confidential negotiations. Mandating developers to disclose discussions with adjacent landowners could risk breaching confidentiality agreements and potentially hinder the progress of vital infrastructure projects. This is particularly important at the pre-application stage, where early engagement is critical to shaping proposals and identifying potential issues. Forcing disclosure at this stage could discourage that open dialogue between developers and landowners. However, the Government recognise the importance of transparency for landowners and ensuring that there is a fair process in place before consent is granted to authorise the acquisition of land.

For those reasons, when applications that seek to authorise compulsory acquisition are developed and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, applicants are required to submit the accompanying book of reference, to which the noble Baroness referred. This is a publicly available document. It outlines all land and interests in land affected by a proposed development, including those subject to compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or other impacts. This ensures transparency and public accountability. I think there is an obligation to make people aware of the presence of that document.

After an application has been accepted, and to proceed to examination, applicants are required to notify landowners under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Landowners are also recognised as interested parties under Section 102 of that Act, which enables them opportunities for involvement during examination. This is not merely procedural; it grants landowners meaningful opportunities to engage in the examination process. These provisions are vital to ensure that the voices and interests of landowners are not only heard but properly considered throughout the process.

In light of the sensitivities involved, the existing government guidance and the transparency mechanisms already in place, we do not think this amendment is necessary. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued engagement on this issue and kindly ask her to withdraw Amendment 240.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for tabling Amendment 241 related to the buildout of development, an issue we discussed in Committee. The amendment seeks to address the concerns around land banking by requiring planning permissions to be refused if developers have not commenced another development nearby within a year.

I fully recognise the intention behind this amendment and share the noble Baroness’s commitment to improving the buildout rate of residential development. As I have previously set out, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that planning permissions are translated into homes being built. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary to achieve that goal. We confirmed at the time of the response to the NPPF consultation that we will implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions following a technical consultation.

During our earlier debates, I highlighted the publication in May of the working paper that sets out a more effective and comprehensive strategy for speeding up buildout, including greater transparency on buildout rates, new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort.

The working paper also sets out our intention to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, helping to unlock stalled sites and making land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We are analysing the responses to that working paper and will set out our next steps in due course. I remain confident that the measures set out will make a real and meaningful difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Given this and the broader strategy we are pursuing, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not moving her amendment.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response, although I am, of course, slightly disappointed by it.

I worry about when people are approached for land, either for leasing or buying, and not treated with honesty and transparency. I do not see how saying that developers should declare what the endgame is would impede an open dialogue. In fact, not telling people is not an open dialogue.

The Minister set out the process to be followed, but what happens when developers do not follow it? What comeback is there? It is all too late. I am disappointed about that, and I hope that there will be further consideration of it at some point.

I am glad to hear that there is a working paper and that there are plans to implement parts of the LURA. I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 240 withdrawn.

Amendment 241 not moved.

Clause 107: Amendments relating to section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961

Amendments 242 and 243 not moved.

Amendment 244

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

244: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: local government reorganisation and devolutionWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out—(a) how this Act is intended to operate following local government reorganisation,(b) the arrangements that will apply in respect of this Act in the interim period while devolution settlements are being negotiated, and(c) what provisions must be in place to ensure the effective operation of this Act during the interim period.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is straightforward: it would require the Secretary of State to set out how the Bill is intended to operate following any local government reorganisation.

As many in this House will be aware, the landscape of local government is shifting. Across England, there are ongoing discussions about devolution, new combined authorities and the potential reorganisation of existing councils. Each of these changes will have significant implications for how local responsibilities are defined, how accountability is maintained and, ultimately, how this legislation will function in practice.

This amendment seeks clarity, not complication. If local government structures change, communities, councils and partners need certainty about how their duties, powers and relationships under the Bill will continue. Without such clarity, we risk creating confusion at precisely the moment when consistency and coherence are most needed.

We now await the forthcoming devolution Bill and the conclusions of ongoing negotiations around local government reorganisation. These will no doubt shape the future architecture of local governance, but in the meantime it is vital that we ensure a clear line of sight between this legislation and whatever follows. Amendment 244 is a small but important step towards that assurance. If not, a lack of clarity will affect delivery, as we are already seeing in local planning authorities across the country. I therefore hope the Minister will consider how the Government intend to provide this clarity and ensure that, as local government evolves, the operation of this legislation remains transparent, accountable and effective.

As this is the last time I will speak at this Dispatch Box on Report of this Bill, I will take the opportunity to make a broader point on commencement. Throughout the course of this Bill, we on these Benches have offered the Government a clear, credible plan to build more homes and to get Britain building again—and what have Ministers done with that advice? They have just ignored it. We have sought to address the genuine blockages in our planning system: the practical and legal barriers that stand in the way of new housing, such as the Hillside judgment, the lack of proportionality, the restrictions around the Ramsar sites and the complexities of nutrient neutrality rules. These are not abstract legalities; they are the very issues holding back delivery on the ground.

Our amendments would have tackled those problems directly. They would have released land, unlocked permissions and allowed homes to be built where they are most needed. Let us be clear: we are not speaking about a few thousand homes here or there. We are speaking about hundreds of thousands of homes that our plans would and could have unlocked. The uncomfortable truth is this: it is not local authorities, the courts or even the developers who are blockers in our housing system. It is the Government themselves.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I am sorry to have to point out to her, not for the first time from the Dispatch Box, that her Government had 14 years to get the housebuilding that we so desperately need. They had ample opportunity to take all the action that we are taking now, but they did not do so, so it is left to us to sort out the inevitable housing crisis that we face in this country.

Amendment 244 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three months of enactment, on the operation of the Act in the context of local government reorganisation, and during the interim period while devolution settlements are being negotiated. This amendment creates an unnecessary and potentially burdensome precedent. Councils undergoing reorganisation are subject to a comprehensive suite of secondary legislation providing for the transfer of all statutory functions, including those created in new legislation—from predecessor councils to new councils. We will of course work in partnership with the sector to ensure that areas receive support to enable successful take-up of the Act, as well as transition to new unitary structures. This legislation refers to existing planning legislation—for example, Part 5 of the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2008. We will review and, as necessary, amend these and other provisions in the light of this Bill, and the timetable for any such updates will be determined by the reorganisation process.

Turning to devolution, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act already requires the Government to lay an annual devolution report before Parliament. The report provides an annual summary of devolution for all areas in England. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill amends current requirements so that this report reflects the introduction of strategic authorities and the new framework-based approach to devolution in England. It will include information on functions conferred on strategic authorities and any parts of the country where proposals have been received by the Secretary of State for the establishment of a strategic authority, and negotiations have taken place but agreement has not yet been reached. This allows for public transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of the devolution agenda. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that was not what I expected. There are local planning authorities across this country that do not know what to do—they do not know whether or not to start a local plan. If they start a local plan, what will happen when they then become reorganised? It is a waste of time and money for a local government family that do not have the money to do it, or the resource. It would be such a simple thing to explain to local government what they should do in this interim period. However, I have said it all before and we have asked for something back from the Government, just to help the structures work better. It lands on fallow ground. I have tried, but I am going to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 244 withdrawn.

Amendment 245

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

245: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“Building regulations: swift bricks(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.(3) For the purposes of this section—“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the common swift and other cavity nesting species;“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitats for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitats in buildings to breed.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Save our swifts! I would like to test the opinion of the House.

23:00

Division 6

Ayes: 36

Noes: 102

23:11

Amendment 246

Tabled by

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon]

246: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“National Planning Policy Framework: bird safety of buildings(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) amend the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that buildings incorporate, to the extent practicable, features, practices and strategies to reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, and(b) issue guidance on such features, practices and strategies to reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings.(2) The amendments under subsection (1)(a) must apply to any building that is constructed, or of which more than 50 per cent of the façade is substantially altered, after the date of the updated National Planning Policy Framework coming into force.(3) The Secretary of State may issue exemptions to the amendments made by subsection (1)(a) for listed buildings.(4) The guidance under subsection (1)(b) must include—(a) features for reducing bird fatality resulting from collisions with buildings throughout all stages of construction, taking into account the risks and available information on bird fatalities that occur at different types of buildings, and(b) methods and strategies for reducing bird fatality resulting from collisions with buildings during the operation and maintenance of such buildings, including using certified bird-safe glass.(5) The Secretary of State must review the guidance under subsection (1)(b) on a regular basis to ensure that it reflects current knowledge on effective methods to reduce bird fatalities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce bird safety (in design and in the use of bird-safe glass) into the National Planning Policy Framework for new builds and non-heritage buildings being extensively modified.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive comments in the debate. I think we all want to find proportionate ways to stop 30 million birds a year being killed on our windows in the UK. I was very interested in her suggestion that a targeted measure for commercial developments might be a way of solving this problem, or at least addressing it. The Wildlife and Countryside Link briefing supports this, stating that bird safety in a commercial building would cost probably around 0.5% of the facade cost. I hope that the Government might be persuaded to bring this forward in an amendment of their own at Third Reading. On that basis, I will not try the patience of the House further.

Amendment 246 not moved.

Amendment 247

Moved by

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

247: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“Secretary of State’s duty to promote health improvement and reduce health inequalitiesWhen considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions under the planning Acts the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to—(a) improve the health of persons living in England, and(b) reduce health inequalities between persons living in England.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Lord Crisp, would place a duty upon the Secretary of State to consider health promotion when they discharge their planning functions. The amendments use the same wording for the duty and definitions as are used in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Clause 43, Health improvement and health inequalities duty).

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 247 I will speak to Amendment 248 in my name. I thank the noble Lords who have added their names to it, and I thank Hugh Ellis and Rosalie Callway of the TCPA for their support.

In this House, I am sure we all understand that our health status is very largely determined—65% or more—by the so-called social determinants of health: that is housing, environment, employment, wealth and education. The relationship between good and bad housing and good and bad health is particularly close. Planning is a huge factor, with its oversight of the environment, access to nature and blue and green spaces, housing, economic development and much more. Unless these other sectors and planning are involved in promoting health and reducing health inequalities, I fear that the UK’s health status will not improve and may continue to get worse, with knock-on effects on public services and the economy, and that the NHS will simply not achieve its ambitious goals for improvement.

My amendment is not about the NHS; it is about health, important as the NHS is. To quote my old friend Francis Omaswa, who used to run the Ugandan health service, “Health is made at home; hospitals are for repairs”. By all means let us improve the repair service, but we need to focus on health improvement. It is therefore vital that planning plays a role in promoting health and tackling health inequalities. My preferred route would be through the setting of standards for healthy homes and neighbourhoods, but I recognise, having tried this line several times in your Lordships’ House, that there is currently no appetite for that around the House. I fear it will come back to prominence in future years, not least because of the standard of homes that may get built. I hope I am wrong.

23:15

This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to promote health improvement and reduce health inequalities. It would ensure that health is taken into account in planning at the most senior level, and the duty to consider health promotion and health inequalities would be engaged in relation to secondary legislation, national planning policy and Written Ministerial Statements.

It is interesting to note that the Government have recognised the importance of strategic authorities in relation to health in Part 2 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. This amendment uses exactly the same language as the duty placed on strategic planning authorities. I argue that it sensibly joins up these two Bills.

This modest amendment is a step in the right direction. It continues to surprise me that health and well-being do not satisfactorily figure in planning policy. I know that the National Planning Policy Framework will be raised by the Minister. Up to a point, as has already been pointed out, the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework are not compulsory, not specific and not wide-ranging enough.

To conclude, it is worth noting that health and housing were in the same ministry during the periods at the end of both World Wars, when the greatest progress was made in housing. It is arguable that the between-the-wars rural council housing, for example, was of a particularly high standard. It is worth noting that, later, Nye Bevan was Minister for Health and Housing. Whatever definition we have for planning, supporting a healthy population must surely be part of its role, alongside securing economic prosperity, security, and a good natural and built environment. Placing this duty on the Secretary of State will move us in the right direction. I beg to move.

Amendment 247A (to Amendment 247)

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

247A: At end insert—
“(2) Sport England may make representations to the Secretary of State about the extent to which the Secretary of State is meeting the duty in subsection (1).(3) The Secretary of State must have regard to the representations in subsection (2).”

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and his eloquent explanation when moving his amendment. My amendment seeks to reinforce the points he has made. It will not surprise him to learn that not only am I fully supportive but that sports policy is no longer principally about sporting success; it is about the important link between sport, health and well-being. That is why I have for a long time argued that ministerial responsibility for sport and recreation should be firmly embedded at the heart of the Department of Health, rather than mistakenly in a separate department responsible for broadcasting, tourism and the digital economy.

Sport England, courtesy of both parties—I am glad to see the Labour Benches so strongly represented at this hour—already has a statutory responsibility and a strategic duty to promote health improvement and reduce health inequalities, primarily through its role in increasing participation in sport and physical activity among underserved and less active groups. Sport England’s primary legal duty remit has rightly broadened in recent years to encompass improving health and well-being and addressing health inequalities as central objectives, in line with government policy. This includes supporting links between the sport sector, planning and health systems, and driving changes that address barriers to activity for disadvantaged groups in particular. That is why it is the right body to be the consultee, to ensure that with Amendment 147 placed firmly in the Bill, as I hope it will be, it can police its effectiveness.

The government strategy clarifies that the aims set out in this amendment require collaboration across the sectors, including councils, planning authorities, the NHS and other parties. Sport England has the rightly expected lead role and holds measurable targets in this area, and that is why I argue that it should be the statutory consultee. In conclusion, that is why this amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would strengthen it and provide oversight as to its effectiveness.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly at this late hour, having attached my name to Amendments 247 and 248, so ably and clearly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I will make two brief points.

The first point is about the proposed duty to promote health improvement. The UK has a terrible state of public health. We are doing much worse than many other countries that we consider comparable, and that has huge human, social and economic effects. The social determinants of health—so many aspects covered by the Bill—are the major factor in why that is the case. Unless we take action, it will only get worse.

My second point is about the second chief element of the proposed new clause: the Secretary of State’s duty to “reduce health inequalities”. The King’s Fund defines health inequalities as

“avoidable, unfair and systematic differences in health between different groups”.

In assessing this issue, it points to life expectancy, which varies across England by almost a decade, and healthy life expectancy, which varies between the poorest and the richest areas by 18 years.

My question to the Minister and the crowded Benches opposite, is: how can a Labour Government or Labour Peers oppose this amendment?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of comments. Clearly, my noble friend the Minister will no doubt say that this is outwith the intention and focus of this legislation. I sympathise with that; it is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, as a former distinguished chief exec of the National Health Service, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right to pinpoint that there are some gaps between the needs of health and healthcare and the planning system. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some reassurance that, as we go forward—we have an NHS Bill coming in the next Session—there will be ways to find that some of the noble Lord’s key points will be embraced in both the planning and the National Health Service system.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I was very pleased to attach my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He raised a wider issue in the debate on what became the levelling-up Act about the need for healthy homes, and he was right to do so. I was saddened that that was not accepted by the Government at the time. He has now brought forward a less demanding amendment.

It is important that, when thinking about development, health and housing, we add the idea of ill-health prevention and the social determinants of health. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned and defined, and how right he is.

Some 14% of homes in our country—3.5 million—are not up to decent housing standard. In my own district, which has areas of quite considerable deprivation, where people are living in poor accommodation, a report says:

“Children in bad housing conditions are more likely to have mental health problems, have respiratory problems, experience long-term ill health and disability, experience slow physical growth and have delayed cognitive development”.


The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has made the case: children deserve better. We ought to support him.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments deal with an issue that goes to the very heart of the Bill’s purpose: how we ensure that our planning system promotes not only economic growth and infrastructure delivery but the health and well-being of our communities. This is not just about a healthy home but about a healthy community, which is so much more than just the bricks and mortar. As has been raised many times throughout the passage of the Bill, we all want to create great communities—a home and that sense of place. Great places are healthy places. That includes warm and comfortable homes, spaces that are safe for outdoor recreation, places to socialise and places where work, leisure facilities and open spaces are easily reachable.

Amendment 247 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve health and reduce health inequalities when discharging their planning functions. That is not a radical departure; indeed, it aligns precisely with the language used in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and reflects the Health and Social Care Act 2012 duty on the NHS to reduce health inequalities. It simply asks that the same commitment be applied to planning—one of the most powerful levers for shaping the health of our nation.

Amendment 247A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, would add a valuable and practical dimension for allowing Sport England to make representations to the Secretary of State on how this duty is being met. That is a sensible suggestion, recognising the importance of physical activity and access to sport in promoting both physical and mental health.

Amendment 248 would provide clear definitions, ensuring that “health inequalities” and “general health determinants” are well understood and that this duty is not left to vague interpretation. The drafting captures what we all know to be true: the state of health is shaped as much by housing, transport, safety, employment and access to services as by anything that happens in the health service itself.

A modern planning system must support not only economic growth but social resilience and public health. The pandemic reminded us just how closely our built environment is linked to physical and mental well-being. If we want truly sustainable communities, health must be a core planning outcome, not an afterthought. I therefore urge the Minister to look sympathetically at these amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and the decisions that stem from them should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. That would enable and support healthy lives by both promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where that would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities between the most and the least deprived communities.

Turning to Amendments 247 and 248, I recognise that improving the health of our communities is a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, cares deeply about; he has been a great advocate for many years on this topic. We agree with him that health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities is an important matter in which our planning system should play a vital role.

However, we do not believe that his amendments are necessary. Ministers and other public bodies are already subject to requirements under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard, when carrying out their functions, to the need to advance the equality of opportunity, to eliminate discrimination and to foster good relations between people with protected characteristics. That will, where relevant, include taking into account potential differential impacts in terms of health and well-being. While the noble Lord’s amendment would extend even more widely in relation to Ministers’ planning functions, the importance of these matters is both recognised and addressed through the National Planning Policy Framework, which places a strong emphasis on health. Indeed, the importance of healthy communities is recognised in a dedicated chapter.

The framework sets out that planning policies and decisions should achieve those healthy, inclusive and safe places, which promote social interaction and enable healthy lives, promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this would address those local health inequalities. The framework recognises the importance of open space and sport and recreation facilities in enabling physical activity and the health and well-being of local communities. It is clear that local planning should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are set out in planning practice guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.

23:30

The National Design Guide and National Model Design Code illustrate how well- designed, healthy, inclusive, social and green places can be achieved. They provide detailed advice on creating safe, inclusive and accessible homes, buildings and public spaces, prioritising walking and cycling, and green space and biodiversity in new development that promotes activity and social interaction. Given these existing duties and safeguards, I am concerned that these amendments would create unnecessary duplication and cut across provisions that already permeate the planning system.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, looks to supplement Amendment 247 and would add to this duty and allow Sport England to make representations to the Secretary of State about the extent to which the duty is being met. The Government want to streamline the planning process and remove statutory consultation where it is possible to empower local planning authorities to make informed decisions locally. The Government intend to consult on the impacts of removing Sport England as part of our commitment to review existing statutory consultee arrangements to ensure they align with the Government’s growth agenda. This will be a consultation, and no decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts. Sport England will continue to engage through public consultation and targeted notifications.

I assure the noble Lord that the proposed removal of certain statutory consultees, including Sport England, is intended to streamline the planning process without compromising the quality of development, and that sports and cultural outcomes remain hugely important to this Government. Organisations such as Sport England will continue to play an important role in supporting this. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I believe it falls to me to briefly respond. My intention is not to press my amendment.

Amendment 247A (to Amendment 247) withdrawn.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment; I should have supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I am still not convinced by the Minister’s response or that what she has said will make a material difference to health in this country. Until we take the social determinants of health seriously, we will not see the improvements that we want. I will continue to press this on other occasions. Having said all that, I am not going to move to a vote tonight, given the certainty of losing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 247 withdrawn.

Amendment 248 not moved.

Amendment 249

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

249: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“Compulsory purchase for planning and development: code of practice(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to be followed by all bodies or individuals exercising powers of compulsory purchase for the purposes of planning and development.(2) On publication of the code of practice, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) an enforcement mechanism for the code of practice, including nominating a responsible body or individual for monitoring compliance,(b) penalties for non-compliance with the code of practice, and(c) a system for appealing against findings of non-compliance with the code of practice.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to ensure that all acquiring authorities, and their agents, are bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice exercised by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, a similar amendment to this was brought forward in Committee and very ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. The problem the amendment tries to resolve is the fact that the Government’s powers of compulsory purchase are being used and abused by private operators. The Government quite rightly have statutory powers of compulsory purchase for developing our infrastructure. But in recent years the statutory bodies responsible for building this infrastructure have been delegating, or outsourcing, these powers of compulsory purchase to private operators that are abusing the system for their own private gain. There are numerous examples of the use of bullying tactics and scandalous delays in payment.

In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted some of the appalling aberrations and bully-boy tactics that are currently prevalent in the system, which only seem to be getting worse. I will not repeat the examples he gave, but bad behaviour is not hard to find, involving a range of statutory bodies from highway authorities to water companies, electricity operators and, of course, railway companies—HS2 being a prominent offender.

I will not detain your Lordships with too much detail, but it cannot be right that householders should, for instance, be given three months’ notice to leave their homes and get offered only 90% of the market value, and that they often get paid long after the three months are up. How can they buy an equivalent new home for themselves and their family under those circumstances?

It cannot be right that businesses, farming or otherwise, can be threatened with either temporary or full-time confiscation of their premises without the upfront—I stress that word—full compensation for what they are losing. I may also say that, in the case of HS2, many of the businesses involved in a cancelled section—cancelled over two years ago now—have yet to see either their land back or proper payment for their property. In the private sector you have to pay 100% up front before you can take occupation of a house or land on a farm. All we are asking for is for compulsory purchases to be bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice. You should not be allowed to chuck a family out of their house or off their land without giving them full compensation before you do so. These people have done nothing wrong. They just happen to have found themselves living or working in the wrong place. Furthermore, the dispossessed should have an easy means of recourse if the code of behaviour is abused.

A flagrant HS2 example which I came across recently involves a commercial site in Birmingham where HS2 took over the property of a partnership over seven years ago now. Six months after the purchase, HS2 had paid the partnership only 20% of a conservative value put on its property by its bank. I should point out that banks never overvalue property; they would not survive if they did. Well, some of them did in 2008, and we all know what happened then. A spokesman for that partnership told me:

“Our sense is that HS2’s strategy has been to seek to delay payment for as long as possible. They have used the letter of the law to obfuscate and avoid meaningful interaction with us at all times. At no point has there been a genuine desire to settle this case or even to meet to share information and views. As a result, we are likely to incur thousands of pounds, tens of thousands of pounds, on legal costs, trying to drag them through the courts to force their hand”.


Involving slightly less money, I give your Lordships an example from Wales which came to me just last week. I quote from the lady farmer involved:

“Our farm has been in our family for four generations and includes an eco-campsite by the Colwyn Brook Marshes SSSI, a protected wetland habitat supporting rare species. On 7 July 2025, a Land Agent called to say that Green Gen Cymru (part of Bute Energy) planned to conduct surveys during the weeks of 14 and 28 July—our busiest period. He said they intended ‘to make an example out of somebody’ and would issue a summons and seek costs if access was refused.


On 29 July, Green Gen representatives arrived unannounced at our campsite shop saying surveyors would arrive on 31 July but they could not confirm where or when. I showed them our map and asked them to identify the survey areas—they refused. I explained that we offer our guests open access to our land while ensuring that environmentally sensitive sites were properly protected. Despite this, I was told that legal action would be taken if we attempted to obstruct the surveyors, and that the energy company would seek a warrant and pursue court action if we refused access.


The next day, I was told by email that the surveys had been deferred. I thought this was because they’d had second thoughts, but then we found out it was because they had already been. Hidden wildlife camera footage showed them walking through the Colwyn Brook SSSI in dirty boots and overalls, having entered my land on 29 July. No biosecurity measures were followed. And when I reviewed the CCTV footage, I discovered that the surveyors had also been in the stream below our house—despite assurances that no surveys would be carried out”.


These are the sorts of cowboys that are being let loose with government powers across our country. There are now 300 cases looming against Green GEN Cymru of a similar nature. What we all want—at least, what I want—is for the compulsory purchase system to work as effectively and as speedily as possible. That would be so good for our infrastructure, our economy, our economic growth—everything that this Bill is trying to achieve. But there are too many cowboys involved, using state powers to manipulate the system to their advantage.

The compulsory purchase system is, in the opinion of many, lurching towards a crisis. It is now looked on with suspicion by all involved. The key thing is that if no one trusts it, property owners, householders and farmers will dig their heels in and use every legal means available to delay having to surrender their house, their farm or their business. Thus our new infrastructure and our growth will go out of the window.

In Committee, the Minister mentioned existing government guidance which states how the acquiring authority should behave. As I have already pointed out, these do not behave. It could be because the government guidance is 191 pages long. She also indicated that the Government believe that the necessary rules are already in place and should be clear to all. First, having rules and regulations is not the same as having a code of practice to abide by. Secondly, it is not the same as having a referee to oversee fair play. Football has rules but without a ref it would soon descend into a bloodbath. Sometimes it gets quite close to that, even with a ref. It is precisely what is happening now with our compulsory purchase system. Without anyone to blow a whistle, the bad behaviour will only get worse—and our infrastructure growth will be permanently mired in legal entanglement. We must restore faith in the system.

When, two or three Governments ago, the public and politicians became aware of the bully-boy tactics of the large supermarkets over the small food producers, Parliament, with the strong support of the Labour Party, got all parties together to agree a groceries code and appointed a Groceries Code Adjudicator to oversee fair play. It has been a big success. The very existence of the adjudicator has changed how supermarkets work. This is what we desperately need in the compulsory purchase system—some sort of agreed code and a referee.

I hope the Government have noted that I minutely changed the wording of this amendment from the one that I tabled in Committee. I felt that for the Secretary of State to nominate a body or individual to monitor compliance, rather than to establish a new one, might make it more acceptable. However, if the Government want the compulsory system to work effectively, to speed up our infrastructure, from roads and rail to—especially—housing, this amendment or something like it will be essential. I hope that I get a satisfactory response from the Front Bench on this. If the Government cannot accept my amendment, they might undertake to bring their own forward at Third Reading or, at the very least, to have a meeting to work out some way of resolving the problem that I have outlined. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. A code of practice would curb the bad practice that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has very movingly illustrated to us this evening. It is based on the evidence of lived experience of compulsory purchase as currently enforced by commercial agents. I urge the Government to reflect on its merits as driving a far more humane, more swift and less expensive process than the current guidelines achieve. I hope the Government will not reject it simply because they can.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, made a compelling case for the issue which he has reiterated this evening—the necessity for a code of practice to set rules that can be enforced on compulsory purchase order issues. I said in Committee that I had a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord had to say. He has made an even stronger case this evening with the real-life examples that he has quoted to us.

I hope that the Minister can respond very positively this time to the genuine issues that are being raised, with a solution being offered. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has said, we look forward to what the Minister has to say, but this issue is not going to go away unless the Government grasp it and deal with it.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to add our support for Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I would draw a thread through all these debates that we have had on Report on compulsory purchase: this is a necessary tool of government to allow society’s needs to be placed above the individual in a small number of cases where the case is clear-cut.

23:45

This amendment and others already debated are about ensuring that individuals subject to a CPO are treated fairly financially, with respect as property owners, and are not open to abuse of that power, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has highlighted. This amendment is a practical and valuable addition; it seeks to ensure that all acquiring authorities and those acting on their behalf are bound by a clear code of practice. A statutory code of practice with clear enforcement and appeal mechanisms would strengthen confidence and bring greater accountability to the system as a whole.

For those reasons, I am pleased to support the noble Lord’s amendment. I hope the Minister is able to reassure him on how this can be put into practice.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for the amendment. The Government understand the spirit of the amendment; however, we maintain that a statutory code of practice is unnecessary.

First, government guidance, which was updated earlier this year in collaboration with external stakeholders, such as the Countryside Land Association, contains strengthened advice, which acquiring authorities should follow. The updated guidance states that authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners to identify the impacts of their schemes and what measures local authorities can take to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. I say to the noble Lord that where this is not done, the Government are of the view that CPOs are at risk of failing. In addition, we intend to update CPO guidance early next year, and we would welcome the views of stakeholders, such as the Countryside Land Association, on where the advice could go further on promoting best practices for acquiring authorities to follow.

Secondly, when decisions are taken on CPOs, the decision-maker must be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As I mentioned previously, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention. In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act.

Thirdly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published updated professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. The purpose of the professional standards is to protect claimants and businesses, support high standards in valuation delivery, and future-proof practices in the public interest. The standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected for RICS members advising on compulsory purchase matters. The Compulsory Purchase Association has also published, in collaboration with leading CPO practitioners, a land compensation claims protocol.

This Government’s objectives are to make the process more efficient for all parties to a CPO without creating further duplication. The amendment would run counter to these objectives. Therefore, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words, which I have to say were very disappointing. They obviously came from her department, written of course from the perspective of the Whitehall bubble, which in my view always remains somewhat distant from the reality of what is going on out there.

I cannot actually believe that the Minister personally believes that the sort of behaviour I have described should be at best tolerated, or at worst condoned by the Government—by any Government. Nevertheless, in spite of my disappointment and in light of the numbers in the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 249 withdrawn.

Amendments 250 to 252 not moved.

Amendment 253

Moved by

[Baroness Rock]

253: After Clause 108, insert the following new Clause—
“Tenant farmers (compensation for disturbance following change of use for farm business tenancies let under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995)In the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, after section 21 insert—“21A Compensation payable to the tenant for disturbance(1) This section applies where a farm business tenancy terminates in whole or in part by reason of a notice to quit given by the landlord following the granting of a planning consent for change of use and the tenant quits the holding in consequence of the notice.(2) Where this section applies there shall be payable by the landlord to the tenant by way of compensation for disturbance a sum equal to the tenant’s actual loss limited to the extent of the farm business tenancy and any consented activities connected to this.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces reasonable compensation provisions payable to farm tenants within the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. It will ensure that farm tenants receive compensation equivalent to their real loss for any land removed from their tenancy agreements for development. There are currently no compensation provisions within the Act.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, you will be delighted to hear that we are now in the home stretch as we debate just before midnight. I shall speak to the three amendments standing in my name, which, unsurprisingly, deal with matters connected with agricultural tenancies. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their support, and for the many sympathetic responses to the amendments I have had from all sides of the House from people who recognise the important role tenant farmers play. I refer to my interests in the register as a tenant farmer and the author of the Rock review into agricultural tenancies.

From time to time, landlords of holdings that are subject to agricultural tenancies may secure planning consent for a change of use from agriculture, either through a planning application considered by a local authority, which may also go to appeal, or as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. When that occurs, depending on the nature of the agricultural tenancy, the landlord will be able to secure vacant possession of the holding or part of the holding involved, either by statute or by contract. Agricultural tenancies subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 have a statutory process, set out in Schedule 3 to the Act under what is known as case B, which will allow the landlord to recover possession but paying only a statutory maximum level of compensation, which is just six times the rent being paid by the tenant for the land being removed. That rarely, if ever, comes close to the tenant’s actual commercial loss. For example, if a tenant farmer is paying £65 for an acre of land, compensation for that acre would be just £390. Amendment 253A seeks to redress that by providing a default position, setting out that the compensation will either be a multiple of the rent or the tenant’s actual loss, whichever is the larger.

I take as an example of the problem the case of the tenant arable farmers Rob and Emma Sturdy, who farm on the Fitzwilliam Malton estate in North Yorkshire. The local planning authority rejected a planning application by the solar energy developer Harmony Energy to take away almost half their farm, but that was appealed by Harmony. Before that appeal, Harmony Energy made an offer of compensation that was above the statutory minimum but, as far as Rob and Emma were concerned, below what would have been their actual commercial loss.

On appeal, the refusal of the solar farm by the local planning authority was overturned, but the inspector failed to make it a condition of that consent that the compensation offered by Harmony, and alluded to throughout the entire appeal, should be paid to Rob and Emma. Unfortunately, Harmony Energy has now taken that compensation offer away and reverted to offering only the statutory minimum compensation of six times rent for half the Sturdys’ farm. That is wholly unacceptable.

The case is made doubly worse by the fact that it was called in by the Government and the decision of the inspector was fully supported by the Planning Minister, despite the promise made to tenant farmers by the Prime Minister when, as Leader of the Opposition, he said that solar energy schemes must not be taken forward at the expense of tenant farmers and that tenant farmers needed to know that the soil beneath their feet was secure. Unfortunately, Rob and Emma are now feeling the emptiness of those words. That is why this provision is so ripe for change. Furthermore, in the solar road map that the Government published in June, they said that statutory compensation for tenant farmers must be addressed, so there is no reason why it cannot be addressed for all development that causes dislocation to tenant farmers.

The situation for tenants under farm business tenancies, regulated by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, is arguably worse. There is no statutory fallback position as to compensation when a tenant loses land following a planning application obtained by the landlord for change of use which allows the landlord to use a contractual clause to remove land. Amendment 253 merely seeks to add a legislative fallback position. Again, this will operate to provide tenants with a level of compensation equivalent to their real loss in losing land to a change of use following the granting of planning permission.

Amendment 253B seeks for the compulsory purchase regime to fully recognise the way in which tenant farmers are impacted. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, have spoken expertly on the need for wider reform of the way in which compulsory purchase operates, but this amendment focuses its attention on tenant farmers, who are often left out of discussions and end up with little or indeed no compensation when they see their businesses, homes and livelihoods devastated by a compulsory purchase acquisition.

While the landlord might receive a level of compensation which may or may not be reasonable in the circumstances, we must ensure that tenant farmers are also in receipt of a level of compensation which adequately covers their losses. In the same way that tenant farmers facing loss of land due to change of use being taken forward by their landlords need adequate compensation, the same must be true when the land is removed through compulsory purchase.

I confess I was increasingly dismayed this evening to note that the Minister in early responses on CPOs constantly referred to landowners. Some 64% of England’s land is wholly or partly tenanted, and yet the Minister fails to address the issue of tenant farmers who do not own land but will still be affected by CPOs. I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment to level the playing field for tenant farmers.

The Government should, and I believe should with ease, support these amendments, as they sit firmly within their own policy that the compensation payable to a farm tenant should be “adequate and fair” following a change of use to give way to a solar energy scheme as set out in the Government’s own recent solar road map. In already accepting that compensation provisions are not fit for purpose for solar energy schemes, the Government surely must also recognise that they are not acceptable for other types of development where the tenant farmer, through no fault and no decision of their own, loses occupation of land where they pay rent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Grender has cosigned the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. Unfortunately, she is not well and so is not here tonight. She has asked me to make it clear that she fully supports the amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock, supported by my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

These are very important amendments, not just because the contents are wise and right, but also because of the detailed knowledge my noble friend has of tenant farming—better than anyone else in this House. My noble friend is a non-executive director of Imagination Technologies and First News UK. She is the senior independent director of the Keller Group, a company of 10,000 employees with a revenue of £3 billion. She is also the chair of Costain, another company with revenue of almost £1.5 billion. My noble friend is a top-notch executive with experience of analysing problems and delivering solutions, and has been headhunted by some of the most important companies in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is no surprise that in 2022, the Defra Secretary of State asked her to chair the Tenancy Working Group, which had two clear objectives.

The first was to look at how the new government financial schemes will be accessible, open and flexible to tenant farmers. The second was to look at longer-term changes that would ensure a robust, vibrant and thriving agricultural tenanted sector for the future. With roughly a third of farmland in England being tenanted, tenant farmers are absolutely vital to the nation’s food production, alongside the delivery of environmental outcomes.

The Rock review highlighted issues such as insufficient collaboration, short tenancies and a lack of understanding within Defra of the complexities of land occupation. It was welcomed by the then Secretary of State, now my noble friend Lady Coffey, but perhaps far more importantly, it was welcomed by the then leader of the Opposition. Speaking at the NFU conference in February 2023, Keir Starmer said that,

“the principles that drive the Rock review into tenant farming are sound. Nothing shows the value of certainty more clearly than this. Tenant farmers need a fair deal. They need to know their futures are secure … But we can’t do it by taking advantage of tenant farmers, farmers producing good British food on carefully maintained, fertile land. They can’t plan properly if the soil beneath their feet isn’t secure. It’s a huge barrier to planning sustainable food production, so we’ve got to give them a fair deal, and we’ve got to use our land well”.

Partly because of that masterpiece of the Rock report, my noble friend was appointed as a non-executive director to Defra in May 2024. Then, in September 2024, just four months later, she was peremptorily sacked by the Labour Government with no good reason advanced at all. The Prime Minister said that tenant farmers must get a fair deal, and then the Government dismiss the one woman on the Defra board who would fight to give them that fair deal. That demonstrates that this Government cannot be trusted to treat all farmers fairly, or to deal fairly with tenants either. It seems there is one law for city tenants and landlords and another for rural ones.

Turning specifically to these amendments, we are unequivocally supportive of our tenant farmers. The amendments seek to introduce fair and reasonable compensation for farmers where their land is removed from their tenancy agreements for development purposes. As my noble friend rightly points out, there is currently no statutory provision for compensation under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which leaves tenant farmers in need of stronger protection when their tenancies are changed for development. Her Amendment 253A seeks to revise compensation payable to farm tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 to ensure the compensation is equivalent to their actual loss—she made that point clearly. Amendment 253B seeks to ensure that any person whose property is compulsorily purchased is compensated for any disturbance to a business they run from that property.

These three amendments are considered and serious challenges to the Government, and Ministers should listen carefully to my noble friend’s case. While we recognise that it is slightly late in the evening and that we may not be able to reach a decision on these amendments tonight, we hope that the Minister will undertake to work closely with my noble friend to deliver a fair and equitable outcome for tenant farmers, where their businesses are disturbed by changes in their tenancy or as a result of compulsory purchase.

Finally, I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for stepping in to cover areas not in her brief. She is looking after the brief of her noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. On this side, we have a soft spot for that noble Baroness; she farms up in Cumbria, she is a country lass, and she understands the countryside and cares about it. We all hope to see her back at full health and strength after she has shaken off the dreaded lurgy.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for those kind comments about my noble friend Lady Hayman. She was here earlier this evening, but it was not fair to keep her here when she is still recovering from quite a nasty bug.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her Amendments 253 and 253A, which seek to ensure that farm tenants receive compensation equivalent to their real loss where a farm business tenancy is terminated, in whole or in part, as a result of planning consent being granted to a landlord for a change of use. The stories she gave were indeed truly shocking. Existing legislation in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 sets out the compensation provisions for tenant farmers, but we genuinely recognise that it needs to be revised so that tenant farmers receive adequate compensation, reflecting real loss for land removed from their tenancy agreements for development.

The Law Commission announced its 14th programme earlier this year, which will consider whether existing agricultural law appropriately balances giving tenant farmers the security and opportunity to maintain viable businesses, while providing landlords with the confidence to let land and supporting opportunities for new entrants into farming. That is something I am sure the noble Baroness would want to see, as we all do.

The review is also likely to consider the scope and design of appropriate compensation provisions, drawing on the Law Commission’s specialist expertise in legal reform. This would typically include a detailed consultation and thorough examination of the law, resulting in the most comprehensive and balanced outcome. I suggest that the compensation provisions be considered within this wider review of agricultural tenancy law, not in isolation. As such, we recommend that the amendment be rejected pending the Law Commission’s 14th programme review into agricultural tenancies, which will commence when resources allow. Further steps and timings will be announced in due course.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

These reviews take years and years, but this is a clear and present danger now. Therefore, before the Minister sits down, will she agree to meet with me and the Tenant Farmers Association to discuss what can be done in this Bill to protect tenant farmers immediately, rather than waiting for a review that could take years and years? Otherwise, I reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I genuinely do not believe that this Bill is the place to deal with this, but I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hayman would be prepared to meet as well. Within Defra, there may be more scope for dealing with some of the issues the noble Baroness raised, so I am very happy to have that meeting. It may also be worth the noble Baroness speaking to the Law Commission about the urgency of this, because the commission will be dealing with it. Stressing the importance and urgency of this with the commission will be helpful. Meanwhile, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 253B seeks to allow tenants whose homes are subject to compulsory purchase to claim compensation for disturbance to their business where it is carried out from home. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, we do not believe it is necessary. As part of their entitlement to compensation, occupiers, including tenants, can already claim disturbance payments where they lose possession as a consequence of compulsory acquisition. These payments cover losses caused by losing possession of the land as a consequence of the compulsory purchase order, as well as other losses not directly based on the value of the land, which could include any associated with running a business from home. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her response. As I said, I am disappointed. This is absolutely the right place to address these issues around tenant farmers. I have given very clear examples of why these amendments sit firmly in government policy and are desperately required. I look forward to the meeting with the Minister and, as I said, I reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 253 withdrawn.

Amendments 253A and 253B not moved.

Clause 111: Extent

Amendments 254 and 255

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

254: Clause 111, page 157, line 13, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems” to extend to England and Wales and Scotland. However, it would have no application in Wales as there are no relevant seismic array systems situated there.

255: Clause 111, page 157, line 15, leave out paragraph (e)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a stray reference to provisions that were left out in Committee.

Amendments 254 and 255 agreed.

Clause 112: Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments 256 to 262

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

256: Clause 112, page 157, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) sections 1 and 2 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;(aa) section (Projects relating to water) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;(ab) sections 3 to 8 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Projects relating to water” would come into force on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.

257: Clause 112, page 158, line 20, at end insert—
“(na) section (Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems” to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

258: Clause 112, page 158, line 37, leave out paragraph (u) and insert—
“(u) sections 39 and 40 come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(ua) section 41 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;(ub) sections 42 and 43 come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my proposed replacement for Clause 41 to come into force by regulations.

259: Clause 112, page 159, line 25, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in England) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in England” would come into force on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.

260: Clause 112, page 159, line 25, at end insert—
“(ca) in section (Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets)—(i) subsection (1) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(ii) subsection (2) comes into force at the same time as section 102(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets” to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

261: Clause 112, page 159, line 25, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge” would come into force two months after Royal Assent.

262: Clause 112, page 159, line 25, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities” would come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.

Amendments 256 to 262 agreed.

Amendments 263 and 264 not moved.

Amendment 265

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

265: Clause 112, page 159, line 33, at end insert “, except that paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 6 comes into force at the same time as section 106 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a technical amendment linked to my amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 6. It means that a reference to street vote development orders is only inserted into the Habitats Regulations when the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act introducing SVDOs themselves come into force.

Amendment 265 agreed.

House adjourned at 12.08 am.