Lords Chamber

Tuesday 9th September 2025

(began 3 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-
-
Keyword in my noble friend's question was the word holistic. That is that the victims only have to tell their story once within the Lighthouse model which I visited like many other noble Lords. What can my noble friend say about extending that holistic approach into the criminal justice system so that those victims don't have to keep repeating their story as the cases proceed within the court system? Tackle I first of all take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend for her service in my noble friend for her service in the Ministry of Justice, both in opposition and in government and his opposition and in government and his service to both government and to my party and his party.

And also could I thank him for being an office body for the past 13 months as well. We for the past 13 months as well. We have had four of us in a small have had four of us in a small office. He makes an extremely important point and the key point is that we do not ensure that, we do ensure that the victims of ensure that the victims of transsexual abuse are not retraumatised -- child sexual abuse. retraumatised -- child sexual abuse. By having to relive the experience.

That essential to ensuring we have That essential to ensuring we have better support for victims of sexual abuse and I will certainly examine abuse and I will certainly examine the points he has made and discussed with him further and I wish him well with him further and I wish him well holding the government to account. holding the government to account.
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Role of Bureau Veritas as cladding examiner and lift inspector at Grenfell Tower
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rooker. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Use of UK-listed investment companies by pension funds investing in less liquid assets such as private equity, infrastructure and alternative energy
-

Second Oral Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The government recognises the
15:01
15:01
15:02
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for her question and can I take this opportunity as I always do to pay tribute to her expertise and the consistency of her campaigning in this area. I do fully understand the points the noble Lady is raising energy recognise the important role investment companies play in providing access to private markets. The noble Lady talked about the mansion house court recently and hope she will agree the industry is moving in the right direction in terms of diversifying the investments.

The mansion house accord in that 17 of the largest workplace pension providers voluntarily committed to invest at least 10% of the Defined Contribution in private markets by 2030 with at least half of that invest in UK private essence. I do understand the concern about the scope of the proposed reserve power in the bill she mentioned. The approach we have taken quite deliberately is to ensure the powers are suitably targeted and contain guardrails, so they are not intended to be open-ended but should be capable of serving as a backstop to the commitments the pension providers themselves have made to the mansion house accord will be used only if we can consider the industry has not made sufficient progress on its own.

Nonetheless I'm grateful to her for her constructive engagement on this issue and happy to continue to discuss it with her, as we take the bill through Parliament her representations and those of the wider sector will be considered alongside our broader policy objectives, our aim remains to ensure the reserve powers effective, proportionate and delivers for pension savers and the UK economy. UK economy.
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Current state of negotiations for ending the war in Ukraine
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fourth Oral Question. Tag I beg leave to ask the question standing
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Firstly could I apologise to the noble and gallant Lord, I didn't intentionally try to cross over the seriousness of the situation we face. I was just trying to point out the necessity for us to continue the actions we are taking in order to try to achieve a successful outcome. As part of that, of course our involvement with the Americans is extremely important. As I've said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions before, we try very hard to work, sometimes we know there are issues and points made by President Kabore on his behalf, but we try extremely hard to be positive, build a relationship with him because the involvement of the US in Europe and beyond is essential to the peace and security of our nation and our alliances.

That is what we will continue to do, and I know the noble Lord will appreciate that as well. On the issue of spending and the European pillar, he will know that for many decades we simply did not, all of us as a European collection of nations, did not spend enough on defence. We are now starting to see increases right across Europe, including in our own country, those increases in spending which will allow us to deal with some of the challenges that we will face.

As for our own nation, I know the noble Lord wants us to go further and faster, he will note the commitment has been made to 2.6% by 27. The increase to 3% in the next Parliament should circumstances allow. And we will publish the strategy yesterday, the aspiration of 2035 for defence and security to reach 5%. So there is a trajectory, not as fast and as much as the noble Lord would want, but I think across Europe we are seeing an increase in defence spending which we all welcome.
15:23
None Portrait Business of the House
-

Now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee. Kingham Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council housing and regeneration functions regulations 2025. Baroness Taylor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the order paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the two motions in the name of Baroness motions in the name of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2020 3B offers Ann Prudential measures consequential amendment regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequential amendment regulations 2025, Lord Wilson. With leave of the house I bake to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With leave of the house I bake to move the motion standing in the name

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Any members who wish to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House House to House to be House to be again House to be again in House to be again in committee House to be again in committee on the Planning and Infrastructure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. I beg to move the house do again resolve itself into a committee on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill. The question is that the house do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house do now again resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The of the contrary, "Not content". The After clause 1, I apologise, after clause 51 amendment 115, Baroness
15:27
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – committee stage (day 5) - part one
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hodgson. I rise to speak to amendments
15:27
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 115, 116 and 117 in my name. All 115, 116 and 117 in my name. All these amendments address additions which, if included when a house is built, will help a home be futureproofed, cheaper to run, and also address the challenges of climate change. Amendment 115 inserts a new clause after clause 51 to ensure rainwater harvesting systems are a compulsory part of new developments and events a local authority from granting planning permission unless these are included in the design.

Unlike many other countries around the world, the UK has very little regulation around the collection and use of rainwater. This year we saw a wetter spring, increasing storms and flooding, followed once again by a hotter drier summer, drought and hose pipe bans. Taking water from the mains supply has a financial cost and an environmental one as well. Rainwater harvesting cuts reliance on mains water, relieving pressure on available supplies from water companies and increasing resilience. The World Bank reports rainwater harvesting could also reduce the carbon footprint associated with water treatment and distribution.

Harvested rainwater can be used to water the garden, flush the loo, use in a washing machine. It is often soft water, reducing the need for softeners in hard water areas. Subject as to how it is managed and how large the systems are, there is also a potential reduction in localised flood risk. Obviously the financial and environmental safety is will be higher for commercial and industrial buildings, funds and schools, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the environment and financial long-term benefit to individual households or community and cooperative models.

In fact, stats from the US show households in the US could reduce by using harvesting. The UN said that with urban populations expected to reach 68% by 2050 it is clear that with climate change pressure as well as rainwater harvesting will play a critical role in sustainable urban water management here as well as abroad. The government's revised draft regional water management plans updated last December highlighted that by 2025 in England we are looking at a shortfall of nearly 5 billion ill of water per day, between sustainable water supplies available and the expected demand.

Legislation under the last government set a target to reduce the use of public water supply in England per head by 20%, surely this is one small change that could also help meet those targets as well as the overall financial and environmental benefits. In addition, technology developments in recent years have made the systems more efficient and user-friendly. Amendment 116 inserts a new clause after clause 51 to require local planning authorities to only grant planning where developments of five or more houses include a communal ground source heat pump.

I know that this isn't a perfect clause, but my thinking is that there is also an opportunity to make our housing stock more sustainable and resilient. After all, the Environment Agency reported that last September it has an ambitious target to increase the number of heat pumps installed from 55,000 per year to 600,000 per year by 2028. Indeed, the same report stated much of this demand for ground source heat pumps would be for new build Welling's, a proportion could be met by networks of individual domestic heat pumps on shared ground heat exchange loops.

I therefore propose via this amendment that in developments of five or more properties where new infrastructure is often part and parcel of the plan, developers should install communal ground source heat pumps under the new roads, driveways and shared spaces between the houses in the development. The tarmac only serving to increase and insulates Individual heat pumps can be expensive to install and houses may not have sufficient garden space. This seems like a logical step that helps diversify their energy supply.

Amendment 117 also inserts a new clause after clause 51 to prevent running authorities from granting planning permission unless it incorporates roof mounted solar incorporates roof mounted solar panels on each dwelling. We touched on this last week in regard to Amendment 89 and the importance of putting solar on rooftops and not on agricultural land. It makes eminent sense that we ensure that all newbuilds incorporate solar technology. The only makes sense with regard to climate change but government research suggests average households can make savings of £500 on the energy bills from solar panels, they can help protect households from changes in energy prices because they will not completely rely on the grid or foreign suppliers for electricity, providing some independence and buffer against fuel poverty.

Whilst helping our national and security in the wider context. The Energy Saving Trust highlights that urban areas have the lowest density of domestic solar panels with London ranking in the bottom with five council areas having the fewest solar panels in the UK. The EST argue that local authorities regulate the installation of solar panels differently. And that these regulations can sometimes be a barrier to domestic installations, so this clause would override any of these obstructions. Putting solar panels when a house is built ensures rollout as some may argue solar panels are too expensive to install later.

This amendment also builds on the consultation that was started by the Conservative government into the future homes standard and indeed I note there has been a PMP on this issue in the other place. I was heartened to hear the noble Lady the minister's response to Amendment 89 last week that deploying rooftop solar remains a key parity for the government and that they will be publishing the future homes standard this autumn and that the new standard will ensure solar panels are installed on the vast majority of new build homes once it comes into force.

But why wait for this to be done? Why not now include this in the bill? Climate change is not going to go away. Any new housing that is going to be built should be good quality, well-designed, aesthetically pleasing and with relevance to these three amendments, they need to be future proofed to ensure resilience going forward. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause
15:34
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 51, insert the new clause aspirin the marshalled list. -- As printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. I support all three amendments but for brevity I will only dress my but for brevity I will only dress my marks to 1. With regard to have fun and, the private builders was push the House by Alex Wilkinson. -- Private members bill. As she rightly said that as ecological issue with us that there is insufficient water because of the changes in our weather patterns from climate change. If the government isn't prepared to listen to those reasons surely from an economic point of view this amendment makes sense.

Firstly because we are already facing housing develop not being built because there are water shortages. Secondly if the government wants to get the large number of new data centres introduced, it is going to need a heck of a lot more water. It has been estimated that the large data centres use the equivalent of 50,000 homes worth of water a day. Unless we use every single means at our disposal to utilise water properly, we are not going to be able to build the homes we want and we will not be able to build the data centres we want also so we need to look at measures like this, right now.

Some Labour members might be saying, the public won't like the idea of using rainwater harvesting, but there has been a survey by Public first, 4,000 residents in the UK which asked them that question. And there was overwhelming support for the use of rainwater harvesting, both outside and people's gardens and inside in their homes, as the noble Baroness has had in places like Flushing the blue or in a washing machine. -- Flushing the toilet. It is not just us who are making the case for rainwater harvesting.

An independent view recently, a specific recommendation was made about the need for rainwater harvesting to be addressed urgently. And so when there was a repeat of the statement in this House on 23rd July, I asked the Minister Baroness Hayman of Ullock whether the government would not wait for the water bill to pickup this recommendation but look at opportunities like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to bring forward changes to Building Regulations so that rainwater harvesting could be mandated to a new home.

The Minister, somewhat surprisingly, thought this was a good idea. I don't often get quite such positive responses from the front bench opposite. And promised to take the matter forward and discuss it with the Minister for water. So I hope in the noble Baroness comes to her feet and response to these amendments she can show the House those discussions have taken place, that the government is taking the issue of rainwater harvesting seriously and that building regulations will be mandated and changed.
15:37
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It's a great pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a great pleasure to follow lady ladies and to offer support to 115 to which I attach my name and the general intention of both 116 the general intention of both 116 and 117 in. In the interest of time I will restrict myself to 115. I I will restrict myself to 115. I don't often take the Lordship's House back to my straining origins but when this amendment came up I but when this amendment came up I have to do.

-- My Australian origins. Going back to place in north-west New South Wales, if noble Lords would see, and there's a photo of me sitting on horse somewhere on of me sitting on horse somewhere on the Internet, in a field, paddock, we would say, that is dead flat, we would say, that is dead flat, dead dry, not a blade of grass on dead dry, not a blade of grass on it. I remember as a science student, the farmer was explained to me how to live here and he took out the back to the water tank.

And this is back to the water tank. And this is a very large tank. That court water a very large tank. That court water of the farmhouse roof. And there was no town water in Australian farming. That entire operation, the entire That entire operation, the entire household, depended on the water they caught off the roof. I remember the farmer wrapping on the side of the tin tank and saying, that is where water is. And we are in trouble. Now you might think, that's Australia, that's far away, just place.

Well it has an annual average rainfall of 684 mm a year. There are parts of the south-east of England that have annual rainfall of 700 mm per year. Essentially the same amount of rainfall. And of course there is also the impact of the climate emergency and the fact that we are seeing more weather extremes, more drying out. And I will say that there is really something for Britain to learn from the Australian practices that are being enforced over history that really can be imported here in a win-win benefit kind of way, no one loses from the proposal of amendment 115.

I think as has been mentioned we use in the UK about 150 ill day of water per capita, that compares to France which is 128, Germany 122 and Spain 120. This is water that is expensively treated drinking water that we are using four kinds of practice we do not need to use drinking waterfall. I will quote the Chief Executive of the Rivers Trust. We need to finally implement the use of rainwater where we can, such as car washing, gardening, washing pets, filling paddling pools and flushing other countries have used this approach for decades and we need to join in.

I stress that element because of course, and I don't think we have mentioned the issue of flooding, and many of us have learnt, many of us have been speaking about the need for land management to slow the flow. What could be a better way to slow the flow than to catch that water so it's not prodding out into our drains, flooding out into our water treatment plants, our rivers and the seas? Catch it and have it available to use. Often we talk about water use, there's a lot of finger waving that goes on.

People should switch the tap off when they wash their teeth. People should have shorter showers. But what we really need is a system change that makes doing the right thing to do the easiest, cheapest and simplest. The natural thing to do. And that's exacting what this proposal is putting forward. This is just a win-win round. For householders, cutting their bills, or preventing flooding, protecting the environment, and of course. Energy. I had to look this up and we don't think about this much but moving water around and treating water uses a great deal of energy stop I looked at the stats.

We don't seem to have good stats in the UK but globally, the United Nations says that 8% of energy use goods towards treating and moving water around the world. Such a waste when have the water falling on your roof that you can use right there. To have pumped it out to reservoir, prompted back in, all of that energy use as well as everything else. This is just really a simple commonsense

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not? Many good things come from Australia, and of course she is one
15:42
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Australia, and of course she is one of them. The tapping on the tank she describes is exactly what I have been doing in Leicestershire in recent weeks. I do have some experience of water harvesting, both of domestic roads and commercial buildings and it's not difficult because roofs are designed to channel water in the pipes. It is simply a matter of intercepting that water and using it. I do have a couple of practical concerns the first is that anybody who has done this will know that even a modest rain shower will give you an awful lot of water.

And as a result, any housing development or business premises going to find itself with a very large need for water storage somewhere on that site. Either underground or above it. But is my first concern. My second concern is how that water is recycled. I'm not squeamish about drinking or anything else, no main sport. Have raised a family on water drawn from an underground stream, but offer mains. But water left standing in a tank will grow bad and it'll grow algae very quickly.

If that is not the solution, we need to find out how to treat it. Furthermore, this is a real issue, the water companies and Ofwat will not even contemplate the danger of mingling water collected danger of mingling water collected by third-party with mains water. In the header tank, in pipes, anywhere. Because they are liable for the quality of that water. So if you include with rainwater, they will not allow you to draw mains water. The golden thread here is to find a system whereby rainwater is the norm and the mains's backup.

But we are a long way from that at the moment. Until the regulatory and practical storage issues are solved, I thoroughly support this amendment, to be clear, spirit of it, but the practicalities of it need to be worked out effectively into the design of water systems supplying domestic and commercial premises.
15:44
15:46
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
nine water butts all collecting rainwater when it rains. But I would say further to what Lord Cromwell said, there are some issues. For instance, what falls on roofs is not necessarily arriving in a clean uniform. And particularly in some urban areas and others it may be contaminated by things like bird droppings, and that can be quite a serious issue. Lord Cromwell rightly refers to this problem with having refers to this problem with having dual plumbing systems in houses.

There is a serious issue to do with potential cross contamination and who is responsible. But I think in terms of the generality that has being put forward is right in that being put forward is right in that we need to conserve this, and so we aren't using expensively treated water from the mains supply. It is daft to be using that for washing the car or watering the roses. The roses don't care how much bacteriological contamination there is in it, they love it.

From that point of view, the more the merrier. A vehicle doesn't mind what you wash it with either, most of the time. There is this question of infrastructure. My late sister, who died earlier this year. I learned a great deal from her then I didn't learn from being a chartered surveyor, she was a very senior hydrologist. Her point about rainwater harvesting is that you have to be careful about the infiltration that is necessarily and naturally occurring. When rain falls and a hard surface it runs off to a drain, it then disappears, or does it go into the soil and replenish an aquifer? If it's all being put into the loo and going off down as firewater then you lose that infiltration process.

The more we build and the more hard surfaces we have, the more we have to be concerned about infiltration. In our previous committee day noble Baronesses raised the point about flooding. And of course, infiltration is part and parcel of that. If you have all the run-off ultimately going to the same point somewhere down the modern piping system which conveys water very quickly, you will end up with trouble. If you can contain that water in some way, by storage and infiltration, then you stand a better chance little by little of dealing with some of those problems.

But it is a fine balance as to what is happening, and certainly requires a lot of investigation. Now, onto the other amendments that attracted my attention, namely the ground source heat pump installation. I absolutely take the point made by Baroness Hodgson, the only thing I would say is that if a heat pump shall we say requires 3/5 of what you might call the energy demand in order to provide heating, that means that 3/5 of what that the alternative would be, oil or gas, is put onto the grid.

The chief problem with the grid is that it doesn't have the distribution capacity, and not sure -- I'm not sure it has the generation capacity in total, other noble Lords are more knowledgeable on that than I am. This raises a particular problem with housing development. And I will call -- recall not so long ago going to visit a small housing development in North Dorset. The developer there had had to provide the energy for had had to provide the energy for cooking and heating via an LPG bulk storage tank, which noble Lords will know is a very expensive way of funding your energy.

That was done because the tank was provided free of charge, provided the gas was purchased from the particular supplier. The reason for that was because there wasn't sufficient capacity in the local grid to power these things from an electrical standpoint. So that ties in to some extent with the point the noble Baroness raised to do with the question of solar power. And yes, I agree that ought to be part and parcel of it. Maybe there's a link to be made between the solar power and the efficiency thereof and the ground source heat pump.

I know nothing about the wattage that is needed for a ground source heat pump, but I say there is this trade-off and balance between that 60 percent of what would otherwise be the carbon load being transferred onto either the grid or a solar onto either the grid or a solar panel system. I know there are now things in places like Austria, they refer to them as balcony panels or balcony sheets. These are flexible sheets of material, which is entirely composed of solar PV materials.

And people put them up and they can power small appliances. There are other people who tell me that solar panels in certain configurations have become so cheap they can now be used as fencing panels, because it's a cheaper way of doing it. I don't know what the rate of deterioration and attrition is these panels, that's obviously a fairly important consideration because they contain things that aren't really recyclable, and there is the problem of end of life disposal. But I think there is something that perhaps the noble Baroness could encourage the Minister to be thinking about and working on, getting this balance right so that at least we cut some of the consumption.

Maybe not the whole of it, but some of this consumption of these expensive to produce and increasingly scarce resources. For that I very much support this group of amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would just ask the noble Lord and Lord Cromwell perhaps rhetorically, Lord Cromwell perhaps rhetorically, whether they are aware of the one million systems project in Brazil. Which aimed to do what it said on the tin, and indeed has done so, and the tin, and indeed has done so, and has expanded subsequently. This is in the semiarid area of Israel home to 18 million people. Brazil of to 18 million people. Brazil of course has a lot less infrastructure, it's a lot more infrastructure, it's a lot more economically poor than the UK, yet they have been able to deliver a they have been able to deliver a program that is award-winning, it won United Nations awards and has had all sorts of impacts.

I hope noble Lords would acknowledge other noble Lords would acknowledge other countries have achieved this, maybe it's not an unreasonable expectation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's not an unreasonable expectation for us to achieve it too. There's a lot we could learn from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's a lot we could learn from Brazil as well as Australia. I am in favour of the amendment, I would just add I didn't realise water just add I didn't realise water butts were a declarer will interest. And if they are, I had better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declare that I have some. The gathering of rainwater is the greatest example we can learn from, from Bermuda. They have limestone roofs which are steeped, and the roofs which are steeped, and the roofs which are steeped, and the water comes onto those rooms, and because it's limestone the possibility of purifying that water possibility of purifying that water is high. And the sunlight also works as a purifying element, event goes through the tunnels into systems. through the tunnels into systems.

Under each house. That's how they get their water. Absolutely clean, get their water. Absolutely clean, absolutely pure. So if you want to capture more water so it can be used capture more water so it can be used for drinking it's not by mixing what you used that come out of the taps, but it is doing like the miracle of Bermuda. No rivers or nothing, the Bermuda. No rivers or nothing, the only thing they have is rain. When it comes everybody is very glad, and it comes everybody is very glad, and all their tanks are filled with beautiful water.

So if you want to capture more rainwater, why not capture more rainwater, why not learn from Bermuda? learn from Bermuda? I just wanted to respond to Baroness Bennett's comments, she invited me to acknowledge other jurisdictions do this better. And I agree. They do do it better, they don't always have the same regulatory baggage we have seemed to managed to have in this country. Perhaps there is something that can be unpicked and dissolved.
15:56
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I would like to begin by thanking the noble Lord Carlisle. Although he sat opposite on the opposition benches he always approached his ministerial duties in your Lordship's House with courtesy, with commitment and with friendship. He was diligent, engaged and unfailingly respectful in his dealings with me and my team. And while we did not always agree, I greatly valued the constructive spirit he brought to our debates.

I wish him well in whatever comes ahead, I will miss working with him. I thank Baroness Hodgson for tabling these probing amendments, which raise important issues about the way we prepare our housing stock for the feature. Amendment 115 on rainwater harvesting and amendments 116 on communal ground was forced heat pumps and 117 on solar panels speak to the wider challenge of how homes can be made more resilient to climate change. It is something we would mostly support, but the question for government is how far the practicality and at what cost such measures should be mandated.

Can the noble Baroness the Minister clarify whether in the government's view and current building regulations already provide the right framework to provide the right technologies such as rainwater capture, ground source heat pumps and solar panels, or whether further regulation is envisaged. Has the Department carried out an assessment of the costs and benefits of making such systems compulsory? Including the potential impact on house prices and affordability. And how these costs might be lowered in the future.

Also, the capacity of local electrical grids to support these, and other potential loads such as the EV charging. There is also the question of consistency. To what extent are local authorities currently able to set higher environmental standards for new developments? Does the government believe this local flexibility is the right approach, or should there be a centralised approach? Finally, how is the government weighing the balance between affordability for first time buyers on the one hand, and the need to reduce the long-term costs to households and infrastructure from failing to invest in resilience on the other? These are the issues I hope the Minister will address, because it is that balance between ambition, practicality and cost which must guide policy in this area.
15:59
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank noble Lords for their contributions today, and Lady Hodgson for moving these amendments. I would also like to echo what Baroness Scott said about Lord Carney, he was a friend and a good Minister. I think we really appreciate the effort he put into this house, and I wish him well for the future. I think we actually had a good debate this afternoon on these issues, I would also like to declare my interest in water butts, since I have two in the garden.

I completely agree with Lord Cromwell when he says they feel rather when he says they feel rather quickly -- Phil. I would just like to move on amendment 115, I'm grateful to the Baroness for highlighting the vital matter of sustainable water usage in new developments. The government acknowledged the critical nature of sustainable water management as recent dry spells demonstrated, with further increases expected. This year it's becoming even more pressing. That's why in December 2024 we revisited the National Planning Policy Framework to require the inclusion of sustainable drainage systems for all new developments that pose drainage These can incorporate rainwater harvesting which helps regulate sites.

Further to this we are a caloric ways in which rainwater can be effectively delivered within you developments, for instance there is potential to enable duo pipe water reuse systems which will allow water companies to manage non-couple water at scale which, while mitigating the risk of contamination from plumbing connections. The support of this examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and constructive sectors to satisfy systems. Additionally we are reviewing the Building Regulations, and Baroness McIntosh mentioned this, with a view to strengthening water efficiency standards thereby reducing demand on the mains water system overall and I know Baroness Parminter mentioned about this, I don't know what that means but I will investigate and get back to her.

Throughout this work we must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements as A1 size or date, may not be suitable in all local contexts. It could instead risk unintended such as increased expenses board developers and homeowners. Turning now to amendment 116 regarding developments with five or more hours of ground source heat pump, the government agrees with the principle of increasing the deployment of low-carb and heating in new developments. However, the amendment would be likely to limit developers and local authorities to utilise only one technology type and communal development, restricting consumer choice and potentially limiting innovation of emerging technologies.

The Building Regulations set the energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for designing and constructing new homes. There currently set in performance terms without prescribing the specific technologies. This means housebuilders have the flexibility they need to innovate and select the most cost-effective solutions. The government will help ensure new housing developments align with net zero objectives through the proposed future homes standard which we intend to publish this autumn. The future homes standard would mean that in general new homes would be built with technology such as heat pumps and heat networks, and with solar panels as default.

I now turn to amendment 17, 117, which seeks to require new housing developments to incorporate roof mounted solar panels. As discussed at committee last week, deploying rooftop solar remains a key priority for the government and it continues to be one of the most popular and easily deployed renewable energy sources. The government recently confirmed that the future homes standard would be published this autumn and will include solar panels which will need to installation on the vast majority of new build homes.

This will save households hundreds of pounds off the energy bills each year and boost the nations energy security with clean homegrown power. This will build or regulations which already encourage solar installation on new homes in the second quarter of this year, 70% of new dwellings built to the latest standards. We agree with the intent of the amendment, it would not be necessary to include in the bill as it would pre-empt the publication of the future homes standard which has been developed following close consultation with industry stakeholders.

The standard will include the necessary exemptions and guidance to achieve a smooth implementation and ensure the majority of new homes are built with solar panels in the years to come to stop for these reasons I kindly ask the noble Baroness to beg to to withdraw these amendments. The noble Lord the Minister for his response and I would like to welcome him to his new role on the frontbench. And in doing so I would also like to pay
16:06
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
tribute to the work of Lord Khan, and echo what my noble friend on the and echo what my noble friend on the frontbench has said about him. I think also, I should declare an think also, I should declare an interest of owning a what about, again I did not realise that was essential at the beginning of these essential at the beginning of these amendments. More 60, can I begin by thanking others who have spoken to thanking others who have spoken to this amendment and especially Baroness Parminter and Baroness Bennett who added their names to Bennett who added their names to amendment 115 and I was delighted to see the cross-party support for the concept of these amendments.

I concept of these amendments. I absolutely note the noble Lord's, absolutely note the noble Lord's, and the Earl of Lytton concerns but I would say that I'm sure where there's a will there's a way. And I remember a couple of years ago, I was in Tunis for a conference and I went around the Old Souk and I went went around the Old Souk and I went to this little house that was set up as a museum and got talking to the owner.

Among other things I said, owner. Among other things I said, what do you do for water? It was Midsummer and hot. And he said, with me, and he took me to the floor and pulled up, a stone with an ability pulled up, a stone with an ability to lift it, and rather like we heard about Bermuda, there underneath was a whole water supply that had been gathered during the rainy season. I note what the noble Lord the Minister says about not prescribing once I and that we must be open to innovation but I suppose I would urge that in all the interests we have talked about, that we use now what we know, and somehow leave the door open to innovation in the future because we need to build homes that are equipped for the future and developers will always have and I to their financial pockets and will resist including future proofing as a tool course expense, but some of them do make huge profits and would urge that there is little room to address these issues within that.

This is a perfect opportunity to include measures in legislation rather than wait for some opportunity in the future and these measures are good for the environment and will hope people who buy these homes with their bills -- will help. I will ponder on what the Minister has said and I will withdraw the amendments this time. Toback is it your lordships' pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 116 stop not moved. 117.

Not moved. Amendment 118 has been debated. Baroness Pinnock, not moved. 119, Baroness Pinnock, not moved. After clause 51, amendment 120.
16:08
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Before I start I am going to miss the noble Lord on the government benches who always managed to respond to any questions I had with a smile. Despite him living in Lancashire, I even forgave him for that. If we wish him well from his benches and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will pass those questions on for our sand we look forward to the noble Lord Wilson also responding -- will pass those questions on.

Amendment 120 in my name seeks to ensure transparency and decision-making in the planning process. The integrity of the process is vital. From my own experience, I know that object is to planning application can readily feel that they don't get their way, because shady deals have been done. Transparency helps to cure any such allegations. They have unfortunately been recent examples of senior national politician becoming far too close to involved, with the developer, and making hasty decisions based on the pressure from the developer in regard to funding and costs.

So the example have in mind is that, and I'm quoting from the BBC report, in 2020 the Housing Secretary at that time Robert Jenrick MP accepted that he approved a £1 billion housing development in the east of London unlawfully. The 1,500 home development on the island dogs was approved on 14th January, the day before the community infrastructure levy charges placed on the developments were increased. The timing of the decision meant Conservative Party donor Richard Desmond avoided paying around £40 million.

And Mr Jenrick eventually accepted his decision was indeed unlawful. After the government's own planning inspector voted against the scheme. The inspector described the 44 story high building is harming the character of the area and despite the clear direction from the planning inspector Mr Jenrick rejected advice and approved cunning permission for the project. Obviously planning permission was later rescinded following the legal challenge made by the local council. And I've quoted largely from the BBC report of that event.

However, it is clear from this example alone that safeguards are needed, so amendment 120 in my name, and that of the noble Baroness Bennett, which will require local planning authorities to maintain and publish a register of planning applications where the applicant has donated to the relevant Secretary of State within the preceding 10 years. This proposal aims to increase transparency regarding potential conflict-of-interest in the planning process. The amendment will mandate local planning authorities to create and publish a public register and the register will list running applications that have been determined by the Secretary of State for Housing and planning or whatever the name is at any point, and the applications included would be those from applicants who have made donations to that Secretary of State in the past 10 years.

That's not much of an ask. But it is yet another safeguard in the planning process because whenever applications reach Secretary of State, it means that they have, are very controversial and have been either called in following referral to the planning inspector. So the planning system absolutely depends on public trust. If they are to believe that the process is A1. And given that, I do look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister, noble Lord the Minister, welcoming greater transparency and very simple process to throw light on some of these more controversial decisions.

I beg to move. Tabak amendment proposed, after clause 51, insert the following clause register of planning applications from political donors and the word is printed on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the marshalled list. It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock and to noble Lady Baroness Pinnock and to commend the noble Lady for introducing what I think is a practical, sensible unnecessary
16:14
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
amendment to the bill. Before I get to that I want to join the chorus and say sincere thanks the noble Lord Khan who we have found to be very approachable, extremely hard- working and certainly going to be very much missed. This amendment which aims to ensure that the planning authority maintaining a register of applications is area where the Secretary of State has been made to terminate in over it, where there has been a political donation associated with it, as the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock said, this might be called the general amendment.

I will leave that there. I won't go back over that -- the general trick amendment. I will make a serious point, the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock spoke about the Kate Safeguarding planning process Kate Safeguarding planning process and I think that is something more important than that, safeguarding or making a step towards restoring trust in the political process and that is something that is far more important and crucial and I don't think there's anyone in this chamber would disagree we have a huge problem with trust in politics.

We have policies that people pay for and that is causing enormous damage. This would be a step towards people feeling like they know what's happening. Might be, and I will remind noble Lord that long ago in Elections Bill I put down an amendment to say no one could donate more than £1000 a year to a political party or campaign. I would suggest we might have a different feel of politics if that had gone through but given it has not and people do donate millions of pounds, hundreds of thousands of pounds to individual politicians or political party at least being able to see that transparency where people are making decisions that are then going to affect the income, wealth of those people to massive potential expense, having that transparency is expense, having that transparency is And if it's not there in the register, or even if it is, there are going to be muttering is these days on social media.

Nothing will be secret. And indeed, lots of things that will not be true will be claimed on social media anyway. This amendment is a protection for the Secretary of State, because if claims are made of what's happening behind-the-scenes, what's being suggested, people with anonymous media accounts making all sorts of claims, if there's a formal register of the truth it would be a real protection for politicians as well. We have huge problems with our political system. This is a small

**** Possible New Speaker ****

step towards tackling some of them. I haven't been in your House for
16:17
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I haven't been in your House for that long, but this is the most that long, but this is the most outrageous possible amendment. It's a baseless smear against somebody, and for the noble Baroness to say it's a safeguard, my Lords this is a stunt. It will do nothing to improve transparency in politics, and the last two speakers talk about trust in politics while suggesting backhands and under the counter deals, that this is planning, there is some sort of corruption at play.

I've been a council leader for 20 years, I can tell you that when I ran my counsel whilst it was easy to have cheaper marks in the local paper about brown paper bags and so forth, not on one occasion was I ever aware either colloquially or in experience the suggestions of bribery or corruption. That's at the heart of this. And you mentioned the former Secretary of State of the other plays, and I do, you suggested money passed hands.

The suggestion was he met a person who subsequently related through his company, quite properly, fully declared to the properly, fully declared to the electoral commission, at a dinner. That's not improper, at politics we need to meet people outside the Westminster bubble to find out where we are. Of course, that aside, the substance of the amendment is a nonsense. Because we already have an organisation, a trusted public body that is outside the organisations you seek to smear. The Electoral Commission.

Every few weeks and certainly every quarter there is a summary provided of any donation by any individual, or any company, that exceeds £500. Not just an individual, but to political party in general. That's where people want to look if they want to find malpractice or malfeasance. But it is not the local hard pressed planning officer, they are not the people to act in judgement on this. This is just a stunt. And I hope that even before noble Minister stands up, the noble Lady will think of withdrawing the amendment without further debate.

Because this is an assault on the political integrity of our country. It should be beneath the noble Baroness and those who speak in favour of it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure this amendment actually hits the target of potential corruption in relation to
16:20
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
potential corruption in relation to planning. For my view is that the central problem is not with central government, but with local government. We are all becoming accustomed to Lord Fuller who is very eloquent at describing his council that he's been involved in as a paragon of perfection over the last 20 or 30 years, and of course I accept what he says about his council down there in Norfolk. But those of us who have been in legal practice over the years, and/or have been members in the other place, and/or in other ways have had to deal with allegations of corruption, are well aware that there is a centuries long history of local government corruption taking place in relation to planning issues above everything else.

I accept, of course, that there are protections, and I accept that most councillors like Lord Fuller would never consider being involved in corruption. But my experience of doing corruption cases, criminal cases, in relation to local government is that the people who commit the corruption, whether councillors or officers, are not the ones who subscribe to the regulations and registers that have been set out. So what I would say to the noble Lady the Minister is that we must continue to be extremely vigilant about corruption in relation to planning.

There is an enormous amount of money involved. And I hope she would be of the view that to call this kind of amendment and appalling stunt is to lose oneself in the backwoods of local government, and not to even be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frequent reader of newspapers. This has gone a different way, hasn't it? I am grateful to the hasn't it? I am grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock for bringing amendment 120 122 the attention of the house. And not attention of the house. And not knowing which way it went, and not totally agreeing with my noble totally agreeing with my noble friend at the back, I do think this raises an important point of principle that does deserve to be principle that does deserve to be considered.

At first glance this is a very specific proposal, but the noble Baroness is right to highlight the broader issue that lies behind the broader issue that lies behind it. Without the political point it. Without the political point scoring. It is the need for transparency, it's the need for integrity, and public trust in the planning system. And I think we all planning system. And I think we all recognise that planning decisions as we have heard are among the most contentious and the most sensitive areas of government, both nationally areas of government, both nationally but also locally.

Undue influence or even the perception of it can do even the perception of it can do real damage to public trust in local communities, but also public trust communities, but also public trust in Ministers and government. The noble Baroness is therefore right to remind us that we must be vigilant about the conflict-of-interest, and that transparency is the best safeguard against suspicion. I think the principal the noble Baroness presses is a sound one, but there is of course the question of whether it is practically deliverable.

Do our local planning authorities that are so often, as we hear everyday, under resourced, do they have the skill and capacity to deliver on this requirement? I don't think they do. requirement? I don't think they do. But we should look at the HM LG take on this situation. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord the hearing the noble Lord the Minister's reply on this one.
16:24
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords and Baronesses for another interesting Baronesses for another interesting debate. On an issue around which we obviously need to continue to be vigilant. I thank Baroness Lady Pinnock for tabling amendment 120, which seeks to introduce a requirement on local planning authorities to keep a register planning applications made by political donors which are decided by Ministers. The right honourable member for Taunton and Wellington brought this clause forward in the other place, and in doing so he referred to a particular planning case which had raised cause for concern.

Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss that case, but I would like to echo the sentiments of the Housing Minister when I say I also share those concerns. However we believe this clause is unnecessary. Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission, and planning application decisions that relate to their area. This includes details around application decisions where the Secretary of State or other planning Ministers who act on his behalf has made the who act on his behalf has made the decision either via a cooperation or an appeal.

This is set out in article 40 of the town and country planning development planning procedures 2015. In addition, the Secretary of State decisions on planning cases are also published on GOV.uk, in order to provide additional transparency. The details on GOV.uk include the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision. When determining applications for planning permission to Secretary of State and other planning Ministers working on his behalf operate within the ministerial code and planning propriety guidance. The guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts before them at the time.

Any conflict-of-interest between the Ministers and their other interests should be avoided. Planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the ministerial code. The ministerial code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity. And gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall under the rules relating to financial interests. Also before any planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance sets out they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict-of- interest, or where there could be a perceived conflict-of-interest.

Planning case unit within the Department uses this information to ensure planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to the perception of impropriety. For example, if the Minister in question declared the applicant of the proposal is a political donor. They would be recused from making the decision. We therefore feel there is sufficient capacity on casework decisions made by the Secretary of State and Ministers working on his behalf, it is not necessary to place an additional regularly burden on therapies.

-- Authorities. I therefore kindly ask her to Begley

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw the amendment. Going back to a previous group, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Going back to a previous group, I think we had late last week, do you think we had late last week, do you think it could be useful that noble Ministers taking planning decisions Ministers taking planning decisions had a little more training, as we suggested?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggested? Actually on this particular issue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually on this particular issue we do take training. So, well, we do take the training and it is deemed take the training and it is deemed at the moment to be necessary. This is all kept under review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is all kept under review. I thank all, nearly all, who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank all, nearly all, who have taken part in this short debate to raise the issue of how important
16:29
16:31
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
With the amendments in this group being supported all around the House, it suggests to me that there is a strong opinion that the bill should not be so silent on green should not be so silent on green spaces. My amendment 1216 to make it mandatory that provision for green space must be included in any application for new housing developments. It does not seek to be prescriptive as to what type of Green's, but it leaves that open to community consultation.

Now, noble Lords will be aware that in the revised National planning framework it recognises green space is important and includes it in its golden rules, where it says, and I quote, that provision of new or improved improvements to existing green space that are accessible to the public, where residential development is involved, the objective should be for new residents to be able to access good quality green space with in a short walk of their home with a few on site provision or access to off-site spaces.

The problem with that is that it's rather vague wording and the green space are only an objective, not a requirement. At worst, that requirement could be fulfilled through off-site provision and we must learn from past developments to ensure that green space provision is integral to the developments and it must be there at the master planning stage. Now, let's look at some of the advantages which I am sure noble Lords are very aware of. The BBC estimates suggests that approximately 28% of people live more than a 15 minute walk from their nearest public park.

And the green space index reports that 6.1 million people have no park or green space within a 10 or 15 minute walk. space within a 10 or 15 minute walk. Well the thing is that a 10 or 15 minute walk with a couple of toddlers or for an elderly person is a round trip of 30 or 40 minutes. Later in the bill we will get into the issue, so I will not discuss that here, except to point out that if local delivery of mitigation is prioritised, high quality to green space will be baked into the plans, so those are all positive things that we need to look at, the boosting of mental health and overall well-being and a long-term study by the University of Exeter found that living in greener areas significantly reduces mental distress and increases life satisfaction and I am sure we can all remember during the COVID lockdown is the disparity and access to green space, particularly for those without gardens, it really those without gardens, it really became starkly clear.

And, actually, it really intensified the public's demand that parks are valued because people suddenly really realised the value of their local park, be it big or small. Then, of course, there is tackling physical inactivity. Proximity to parks and open spaces encourages physical activity, people living within 500 m of green areas are more likely to take at least 30 minutes of daily exercise. And it has been estimated that access to quality green and blue spaces could save £2.1 billion per yer in health costs.

That is before we get onto the environmental benefit. So, a the environmental benefit. So, a green space, trees, grass, involved in carbon sequestration and air quality issues, trees, shrubs and grasslands absorb CO2 acting as carbon sinks, vegetation filters, for example, particular matter, ozone, is really important in those areas, so it improves urban air quality and reduces again the health burdens and green space tend to reduce the local temperature when it is hot in summer through shading and cooler microclimates lessen the reliance on energy intensive air- conditioning cutting emissions for electricity use, green space are a really win-win and everywhere.

And the noble Lords have just been talking about flood risk reduction, water management, and green space with their permeable soils, vegetation, and sustainable and burn drainage absorb rainwater and reduce run-off and during the debate we have just had on water management we did not mention, for example, the city of Philadelphia that had a very similar issue to the one we in London have solved through the Thames tunnel. They solved it by making masses and masses of green space and actually they spent less money and they have got the win-win situation already.

So, that has a lot of advantages, without mentioning the biodiversity and ecosystem services that we can get through those planters. And strategically planting trees to provide trading in summer which I mentioned for wind protection in winter. And it improves the thermal comfort for people in those areas. There is masses of research and dozens of statistics to make the case for accessible quality green space. But I make the case, partly, and I have read a lot of this research and papers, but I make this case because of the sheer joy and relaxation I personally enjoy from a walk in the park, whether it is here in London or at home in Devon and I want to ensure that is our contribution to this bill must I certainly support the other amendments in this group, for example Lord Tennyson and Lord Gascoigne who were so right up green into spatial strategies and I have added my name to some allotments and communities that are particularly specialist Green Spaces Bill I believe, and a great promoter of community cohesion, but I will resist going on about that as I am looking forward to hearing from Baroness Bennett.

The final two amendments in this group seek to give developing corporations a duty to provide green space. Again, an extremely correct ambition. So, the Government must see there is in this bill because nowhere does it place any mandatory duty for the provision of green space and it is not essential, it is not an optional extra, should not be regarded as an optional extra, given the large number of years that have tabled amendments on this issue, I do hope the Minister will bring forward some constructive wording before report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage that fulfils the aspiration all around the House and I begged him. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 51 insert the following new clause provision green space and new
16:39
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
provision green space and new housing developments and the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to my amendment 138, but first, if I may, amendment 138, but first, if I may, just join in from a previous group to Lord Khan who momentarily was with us I would like to just wish with us I would like to just wish him all the best, as the Minister can testify My shadow alongside my can testify My shadow alongside my Noble Friend on the front bench, any Noble Friend on the front bench, any East Lancastrian and I would like to wish him all the best in whatever he goes on to do.

My amendment is in goes on to do. My amendment is in this group which is 138 and what I am seeking to do is to insert green space in allotments and community gardens into the considerations of the Spatial Development Strategy and I would also like to thank the Noble Lord Tennyson for adding his name to it also. Fundamentally, I see this as pretty aquatic proposal and it sets out that these should be sets out that these should be considered in allotments as it is not stipulated a percentage just not stipulated a percentage just that they should be considered and as the noble Baroness said just as the noble Baroness said just moments ago this sits alongside a number of other amendments, all of which are pushing in a general which are pushing in a general movement for more green space and I support all of them, in the name of the noble Baroness Bennett support but also very key to hear from the noble Baroness Willis on her amendment to all six because she broadens it out to include not just the so-called green infrastructure but that infrastructure also, something that is good.

As the noble Baroness Miller did say, all of these together nursing that where possible we should try to put them forward and I unconscious that after all of the group set to go, I will not repeat some of the things I have said previously, nor the words that have been said by far more articulated people than in this group shortly but what I would want to do is haps Echo but the Baroness was saying that hopefully, respectfully, if I may say to the Minister, what you are seeing is a group of people from across this House that are really keen to put more in than is in the Bill as it stands and item sure when the Minister response there will be many words that are arguing right is supportive but not necessary and I sure the words will be that this is great but hopefully what you will see from when we all speak and what is done in the amendments already is that it does not need to be stipulating anything specific.

Even just in this bill they have to that would be and it is something that I do think the council would, because, as I say, it is in the revised NPPF and it is something that I think developers will want to do and also the other think it is not just about nature, as important as that is, I not sing it is not important, this is not just about nature, this is, as the noble Baroness molasses, this is about building communities and develop movement is that actually people will enjoy living in.

My, I hope that we can find some language after this group has discussed and we go into the next stage of the bill, some way of coming together that the movement can support and we can find some language to put in the bill.
16:42
Baroness Willis of Summertown Portrait Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 206 in my name and before I do that I wish to declare my interest as in the register and I thank the Noble Lord and the noble Baronesses for their support in adding their names. I will also speak to amendment 138 and I also wholly support the other amendments in this group, in particular Lord Gascoigne's amendment 138 and Baroness Bennett's amendment 149. All are seeking to put in place ways to legislate greater access to green and blue spaces in our landscapes.

And, with this, multiple co-benefits that bring this to people, climate, and nature. So, my amendments to all six and 138B are similarly tensioned and are a two-pronged approach to future proofing existing commitments into legislation. Added provisions that ensure that access to green space incorporated for both spatial acquirement strategies and develop movement corporations. And to ensure that our planning system contributes more to the delivery of these vital spaces. Without statutory requirements, the reality is that opportunities to include green and blue, things like open water features, ponds and wetlands from the design stage are really often missed and the evidence is quite strong on that.

And these two amendments then would ensure that when developers build new towns that they design access to these spaces from the outset. Now, at second reading, I did make this precise case and we have made a commitment and also in the Government environmental approve movement plan, 2023, it is currently under review, that every citizen should be within 15 minutes walking distance from a green and blue space. That might not be enough, but I do think we need to think about this 15 minutes.

In the response, the Minister indicated that further legislation was not required because this is already part of our planning system through the NPPF. I want to propose to counterpoints on this and would be really grateful if the Minister could set out further clarity about how to further strengthen measures the Government and what strengthening measures the Government needs all that this commitment is being realised. The first is a number have already said, MPA PF is only guidance. And yes not subject to interpretation by decision-makers and changed by current and future Governments.

And time and again we are seeing the loss of urban green space because there is a few, even in some of our current laws, that it is fine to build over green space and move outside the city because it is better for nature outside the city. So, what has been happening as a result of this? The evidence on the impact of this is clear. The environment agency did state of the environment urban environment and environment urban environment and They use land cover mapping to look at urban green space, between 2001 and 2018.

And they saw a decline from 63% of urban green space across the country, in cities, down to 55%. So, you might say, over 17 years, 8% loss is not much. But let's put this into hectares. This is 120,000 ha that has been lost of urban green space, even though, with it in place, and most of this would have been patches of land use for recreation, community allotments, for people to be able to walk their dogs, gain food, and gain significant physical and mental health benefits that we now know are associated with being around green and blue spaces.

And since this time, since 2021, the situation has got worse, not better. Other published evidence indicates the loss of urban green spaces and redevelopment areas in cities, over the past few years, is up by 34%. So the idea that the NPPF is fine, protected green space, is not there, in the evidence-based that we have in front of us. This leads onto my second point. While the NPPF gives guidance of spaces within a short walk of their home, what does this mean in practice for all development? The taskforce advises residents should be able to relax in shared inclusive open green space close to home, but is this a short distance on foot or in a car? Also, I just want to make the point, this 15 minute walking distance is not just plucked from the air.

The whole target is based on very robust scientific evidence. Let me just give you won example from the UK. This is from a paper published in This is from a paper published in 2023, in the top medical journal. The researchers looked at the medical records for the mental health of 2.3 million adults in Wales over a 10 year period. And then they use satellite imagery to locate those individuals and how far they were away from urban green space.

What they found was absolutely fascinating and something we should all take note of. The further you live from green space, such as a park or blue space or community garden, the greater the risk of common mental health disorders. In fact, they got it down, the statistic was very strong, every 360 m further away you are from that green space, the higher the incidences of common mental diseases. Now, what was also really crucially highlighted in this research was that people with a lower socio-economic status benefited the most, in terms of mental well-being, when they had Green Spaces Bill you buy.

So, -- When they had green spaces nearby. So, we know we have great inequality to green spaces in the UK, wealthy people live closer to pleasant, leafy areas. With this bill, with so much of the focus, rightly, on getting those with lower socio- economic status into housing, please can we not, therefore, make this inequality even greater, by denying the close access that urban green and blue space, which we now know and blue space, which we now know from a vast evidence-based, is critical, for mental and physical health.

As we heard before, it is not just a support for health benefits, you also get the stacked ecosystem services. Natural capital. It is important for climate change mitigation, education, and nature recovery. So, we are sorely in need, we sorely need the spatial aspects of access to green space written into legislation so that delivery is issuer, both in the developed new housing developments and new towns, and also, when building on Brown Forsyth's. This is the point of my two amendments and others in this group and I hope the Minister will accept more needs to be done to future proof new developments for people and planet.

people and planet.
16:50
Baroness Fookes Portrait Baroness Fookes (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support most warmly all five of the amendments in this group. I believe that they are very important indeed, approaching it as they do from slightly different points of view, but they all make the same fundamental point. The importance of building in arrangements, so that from the start we look at the importance of green space for people's health, well- being, and for nature. As others before have most eloquently explained all the virtues, I will not rehearse them at this point.

But I do make one little point which may add to this. Through a personal anecdote. Some years ago now, I was very seriously ill. But when I was moved from intensive care finally into a ward, I was lucky enough to be inside a window where I could see the tops of green trees, birds coming to and fro, and underneath, there was a small pool where ducks were cracking. I love ducks, and every time I heard them quack, I smiled.

I am absolutely convinced it was a real help in getting better. And I believe there is strong medical evidence that those in hospital who have access to Green Spaces Bill cover far more. -- Access to green spaces cover far more. I have been in politics a long time, I am somewhat cynical and do not believe in good intentions, unless they are backed by law, to make things happen. So, this is why I am so strongly in support. I do have some worries.

Which have been occasioned by the amendment 121, ably brought forward. Because there, it is saying that new housing developments should have built in a requirement for green spaces. But in practice, what might happen, the government is devoted to building more and more houses, because they are needed. Other Green Spaces Bill, which are so important, with those housing developments, are they going to get equal weight? I believe there could be conflicts in practice, as this policy is developed.

What I do not want to see, is that by excluding the new housing developments, from proper green spaces, we are actually starting to build the slums of the future. I won't live long enough for that, if all the older 80s are thrown out, I shan't be here much longer, but while I am here, I will fight. The other points that arise I think come from the need, really, as I say, to make sure that we have proper regulations.

There is no substitute for that. Even then, of course, implementation is equally important. A law that is on the statute book or a regulation that is in place, that is not implemented, is also in danger of being as though it didn't exist. So, I believe that is another point which is very important to consider. In the past, both the noble Lady and I served on the horticultural sector Select Committee. I would advise ministers, if they have time, to take a look at this, because many of the points we are discussing today were brought forward very strongly and backed by some excellent and expert people.

I have a copy here. You will be relieved to know I will not quote extensively from it. But it does merit consideration because, as I say, it is a backing for everything we are talking about this afternoon. we are talking about this afternoon. But on that point, my Lords, given the time, I will not detain the House further. Safe to say, let's go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for it and make the government change its mind. I am really privileged to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am really privileged to follow the noble Baroness, who I admire greatly from afar, she is absolutely spot-on on this occasion as well. Several noble Lords have read out
16:55
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
the benefits and the value of nature rich green spaces close to where people live, so I won't go through those, but I want to focus particularly on amendment 183, B, and 286, in the name of the noble Baroness Willis, and can I commend her erudite book on green spaces and health, which is an excellent evidence-based exposition of the whole case for Green Spaces Bill. And including mental health improvement. And I commend particularly in the interest of transparency, since she sent me a transparency, since she sent me a free copy.

Apart from all the evidence her work provides on health and mental health benefits, can also give an example from the work of the Woodland Trust which I was privileged enough to share recently, and what they are calling free equity, where they have mapped the prevalence of woods and trees and discovered that in line with other relationships with green open space and deprivation, the poorest communities have the least wooden communities have the least wooden tree cover. And that means that deprived populations are not only deprived in the socio-economic sense, but also in an environmental sense.

So, the Woodland Trust are engaging with local authorities, developers, and others, in those most tree deprived areas, to focus on the creation of green wooded spaces. In order to enhance health, mental health, and well-being, and improve the environment for these deprived communities. The model comes from an American example which covers the whole of the United States and was developed by the Woodland trust, equivalent in the states. Good things do come out of the United States. And Chicago, which was an example, an early example of where this was really promoted with some vengeance.

Showing also expected benefits beyond mental health and well-being there were reduced crime rates, enhance community engagement, and the whole project of creating more Green Spaces created also community leaders of the future, who learned their skills as community leaders in treeplanting schemes and community green space. And strangely enough, went on to champion a community action, on a whole range of issues, so it is about community cohesion, it is about development of leadership, as well as about creating these very, very important green open spaces and I would commend to your noble Lords the Woodland Trust website, tree equity.

I hate the term, it is very clinical, but something that is very important. At the moment, although it was better than it was, the creation of green spaces associated with developments depends wholly on the commitment of local authorities and developers. And some developers and some local authorities are good at doing this. And some of them are not. Guidance and the NPPF only encourage, and as the noble Baroness pointed out, the NPPF is very vague in defining what standards are to be achieved, both in proximity to where people live, and in terms of the quality of green open spaces being achieved and I have seen development proposals, where planning a few trees is the best they can muster.

What we need is a much more fundamental approach, as we already pointed out. Master planning to be in a space in which it happens, but encouragement had requirement built into spatial strategies, and local plans, a responsibility of development cooperation is, by statute, not simply by exhortation, as happens in the NPPF. I know the Minister will tell me, because she told me she was going to say this this morning, that the NPPF is a requirement to lead on legal authorities.

And developers. But the reality is if you look at the terms of the NPPF for this issue, it is an exhortation, rather than anything that can be measured in terms of performance. So, I do hope the noble Lady, the Minister, can tell us whether the government is satisfied with developer and local authority performance on green space delivery. And if she is not satisfied, whether she would seriously consider making these amendments, that it becomes a statutory requirement, put in the face of the bill.
17:00
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join in this rich debate, in which the House is blooming with eloquence. As we focus on the value of green and blue to all of our of green and blue to all of our futures, to our health and well- being, and I want to particularly commend the contribution of the noble Lady, Baroness Willis, in noble Lady, Baroness Willis, in terms of adding blue spaces. It is what I want to focus on, I need to cross-reference amendment 115 that we started with.

We are used to, historically, the 21st century approach was to go there are some water, get away, get rid of it. Like it is a problem. It actually, of course, water is crucial, absolutely critical, to our life and well- being. And we need to treasure it and evaluate, and hold it around us, rather than treated as a waste product, which is far too often the case. I'm also going to add an extra colour. I want to think about valuing brown spaces. Or at least thinking about valuing the soil, which is of course the foundation of the greenery of which we are aiming Italy in the context of a roundtable I was out yesterday with the sustainable soil science of Durham University, chaired by Doctor William Sheldrake.

And we heard that from some academics from Finland doing some absolutely wonderful and innovative research from the National in Finland, looking at the public health impact of healthy soils. Some really interesting research done with preschoolers and ensuring that nurseries had soil and what positive impacts that has on everything from their immune systems to their wasted diabetes. A whole range of really measurable impacts of a healthy natural environment and soils. And it was calculated that healthy soils, people with healthy soils could save the NHS £19 billion a.

Let's have green, blue, and add Brown as well. And when you're talking about this far too often we hear people talking about good soils are vital for biodiversity, no, good And April health world for all of us. With those general comments and offering great support for all these amendments I will specifically focus on amendment 149 that appears in my name and find the Noble Lord Gascoigne, Baroness Miller and Baroness Willis for supporting it and I will note this is actually an amendment that was withdrawn that I have picked up from a Labour MP in The Other Place, Sarah Champion.

It was amendment 91 in the debate on The Other Place. This is the broadest of broad cross party support. Now, it picked up points made by many others that the Governments seeing these green space it would be nice to have if not nearly good enough, this needs to be looked at. That is why pointing to the actual proposals in this amendment, a special development strategy must include policies related to the vision and protection of gardening and allotments. It requires planning authorities to act, not just suggest to them it might be a good idea which is exactly where we are now.

And I note that this is an amendment we have seen from the cultural society, members of the natural community garden and the national allotment society and I should declare my flush .horticultural society. No, just to make the case I am not sure that I need to but I think it is important that allotments and community gardens are vital for health and well-being stuff for food security and the issues, the coming issues of our age, and for environmental sustainability.

And these are community spaces and people where people gather, do outdoor activities and make social connections, where they learn as well as producing food. The fact is there is a huge shortage of allotments in the UK now, nearly 160,000 people are under local authority waiting-list. And 8 million people in the UK have no garden at home. The honourable member for Rotherham in The Other Place referred to the fact that the conversations people have already referred to that she had spoken to the Minister who said in response there is nothing to stop local authorities doing this.

Well, no, but we need to say that this is an essential. And as the honourable member for Rotherham said, is person's space to grow should not be dependent on their postcode or the whims of their local council. The loss of allotment land over the last 75 years, 60% of allotment land has 75 years, 60% of allotment land has been lost over the last 75 years and there have been and I note in Sir Chris we decided in 2024 making access to green space more equitable would go a long way towards removing barriers to improving physical activity and could significantly improve the increasing urban population.

They want to make sure that these issues are tackled. Just one final thought and the honourable member described these as small but mighty green spaces which I think is a lovely freeze. But we are thinking about land use strategy and the Government is thinking of the land use strategy and one of the things were very aware of is we do not have enough land, they have multiple uses and allotments and community gardens with all the different ways that they contribute to society are pretty well the definition of multiple uses benefiting society, community, and nature.

And I will finish with a final suggestion that the report stage we should not be competing against each other when we think about this I think we should be thinking about an amendment that can incorporate all of the elements in this group and bring them together and if the Government has not already seen the light, let's make sure that the House sends a very strong message to incorporate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all of these elements. I will be very brief as nearly
17:07
17:08
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I want to just add I think three key points from a health perspective and one that I think may have been covered. So, the first point is that we are going to image transition in thinking about health and on the way to create health and prevent diseases. And people may well be very well aware that the links between nature and health and activity have been known for jazz. And indeed go back to the Greeks. The key difference today I think is the quality of the evidence that we have about that impact and it is due to the researchers including my Noble Friend Baroness Willis that we now understand the physiological evidence about the impact, how being in nature actually affects the body and the biological mechanism behind this.

And as the Noble Lady has shown herself and I quoted earlier this element that green space in urban areas is even more important than it is in rural areas. So, that is the first really significant point I think, is it the quality of evidence is now there. And the second point is that the health system is starting to act on that quality of evidence. If I say that the evidence for this is now as good as for many and based on that same sort of considerations and publish in the same sort of journals, then there is no reason why we should not be thinking about how as many people are we go beyond the bills.

And, in a way, maybe I need just to have stated a very simple point, that last year alone, it million people were prescribed antidepressant. That is an astonishing number. And that is one of the areas where one might well think that being in nature and the activities involved would have an impact. The third area I want to point to is actually just Government policy. And it is very clear that the new Labour plan, sorry, the new NHS plan, sorry, rather, with its transition to the community prevention are described that it leads to create the sort of healthy environments this amendment and others in this group envisage.

I should have said at the beginning that I actually have my name on the Noble Lady Baroness Willis is amendment to all six and there are some strong health considerations here that are different from those that have been around before, there is policy, there is evidence, and there is action starting to happen within our health systems and it seems to me that if this Government has the ambition about leaving the country in a better place than they found it simply numbers of housing units, then it needs to catch this tight and ensure that there is an implementation and that we are creating healthy homes, but let me add just one final point which there has been recognition about the allotments, the importance of allotments, and it is not just there, the being part of nature, physical activity and also engaged on social networks and the activities around that and at the heart of it the sort of measures in these amendments.
17:12
Lord O'Donnell Portrait Lord O'Donnell (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords I would like to follow my Noble Lord, former colleague, as someone that has championed the well-being should be the goal of Government and also as a former secretary to the Treasury I think I take a slightly different slant on all of these things and also the green space having a huge impact on mental health is huge, far what has been said here. And by our Noble Lord with the final pages 2372239, a good analysis of these, economic evidence that looks at the difference between house prices or you have got Green Spaces Bill you do not and looks let what we call the hedonic price indices and the interesting part of that is the price differences underestimate the impact of green space on the well- being.

It is even bigger than those economic numbers would give you, so I am a massive fan of taking account of the well-being effects of planning what we do. Now, the permanent secretary of the Treasury says yes but let's not. Let's be very careful about unintended consequences here. If by what you do you end up with lovely inner-city Green Spaces Bill allotments and all the rest of it that no one can afford and all the poor end up in places where only dear can afford it and they end up with more community time which is extremely bad for their well-being and for their mental health.

Then you will have problems. I think there is a solution to this which I hope the Minister will take on board which is the Treasury has a wonderful thing called the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being which could actually analyse all those things and I am prepared to bet we would give you a big net benefit from doing more on Green Spaces Bill however I do not know without that analysis the unintended consequences on housing supply, where it is, the distributional impact, who knows.

All I would suggest is please get the Treasury guys to do some work on this using the latest estimates I think it would strongly backup your case.
17:14
Baroness Sheehan Portrait Baroness Sheehan (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
To start, I apologise to your Lordships house for not being able to take part in the second reading of this bill. And I just played other Parliamentary responsibilities. I find myself in the position of where everything that needs it has already been set, not yet by everyone, so I will take that little proviso, and carry on anyway. So, I rise today to strongly support amendment to all six in the name of the Noble Lady Baroness name of the Noble Lady Baroness Willis.

And that I value adding my name and support, very strongly actually, to all the other amendments in this group for the reasons that have already, so eloquently, been outlined by others in your Lordships house. Amendment 206 is a little different in that it would require every development corporation to prioritise green and blue spaces for all communities and we have heard the benefits of Green Spaces Bill we have heard not so much about blue spaces, but there are many. But the difference that it makes to all communities has been highlighted very strongly by several noble Lords with strong evidence to back up that claim.

Now, these spaces are parks, woodland, riverside, lakes. But essential infrastructure for biodiversity and climate resilience. With proven benefits for public health, air quality, and, really importantly, community cohesion. All leading to healthier, happier lives, especially for those living in the poorest I just want to emphasise the importance of blue spaces, such as ponds and lakes, and large, such as rivers and wetlands. They reduce flood risk, call urban environments, support climate resilience, and nature recovery.

Even as we deliver much needed homes and infrastructure. Experience has shown infrastructure. Experience has shown very clearly that, without stringent obligations, new developments risk perpetuating an urban legacy, where green and blue spaces are seen as afterthoughts. However, embedding access into the remit of every development corporation at an early stage would guarantee that our investments in new towns, neighbourhoods and infrastructure leaves a legacy, well-connected open spaces for people and wildlife. So, in conclusion, my Lords, may I reiterate my support for the other amendments in this group.

All of which had the same sentiments at heart, but single out 138 138B, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Willis, which is complementary to amendment 206, it is intended to achieve the same thing. But this time, for strategic development plans. Whereas 206 refers only to development corporations. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, has taken on board the strength and the feeling across the chamber on this set of amendments and will respond accordingly.
17:17
17:19
17:20
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely right. Starting with perhaps good intentions, but starting with firm foundations is absolutely critical, to make sure we have nature at the heart of every community, as we develop the 1.5 million new homes that the government is set to do or intends to do, before the end of the Parliament. My Lords, I particularly commend the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. And there has been a reference, rightly, to blue space.

I came up in with the concept in the improvement plan. It is about rivers and about sustainable drainage, and how the ponds in new estates can be truly made into environmental oasis. One of the biggest inspirations was when I went to visit the Canal and River trust, and we were discussing their activities in Birmingham. And as we know, there are more canals in Birmingham than there are in the entirety of Venice and yet, the interaction between residents there and there canals is minimum for the people will be living in high blocks without exposure to nature.

There, there was an opportunity to think about how you develop what you have, as well as it being almost a complete desert, actually, of parks in certain cities, like Birmingham, being not the best example, there are plenty of other cities who have designed parks in over the years. So I think it is vital, instead of just relying on NPPF which can be changed at the stroke of a pen, by a minister, from one reshuffle to the next, to actually be able to make sure that this is set firmly in legislative considerations.

In the development, the second part of the noble Baroness Miller's amendment is part two, that is an actually get maintained. There is nothing worse than seeing, you see it already with a number of things that aren't properly looked after, not water, and so we end up with stuff just dying. And that is not inspiring for anybody. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, referred to social describing. I was intending to speak about later in groups, but it is right, and as has already been pointed out eloquently, the science is there, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis has set this out comprehensively.

I first met the noble Baroness when she was director of science FQ garden. So, we have the -- At Kew Gardens, so we had our back-and-forth. There are a few things that are worth considering. The noble Baroness, Baroness Fookes, is right to talk about regulation, but I'm worried we end up overregulated and almost missing the point, literally, not seeing the wood for the trees. So I intend to speak more on that in group 6 and also the noble Baroness, Lady Young, she branched out into considering trees.

It would be very helpful to have that paper from the Woodland Trust shared. One of the things about setting routes, that is what communities are about, and of course, we do not want them literally of routing homes, that is an important factor, when councillors are considering, and I would commend the long-standing policy of Liverpool City Council who plans lots of trees but in a particular plant underground and when they are mature, they literally lift them up the ground, take them off to a park and replant there, so they are not damaging the infrastructure that has been designed, in order to make the rest of it facilitated.

It is also vital that we get reason not blocking light and interfering with other aspects of telecommunications and the like. So, in terms of the government, it is really important that having heard this in both houses, that they do proactively consider how this comes back at report stage. Because I know if it doesn't go through this time, we will come back again when we get to the next local government bill about community empowerment, and we know from all the protests rightly, communities value this sort of infrastructure.

They want it to be developed. It is the one thing most communities do agree on in terms of developments, that is why it is important we get amendments appropriately tabled by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government at the next stage. My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to my own amendment, 194. In this to my own amendment, 194. In this group. At the end of what I think might be heading towards the end of what has been an incredibly
17:26
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
impassioned debate, with very little disagreement about the broad principles and every one of these amendments. And it is an extremely good group of amendments. And I particularly like, would like to thank Baroness Berridge, the noble and learned Lord Carlisle, for the support of my own amendment, 194. At this new clause would ensure that development corporations include provision for green space in all new developments. And as we have had so much in this discussion, Green Spaces Bill not just an optional extra, they are an essential part of infrastructure, they are an essential part of delivering healthy, sustainable, happy, fulfilled communities.

This is an amendment that was originally tabled by my colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, the MP for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that green infrastructure is planned alongside traditional facilities, that we think about. Like GPs, transport, and water connections. Development corporations must ensure that green spaces are included, and as the noble Baroness, Baroness Coffey, has mentioned, community gardens, this is not just about planting trees, this is about creating lasting accessible space, for everyone, and making sure our communities do not have to fight for every single square inch of that greenery.

We have already heard much about the findings from Natural England. That can reduce the need for GP appointments by 28 %. At the noble Baroness Fookes who gave an impassioned and convincing speech, I can confirm to her the National Institute of health are the ones who identified that acute hospital patients feel better and leave sooner if I have greenery, just outside their window. Let alone a hospital garden. So, there is direct evidence and we have much of it from the noble Baroness Willis.

And I think for that. -- And I thank her for that. Given how much we have heard, I will cut out quite a lot of the speech I did prepare to speak about this specific amendment. But only finally to say, I strongly support what the noble Baroness Bennett suggested, in the sense that there is a huge amount of consensus in this group of amendments. It seems to me that there is potential for us to work together, and possibly, and I am just looking at whichever ministry -- Whatever minister is so meeting with us, getting together with the relevant ministers and seeing if we can find some way of ensuring that this is not merely nice to have, what an absolute integral essential part of infra structure going forward.

So, finally, if I can reference this back to the lovely ducks that were so supportive outside the noble Baroness Fookes' window, when she was very ill, let's get our ducks in a row, my Lords, get-together, and see if we can drive this forward as a united chamber. a united chamber. a united chamber.
17:29
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I rise to comment on this group of amendments which are different ways all concerned the provision of green and blue spaces. Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raises the vital issue of whether minimum requirements for green space should be set in a new housing developments. May I ask the Minister, therefore, whether the government are considering such a standard and, if so, whether it standard and, if so, whether it would vary between urban and rural contexts? Turning to amendment 138, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, noble friend, Lord Gascoigne, it invites us to consider whether the current rates of strategic division under the development of strategies is sufficient in respect of green spaces and allotments.

So, does the government accept that the definition may be too narrow, and if so, are they minded to expand it to give strategic planning authorities more fix ability -- Flexibility to deliver for their residents? Amendment 138, B, tabled by Lady Willis of Summertown, invites us to consider the role of strategic authorities, and whether green and blue infrastructure will be fully incorporated with Spatial Development Strategies, under the national planning policy framework. This is a vital issue. And can the government set out if we can expect the revised NPPF.

And how their intentions are will ensure that these matters are addressed in that revised NPPF. It is an area, as we have heard this afternoon, of clear interest to the House and one which greater clarity from ministers would be most welcome. Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, addresses the role of development corporations. May I ask whether the government are considering placing a formal duty on these bodies to provide for green spaces in their plans and how such a duty might differ from the obligations already Lee, amendment 206 concerns green and blue spaces, including places for food growth as part of the development.

That raises the broader question how should such ambitions be reconciled with the pace and scale of the delivery that the Government expects as we have heard and could the noble Baroness the Minister consider this question as part of her broader response. Taken together, these amendments open up practical questions of provision, maintenance strategy and delivery and I look forward to hearing how the Government intends to respond and whether it sees merit in drawing these together into a more coherent approach on the infrastructure.

approach on the infrastructure.
17:32
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, hope noble Lords will forgive me if I just take a moment to thank my Noble Friend for all the work he did while he was a minister in our department. I will not step on the toes of the great Lancashire/Yorkshire debate, I am afraid, but it was true to say that Lord Khan's unfailing good human and his ability to convene and affect collaboration even across barriers of faith and religion that are deeply historic in nature gave him, what I think, was a superpower which was great and he did so much work in the communities aspect of our departments work and also on elections.

I would like to especially commend his work on the Holocaust Memorial bill which was a very difficult bill to navigate. I think he dealt exceptionally well with the work on that bill. I do hope that he will continue to use the networks he has built and developed because in a time when there are forces that are trying to divide us and we see that everyday we need Noble Lord to bring us all together and I would like to pay tribute to the work that he did in that respect.

And I will of course Him but he is a loss to our department. Could I also very briefly because I know he will heed me doing it but thank my Noble Friend Lord Wilson for stepping in at what was very short notice to support me with some of the work on this bill. So, turning now to the amendments in this group I want to thank all noble Lords that have tabled amendments relating to the provision of green and blue spaces and, of course it is very important as we drive forward as we have heard my new Secretary of State's urging us to build but as we do that it is very important that we maintain the aspects this afternoon.

And demonstrating in this role this is supporting healthy and inclusive communities and we recognise very much the importance of providing much the importance of providing these alongside new homes. And I want to pay tribute to the members of this House that have contributed to the evidence-based in this regard. And particularly she was kind enough to give her book also. And very thorough and insightful monitors. I very grateful to all members of this House that have contributed to this evidence base.

That is why existing policy and provisions already in the bill are intended to achieve just that. So, I will first enter amendment 121 tabled by the noble Baroness lady Miller who I know has a passion for protecting green spaces. And ensuring local people can use their voices to shape development in their own areas. National planning plays a powerful role in the tanning process because it must be taken into account both in the planning process and in determining this. And I sure we will talk about the slots over the course of the bill but it does require local plans to make sufficient provision for green infrastructure and be based on up- to-date assessment of the need for to-date assessment of the need for open space.

It is not an optional or just an encouragement to do it. The designation of land as a local green space also allows the communities there to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. What will of course be having national development planning policies coming forward. The Noble Lady Baroness Scott asked me without they would vary between urban and rural sites in terms of the provision, what they're going to specify about provision. And I will take that back because I think it is a key point.

And we do expect in due course that phrase that we all love so well to have further revisions to the NPPF. Additionally, new major housing developments on release must be comfortable accessible Green Spaces Bill step the green infrastructure framework published by England supports planners and communities to plan for high quality and multifunctional Green Spaces Bill so these policy provisions provide a strong basis for securing green space alongside new developments, however they also allow local planning authorities to take pragmatic approaches where necessary which rigid legal requirements would prevent.

Look 30s can use planning obligations and conditions to secure the long-term stewardship of the green space and we heard a bit about that this afternoon, the local funding has been cut. That was a disincentive to local authorities to provide green spaces. But we continue to work with That obligation and condition so that covers the long-term maintenance of these spaces as well as the initial provision of them and we recognise there are too many examples of poor maintenance or of residence being left to facing explicit charges and we will consult on a range of the maintenance of communal facilities as part of the injustice of the fleeceholder states that we have so many examples of, unfortunately, around the country.

Turning now to amendment 138, 138B, Turning now to amendment 138, 138B, and 149 I acknowledge the intent to ensure green space, green infrastructure, community gardens, and allotments, and even ducks, which I appreciated that point greatly, they are all given consideration at strategic level. The National Planning Policy Framework launch new spatial requirements are required to have regard to sets out that the plan should attempt to achieve healthy lasers that promote social interaction and healthy lives. For example, through the provision of green infrastructure.

I was interested, think it was not tennis that mentioned the social interaction point around allotments. Having been a councillor for many years, sometimes that social interaction is not quite as positive as we might want it to be. But I do absolutely take his point. Furthermore, where strategic planning authorities consider these spaces to be a strategic one the already able to set policies that reflect this. Section 12 D foresee states that Spatial Development Strategy can specify or describe infrastructure relating to promoting or improving the social or environmental well-being of that area which we expect could include community gardens and allotments and green spaces.

Equally, policies in relation to allotments and community garden act could be included within the terms of section 12 one which covers policies in relation to the development use of land. As I mentioned at second reading, we need to keep the context at that level that allows for planning authorities to set more detailed policies and site allocations through their local plans. And the way that we are shaping the planning system in previous sessions of the bill I hope will allow local councils to spend more time thinking about local plans.

We believe that policies for the specific development are better set at local novel where the needs and opportunities in each area can be considered. I will now turn to amendment 194 tabled by the noble Baroness lady Brenda and the amendment to all six tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Willis. These amendments will place duties on developing corporations in respect of the provision and maintenance agreement infrastructure. I want to thank them for acknowledging the pond ruled that the development corporations have in the develop movement of housing and other info structure, including those green and blue visions.

As a lifetime resident of Britain's new town built under the corporation, the thing that also always surprises people around my town is how green it is, they think it is an urban jungle. It is not. And in terms of blue infrastructure, the wonderful facility we have 120 acres of parkland, including four lanes is without a doubt, the most popular asset of our town. I really take on board those that do truly value these spaces. Development corporations are crucial to growing the economy and delivering much needed housing.

Large-scale develop movement and regeneration projects must go hand-in-hand with green and blue infrastructure. We do not want to see just houses. We want to see thriving communities and we know just how many benefits the provisions can bring to individuals mental, physical well-being, social interactions, and as well, interactions, and as well, importantly, to the climate and to wildlife. That is why it is crucial that they take forward the provision and stewardship of green and blue space for stoppages with highlighting that the department corporations are already subject to the same provisions of the National planning framework that underpinned requirements to plan for and provide open space elsewhere.

Development corporations take on local authority planning powers the planning policies need to be informed by the National Planning Policy Framework. Although some develop movement frameworks not take those powers, delivery of the property projects coordinated by those development corporations will also, ultimately, be subject to the provisions in the national policy planning framework. I have already set out the role and benefits of the framework in relation to green infrastructure. It is also worth underlining its role in relation to plan making. The framework specifies that the plan should set an overall strategy with patterns, skill, and design with the quality of places, making sufficient provision for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure.

The Noble Lord Chris talked about evidence and he has made some very key and important points there. Because, fundamental to local planning production, and to the future strategic planning production will be that evidence- based. I think it is really critical. Any local councillor that has such a public inquiry on their local plan will know that is inspected in great detail by the planning inspector and the evidence basis absolutely key. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into consideration when preparing the development plan.

And we have seen this work very well in practice, for example in absolute urban develop movement corporation there is a strong track record of providing almost 15 ha for parts in recent years. And this yet aiming to provide at least 10 ha of parks and provide at least 10 ha of parks and Is the support we are looking for with the develop movement corporations. Therefore believe that up-to-date local planning coverage will ensure that green space such as the community gardens, play areas, and allotments, are planned for the right level and reflect local need.

I not entirely convinced that it would help to remove the freedoms that local authorities currently have to shape the green, blue, brown spacing the way that best suits their communities. And Baroness Coffey talked about empowering communities. While the direction of travel of the amendments could be that we impose conditions on them by national Government. I am not sure that is entirely helpful. I am sure that this dialogue will continue as we go through the process of the bill and I happy to have conversations.

I would also like to thank Lord O'Donnell for his very practical suggestion of talking to Treasury colleagues about the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being which I think I hope the Treasury has a focus on it because if they do not, we are all in if they do not, we are all in trouble. I will take that back. So, for all these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Lords topic leave to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I accept completely the relevance that we must not tie their hands. that we must not tie their hands. But given the supply of allotments But given the supply of allotments is far less than the demand for it, does she even agree with me that there needs to be a slightly firmer approach? I suggested a metric poster perhaps that is too poster perhaps that is too aggressive. But at least some sort of norms in the planning policy as to the quantity of the area to be given to a given amount of population, otherwise I worried that population, otherwise I worried that this is just going to be like affordable housing which is in the next group which is a sooner planning permission is given it is planning permission is given it is haggled down to the minimum that the developer can get away with.

And I hope that we can be a bit firmer on hope that we can be a bit firmer on this, otherwise we are back to good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this, otherwise we are back to good I will take back the points the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will take back the points the noble Lord makes. I think the important thing not to lose in all this is the right solution, this is the right solution, different solutions apply to different places. And if I might give a brief example, about green space, not about allotments, but if space, not about allotments, but if you have a development which, in the case of one of the ones I was responsible for, literally backs onto that very park with all the lakes I was talking about earlier, that as it happens, there is green space in it as well.

But he might decide, as you walk out of your house, you are in a 120 acre lake park, you might not need so much space actually in the development itself. So I think all these local issues have to be very strongly considered. When there is a waiting list for an allotment, you -- You may want to make provision elsewhere, but I will take it back where the wording may be necessary.
17:47
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it really was an honour to take part in a debate of this nature. The themes that came through was so strong about inequity, and the fact that we have in this House, the Baroness Willis and Lord Layard, who have done research into these issues, pointing to a very strong roadmap, where we should be going collectively, towards the report stage, as the noble Baroness Bennett said, we could coalesce around something, that I would say to the Minister, we don't want to clash with the government's wish to empower local authorities, to do the best by their communities, what their communities want.

But it was the noble Baroness, Baroness Fookes, who said noble intentions are not enough and she was absolutely right. And incidentally, she has done so much in this House through her all- party group on gardening and horticulture, to introduce us to all sorts of things and I would like to put on record my thanks to her for that. We do need to coalesce around something, to put this firmly on the face of the bill, because of all the reasons the other noble Lords have said, good intentions are not enough and the NPPF, however it is beefed up, is still pretty vague.

So, I think the Minister can shame, from everything that everybody has said, that this will be coming back at report, and I hope perhaps we can have some conversations between now and then. To see just what form we all have something better than just good intentions, but in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 122, after clause 51, amendment 122,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

122, after clause 51, amendment 122, Lord Best. I rise with some trepidation after that terrific group on Green after that terrific group on Green Spaces Bill's but I rise to speak to
17:49
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Spaces Bill's but I rise to speak to amendment 122, together with 141 and 151, all of which address the issue of affordable housing delivery. Amendment 122 introduces a freestanding new clause which provides for regulations to ensure that affordable housing gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called section 106 agreement. We are all only too familiar with the problem that affordable home is for local people are expected from you development, it failed to development, it failed to materialise.

With the excuse of liability, housebuilders back out of delivering all or most of the affordable they promised. They say they have discovered conditions they had not expected or encountered, problems with subcontractors or higher interest rates, building costs, or something else. And now they may not be able to make a 20% profit from the development. And it is the affordable housing element that they insist must take the hit. Despite affordable housing being a condition of planning consent, precious few such homes may appear.

My Lords, the price the housebuilder pays for the land should reflect their obligations to provide affordable housing and related infrastructure. It should never be acceptable to claim we had to pay so much for the land, and now we cannot honour our agreement to build the affordable home. Indeed, the government is planning practice guidance explicitly states under no circumstances will the price paid for the land be a relevant justification for failing to record with relevant policies. And yet this continues to be exactly what happens.

The amendment recognises that the level of affordable housing in every development, the section 106 agreement, is subject to complex negotiation between two unequal parties, the local planning department and the housebuilder. As a report from a National Audit Office set out in June of this year, there is a serious imbalance between these two, with local planning authorities being hopelessly under resourced while large developers can employ expensive consultants and legal experts, to find ways of negotiating their contributions down. The government commendably is finding ways of better resourcing local planning authorities.

This amendment adds support for planners, by cutting down on the imbalanced and interminable arguing over affordable housing numbers. The affordable housing element becomes nonnegotiable. Amendment 121 empowers the Secretary of State, to make sure developers actually deliver the affordable home, that were a condition of planning consent. It adds a further detailed by bludging the housebuilder to provide a minimum of 20% of the homes for social rent, or the percentage that is set out in a deal local planning authority's framework, if that is higher.

The definition of social rent housing is that used by the regulator of social housing in its rent standard. My Lords, how important is this contribution by the housebuilder to affordable housing? Over recent years, the obligation on the housebuilders have produced nearly half, 44% last year, of the total program of affordable home. However, according to the National Audit Office, the value from the contributions of developers for both infrastructure and affordable housing fell, from 6.4 billion to housing fell, from 6.4 billion to 5.5 billion last year.

We cannot afford for this vital program of affordable home funded by developer contributions to be depleted by housebuilders, reneging on other planning obligations. My Lords, amendment one to choose keeps it simple. It dismisses -- Amendment 122 keeps it simple, about what is viable, what is profitable. It requires straightforward fulfilment of the planning of occasions accepted by housebuilders, who have escaped Christmas abilities and reduce or scrap the quota of social homes, they were a bigoted deliver. It introduces a baseline of 20%, a social rent, for new homes, in all relevant developments I know the noble Baroness, the minister, recognises the problem with which this amendment seeks to address, and I hope she will find it acceptable.

My Lords, I go straight on to speak to amendments 141 and 151, again, in my name, and again supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Carlile. Thank you for the support from those. These two amendments go together as a backup my earlier amendment. While the earlier amendment is just about developer contributions to providing affordable home, these two amendments relate to all developments that will be covered by the Spatial Development Strategies, outlined by the bill.

amendment 141 stipulates development strategies stipulates development strategies can specify or describe the amount of affordable housing, as well as other kinds of housing. This amendment 141 spells out that the affordable housing should be mostly for social rent, rather than, for example, shared ownership or middle market renting. And amendment 151 market renting. And amendment 151 then defined social rent, as an amendment 122, it states social rent is the accommodation, rented according to the vent standards specified by the Regulator of Social Housing.

-- The rent standards. This is the rent level that applies to most existing council and housing association properties. It is based on a measurement that combines earnings data with property values. It represents the form of affordable housing, which actually helps those on average incomes or less. My Lords, using the common definition that rents are only affordable if they absorb 1/3 or less of the incomes of the occupiers, the current arrangements are producing pathetically small numbers of new homes, for those in the bottom half of the income distribution.

If the 1.5 million new homes planned for the course of this parliament were to contain a similar quantum of social rented homes as the current arrangements, then as little as 8% of all the new homes would actually be affordable to those on or below average incomes. This does not sound like a very fair distribution. Of all the new homes we are planning to build. Fortunately, government is determined to see more of the social rented housing created. My Lords, this amendment chimes with that intention.

The government has stated that of the 300,000 affordable home study funded by the Spending Review's £39 billion for Homes England to provide it social and Affordable Homes Programme, of that, 300,000 homes a year, 880,000 homes should be for social rent. If achieved, this would represent a significant rise in the proportion of homes that are genuinely affordable. Amendments 141 and 142 greatly improve the government's chances of actually delivering this outcome. 141 establishes a majority of the housing within the development strategy must be for social rent.

Defined by amendment 151, and this requirement would cover affordable homes in the publicly subsidised housing program. As well as those affordable is that are built by the housebuilders in fulfilment of their planning obligations. So, the amendments accord with the government's ambitions and give greater relevance to the new Spatial Development Strategies. They will ensure a meaningful proportion of the 1.5 million new homes, will be for those in the health of the population that cannot otherwise afford a decent home. I know the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be sympathetic to these amendments and I beg to move.
17:58
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed, after clause 51, insert the new clause as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the Marshalled list. My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments in this group, 137 and amendments in this group, 137 and 171. And to give wholehearted support to the amendment so eloquently and coherently proposed eloquently and coherently proposed by the Noble Lord Best, which I and other noble Lords have signed. It is other noble Lords have signed. It is interesting that this group of amendments demonstrates all too amendments demonstrates all too clearly the overwhelming need for many, many more homes for social many, many more homes for social rent.

It is deeply troubling that the number of homes in that category the number of homes in that category being built has fallen significantly. Despite the government's own stated ambition to government's own stated ambition to tackle the housing crisis, and for " A significant amount of those homes" A significant amount of those homes" To be for social rent. We all know that social housing provides that social housing provides stability, dignity, and opportunity, stability, dignity, and opportunity, for those in most need. Yet, year after year, we see promises outstripped by reality, leaving outstripped by reality, leaving rising numbers of families trapped in temporary or unsuitable accommodation.

Currently, my Lords, accommodation. Currently, my Lords, 130,000 families, which have 169,000 children within them, in that accommodation. I regard it as a national scandal. Following welcome funding announcements from the government, the main issues genuinely now appear to be delivery and affordability. Both deep and entrenched problems. And in a small way, the amendments in this group are seeking to be part of the solution. Without urgent action on both fronts, all our aspirations remain little more than warm words.

While communities across the country continue to feel the harsh In addition to the figures already mentioned by the Noble Lord Best, which I knew he would do well, I want us to look very briefly at the net delivery. And that is the number of homes built minus the homes lost in that category which is a true reflection of numbers. Official figures which now helpfully separate the tenures which they did not do until recently when they were all lumped together as affordable, they continue to show net losses.

In the guaranteeing March March 2023, 22/23 there was a loss of 404,060 homes. And in 2023/24, despite a rise in the actual delivery of affordable homes, the social think you resulted in just 700 new net homes. After accounting for the losses by Right to Buy and other schemes, just let that sit in. Only 700 net new homes for social rent we have over 130,000 households in temporary accommodation. Hence the irrefutable need and scale for homes for central rent and the urgent need to put pressure on the right places, which is what these amendments seek to do.

The first right place being very definitely the new Spatial Development Strategies. This is the aim of my amendment 137 and that of Lord Best 142. This has to be possible and desirable, more so given that the Government is given more weight and greater strategic importance to these strategic plans. No, the Liberal Democrats have an ambitious target of building up to 150,000 social homes per year as referenced in my amendment 137 which one might say is totally unrealistic, given the current trends and that there are significant barriers in the way of achieving that goal ever.

Despite the urgent need, but numbers aside, it illustrates the depth of the problem and our figures were based on evidential need. And it demonstrates our aspiration to solve it. Amendment 137 merely points out that if the Government is serious in its determination to provide more homes for social rent, then it would surely want to ensure that all specialty strategies, spatial strategies, should and must specify how they are going to do it, or it is all just words.

Such legislative pressure is vital, as we all know that any wiggle room is so easily exploited by the major housebuilders by using the viability loophole that we have spoken about so often in this chamber. The other wicket issue is affordability. I was particularly shocked by Lord Best's analysis about the percentage of social homes delivered, but if it continued in that trend only 8% would match the definition of truly affordable to those on low incomes. Despite all our best intentions, it will barely our best intentions, it will barely make a dent in the need.

Which is why we support Lord Best's amendment 122. My Lords, given that the bill allows for local authority to describe the amount of formal housing, as well as other kinds of housing, which we will go onto debate in other groups, it is essential that all planning authorities have an obligation to meet the government's desire to build more social. Which is why we all heartily support Lord Best's amendment 141 which makes it very clear that affordable housing should be mainly for social rent rather than a shared ownership or so-called affordable rent.

These definitions are important and clarity is clearly being sold, both in amendment 158 and 151 from the Noble Lord Best. We And assurance is muchly needed. Look forward to the Ministers response, because the terminology is still misleading. In fact, we are these benches would question the continued use of the phrase affordable at all. A term that, for many, is fast becoming meaningless. When ordinary families, young people, and key workers here that new development will provide so-called affordable homes, the day to cope.

A time and time again they discover what has been delivered as far beyond their reach. We know that affordable is defined as 80% of the market value. But in areas where the market is overheated, a significant part of that country, 80 % for is still too much. It doesn't matter if you are teacher in Watford, nursing leads, or a keratin combo, these homes are not affordable to you. To conclude, we should be honest with the public. Words matter, and to call something affordable when it is blatantly not affordable when it is blatantly not as misleading.

Worst, it erodes trust in both Government and developers. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we must return to clear robust definitions that are understood by all and linked to local incomes and not the inflated market. Which is what my amendment 171 is trying to do by giving local authorities more power to be more specific about what that term means in their area. I know the Noble Lady the Minister shares our passion and recognises the need for more social.

As does her Government. I therefore look forward to her reply.
18:07
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
I have added my name to amendment 122 along with others linked to the provision of Social Housing Act. This is of interest to those of us that are concerned about the provision and there is not actually very much in the bill itself, if you look through the first few pages the contents, the word housing appears nowhere. In the whole of chapter 2, 21 pages, I found the word housing twice. And that was it apart from a reference on the definition of affordable housing 74.

And the amendments in this group are not actually amending anything in the bill. They are all inserting additions after clause 52. Apart from future debates about housing and the construction, this group of amendments and the next will have much of the evidence on the housing provision. Amendment 122A moved by the Noble Lord Best will hold the feet of developers to the fire when it comes to the provision of social housing and section 16. And we have heard debates in the past about ensuring social does not miss out about the build out last and the developing extenuating circumstances of the so-called financial viability assessments.

And as Lord Best says half of all affordable houses are now provided under section 106 that seeks to maximise this resource. Lord Best explained what happens in practice, the developer will attempt to build the affordable houses last in order to maximise the cash flow by selling them first. But towards the end of the development that they do not quite at up and the last thing he wants us to do is anything that impact on the value of the market, so he will not want to touch the green space, playgrounds, or the car parking and will try to squeeze out the affordable housing.

And research by the CPR Easter shows that developers and land promoters used in viability assessments get out of building almost half of the affordable houses available and they found almost 18% of those, 34%, the system at the moment favours the developers that can overbid that smaller developer and the sophisticated assessments the under resourced local authorities. But more recently we have had the opposite problem, our developers providing social with their being no registered social landlord to take over and I arrange this before the resource on July 3 and the Minister kindly wrote to me until I ninth and told me that the Governments homes England clearing service asked and we can judge the scale of the problem at 113 households larger than 14 local planning authorities registered.

And the Minister told me about this and I quote Moore action is needed for those parties to ensure that one in six homes are built to a good quality and marketed at a reasonable price, purchased quickly and efficiently, by social providers, so is the Noble Lady able to tell what further action might be? And what progress has been made? Last December they estimated there were 17,000 affordable homes stalled due to a lack of providers in the market. So, how many are there now? Amendment 141 refers to Social Housing Act which I have added my name.

It is with asking the question about why we need social. The market can provide most of the essentials in life we can claim but actually no country in the world has a market that has met housing need. And worldwide social provides affordable homes for families and individuals and if you look at all prosperous European countries a reliable portion of Social Housing Act we do. So, all Governments have supported the housing markets in this country by supporting the ownership initially through mortgage interest tax in 1999 the starter homes initiative, or by supporting social, which is what this amendment is about, section 106 of the housing association with the homes program.

And whilst we did try and alternative in the market approach he wanted to move local authority events over to market events and Housing Benefit to take the strain and under that scenario there would have been no social rents. It was an explicit shift from the water subsidy to personal subsidies. I have to say that if Margaret Thatcher removed them from the Government before the 1988 Housing Act was introduced because the experiment simply did not work. It did not work because it meant an annual increase in rent which were unpopular, price was paid at local elections it had an impact on the retail price and saw public expenditure to the Treasury it is assumed that the DHSS would be happy to finance an ever-growing Housing Benefit bill which they were not and remember Tony Newton complaining the housing program, so we have referred rightly in my mention of the traditional rents that low market rents, capital subsidies or central mono six or those retained by social landlords.

And I was struck about one sentence in the briefing for this debate and I quote that social housing has lost its universal status, is becoming an assist service and relying on the infrastructure. They are right, nearly 60 years ago when I first became a local councillor if homeownership was beyond your reach you put your name down on the council waiting and in due course you would get an offer. Now that is no longer the case. This is strictly targeted at those in the most pressing need under the provisions of the persons act.

The local authorities are struggling even to meet those commitments which will be accentuated as the asylum seekers are part of hotels. But it is the ambulance analogy that shelters are running that focus on for a moment the risk of being controversial in the real ambulance takes you to a hospital where you are better and this takes you to Social Housing Act and the benefit of that housing to put you together again you are not discharged but still there are people in the shelter.

But so it raises the contentious issue of security of tenure for social. Given the pressure on social there should be some incentives that I emphasise to encourage those that have benefited to move on and to make way for those in desperate circumstances that generated the original talent. This is not to detract for more social housing made by the noble But it is to raise the question, given the changed circumstances, over the last 60 years, whether we need to have a look at lifelong security, if we are to make the best use of a scanned resource that social housing is.

-- Scanned resource.
18:16
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
I share the aspiration we should build sufficient and affordable housing in order to house those who need it. I don't propose to repeat what has been said in the three excellent speeches we have heard so far in this debate. I want to turn to a particular issue with which I hope that the Minister who replies will agree. One of the ways in which we ensure that affordable housing is built in sufficient numbers is to ensure that the contractual relationship between builders and the councils who give them planning permission is a fair one and it doesn't give undue advantage to the contractors.

It has not always been the case that that is so. And indeed, there are examples very recently and I will refer to one very major one. Some years ago, however, one of the things I did in my legal life was act as a part-time Chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The U.K.'s anti-trust court. One of the cases in which I sat and gave judgement was a case in which a number of household name builders had entered into cartel arrangements, in order but it was ensured that one of them will win each contract.

It was so endemic in the building system, their academic, who I will not name, from a university I will not name, a respectable university, wrote a book respectable university, wrote a book on how to enter these cartel arrangements. I didn't do the builders much good because the tribunal which I was sharing -- Find them a very large amount of money, each related to their turnover. But I haven't learned their lesson of This year, group of the largest housebuilders in the UK, have agreed to a series of legally binding commitments, to ensure that they are acting lawfully.

And to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, and they have done that, following an investigation, by the competition and -- Competition and Markets Authority, the CMA, they took a very pragmatic view and did not make a finding that they had been cartel, but I leave video lordships judgement as to whether that was the case or not. -- I will leave it to your lordships judgement. And I will tell you what the housebuilders have agreed to. They made the following commitments to the CMA.

First, not to share competitively sensitive information with competitors. Specifically including the prices for which houses are to be sold. Well, my Lords, if you are a builder, you don't need to make an agreement with the CMA, to know that you should not share competitively sensitive information in a competitive contract situation. Then they agreed to support the homebuilders Federation and homes for Scotland to produce guidance on information exchange for the housebuilding industry. That is a ditto to the one I just read.

And then they agreed, very well, very pleased they did, to pay £100 million in aggregate to programs supporting the construction of affordable housing in the UK. Somebody would have done a calculation and how much they gain from their anti-competitive agreement and I have no doubt that the £100 million, was a conservative estimate of the game they had made. And then they decided, generously, to introduce enhanced in-house compliance measures, and training programs. No doubt, my Lords, to deal with corruption among individuals within the industry.

So, given that case and the one I mentioned earlier, surely one of the most important things, and I am sure the government will agree with this, as we should be alive to the risk of corruption in the building industry, so that the housing is built without giving the housebuilders money which they do not deserve and have not earned legitimately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the... Very quick, Lord Carlile, I have a meeting with them next week and perhaps you would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to join me. Thank you for the invitation, but
18:21
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for the invitation, but looking at the parliamentary program for next week, I suspect I am going to be here about 11 hours a day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be here about 11 hours a day. I look forward to spending 11 hour days with the noble Lord Carlile on important legislation Carlile on important legislation this House is considering. I rise to speak to this because it is absolutely vital that we get going with the building of social housing. And there are good examples of where we can be creative in considering this. But the underlying element of what is being put forward in speeches by noble Lords already is absolutely right.

When a housing developer make the commitment, this house, this parliament, has to strain every sinew to make sure that councils do not let them off the hook. And it matters about local communities, it matters in terms of local plans, the whole essence of a large part of this bill is that a lot of decisions are being removed from elected councillors by this government. And that is when confidence and trust in our local government starts to fade away, when promises made by developers, housing and other issues as well, including health and other section 106, evaporates.

My noble friend, Lord Markham, has set up a housing association, in effect, in Ealing, using and being creative with how financing of that could be done. In order to make sure that these are ongoing sustainable homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the fact they had been just a net change of 700 homes when it comes to social rent. My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, started to refer to the fact that we weren't getting registered social landlords taking up some of the homes they had done.

In the East of England, we actually have the social landlords flagship proactively landlords flagship proactively selling office rent housing, and not locally, but doing aspects of that elsewhere. Many miles away from where that social rented housing is being displaced. Thinking through also, what my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, talked about about lifetime tenancies, of course, the logos change, so the councils should be considering short-term tenancies, proactively considering the composition, and demographics that are happening and that local community.

Very few councils actually took that up. And I do understand why, to some extent, these homes are homes that people want to have, but they are also precious uses of space and thinking of the next group. While there is a good intention to have design for lifetime we also need to consider this is where some other, perhaps cruder, economic policies have come through in the past. And have not always been welcomed. I will say to the noble minister...

Sorry, the noble Lady, the Minister, I would suggest she also looks back at a policy from a few years ago, with a two prong of benefits to bricks. Because the government today is spending at least £35 billion a year on paying rent, through the benefit system. So, we do need to constantly think about where resources are being deployed. In recognising the display do need more homes and people come onto land banking later. But let's make the most of every single home that we already have today.

Including social housing and what we can do to get onto it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have been thinking in terms of solving the problems we are discussing, by building more houses.
18:25
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
discussing, by building more houses. But I would like to raise a point, which I will describe in a little more detail in a moment, where building more houses is, I think, quite the wrong way of approaching the problem. I am talking, of course, about the National Park in areas of nationally important landscape. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was referring to his time in local government, 60 years ago. I can't quite go so far back down memory lane, but I was involved in the Lake District's special planning board 40 years ago.

And the problem there is a problem that still exists, indeed in a more exacerbated form, despite our efforts to try and address it. Which was that people who lived and worked in this community were unable to find any accommodation, as their parents and grandparents and great grandparents had before them. And, my Lords, it is not simply a matter of social implications. The kind of people who were finding, still finding it very hard to find accommodation, either in all, in many instances, quite close to these kind of important landscape areas, are the very people who are essential for looking after it properly.

There was a real it properly. There was a real problem. And if we don't, in some sensible way, resolve the difficulty, there are going to be even more problems. My Lords, let me illustrate it. In the hamlet of chapel style in Langdale, which many of your lordships will know, which is one of the most admired and visited and esteemed parts of Britain's premier National Park, 80% of the housing stock, approximately, second homes. The one thing you mustn't do to resolve the problem of housing up Langdale is to build more and more houses.

Because that completely destroys the very rationale of the place being so special. And against this background, I think it is important that this relatively niche problem, and I use those words advisedly but not disparagingly, is to look at it carefully, because it doesn't lend itself to many of the kind of solutions that have been canvassed in the context of the problems elsewhere in the country. We do not need more housing stock in the Lake District. What we want is more housing stock that exists to be occupied and used as the basis for looking after the National Park itself, which, in turn, is in the interest of everybody else who comes to it, enjoys it, the rest of the country.

It is not a question, I think, of social housing and affordable homes, we have to be much more imaginative about the ways we do it, and we have to find a way of taking quite a bit of the existing housing stock, out of the open market, and in my view, probably you would have to use planning covenants, to put it into a restricted local marketplace, where local people could afford to buy local people could afford to buy them, and or lease them.

And in turn, commit their activities to looking after the area in question. My Lords, I raised this point on a number of occasions over the years, and I have never got anywhere with it at all, and I know perfectly well why. That is, it will cost quite a bit of money. But, if these places matter, and they do matter, and widespread degradation through building something that I don't think any of us could earn, some of the noble Lords may have seen in the paper, what the Egyptian government is doing at Saint Catherine's Monastery, it is absolute the outrageous and a monstrous way to treat a World Heritage site.

Many bits of the Royal economy could feel very let down by housing policy because it is not actually addressing the particular problems that they are facing. The solutions that have been canvassed. Many of them I have no trouble with at all. But they are essentially for urban areas. Not entirely, essentially for urban areas. And there are issues and problems in rural areas. Many people feel let down there. And you can see from recent opinion polling, that many of them are pretty disillusioned with the existing political classes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to add a few points in relation to this debate, which I
18:30
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
in relation to this debate, which I think has been a really good and interesting debate. I should of course remind the House of my registered interest as Chair of Development Forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire, as much as I enjoyed the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood's speech, I will not follow his track, I will revert to places where there is a very high demand for housing, and a very serious problem of affordability for housing. And I really want to follow Lord Best's speech in particular.

perhaps first just to ask if he once responded, it seems to me he is looking to focus a target, in effect, on the social rented sector by reference to the definition he includes. Not the definition for social housing which is in the bill. So he has effectively said social rent, under section 69 of the housing regeneration act, but not section 70 of the housing regeneration act which relates to low-cost homeownership. So the targets he refers to would have the effect of squeezing the availability of support for low-cost homeownership as such, I wonder if that is his intention because it is not one I am sure I would be wholly But I support the delivery of affordable housing.

He mentioned the National Audit Office report from June this year, I wanted a follow-up on a few points. One of them, we have asked questions about the take-up of contracts for affordable housing under section 106 entered into by developers. In addition to what he asked, the National Audit what he asked, the National Audit Office said they felt the scheme should become a permanent scheme. Since they published their report in June the government provided a substantial and welcome increase in the affordable homes program.

I suppose now the question is, to what extent are homes England through the affordable homes program going to be able or empowered to use those resources to take up those contracts, even if they don't themselves go on to own the homes but act as a clearinghouse by taking up those contracts then making them available to registered providers who can access the affordable homes program. In addition, the National Audit Office said that they wished the government would proceed with issuing financial viability guidance.

We will talk later in the bill about further issues relating to viability guidance. At this point I know my frontbench colleagues share my view on this, that one of the things we need to do is to see to what extent in order to deliver more housing there are powers that are available to the government that need to be used, and need to be used quickly. Part of that is the issuance of guidance that will allow these procedures, like section 106, to make progress.

The government has powers to reform section 106, and the community and Infrastructure Bill, and haven't done it. They have the power to issue guidance relating to viability, new guidance, and they haven't done it. Can the noble Lady the Minister tell us when progress will be made on those? I just think the final point is about section 106, Lord Best said last year the developers provided less by way of section 106. I think that is principally because they provided less housing, so it's a simple consequence.

If we can deliver more housing and more market housing we should be able to deliver more, I way off resources, for the delivery of affordable housing. The noble Lord and the House I think will not criticise developers who feel somewhat unhappy that as the National Audit Office reported last year there were £8 million in unspent section 106 contributions. This is overwhelmingly for infrastructure that hasn't been delivered. But they quite rightly, I think, think it's not helpful for local authorities to be placing obligations on them, taking substantial resources which sometimes can imperil the viability of a project.

And then not delivering the infrastructure. I think as Lord Carlile accurately said, it's a contract in effect between developers and local authorities. Sometimes the developers let down local authorities, but also sometimes local authorities let down the developers.
18:35
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
After such an expert series of speeches on this section I hesitate to rise, but I do feel compelled to support the noble Lord best. And others, who have introduced a critical series of amendments and raised a challenge to current practice. I will say to Lord Inglewood, and I fully understand and recognise what he has said as somebody who has had a long-standing association with the explore national park, -- Exmoor national park, I suspect we are dealing with the process and proceeds of Hulk housing rather than the situation he refers to.

Important though that is. In the past I have had to wrestle with development appraisals, and I recognise the points noble Lords have made about that. The system is rather opaque, you can variously tweak the process to decide on your profitability, on what your relationship with your subcontractors, what you are prepared to concede by way of section 16 obligations, and what you are prepared to pay for the land. All of these in one model.

The model, I have to say, is complex unless one is familiar with the algorithms that stand behind it. It's quite difficult, and certainly very difficult for local authorities to find their way through that. We've heard that affordable housing is funded out of development of market housing. Lord Lansley made market housing. Lord Lansley made the point. At -- Lord Best pointed out it's what we mean by affordable. 80 percent of the market price in the south and south-east of the country, for instance, is still totally unaffordable to anybody with limited means.

And particularly if it is pegged to the selling price of market housing, which selling price of itself often carries a premium as a result of marketing processes. And that premium is instantly lost as soon as the house is second hand and on the resale market. It very often doesn't, market prices don't catch up with that premium on the second hand market for some years. And sometimes it's quite a long time. For somebody of limited means in need of a home it isn't a matter of voluntary choice, but what is economically possible.

Their own priority as a candidate for an affordable home, based on housing need and length of waiting list. For many people this is something of a lottery. The affordable housing component of a residential development scheme is of course subject to this viability. The core financial ingredients of which are largely owned and the intellectual property of the developer. Bearing in mind what I've said about the general complexity of the whole process, that adds to the problems we are dealing with.

And of course, the developers are agreed on some quite trenchant views. Lord Carlile has rather spectacularly reinforced those this evening. I have no remit to necessarily speak up for housebuilders, some of them are clearly thoroughly exploitative. But I don't think that's all of them, and I feel certain there are some that are decent, honest and disposed to be transparent as far as they are able to do so. But my professional work certainly has revealed there is a great deal of opacity to goal process.

So the nature of the affordability offering ranges from what the developer term might say optimal, being a shared ownership, because it releases a sum of money for the development. Through affordable rent, and what might be regarded as the least profitable bit, social rent. That is often driven by these accountancy processes and profit motives. Social rent components thus inevitably get seriously squeezed. The whole process of affordable housing may get further eroded by being fitted out to a lower standard than market housing, but I will leave that to one side.

It just gives a little insight as to how much cheese pairing goes on in the whole process, and how many adjustments might be made before the final product comes out. I acknowledged the problem of rolled up costs to land acquisition, and the expectations of the parties under original sale of land. Though I would have to venture to suggest that the developers profit, taken in the round, is substantially exceeding the sum paid to the original landowner.

Part of that is rolled up cost and risk and finance, all sorts of other things that are going on at the same time. Also a fact that satisfying this housing need depends on the perceived profit from the development at any given time, and the ability of developers to defer starts or to go slow on a site depending on market conditions adds to the problem of congestion in terms of providing affordability. Those in need of genuinely affordable rent are effectively seriously compromised.

Mention has already been made about shared ownership by other noble Lords. That is, I think I'm right in saying it was Lord Young of Cookham who a few days ago or maybe a week or so ago mentioned something about shared ownership problems. My mailbag is often punctuated by people who are unable to get round the resale of their properties because there may be a pre-emption problem, or they have to get consent from their registered provider, or something like that.

And then circumstances change and everything goes back in the melting pot, they have to start all over again. For owners who are trapped in these difficult to shift situations, even without fire safety remediation problems, another thing, if that's what ownership looks like then we should be prepared for people to start switching off. Because it's not good enough if you are offering that as an ownership approach. Just as another aside, I've heard it recently said that house prices are driven by availability of credit, not inherent value of the product.

But if so then there just has to be a better way of dealing with this. Without choking off land supply. And I think it starts with shortening timescales, de-risking the current protracted processes, making planning more cost efficient, less contentious, less uncertain, and probably with a not- for-profit construction model. Protracted timescales allow for far too much wiggle room, and reconfiguring of the offering that is made. And give too much space for poor practices to take root.

I've tried to work out how such a model would be achieved, possibly through community infrastructures in which local need and desire would come a long way in front of him bulk market housing. But I'm not there yet. It raises questions also about clustering of social housing versus pepper potting. And building the inspirational sort of developments that deliver best quality rather than having some sort of stigma attached to them because of the nature of what is produced. And we have in the past in this country succeeded spectacularly with schemes, I'm thinking of some of the great industrialists who produced wonderful developments that were really well thought out, and they were produced for their workforce.

We ought to be able to do the same sort of thing for those in critical need of social housing. My view on this is that if one is concerned about the attitude of landowners then maybe it's time to start asking the question as to whether getting maximum price at some uncertain point in the future wouldn't be offset by having greater certainty of outcomes, and transparency, and being able to plan for that over a timescale of what might be appropriate.

With that I will sit down, but I think that is something
18:46
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
The amendments in this group raise important questions about the definition of affordable housing and how far the government's current proposals will deliver against the need that is obviously widely recognised. The term itself is a much used, however often detach from the realities faced by families across the country. These amendments draw attention to the gap can arise, between the policy definition and the practical affordability and they raised the question of how local circumstances are to be given proper weight.

There is, in addition the matter of delivery, my lords, as we've heard. What is the expected scale of provision for social rent in the year ahead? And how does that compare with the assessed levels of need. Every independent analyst pointed to social rent as the tenure under the greatest pressure. The amendments in their different ways put this issue squarely before the House. And before Ministers. Before the noble Baroness the Minister stands up, we welcome the affordable housing tenure plan and the money that has been invested in it.

My lords and that is a planner where the money is back loaded and into future governments and spending reviews, so it is by no means certain as to when we will get that and also, my lords, it is now that that money is required. My lords, as we've heard, we have also had the President of earlier legislation, including the law, where they accepted the principle that local plans must take account of housing need.

That's not just one tenure of housing, but it is all tenures of housing, whether it be private housing, whether it be social, whether it be affordable, whether it be housing for young people, or older people. Local authorities were,, are under that act required to look at those needs, in their area and have plans to deliver those, those are tenures of housing. And those figures should be subject to scrutiny, through the consultation, for the local plan. By local communities. The question I have now is how this bill intends to carry that principle forward.

Is it going to enact that part, or is it going to have other plans of its own. My lords, the amendments collectively pressed for clarity, accountability and ambition, unaffordable housing delivery and we need to deliver the homes people need and I hope the Minister would take this opportunity to explain what steps the Government is taking to deliver that right number of affordable and social rented homes, over this Parliament. And I hardly need to remind your Lordships' House macro, before I sit down.

The government is also well behind, in its delivery of its manifesto commitment of 1.5 million homes, that we all urgently need.
18:49
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
That has been a very interesting debate on social and affordable housing. As members of this House housing. As members of this House will know, I come personally and the government is very supportive of the intent of amendments in this grouping, which is to increase the delivery of affordable and social housing. You will already be aware that this government is committed to delivering the biggest increase in its social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritise the building of new homes for social rent and we did, as other peers have indicated.

We did allocate 39 million over the course of this Parliament, to social and affordable housing. The biggest amount for generations and we have indicated that 60% of that should be social housing. In a Baroness Thornhill spoke powerfully about the crisis we face when we came into office and frankly, I've said it before, 169,000 children in a temporary emergency accommodation is a shameful record. We will tackle that and we are working on it, immediately and we are doing everything we can to address it.

The investment made at the Spring Statement, which was at the 39 million followers of year funding which has been made a phone available for the 21 to 26 affordable home program. It will support the delivery of up to 7,800 new homes, more than half of those being sent social rent homes. That is significantly up on the 700 that was mentioned. Furthermore we have also announced changes to allow councils to retain 100% of receipts generated by Right to Buy cells.

This isn't A1 off thing. The noble Lady Baroness Thornhill spoke about the net gain, in housing. There are other issues we need to address, including Right to Buy. And we recently consulted on wider reforms, that consultation, has closed and we consulted on a long term rent settlement that would allow rents to increase, above inflation, each year, for five years, from 2026. That consultation has closed and we are looking at responses from the sector, to deal with that. It is our intention to give a long term rent settlements, so that our peas, resident providers can have the certainty they need to invest in housing.

Turning 1st to them at 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord S, which seeks to set out a minimum proportion of social rent provision on a new development to require any affordable housing requirements to be fully implemented on developments. I want to thank the noble Lord, as ever for being such a passionate advocate, for affordable housing. The noble Baroness Thornhill mentioned the definition of affordable homes, it is now specific in the NPPF, authorities should separately set out social housing need.

Not just that broad term, which was never very satisfactory of affordable housing. The government is in agreement with the noble Lord best, that we need to significantly increase the number of affordable homes built each year, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We will continue to take steps to deliver a planning system that supports at this and the noble Baroness Scott mentioned the target has not yet been achieved. We do need to lay the foundations for this. We need the funding that we put in to deliver social housing.

We also need this planning bill, to go through, to make, free up the planning system, so that we move forward quickly and I know our new Secretary of State will be very focused on that. I've already spoken to him today about this. We will continue to take the steps we need to deliver a planning system that supports it, but I don't believe this amendment goes quite in the right direction and that we need to go. A revised national policy planning framework provides greater flexibility, for local authorities to deliver the right limits to suit particular housing needs.

The framework makes it clear that local authorities should when producing the local plan, assess the need for affordable housing and homes for social rent. And then plan to meet these needs. This includes setting out the amount and type of affordable housing that should be secured, new development. The noble Lord Lansley mentioned viability guidance. We are reviewing the planning practice guidance on a liability, to ensure the system works to optimise developer contributions. Allowing negotiating only where that genuinely necessary.

We will produce this guidance later this year. So, I look forward to discussing that, I'm sure, with noble Lords. We will also acknowledge that there are times where flexibility is necessary to ensure sites can commence, where there is a change in circumstances. Such is the change in the economic situation. The noble Lord Karl Darlow referred to the CMA report, which resulted in £100 million to the major developers. We do need to consider we talked about it before, in your Lordships' House how to make sure that that doesn't get recirculated for profits for the same developers that caused the same developers that caused the problem in the first place.

Those that were fine. We have already allocated a package of support for SME builders and I hope the very significant sum allocated in the affordable housing program and other funds that may come forward will help to support local jobs, training, apprenticeships, supply chains and those SME builders, it is very important that we all focus on that as well. Consequently we must aim to balance the strengthening the developer contributions system, with retaining the necessary degree of flexibility, allowing negotiation and renegotiation to take place only where it is genuinely justified.

Planning obligations entered into under section 106 of the Town and under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 legally binding and enforceable. A local planning authority may take enforcement action, against any breach of a planning obligation, entertained within the section 106 agreement. Including any breach of the formal housing commitment. We will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as we take forward a set of national policies for decision- making, later this year. Turning to amendments 141, 150 K and others are tabled by noble best and Lady Warwick of Undercliffe.

These amendments seek to ensure that the majority of any affordable housing specified or described by strategic planning authority, in its Spatial Development Strategies housing for social rent as defined in paragraph 7 of the direction on the rent standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and eight of the direction of rents 1923. The current wording of the bill gives strategic planning authorities the flexibility to plan for a broader range of affordable housing types allowing them to respond to the specific needs of their areas stop the noble Lord Inglewood rightly mentioned the issue of national landscapes.

And they do indeed in this new planning Bill retain the very strong protections that they hold. We are very interested, we have talked a lot about the rural exception sites, where housing is necessary, having that work with local areas to determine where that housing should go. Having potentially local lettings plans to go with them. And there are some strong measures already that the House put forward particularly on empty homes. On second homes in terms of council tax measures and so on.

That can be taken. Insisting that Spatial Development Strategies must specify or describe a certain amount of one particular type of affordable housing could prevent authorities from including other important forms of affordable housing and setting out the amount or disparate boy distribution of housing that they considered to be strategically important to their area. This can significantly reduce the variety of volume of affordable housing delivered. Turning now to amendment 137 tabled by the noble Baroness lady Thornhill which will require a Spatial Development Strategy to have regard to the need to be a specific type of new social harms you each year.

-- Target of social homes each year. It already enables a Spatial Development Strategy to outline an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other type of housing so social housing, certainly, that the authority deems strategically important for its area. Turning to amendment 171, this asked the government to commit to update guidance in relation to affordable housing on a full agreement that we've got to ensure affordable housing is genuinely affordable to local people and addresses of local needs. That is why we make changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right limits to suit housing need in their areas.

In addition have committed that new investment to succeed the current proposed program will help particular focus on delivering the homes are referred to earlier. The noble Baroness Thornhill has referred to in net new homes and delivery, delivery of new homes is only one element, so are changes to Right to Buy, provisions which the government have already outlined. Planning policy already supports many of the aims of this amendment requiring local planning authorities to assess at the range of affordable housing needs in the area and set out the types of affordable housing to be prioritised, for their areas.

Just touching on a couple of other points. The noble Lord young and Baroness Coffey remind us of the fact that there are economic benefits to providing a social housing. I think, than a Baroness Coffey referred to the benefits to the BRICS campaign. It is very important as we look to reduce the benefits bill that the £30 billion, or 35 billion I think she quoted two howls, often how someone in expensive accommodation doesn't meet their needs. It's a much better focus, on delivering the social housing, will be can ensure it meets the needs of those that live in them.

The noble Earl Lytton referred to the noble Lord Young's amendments on a shared ownership, they are part of the Renters' Rights Bill and we've had very useful meetings with the noble Lord, no doubt that will come back to us when the bill comes back, from ping-pong. We have already made a clear commitment to consider further steps to support social and affordable housing, as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies, for decision- making in 2025. It is part of these changes that the content and timing for further updates to guidance are best considered.

For these reasons I kindly ask the noble Lords to beg kindly ask the noble Lords to beg kindly ask the noble Lords to beg
19:00
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Another really good debate, I'm grateful for all notable piers -- noble peers who participated. The point was made that the net after reduction for those social rents we lose each year, the net increase of actual social rented homes, the most important and in demand of social and affordable housing, went down to something like 700 gained each year. After right to buy and other mechanisms. It has seen a loss of social renting, making the case even more desperate.

The noble Lord young, whose support I have relished over so many years, he pointed out the CPRE had sampled a range of schemes and discovered that instead of the 34 percent affordable housing that was expected from those developments, only 18 percent actually emerged. This is the developers outwitting the planners. Funnily enough, 34 percent I think is the number of affordable homes in powdery where they have not reduced the amount in subsequent negotiations but have maintained the figure they started with.

Thank goodness. But a demonstration of what we are losing at the moment in terms of the homes that we so desperately need. I was fascinated to hear Lord Young talking about housing benefit taking the strain, and the policy that went behind that. And how he now does not hold to the view that that is the way to do it, for rent to be market rent and to take the strain. Better to reduce social housing with a grand upfront at the beginning, then have a lower housing benefit bill for the years to come and have all the other advantages that go with that.

His points on security of tenure were taken up by one or two others, and I think amendment 152, which is coming up later, is all about people moving from under occupied council housing housing association homes into something more suitable for them. More accessible, more manageable for them. But also freeing up a council house or social rented property, and that may satisfy to some extent the point made by Lord Young. Lord Carlile mentioned the anti- competitive actions and legal cases he has been involved in...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respectfully I will ask the noble Lord to move to the point of whether he will withdraw the amendment or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not. Eager anticipation as to whether I would withdraw the amendment. I would withdraw the amendment. Suffice it to say, the support Suffice it to say, the support around the House has been almost complete, and I'm deeply grateful for it. The noble Baroness the Minister mentioned the many good things the government is doing at the moment, but I fear that leaving it to local authorities to decide when there is such an unequalled tussle between the local authority and those who wish to reduce the amount of affordable housing and social rented housing is not going to work.

It hasn't worked so far, and I think we may need to return to this. But in the meantime, I do this. But in the meantime, I do indeed beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure at amendment 122 be withdrawn, amendment by leave withdrawn.
19:05
19:06
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
It's a pleasure to introduce this group of related amendments, which are all concerned with how planning in general and housing in particular can play a positive role in promoting mental, physical and social health and well-being. Building what I would describe as a healthy and health creating society. The noble Lady the Minister will recognise some of the amendments in this group, which are very similar to ones the government supported so effectively in opposition when I tabled them in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

We even won a vote, I believe. I hope that she will support them, I suspect she won't. And I understand that government of course does have to choose. However, I hope this debate will provide the noble Lady with more ammunition to argue for change within government. There are very good and powerful arguments behind these amendments which I know will be set out by noble Lords in this group. Let me thank Lord Young and Lord Carlile for adding their names Lord Carlile for adding their names to my amendments.

And also Hugh Ellis and 30 CPA for their invaluable advice and support. Before turning to my own amendments I want to speak about sport and physical activity, these amendments make points about both, it's not just the activity gets involved that is important for health and well- being but the social aspects as well. Two of the amendments in this group, 13 2 1/8 de set out definitions and purpose of planning. It seems to me both these definitions of planning surely include ensuring the health and well-being of the population and not damaging it.

I also support Baroness Levitz amendment on the code of practice for design. This will be very important. There are two overlapping arguments for my amendments, I won't repeat what I said in the second reading speech but I will touch on some of the points. The evidence from health research, if you like the straightforward health arguments, and what I call the evidence of experience. The salutary tales from recent history. Fully planned neighbourhoods with poor amenities, badly designed homes, little or no access to nature, inadequate insulation for heat or noise, that aren't secure, that aren't well heated in winter or cool enough in summer, a recipe for personal and societal stress.

They can be directly linked to risks of mental and physical illness and disease. And stress itself is implicated in increased inflammation and linked to many long-term conditions from heart disease and diabetes to depression and anxiety. It's also clear that the Department of Health understand this very well. In the new NHS plan there is reference to the importance of a healthy neighbourhood. That is what all these amendments are designed to achieve. Turning to the evidence from experience. The current housing system is too often failing to promote people's physical, mental and social health, especially in most deprived areas.

Wider society at least £18.5 billion per year through poor educational achievement, loss of productivity, and ongoing costs to health and care services including 1.4 billion to the NHS. Across the country to many homes are being built at poor quality, fully located and unaffordable. A recent survey showed that 1/3 of people across all sectors described their new homes as poor quality. PVR, permitted development rights, has only made that word. Having said the problems, it's also clear that on the positive side well-designed safe homes with access to facilities provide part of the foundation for successful and prosperous lives.

Prosperity the ambition of sustainable growth goes hand-in-hand with healthy safe environments. Existing guidance and environments. Existing guidance and advice is not -- has not insured promoting good neighbourhoods, there is no evidence that other nonmandatory guidance will help. And that is why am promoting these amendments, and as anyone who has any role in government will know that when setting out these guidance to authorities some of them follow it very well, some of them don't. So I think the question for the noble Lady is, if this is to be contained in what is in a sense guidance, what is the way the government will be dealing with the people who do not follow the guidance? I do entirely recognise we need more homes, I would also have referred to the children the noble Lady the Minister referred to living in temporary accommodation at the moment, a terrible situation.

Let me turn specifically to the amendments, taking mine in turn. Number 123 says that any national or local planner for strategy or develop and must be designed to promote the physical and social health and well-being of people. This reunites planning and health, the two were once inseparable in government policy. It takes account of the vital role that planning has in improving health and well-being. The next amendment, 18 well-being. The next amendment, 18 well-being.

The next amendment, 18 SF -- 18 SF 18, SF places a duty on strategic authorities on health promotion and health inequalities. It uses the same language but replaces strategic authorities with local planning authorities. The effect of this amendment is to place the obligation on planning authorities to improve health inequalities. The obvious question,, the obvious answer is if this is appropriate for the top tier authority to take regard of the matters, why is it not also for the planning authority? Or is the higher-level authority simply irrelevant, and the words of the other bill words without any follow-through in planning itself? Amendments 189, 191 and 193 place similar duties on development corporations.

They already have in this bill duties on sustainable development and climate change. I would add further positive promotion of the physical, mental and social health of their residents in its area, by ensuring the creation of healthy homes. These three elements of sustainable developing, climate change and health improvement fit very naturally together, as earlier debates this afternoon have already shown. And actions to address one tend to reinforce the others. My final two amendments, which are very familiar, are about healthy homes and neighbourhoods.

Two to six places a duty on the Secretary of State to place a conference of regulatory framework for the planning and built environment designed to secure the health and well-being of neighbourhoods. 351 provides a schedule for that. This means dealing with all the health issues I mentioned earlier in this group. The current arrangements haven't worked. And if not this regulatory framework, which I'm not wedded to the detail of, but if not this then what is the government going to put in its place? Because if the government has the ambition to create Decent Homes Standard elements, which I think it does, then it needs some leavers in place to make this happen.

It's as simple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as that. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 51 insert the new clause on development plans to aim to improve health and well-being. The words of health and well-being. The words of which are on page 5 of the which are on page 5 of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which are on page 5 of the Arrives to speak to 3 amendments to my name. If I start by thanking the Lord for his generous comments
19:15
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
the Lord for his generous comments in regards to the members are tabled. I completely in reverse, I'm supportive of what he has put before the committee. During the last sitting of the committee I spoke to a series of amendments on the importance of physical activity and well-being, in the context of planning law. I now rise to speak to 3 further amendments 138A, 138, S SC and SD. That represents and supports at the physical activity sector.

I thank them for their consistent high quality work on their work. In the interest of the Wide World of Sports, recreation physical activity, for which they're widely renowned. Amendments 138A allows me to follow up the exchange I had earlier committee with my noble friend Lord Lansley, the importance of Spatial Development Strategies. This amendment requires all such strategies to be designed to ensure that the use and development of land in the strategy area, supports the delivery of local strategies to improve health and well-being.

Including those which seek to ensure adequate provision for sport and physical activity, in the form of access to green space. Active travel infastructure and sport and physical activity facilities. Such as gyms, swimming pools and leisure centres. Amendment 185 allows for a new clause of the requirement of plans to include provision of facilities physical activity, by requiring that any national or local plan relating to the development of an area must be designed to meet communities in need for sport and physical activity facilities, for the health and well-being of the community.

Again, this would include gyms, swimming pools, leisure centres, and other community sports facilities. Furthermore accepted it will require the secretary of state to issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans, strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined. The new clause would be a quiet national or local development plans to be designed, in a way, that ensures adequate provision of facilities, for sport and physical activity. My third amendment 185, SD also provides for relevant plans needing to align with the updated national policy planning framework.

The commitment to take action to reduce health inequalities and recreation. It is vitally important that we take action to reduce health and by ensuring new residential development plans include adequate provision for sport and physical activity facilities, to meet the needs of the new residents. And appropriate consideration is afforded to increase provision, for increased residential developments. By using To ensure that they are committed without the considerations within the planning system. And that there should be a presumption My Lords of approval from the developments related to sport and physical activity provision.

And that this new clause would ensure appropriate afforded to communities within the N NPF to ensure a reduction in health and the quality through the provision of physical activity. So why is it important to see these amendments on the face of the bill. First I believe these amendments will take provision in the NPPF framework. It highlights the importance of physical activity facilities in the communities and why they should be given consideration in developments. On the question that the value of physical activity, behind my amendments physical activity offers community activity, social and economic value, both in the direct benefits and improved well-being.

The wider value of society including state. Sport England calculated that during 2022 to 2023, sport and physical activity generated 107.2 billion, social value, which was largely comprised of 96.7 early on in primary value or well-being. Including £2500, per active adult and 4,100 per active young person. When it comes to secondary value, I think it is very important, he savings amount to 10.5 When it comes to secondary value, I think it is very important, he savings amount to 10.5 billion which covers 1.3 billion in reduce to GP visits and mental health service usage and 9.3 million in the prevention of chronic health conditions.

Leisure facilities at My Lords or at the heart of our communities, for many the other social hubs where people can make and see friends. This makes a leisure centres key opportunities for promoting community integration and cohesion. Which is worth 231 Which is worth £231 million across 23, 24. Moving communities impact 23, 24. Moving communities impact report. The value is even greater more deprived communities. We have proportionately experienced the greatest gains of public leisure participation, with 99% most required compared to 5% in the least deprived areas.

This reveals leisure facilities are key drivers, social economic activities. The looks to streamline planning there is a risk of access to physical activity despite its social value contributions, we are inadvertently impacted on the push for new residential developments. Without specifying protection physical activity in the n NPF. There is a danger that public leisure facilities will be lost community centres and drivers of health and well-being and particularly so because of the fact that it is a discretionary line for local The intention to remove Sport England as a statutory consortium highlights this threat to physical activity facilities.

Greater clarification of terminology will be required to ensure that physical activity provision is not considered to be low value. Therefore at risk of being developed. I hope these are compelling arguments for why these amendments should be considered by committee and I hope gain a fair wind and potentially advance to be included in the bill. I beg to move. included in the bill. I beg to move.
19:21
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords Best and Monaghan who have very much as set out the case for other amendments, in this group. And it is really worth focusing on how we need to debate, consider and act on much more the parlous state of health in the UK. And the very significant contribution that the built environment, our housing, our streets, the state of them, the way people are forced to live is having a terrible impact on people's health.

It is not the way I would do it, but if nothing else, think about the economic impact of that on health. I'm going to focus only on the three amendments in this group, to which I have tabled. They are a fairly diverse, two of them are quite specific and one of them is much more general, purpose advert as the noble Lord previewed. So, to start with 124, this is about the display of advertisements. So this is an amendment to section 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, currently it allows the regulation of public advertisements for ability or public safety.

This adds in environmental impact, as reasons for which it can regulate. If you just think about, as you're coming into the Hause today, or as you're going home tonight, how much you might inadvertently be bombarded with advertisements for gambling companies, for junk food. For polluting substances. The odds are there is a lot of them and this is having a negative impact on public health stop there are many members of the Lordship's House focusing on how gambling, out-of-control gambling is a public health issue, in our country.

Now I pay tribute to the inspiration for this amendment, coming from the campaign group add free cities, which wants a complete ban on all outdoor corporate advertising. As one of the campaigners see it these ads or in a public space without any consultation about what is being shown on them. They cause pollution, often and they are for things that people can't afford don't need. You should spend money to fix that misery. This is not just dreaming up some new idea. If we go back to 2006, So Paulo, the largest city in the southern hemisphere banned all outdoor advertising.

The clean city law, billboards removed, 300,000 law, billboards removed, 300,000 exhibits too loud. Global in 2014. They said but not going to have digital advertising in fact we're going to take that advertising of streets altogether. In Amsterdam it banned adverts for petrol and diesel cars and air travel. Something we've also seen increasingly happening with local governments, with Bristol City Council, Norwich, Sheffield, Edinburgh. These protecting people, protecting public spaces that people have to be into. Thinking about the public in health impact of this.

To quote. To Nathan, from the Institute for social marketing and health, the University of Stirling, there is consistent evidence that exposure to marketing for unhealthy commodities, for example alcohol, food, or drinks, high in fat, sugar and salt is linked to consumption. This is being pushed on people and they are suffering, their health is suffering as a result. In fact, many people will be familiar with Transport for London's ban on unhealthy food advertising. A study found had prevented almost 100,000 obesity cases.

We can think of the positives instead of just the negatives. What about in those spaces we have community arts. One of the things that are cities, towns and villages really lack is more community, arts, murals, local projects are indeed lets have some more trees. That lets have some more trees. That Outdoor sitting found that 4/5 billboard advertisements are in the poorest parts of England and Wales. This is increasing inequality. Something different there. Moving on to amendment 132, this is something very different.

The House is used to very different. The House is used to debating purpose clauses and we put an amendment down at the start of the course, but this is about planning functions and all planning functions. What is the purpose of planning. What are we trying to achieve. We have a lot of Peace Now provision in different places, but why not say as an overarching principle what the planning is for? Our attempt and I'm happy to debate the details and we look at the long-term public interest.

The way that is spelt a bit more, it addresses the long-term common good for current and future generations. That phrase future generations is a term that many noble Lords will recall from a Private Members' Bill that Lord Bird brought forward. I forgot how many sessions back. Copying the model of the future generation act in Wales. We cannot just govern for the moment. We know our democratic system has a problem. This is a way of looking at impacts on future generations.

It draws on well-known laws of seven generations which comes from the great law that says you should make every decision on the impact it will have in seven generations time. This is thinking about the future, thinking about leaving this place better than we found it. This amendment refers to the Climate Change Act and the environment act 2021. I predict what the ministers will say. This explicitly lays down that planning must consider planning considerations and it also says the processes must be open, accessible and efficient.

I come to amendment 227 which brings me to grounds that the House has heard on many times the House has heard on many times and I reference amendments that I and Baroness Boycott and others brought to the children's wellbeing and Schools Bill about school uniforms and the concern about poisons, the threat to health contained within school uniforms. This looks at the threat to health from new buildings. Noble Lords are probably aware forever chemicals are in many things that are in our buildings and part of the fabric with an increasing understanding of the buildup of these and the reason why they call for everything because we are being exposed to them from our clothing, buildings, food, and this is building up and up and our bodies cannot get rid of them.

Our environment cannot get rid of them. This is a simple amendment. I cannot write an amendment that deals with these issues for government now, but we are on a poisoned planet and living in poisoned buildings. This identifies some of the issues and explicitly draws attention to something many campaigners reach out to me about, artificial turf. We were talking about how we need more green spaces and natural environments. The absolute opposite of that is taking a piece of ground and covering it in plastic because and covering it in plastic because Artificial turf gets extraordinarily hot if it's unshaded.

It also, older versions are made of poly, newer ones are polyethylene. They are all going to be shedding micro-plastics into the environment the whole time. That's what's happening when it's there on the ground in use. I would really question whether any Vilda, particularly any housebuilder, is putting down plastic turf that small children will probably play on, breathe that plastic in, get it on their hands, swallow that plastic. How they could possibly justify that. Then finally there's the disposal point.

There is no recycling facilities for plastic grass in the UK, it's all going into our waste. I think 227, a simple review amendment, is something the government should really look at. I hope the noble Lord the Minister is going to indicate they are prepared to look at this.
19:32
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 18 SA, I welcome the speech by Lord Crisp. He referred to this as Baroness Levitz amendment, I should say that 48 hours and about 41 minutes ago she was asked to go on the government front bench. By the time we got here yesterday morning it was too late to remove her name from this amendment. What I learned in that 48 hours is that if at home you say yes Minister often enough you can get your own way much more than you used to.

My intellectual inspiration for this amendment comes from a man, a wonderful friend, called David Leavitt OBE, who was also my father-in-law. He's a very distinguished architect, and recently in his 90th year was given a lifetime award by the RTE texture and -- architects Journal for social housing. I paid you be to his work. I know from my time as a barrister and part-time judge and MP, that the lack of a decent home in which to live blights the lives of all too many of our fellow to citizens, and plays a large part in them coming before the court.

To me, decent housing is essential to the reduction of crime, especially among adults or, good housing brings justice. This amendment is designed justice. This amendment is designed to achieve that on a large-scale. What is striking about this otherwise inspiring bill is that it says little about the design, the architectural design, of the 1.5 million homes that the government is going to build. I think we all agree, nobody wants to build badly. National planning already makes it clear that poorer quality design should not be allowed.

Yet the general quality and design standard of much volume housebuilding in this country continues to be poor. I spoke earlier about financial irregularities, but it's not just that. It's the way in which the thinking about building takes place. That's what leads to put design. Not only does it affect the people inhabiting the houses, but it contributes to local dissatisfaction with local government and opposition to further developments. Whilst there is widespread support. -- Support for streamlining our planning processes, words I use cautiously with Lord Banner in the chamber, there are legitimate concerns about the quality of new development of existing cheques and standards being weakened.

There is widespread disquiet about whether the housebuilding industry has the ability or the incentives to make the change needed to deliver both the quantity and the quality of homes that are required. And if it does have the ability, is it willing to make that change? The problem lies not with national planning, which is pretty clear, and the fact that the guidance is currently under revision demonstrates ongoing commitment by the government to achieving good design. In my view, the difficulty lies at local level as a result of the erosion of skills over time, inadequate training which has been discussed earlier, and pressure on budgets.

Few planning authorities have sufficiently strong processes or policies to allow the change confident in the knowledge that they will be able to successfully resist planning appeals. Without enforceable design standards, local authorities have no firm policy footing to reject inadequate schemes. And so such developments are frequently approved on the basis that they meet housing needs. Thus an all-too-familiar scenario is that an outlying planning permission is sought and granted on the basis of some attractive early visual impressions, but where all the important design matters are reserved and thus the images produced in fact have no contractual force.

Because of national housing targets councils feel under pressure to approve outlying permission. The site is typically then sold to a housebuilder, and later the reserved matters submission poses a generic design based on standard house types, on a typology that has nothing to do with local circumstances, and places to much emphasis on roads and cars and too little on people and their needs. little on people and their needs. What we are trying to achieve is that if somebody lives in social housing, new build housing, they will say in the years to come, I come from such and such a place, and they will try to live there for as much of their life as is economically possible.

So when the final scheme looks nothing like what was promised, currently many residents and councils feel misled. This leads to a built in resistance to future applications. To allow this situation to continue I would suggest would be a betrayal of the excellent vision which has led to the promotion of this bill. But the good news, as this amendment reveals, is that no radical change is needed. The tools already exist within the existing planning system. All we are proposing is basically a tweak, an adaptation that would set the threshold for good quality design and will give the already excellent national standards more traction at local level.

Doing this will embed consistency and predictability, which will help local authorities, the community developers and landowners. Consistency and predictability will simplify and thus speed up the planning process, and reduce the need for appeals. And thus, the quid pro quo for housebuilders is that those who comply will get their planning permission much more quickly, and will therefore be able to maximise their profits by building well within the permitted building well within the permitted period. So simply, what this amendment proposes is a code of practice which requires a set of templates incorporating core design standards.

If these are given greater weight through the National Planning Policy Framework then it will make it easy for local authorities to apply the principles at local level. And this amendment has been developed with a team of leading architects and planners, whose publication place making not plotting will probably be published tomorrow. I've actually seen a draft of it during the course of this debate. Once these core quality standards are embedded at local level then local authorities should require compliance with them at the earliest practical stage in the planning process, and ensure they are not left to the reserved matters stage.

Clear, predictable and measurable design requirements would enable officers to sign off significant components of planning applications, leaving much streamlined areas which would then be the subject of proper democratic debate and decision-making in the council chamber. Proper local accountability, but much more quickly and efficiently. So that would be exactly what Lord Fuller would love in his council chamber, in South Norfolk. And would have good cause to speak of proudly in this chamber. If so he wished.

And indeed, so enacting a code of practice would allow applications which demonstrate compliance with the standards to be processed speedily within the current system. And the promise of speedy approvals will provide incentive for housebuilders to incorporate these measurable standards in their applications. The aim of this amendment is to find a practical way to use the best of architecture to provide the best in housing design quickly and efficiently. I hope this approach will appeal to the noble Lady the Minister, who has such long experience of local government and of the planning process, and has demonstrated extraordinary understanding of it to us in the chamber in recent days.

I observe this amendment is one of several related to design and quality, and I would urge Ministers to at least include the basis of our amendment as part of their experience of the planning procedures at local level to proceed with this bill.
19:41
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
I support amendment 132, considering the purpose of planning. To my mind there would be some advantage in following the precedent of Scotland, where a similar purpose clause exists in their planning legislation. It would provide a guiding light to remind everybody involved in the planning system what planning is actually for, why we are doing all this. To my mind there are two particular advantages in practice to this. Firstly, it would remind those responsible for planning decision-making that that decision-making isn't just about those who shout loudest.

Which very often tend to be the vocal minority as opposed to the silent majority, who may wish to live in an area but can't find or afford a home in the area. It would provide that daily reminder that planning is about the long-term public interest, not short-term expediency. And to my mind, for reasons I outlined last time we were here, it would in combination with the proposal for statutory chief planning officer that was discussed in Lord Lansley's amendment, to buttress the independence of independent planning officers from undue influence.

Which to my mind would be all the more important in a world where the national scheme delegation exists, in order to give full effect to that scheme delegation and for it not to be undermined by undue pressure on officers. I have a few quibbles with the drafting, that's not for the day. Maybe something we can take up later. I would urge the government to consider this amendment very carefully.
19:43
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
I want to intervene briefly to support Lord Crisp. I commend him for continuing the campaign he has promoted for some time through a private members' bill, through amendments, promoting healthy homes. But the challenge that faces him is that health and homes are in two different government departments. Successive attempts to bring them together have so far failed. Paradoxically, 100 years ago the Minister of health was actually responsible for housing. And health. In between the two world wars that led to a more integrated approach to both health and housing, indeed my great-uncle was Minister for Health in the 1930s, and as health Minister he introduced the Housing Act in 1935 which set down standards for accommodation.

Something which the noble Lord's amendments seek to build on. Winding forward, and again very briefly, the importance of bringing health and housing together was central to the Black report published in 1980 about inequalities and health outcomes. Saying "The consequence and importance of housing policies for other areas such as health policies have received increasing recognition in recent years". As have the problems of coordination deriving in part from the location of responsibilities for housing, personal and social services and health services.

Then we had the just and report. What I found compelling was the Resolution Foundation report that said poor quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health. The debate in the other place on this amendment, it was new clause 9, there were two backbench speakers. It was all over in under 1/4 of an hour. I see a smile on the face of the noble Lord on the government bench. Including two other new clauses, but that does underline the importance of this underline the importance of this The minister dismissed duty on health and may be there may be a conflict with what he said on the noble Ladies position.

It contains no policy which requires decision- makers to positively promote health and well-being or promote harm to people. It simply asks them to have regard to health inequalities and aim to achieve healthy and inclusive and safe places. The acid test of if that is adequate is the kind of poor quality housing illustrated in the TCPA publication a home to buy for is still being built. Lord Carlile referred to design. The decent homes standard on housing standards does not address the planning design or construction or quality of new homes where they are located and it does not address measures of health.

Neither the NPF nor the decent homes standards nor this bill contains any requirement for new development to remote health creation. Part two states the development policy and sustainable development strategy should have regard to consider health inequalities. And it does not require any action. What Lord crisps amendment does is raise the stakes and that is what I supported.
19:47
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to give a few words of support of my noble friend and I will use his expression today. Sporting activity and group sporting activity is an incredibly important part of building community in our country. It is something that really brings them together and as it is a contributor to health, we have heard about the Department of Health, they may not be represented here, but ministers are able to carry a message to them.

If you don't have good sporting facilities, and activity, you cannot utilise this. I would hope that when the Minister comes to respond they will Tellers how they are going to work this in and the duty that looks at all of the benefits in this new structure. We have a great deal about driving something forward. If we drive something forward and others have said it that it is unpleasant, does not deliver a decent environment and Lord Crisp made comments on this that got to the part of it.

This is just one specific part of that. If you are not doing that, you will create unpleasant environment and we have done it in the past. It has been used in Billy Connolly's description. He moved out somewhere that rapidly became a slum with new buildings because it had no buildings because it had no facilities. Could the Minister give us a description of how they will work these things in, access to green space, access to infrastructure and sport and physical activity.

If these things are excluded from planning upfront, those making the decisions will not follow upon them. If you don't have to, you won't because you are busy and you have a prime objective. I would hope they would have to deal with this because if they don't, they have to put it in the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 123 in the name of Lord Crisp, Lord Young, Baroness Bennett and Lord
19:50
19:51
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 138 a, 185, and 185 180 5S of why these are so important and should be considered. We must ensure any national or local plan or strategy relating to planning and development must be designed to provide access, spaces and facilities and preserve existing sites for physical activity to improve the health and well-being of society. A local plan and strategy is critically important. Exporting charity I chaired shows that children and young people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods, typically told not to travel outside their immediate locality and other barriers they have less access to opportunity for sport and play.

Sport England survey shows that those in the lower groups are more likely to be inactive due to safe and affordable spaces. This disparity has not allowed limited school facilities with data showing the correlation between services available and activity levels. The Centenary was supported today and publish the green space index and it was estimated that 4000 new parks would be needed to maintain current levels of accessible green spaces across the country and the current level is not enough.

To preserve these park spaces and sports facilities, planning will need to be truly focused if our country is not to be worst off. The facilities fund is helpful and detrimental as the fund was providing its worth. If we are to tackle health and social economic inequality, we need to improve it for all including those in the most deprived neighbourhoods and to do this means making sure integrating sport and physical activity in all planning decisions is an absolute requirement.

Street games of any other demonstrate the importance of local community facilities, sports fields, leisure centres, gyms and parks. We note how they improve lives and if the issue, obesity, isolation and physical and mental health, crime and antisocial, these organisations help aid social cohesion and provide places with social interaction provided they have access to the right facilities. They deal daily with rebalancing of issues of health inequalities and without concerted efforts, they will be unable to do their work.

For these reasons and more I hope we can prioritise the issues raised and I support these amendments because they protect the provision of sport and physical activity in the National Planning Policy Framework. Sport and physical activity become the underpinning of health and the underpinning of health and well-being within community and help eliminate inequalities.
19:55
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
As president of the LGA and chair of sport Wales and recognising the devolved nature of planning it would be remiss of me not to mention investment for physical activity in Wales is £5.98 billion a year. The noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle raised the future generations act. An incredibly important lens for us to make decisions on things like sport and physical activity. We have got a chance to really cement opportunities to be active in communities.

In terms of sport, we do not get to talk about it in the chamber. We are in the middle of an exciting moment in women's sport. We have the women's open, the Euros, the World Cup rugby, but sport is a small part of activity which we need to concentrate on. All of the people who played in these amazing tournaments started somewhere, but tournaments started somewhere, but to be good at sport you need lots of people being physically active and to be physically active you need access to play but also a place to do it.

I would like to thank the All Party Parliamentary Group on sport. We met before coming to the chamber and we had representation from the sport recreational alliance, cricket, tennis, Sport England and the FA who talked about what we are missing. In terms of grass pitches on current demand, we need 12,000 extra let alone after the summer of sport when we hopefully get thousands of more young women who want to play. We say we love sport, but we must be more active.

UK active have produced reports and I was chair at the time, generation inactive and also turning the tide of physical activity which highlighted the challenges that need addressing. We have a generation of young people more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. People hit frailty in their 40s and live with it for decades. It is costly for society and bad for the individuals because it excludes them from society. One in eight children between two and 10 are obese according to a survey published in 2024.

Approximately 39% of sports facilities including sports halls and pitches are located behind school gates and are inaccessible outside of school hours. There is a need to open them and we cannot afford to lose more than we have currently. I was delighted that Lord Moynihan talked about swimming pools. We saw the challenges of keeping them opening Covid and this is not sport for the sake of sport. The Royal life saving Society estimates 328 UK and Irish citizens lose their lives to accidental drowning each year.

Keeping swimming pools open is incredibly important. Without protection of these facilities we are dooming another generation to a lack of opportunity and it is going to have an increasingly negative impact on their health. If I look back to the summer of sport we have seen, players like George Evans, Alessia Rousseau, they provide a moment of inspiration. We need to do more than that, providing the right facilities where we make the elite pathway and not just be really good at sport.

We need to channel the future generation and we need to look at the legacy we are leaving for boys and girls who follow behind who desperately need somewhere to play.
19:59
20:01
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak on this important group of amendments. The role of planning and promoting well-being and the standards and adequacy of housing development. Let me begin by thanking noble Lord to tabled these amendments, their recognition of the need to place health and well-being at the heart of housing policy and planning is both welcome and timely. In doing so I want to express our appreciation for the sentiment behind the amendments, it's not just about number of units delivered about quality-of-life of those who were living them.

I note the amendments tabled by Lord Crisp. Taken together, they seek to integrate health and well-being considerations into housing and three duties on authorities, reporting requirements and potential enforcement provisions. The link between housing and public health is well recognised, but as many such proposals the issue of -- is one of balance. The noble Baroness Bennett also brought forward a thoughtful proposal, amendment 124, on advertising. This raises an important issue of public health, and the role of advertising.

The baroness mentioned gambling advertising, I would also add the instance of junk food, particularly close to schools for instance. Amendment 132 on the disclosure of environmental reports on marketing materials and 227 on enforcement powers, they raised important questions on consumer protection and transparency. We look forward to the government's reply. Next I wish to recognise the valuable contribution of Lord Moynihan, and talk to his amendment 138 a. As he often emphasises, creating space for sport and physical activity can give wide-ranging benefits, not just for fitness but for community cohesion and long-term public health.

His amendment would add the promotion of health and well-being to the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies. This raises an important and thought-provoking point, we look forward with interest to the government's response. Lastly I wish to turn to the issues raised by Baroness Lea of, who already underlined the importance of vernacular in local design and planning. The spirit of her amendment is a constructive one, namely that there should be a preferred approach to the consideration of architectural style, grounded in sound principles and framed by appropriate local context for building design.

Where that is fitting. Such an approach ensures that it's not just functional but also reflective of the character and heritage of the community it serves. That's why the previous Conservative government set up the office of place, to ensure that good design was part of building. Unfortunately this current Labour government has closed the office. We should not just be building new units, were we must -- we must build homes. Part of successful communities. I look forward to the Minister's response on how this government will ensure good design.

Across this group of amendments there is a unifying theme that housing should not just be about shelter, but about creating places that sustain life, health and community. Whether through higher standards, clearer duties, better design or fairer advertising, these amendments challenge us to raise our ambition. But ambition must be tempered with practicality. The central question is, how will we embed these principles in a way that is workable, proportionate and does not risk unintended consequences for housing delivery, affordability or local discretion? I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the government intends to respond to these important proposals, and how it will ensure the planning system and housing policy place health and well-being of people and communities at their heart.

at their heart.
20:06
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank all noble Lords for their amendments tabled under this grouping. We've had a very useful and interesting debate on this topic. I'm very grateful to the noble Lords that put amendments in who have deep expertise and who are great advocates of on the issue of health, housing and communities. That's greatly appreciated. The government agrees the quality of our homes and the wider environment around them are intrinsically linked to the creation of healthy communities.

Taken together, planning policy, guidance and building regulations tackle these important matters and collectively promote the creation of healthy communities and homes for the people who reside there. It may be helpful if I quickly outlined some of the provisions at the outset to show the difference between the national policy framework and the design code, building regulations and the future home standard. That sounds more like a PhD essay than a quick intervention. In collectively promoting healthy homes and communities. Firstly, the NPPF has the goal of creating sustainable development right at its heart which includes supporting a strong vibrant and healthy community, and ensuring a sufficient number and range of phones can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations.

I'm not sure about 70 years, Baroness Bennett talked about that, we will do our best. The framework sets out they should aim to create healthy places to enable healthy lives through promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well- being needs and reduce health inequalities. That is all set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. It's very clear what's expected. The framework also recognises the importance of open space, sports and recreation facilities in supporting the health and well-being of communities.

It's clear local plans 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 the planning practice guidance, which supports the implementation the NPPF in practice. Secondly the national design guard -- died and code are part of the suite of guidance. They illustrate how well designed 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.

All new homes developed under a permitted developing rights are required to meet their space standards and provide adequate national -- natural life -- light. Local authorities can consider the impact of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers during the decision-making process. All new homes, whether delivered through permitted development, right, or following a planning application are required to meet fire standard safety. They must ensure they protect people's safety health and welfare. We continue to review and strengthen the standards, for example this autumn the government will publish the future home standard which will increase the energy efficiency requirements the energy efficiency requirements in building regulations.

New homes will be equipped with low carbon heating and in most cases solar panels, making them fit for the future, comfortable for occupants and affordable to heat. At the same time we will publish our response to the call for evidence on new overheating requirement, which has been in effect since June 2022. This requires new homes are designed to minimise overheating and thus remain resilient as our climate changes. Turning to amendment 123 on health and well-being in developing plans, and 138 a, 18, 18 SD on providing adequate provisions for sport and activity and making sure they are in the planning system and in new spatial strategies.

The provisions in the NPPF I outlined mean these matters will already be taken into account. Within close 52 of the bill new section 12 D1 has strategies related to green space, active and sports, physical activity facilities, providing they are of strategic importance to the area. Lord Crisp mentioned the English devolution and community empowerment bill in the other place at the moment, closed 43 of that bill I would say is a general duty which applies to all of the duties that Combined Authority's have to have regard to the need to improve health inequalities for their area.

It's not a specific planning duty, where planning is concerned we believe we should deal with those matters through the National Planning Policy Framework. Turning to amendment 124, which seeks to include environmental impact on public health as additional considerations to take into account when regulating advertisements. The advertisement regime is designed to ensure outdoor advertisements are in the right areas, a light touch system concerned with only two issues. The impact on public amenity and public safety. Amenity includes oral amenity and general characteristics of the locality.

But safety is largely concerned with the transport network, for example distractions to road users or safety on railway lines. The content of advertisement is subject to a separate regular trace system which is overseen by the advertising standards authority. To widen the scope of matters which can be considered through the advertisement consent regime, particularly in relation to public health, is likely to bring the focus more on to the content of the advertisement stopping flat where the case it would create an overlap between the two regulatory regimes, at present there is a clear distinction.

This risks causing uncertainty and confusion. Therefore, while I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve we think the current scope of the advertisement regime is appropriate. Turning to amendment 185 185D, her it must do so in a manner compatible with that purpose. The pursuit of sustainable is at the heart of what the planning system seeks to achieve. Reflecting this, it's a principle which is woven throughout our NPPF from the overarching objectives which it sets through to the specific policies for achieving them.

For example, the National planning policy sets out modes of design for transport and location to housing, economic uses, essential community services and facilities, the vital role of open space and green infrastructure, and play in supporting health and well- being and recreation. It's clear local plans should meet identified needs and seek opportunities for new provision. It also supports a transition to a low carbon future and promotes renewable and low carbon energy and requires planners to take a proactive approach to climate change.

These are all important principles and we shouldn't underestimate the role of the NPPF in translating these into practice. But I wish to resist these amendments not just because it would impose significant burdens on any individual or body exercising a planning function in order to gauge compliance, as inevitably these provisions will become focus for challenges to plans and decisions. Turning to 18 SA on design. Can I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Levitt on her well-deserved promotion to the frontbench, and I thank the noble Lord Carlile for moving her amendment.

I suspect he may have few more occasions of having to say yes Minister, but I don't want to interfere with that part of his life. I agree with my noble friend Baroness Levitt that we have a role to play setting clear expectations for design and place making to support local authorities to demand better through the planning system, and a responsibility to ensure they have the tools necessary to do this. I thank her very much for meeting with me to discuss this.

As I mentioned, the National Planning Policy Framework already emphasises that the creation of high quality and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what planning and development should achieve. The framework is supplemented by a national guidance, I gather from this amendment my noble friend believes we could go further, that's exactly what we intend to do. We are consulting on national policies for decision-making including on design later in 2025, we are also in the process of updating the national design guidance and will publish later this year.

Finally an updated manual for streets will be coming forward, my department is working very closely with our colleagues in the Department for Transport on this. I would also like to remind noble Lords my colleague in the other place stated exemplary development must be the norm and not the exception, this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Turning to amendment 189, one 193 and 191, which seek to place a duty on corporations in relation to healthy homes. I agree with promoting health and well-being in the design and delivery of large-scale develops, these amendments would also cut across existing obligations.

Clause 94 of the bill would ensure good design is an objective of corporations. Second, development corporations would have to take into consideration the policies of the NPPF. I already specified that. This is the case irrespective of whether a developing corporation tax on planning powers, or whether they -- where they do take on planning powers the planning policies and decisions are already subject to the NPPF. Where they do not, delivery of the project will also be subject to the provisions of the NPPF because it's a material consideration making decisions on specific developer On amendments to hundred 26 and 351 look at the respect of healthy home.

They look at changes to existing planning processes to speed up infrastructure delivery while introducing unnecessary duplication and regulatory burdens. While the aim of the amendment is well- intentioned it will cut across planning policy, guidance, building safety standards, building safety standards and building. The government does not agree that the additional framework to promote healthy home as necessary. Turning to amendment 227 requires a review of publication of the report in 12 months looking at what might be taken to reduce the level of toxic material in new buildings.

I'm grateful to Baroness Bennett to drawing the attention and I'm saying we have a considerable armoury of regulatory measures that help ensure safety, health and safeguarding the environment from toxic chemicals. Building regulations establish minimum legal performance standards with the design of new building work. They may apply when someone goes in a new building, makes material changes to a building and alters building services. Regulations are intended to protect health, safety and welfare and said legal standards for structure, soundproofing, ventilation, sanitation, electrical, energy use, overheat, toxic substances.

Regulation is supported by documents for statutory guidance for many common building situations to set out how building work might be a functional requirement of the building that make provisions covering formaldehyde fumes, ventilation systems, indoor air quality, combustion appliances and other legislation in the field of health and safety office protection for employees and members of the public and commentary systems around the control of substances hazardous to health regulations and the registration, evaluation and authorisation and restriction of chemicals regime requires a risk assessment.

The government is committed to protecting human health and the environment and we are not complacent and the regulation of risk assessment and control framework we have in place offers safeguards from toss -- toxic chemicals in buildings. I hope that noble Lords are reassured and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to address artificial turf of which there is rising concern about. Perhaps she could write to me if the government could write to me if the government has acted given the level of concern?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concern? It appears from what was said that a key factor weighing in the that a key factor weighing in the government mind is legal challenges. government mind is legal challenges. I think the figure is probably I think the figure is probably overblown. The purpose of what needs to be taken into account and once it to be taken into account and once it is taken into account any decision is rational wouldn't be subject to the review. Could I advise the government to reflect on that? I'm happy to help on this issue.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to help on this issue. I am happy to reflect on any issue at Committee and I would be issue at Committee and I would be happy to help with further discussion.
20:20
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

discussion. Another good if lengthy debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Another good if lengthy debate which looks at the principles and practical and a lot of practical practical and a lot of practical point came up from Lord Moynihan about the impact of financial impacts around activity as we look at the design principles and important points from Lord Young of Cookham about the links between health and planning and whether or not those are pulled together, and atomising the various ways, but it does not look as if they are.

I have listened carefully to the Minister and I will look at what she has to say about how the proposals are put forward cut across what is already happening in the various proposals from government and if I may when I have done that I may wish to come back to talk to her before report session to discuss those issues. I will resist the temptation to ask if all of the action the government is taking, what happens if the result we all want is not delivered? How do we deliver? I will not ask that question at this point and I'd beg leave to withdraw my amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 124, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Manor Castle, not moved. I beg to move that the House be resumed. We will move to consider and we will not return to the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we will not return to the bill before 9:01. The question is that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The
20:23
20:23
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank the Minister for being present and for responding to this particular debate and for the noble Lord Kamal on the and for the noble Lord Kamal on the opposition benches who used to be the Minister responding to my particular questions and debates on these issues and also the whip on the government side who also used to respond to some of my questions as well. RSV is a major public health threat and that is the key to combat the risk to infants.

Each year, thousands of infants and older adults are hospitalised causing pain and distress to families and significant cost to the NHS and productivity. That is the nation against RSV is proven to significantly reduce the risk of RSV related lower respiratory illness and minimise the potential disease and complications. The UK was one of the first countries in the world to recommend and implement an adult international immunisation programme when it was rolled out across the nations and regions in September last year.

The two programs have been widely hailed as significant successes achieving higher than expected uptake across both programs. The vaccine has been offered to pregnant women in England since September 24 to address the significant burden of RSV related illness, hospitalisations and deaths, particularly among infants under six months and older adults who are at increased risk. The latest government data for pregnant women in England is encouraging. Of the 37,328 women reported as having given birth in the survey month of April 2025, 54% have received the vaccine and the highest coverage was reported in the Southeast with 63.4% the lowest in London with 34.8%.

Coverage also varied by ethnic group. The highest coverage was reported among the other ethnic group, Chinese category with 70.6% and the lowest among black or black British, Caribbean category with 25.6. The UK RSV vaccination programme is delivering positive results for patients and the health system supported by emerging real- world data from other countries. Recent UK data published on the immediate impact of the RSV vaccination is very encouraging, both for the effectiveness of the vaccine that prevents sickness, but also alleviating hospital pressures which is a key priority for the government under health system.

Vaccine effectiveness estimates from a pre- study reported the against RSV associated hospitalisations of 82.91%, averting an estimated 228 cases of RSV related LR TI hospitalisation in illnesses aged greater than 90 days. The estimates from the clinical research highlight vaccine effectiveness of 72% against RSV associated hospitalisation for infants whose mothers were vaccinated more than 14 days before delivery. It is interesting to note that was of data from Argentina which alongside the UK was one of the first countries to roll out the program as further weight to the benefit of maternal vaccination against RSV with similarly positive effectiveness against severe disease, hospitalisations and deaths.

All analysis estimates that just over 14 million of the 80 million annual cost is due to productivity losses and about 1.5 million to out of pocket costs incurred by parents or carers the remaining healthcare costs including 467,230 GP visits and 33,000 and 33,937 hospitalisations per year. In the UK for children aged under five with RSV. The data on the impact of the older adult program is also positive, highlighting the benefit to individuals, the NHS and the to individuals, the NHS and the economy.

The burden of RSV in older adults is equally significant. Each year in the UK there are approximately 3.6 million cases of RSV in adults, leading to an RSV in adults, leading to an estimated 600,000 GP visits, 460,000 NHS 111 calls and 24,000 hospitalisations in the UK each year and the annual cost to the NHS of looking after adults with RSV is also considerable. But the early data from the RSV program is positive but it is a critical time to focus on uptake across the vaccine programs to help reverse the trend of vaccine uptake.

While these early successes must be celebrated, they must be set against the background of concerning uptake across many other childhood and adult vaccination programs, an issue already identified by the Royal College of paediatrics and therefore we should be reinforcing our shared public health goal of continuing to ensure vaccinations are not only widely available, but they will double down on efforts to ensure they reach everyone. I was deeply concerned at the weekend to learn that there was a doctor from the United States speaking at the Reform conference denying and decrying vaccinations and vaccines which I vaccinations and vaccines which I The gap between the upper and lowest in the UK differs significantly by ethnic group highlights the urgent need to look at the uptake where it full with the expectations.

Extra must also be given to those that may have found was to avoid vaccination, particularly newer vaccines and according to the latest figures, none of the late maternal childhood vaccines in England reach the target of 95% for 2024 /25. This problem from the findings of which recently showed one in five children would start permit school without protection against diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella. In response to questions about the fall of uptake across vaccine programs, the Minister cited a lack of access as a key challenge, preventing eligible people from taking up vaccines.

That was considered one of the impediments. The ambitions of the tenure and to enable healthcare to be delivered closer to where people live can only be a good thing for vaccine uptake, particularly if this means vaccination can be delivered across a range of settings from GP practices to pharmacies and by midwives for maternal vaccination programs which is fast becoming an exemplary case. As we approach one year since the launch of the program, we must continue to ensure uptake to support public health, to help minimise the burden on the health system and to help minimise the financial system on parents, carers, and employers.

And, in this regard, I am very concerned is an ethical distribution and an inequitable accessibility to those vaccines for all parents. Therefore have certain questions for the Noble Lady the Minister. What steps is the Government taking to ensure that all infants are able to access protection going into their first winter respiratory season, including those that are burnt to early for maternal antibodies to transfer and infants whose mothers choose not to participate in the maternal vaccination program.

Secondly, what steps are the Government and the NHS taking to avoid exacerbating inequalities by reducing the variation in uptake of the maternal vaccination program for ethnic groups and finally Wilma Noble Friend the Minister commit to ensuring the comprehensive real- world data is systematically collected and analysed in the maternal program and outline the steps that the Department will take to use as evidence in shaping future health policy and immunisation strategies. I would like to thank the Noble Lady the Minister for being here this evening to respond and I look forward to her answers and to an update on accessibility and the vaccines for children and infants throughout the UK.
20:34
Lord Mott Portrait Lord Mott (Conservative)
-
-
It is an honour to follow the noble Baroness Lady Ritchie in this important debate this evening. Summer is only just behind us and I have no doubt that the minds of NHS leaders are already turning to how to deal with winter pressures of the NHS has always faced challenges in winter, but before the pandemic only around one in 500 patients waited for more than 12 hours for emergency admission during the winter. But since then the numbers have already risen sharply.

In January 2025 we have seen a record high of more than one in 10, 2.1% of patients waiting more than 12 hours. Seasonally illnesses of which RSP is one such example please a significant role in increasing this post RSP accounts for over 33,000 children under five and 24,000 adults admitted to hospital each. That's why I welcome the decision to launch a new vaccination program against RSV. Announced by the previous Conservative Government in June 2024 and supported by the current Government since.

To protect mums, their infants, and older adults. I would like to thank the Noble Lady for securing this important debate. It is hugely important and the noble Ladies ward has led me to take part in this debate this evening. Because for all the positives about the introduction of the new vaccination program, we are seeing very substantial variations in the take- And socio-economic backgrounds. For example, as already mentioned, coverage in the East of England is almost 10% lower than in the South East, and coverage in London is even lower.

I have had the noble Baroness will be able to address this. More broadly, there continues to be misinformation about vaccines and their safety. Not least with wild claims being made from some political about vaccines over the last few days, which I will not repeat here as a defender of free speech but mostly misleading people can be very dangerous and we need to make sure people have access to credible information when making decisions about their own health, so I hope we also get an update on what more can be done to ensure patients are receiving high quality and factual information that addresses risks and benefits of that we can see a wider take up on not just the RSV vaccine programs but programs more widely.

In closing, it is incumbent on us to recognise the awareness in this passive state but a catalyst for principled action, the recent roll-out of the RSV immunisation program and the welcome development reveals concerning disparities in uptake. As of May 2025, only 42 reveals concerning 2025, only 42.8% of women giving birth in England had received the RSV vaccine prior to delivery, with lower figures reported in Wales. These numbers underscore the urgent need to strengthen public engagement, improve access, and ensure that every infant, regardless of geographical circumstances is afforded equitable protection.

I am certain that the noble Baroness Lady Ritchie continue to scrutinise, to question, and, above all, to advocate. The noble Baroness has a new voice to support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I to congratulate the Noble Lady baroness Ritchie on
20:38
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Noble Lady baroness Ritchie on securing this important act. We have heard from the Noble Lady to ensure that all infants receive an equitable offer on the virus and that the maternal RSV scene program is fairly new, having been introduced in Scotland in August 2024, and in England in September 2024. It is important to know, therefore, to monitor it uptake in detail and to assist the protection. We are grateful, therefore, to the UKHSA, the UK Health Security Agency, for the monitoring undertaken so far which has provided valuable insights.

To see that the level of vaccine uptake has increased month on month since its first implementation. For England, for the UKHSA first annual report program published in July showed the 42.8% of all women who have given birth in the six months after the first of who have given birth in the six months after 1 September had received an RSV vaccine prior to delivery. Progress is being made because for the month of April alone the figure reached 54% and most regions showing a pattern of increasing monthly uptake.

There were, as we have heard, significant difficulties in uptake in different commissioning regions and amongst different ethnic groups. For the month of April this year, the UKHSA reported the highest coverage of the vaccine was in the south-east of England. We have heard it was 63.4%. The London commissioning region looked at the lowest level of coverage at 44.8%. For the Midlands the coverage was 51.3%. The variation across ethnic groups, however, was much wider. The other ethnic group in the Chinese category showed the highest coverage at 70.6%.

Whilst the black British Caribbean category reported the lowest level of coverage at just 25.6%. Great reference must therefore be made to improve taking the vaccine and they must be targeted effectively. And I therefore asked the Minister about how the Government will help to address this disparity by region. The figure for black and black British Caribbean is alarming. Can the Minister tell us if any research has been undertaken to see if there is a difference between the point of pregnancy that people with different ethnicities resent themselves to midwives.

What may be the cultural differences or barriers relating to access? Or is there an issue of less time being available as opposed to one not in employment? The vaccination is most effective when offered at a run the 28 week antenatal appointment, or within a few weeks of this to provide babies with the best protection for their first six months of life. Those that resent late may be less protected, even if they ultimately received the job. I am aware that the UKHSA is planning further investigations.

Can we know if such crucial questions are being looked into? We know that Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for health and prevention, Ashley Dalton, in the UKHSA monitoring is a key tool. She promised an update to that UKHSA immunisation equity strategy that is forthcoming to ensure equitable access. Could we possibly know where? Meanwhile, the production of RSV antenatal vaccine into efforts in over 30 languages and in various formats is a very positive step. Significant issues around vaccination have been raised by the Royal midwives.

Clare Livingstone of the RCM noted in January that drives had more work to do to respond to concerns and questions around vaccinations. She acknowledged there was not always possible for midwives to provide all the information, reassurance, and support needed, often due to lack of time to discuss the vaccine in detail. The RCM has suggested there are more challenges about these issues in some regions than in others. We need to know if that is because of staff vacancies that may vary by region or the number of patients on each midwives list or both factors as these issues are obviously connected.

There is urgent need to recruit more midwives. Some midwives have raised concerns about workforce capacity and training availability. Some maternity services face considerable challenges in implementation and are required to send women to their GPs instead. The Royal colleges previous course about having the right staff in the right place with the right education and training must be heeded. Training materials and webinars for midwives, patients facing publications have been made available. Cooperation for the UKHSA and NHS England.

But will this now be updated in light of the questions that are being asked over the first year of the program? We need to know also if there is any link that is between hesitation of having the job and met with other vaccinations such as with COVID and the MMR vaccinations. Much seriously damaging misinformation has been circulated about vaccinations, including very recently. And we are all responsible parties need to help to counter it. Eligibility for the to counter it.

Eligibility for the vaccination is an issue. NHS England has acted on the recommendation of the Joint committees vaccination and immunisation. This was based on safety, efficacy, cost, and how many people of different groups are really ill with the virus. Initially, the program is for pregnant women, preferably around the 28th week for maximum efficacy. And also for older people between 75 And also for older people between 75 and 80 years. A recent study on child and at health Journeys has shown the maternal RSV vaccination to be 58% effective in preventing Is because we heard increases to 72% of mothers were vaccinated more than 14 days before delivery.

The UKHSA confirms that this evidence clearly shows the RSV vaccine for pregnant women is highly effective. However the criteria for old people, currently set at the ages between 75 and 80, appears to many people to be arbitrary and questions are being asked about it. Ministers have said that the JCVI would be monitoring the code criteria. Alongside evidence of serious infections amongst those not currently eligible. Could the Minister please say when the Joint committees next investigation will be published? And will it be considering the case of people who are immune suppressed and who may therefore be at greater risk of serious illness if they catch the virus?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I begin by thanking Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick for securing Ritchie of Downpatrick for securing this debate today on RSV, particularly on vaccines for children. I do pay tribute to the children. I do pay tribute to the noble Lady for her continuously raising awareness of RSV and as she
20:48
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
raising awareness of RSV and as she reminded me when I was a minister, she raised a number of times and continues to raise as I think that shows how important and vital role that she herself plays. As we know RSV alongside flu and COVID are leading causes of serious ref spirit or illness. Before the rollout of the vaccination program it was responsible for more than 10,000 hospital admissions and 4,000 deaths each year among adults over 75. The noble Lady reminded us it poses a danger in early childhood, 30,000 hospitalisations and up to 30 deaths each year amongst children under five.

One of the reasons children are especially at risk is due to their developing smaller airways which makes them susceptible to bronchiolitis, a condition in which the lungs become inflamed during the fight against infection. We also know that RSV is perhaps more widespread than is commonly known and can seriously affect the most vulnerable people in our society. I welcome the opportunity this debate allows us in taking the time to speak about RSV but also to ask the government about the steps it is taking to prevent as much as possible and to treat it.

The last and current government and many health professionals are to be congratulated the fact that the RSE vaccine coverage has been riding rising steadily, that is good news. Among eligible old adults the act vaccine update that uptake has risen from 60% to 63% the end of June 2025 and similarly as others have said, the maternal vaccination has followed a similar trajectory so mothers who gave birth in March 2025, 55% have been vaccinated and I know noble Lords had various, given various statistics.

The challenge now is the noble Lady has identified is how do we increase this coverage further? We know the vaccination works, since the recent study looking at data from 14 hospitals in England up to March 2025 found that vaccination reduced the chances of hospital admissions with RSV infection by 82%. I think it's important we repeat some of the statistics so people recognise that vaccines do work. More relevant to today's debate is that the estimated reduction in RSV risk is 58% mothers who were vaccinated any time before.

It's sometimes easy to quote statistics and figures and who has the best statistics and more up-to- date statistics and sometimes we forget the human element. It's clear that undertaking the RSV vaccine protects us, it protects our friends, protects our loved ones and halves hospitalisation. We shouldn't forget that. However despite this good news as a of the conditions there is substantial disparities in how effective these measures have been when you look at the population data as Lord Mott said, Lord Renard and indeed Baroness Ritchie.

We saw the recent data from UKHSA showed uptake of the RSV vaccine for pregnant women in London was about 44% compared to a figure of 65% in the south-west. We had from other noble Lords the members of the Black British and Caribbean ethnic community are less likely to be Uptake which interestingly is the ethnically Chinese people. Of course in the black and Black British Caribbean cohort the coverage reported by the UKHSA earlier this year was only 28%. Also the uptake of RSV vaccine for that wagon women in some of the U.K.'s largest ethnic groups is also quite low, with white British people at 62% and British Indian people at 56%.

This data shows that many people have been vaccinated against RSV and the numbers have certainly increased, there are many communities where vaccination levels remain low. Clearly more needs to be done. When I met the Caribbean and African health network last week they explained some of the factors behind vaccine hesitancy within their communities. Sometimes it stems from a lack of trust, the organisations promoting vaccines, as well as the lack of cultural and linguistically appropriate information. We also know as other lords have said, about misinformation, about the harms that could be caused by vaccines spread could be caused by vaccines spread via social media, but also politicians in some parts of the spectrum.

Noble Lords will recall we had to tackle vaccine hesitancy under the COVID program and we found that by asking local community or, people in the community who knew the people that we were trying to reach, especially faith communities to take the lead, that helps them build trust but did not always solve the problem, it's very easy to point to one success story. Indeed at least one case there were certain churches that were actually discouraging the congregations from being vaccinated. It shows how granular we have to be in terms of reaching those communities and trying to understand some of those barriers will stop some of those barriers will stop The benefits of vaccination programs like for RSV, like the COVID, like HPV and MMR, there is clearly more work to be done in reaching out to individuals in a community where uptake in communities where uptake is low.

We need to understand their concerns, we need to understand the barriers they feel they face and we need to understand how we can tap into the power of trusted local community organisations to ensure as many people as possible benefit from RSV and other vaccines. Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick has stressed the importance of vaccinating infants but we need to reach the children by their parents and the communities in which they live. I'm sure noble Lords across the House share this ambition to breakdown barriers of access, to build trust in communities but to make sure more people are protected against RSV.

As in any debate, the noble Lady the Minister will return after a short break did say she was grateful and missed a number of questions from noble Lords across the House so I want to make sure that I help her in that way. I do have questions but I also understand she can't answer now that she will write to us. And I ask the Minister what specific steps is her department and organisations such as the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the UKHSA taking to address these disparities in RSV vaccine uptake? Not only regionally but also ethnically what initiatives are there to increase uptake in those ethnic amenities where vaccination levels are particularly low? What has worked and what hasn't worked.

Can the noble Lady or is the Minister able to share some of the good stories where some specific programs were actually tackling vaccine hesitancy has shown some success? How can that best practice be rolled out to other committees and other parts of the country? Also I think the noble Lady Baroness Ritchie asked about disaggregated data. What disaggregated data is available on RSV vaccine uptake? If it's not yet available, can the Minister look at or perhaps commit to publishing regular disaggregated data on RSV vaccine uptake by region, ethnicity and socio-economic group so that Parliament and the public contract progress and ensure equity of access.

I'm sure Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick would appreciate such disaggregated data. As all noble Lords would. I want to once again thank Baroness Ritchie for bringing, securing this debate today and the opportunity afforded the full benches to discuss this important issue. Your Lordships recognise that the Minister does take this issue seriously so we look forward to her response.
20:56
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
I'm sure we can all agree we are all in agreement in our thanks to my noble friend Baroness Ritchie for securing this important debate and also for her very thorough and considered introduction, and rightly acknowledgement has also been paid to my noble friend for her campaigning and also her awareness raising on this issue which has made a real difference as we have heard. I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions and questions which I will reflect on and share also with the responsible minister Ashley Dalton MP, the Minister for Public health.

RSV is a common virus that actually 90% of children get before the age of two. It is often mild, causing a cough or a cold, and it can also be serious. It can sometimes be fatal because it can cause lung infections like bronchiolitis and pneumonia which make it difficult for babies to breathe and feed. Watching your baby struggle for breath is alarming for any parent or carer or family member. Far to many know what this feels like as RSV is the biggest cause of winter admissions in children's hospitals every year.

To the question straight off that my noble friend raised about the collection of systematic data, I can confirm, as with all major infectious diseases, the government regularly reviews data which is indeed collected on the impact of RSV, and continuously monitors immunisation programs, including uptake levels in different groups. Again, a theme I will return to later which all noble Lords I'm glad to say have all raised. Researchers and government epidemiologists to provide evidence to the joint committee and immunisation and is the advice of the JCVI are, the VI which is of immense direct importance to any decision.

In June 2023 the JCVI, as noble Lords have referred to, did recommend programs to protect babies against RSV and in September 2024 this government introduced vaccinations for all pregnant women from 28 weeks. But last year the JCVI did highlight how very premature babies may not benefit from this new program. Either because these babies are born before their mothers are vaccinated, or for those mothers who have been vaccinated there is limited time for that protection to be passed down to their baby during pregnancy.

I'm glad to say that today's debate does give me an opportunity to update your Lordships house on the key changes this government has made recently to deliver equity and RSV protections, something all noble Lords this evening has emphasised the importance of. Since 2010 the NHS has offered an immunisation cord Kolisi map to infants at greatest risk of severe RSV illness. This is effective and is also expensive. It requires a monthly injection which means it has been limited to around 4,000 infants at most risk each winter and I know Lord Mott rightly so is very concerned, as I am, about winter pressures.

I am delighted to announce that from the end of this month the NHS will also start offering immunisation to all premature babies born before 32 weeks as advised by the JCVI. This is the result of the government working with the NHS and partners to secure a product that is more effective in tackling infant RSV. The new immunisation is called Knesset the map, it provides better protection and it only requires a I am sure all I am sure all noble I am sure all noble Lords I am sure all noble Lords would welcome this development because it shows the improvements and the changes that were made on harnessing technology and innovation and we have begun to share that with noble Lords this evening.

My Noble Friend Baroness Ritchie asked about the steps the Government is taking to ensure protection for all going into their first winter. Including four babies born prematurely and those whose mothers have chosen not to get vaccinated. Let me say loud and clear that my message is that vaccination during pregnancy is the best way to prevent babies from coming seriously ill with RSV. And so the vaccination program is indeed expected to have a major impact on RSV. This winter.

Including for the most premature babies. The vaccine is offered from week 28 of pregnancy and must be given by week 31. And as my Noble Friend observed, a study led by NHS paediatricians found that the vaccine was 72% effective in preventing hospitalisations in the first six months of life for infants whose mothers were vaccinated more than 14 days before delivery. And noble Lords and rightly every Noble Lord who spent this evening sharing their comments have cancelled against listening to misinformation which is dangerous and damaging and I would certainly share that with you.

And the JCB I also noted that the trial data also shows high levels of immunity 14 days after their mother is vaccinated. This compared to babies whose mothers are not vaccinated ENG was also relatively high in babies born after 14 days of the vaccination or less. This has informed the advice that babies born before 32 weeks are the group that requires an additional immunisation particularly during the winter and I can say that with all new programs the Government will be closely monitoring the impact of the program in different populations.

As we have heard, the maternal RSV programs are only one-year-old. And already vaccine uptake in pregnant women has increased since the program began. And we want to see many more pregnant women getting vaccinated. Every Noble Lord speaking this evening rightly, in my view, asks what is being done to reduce the current variation in uptake of the maternal RSV program across regions and ethnic groups. And the Noble Lord made a helpful comment from his recent meeting with affected groups.

We do recognise very much how much more needs to be done, particularly in areas or communities where uptake is lower. That is why we are continuing to implement the NHS vaccination strategy to accessible, tailored, and inclusive. To do this we are transferring vaccination services to ICBs. That will support NHS regions with delivering vaccination services that are properly tailored local needs of local populations. We are also providing better access to vaccinations. For example, by dating information resources in 30 languages, including maternity services to have early discussions with pregnant women about vaccinations and ensuring that training is in place so staff can have the knowledge to address concerns and confidence in the program.

And from this month we are running broadcast and digital media communications to encourage pregnant women to get their RSV, will think of, and flu vaccines. With greater efforts being made in the communities and the geographical areas that do have lower uptake. The Noble Lord Renard asked about the immunisation equity strategy and immunisation equity strategy and where the update is and I am pleased to and the update was published in July and it sets out to ensure a whole range of things which I think will be of interest to noble Lords, there will be a more accountable system in immunisation in equities.

There will be better access to timely high-quality data. And practitioners and policymakers will be better able to generate and to share and to use evidence, and there will be better place-based approaches to communication and engagement around immunisation. In all these ways, I hope and it is certainly intended that these actions will raise awareness for communities across the country as we have discussed. The Noble Lord much did, of course, rightly referred to winter pressures.

I hope that in the way that I have described their production of the incidents of RSV will most definitely take pressure off the NHS in the winter. And, of course, we know that the flow is also very much a recurring pressure. And just to emphasise to noble Lords that this years flu vaccination program is under way for children and pregnant women and noble Lords and I know not everyone is but a number of us are, those with long- term health conditions in the frontline health and so workers they can get their flu vaccine from 1 October and, again, I encourage everybody to do so.

With regard to the GAC VI which I believe that Noble Lord Renard asked about in terms of, indeed he did, in terms of being suppressed when will the JCB I consider that, they have advised that an expansion of the older adult immunisation program will be guided, as ever, by emerging evidence of disease incidents in different groups. And we will certainly be considering any future advice that is forthcoming in due course. The Noble Lord Lord Kamall asked about good news stories, so I want to finish on that which is that the reported increase in the uptake of flu vaccines given to pregnant women actually reached 72.6 % because of the communication and the attention that was given to that.

So, my Lords, the Government will continue to monitor the impact of the Government is pleased to have made a real and positive impact for babies, parents, as and others affected by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

RSV. My Lords, house to be Ed gain in committee on the planning and
21:09
21:10
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

125, Baroness Bennett. My Lords, I rise to speak to several amendments in this group want to five, 126, and 181. All of which are addressing the issues of overheating. I will constrain myself to commenting on the amendments in my name that this is the direction of the overall travel. And I will begin bouncing I do not have any particular attachment to the different means by which this issue is being addressed here. I think it is very clear from the level of engagement that there is a really serious issue in this group, with the issue of overheating as the issue of overheating as reflected by this group.

And I will start with a statistic that is really quite shocking, since 2016 about 570,000 homes have been built without adequate adaptations to respond to increased temperatures. We have heard members of your Lordships house and the Committee on Climate Change that regularly many of us I sure in this debate will have heard from the reports about the inadequacy of climate adaptation, we were speaking earlier in the group about the inadequacy of dealing with flooding. This is overheating which brings huge financial costs.

I will take noble Lords back we have had heatwaves this year but if we go back to 2022 when we saw temperatures over 40C for the first time, that resulted in more than 3,000 heat -related deaths. The highest level of mortality since the first heatwave plan was written in 2023. We know that the climate emergency is something that is going to happen more and more often at greater and greater levels. And it is particularly the young and the old and the most vulnerable to this but we are increasing the situation when everybody is vulnerable.

And going back to a point that I was raising back to a point that I was raising This, we are also going to see, sadly, an increasing number of fires, both fires and natural environment as we saw in London in 2022 at Granville, fires in urban environments as well so this is where we have got to think for us and the impact on what we have. And I really want to go to the issue would keep raising again and again in amendments that this is very much a social justice issue and an inequality issue.

These are broadly more economically disadvantaged households who are at greatest risk of these overheating issues. And almost but it is not just those households, almost 5.5 million children, over half of those in England, are living in homes at risk of overheating according to the housing survey 2022 analysis by the Resolution Foundation. More than one million of those children are living in London mostly in Social Housing Act. What we have got here are amendments, if we go to look at allowing local authorities with the local climatic data indicates elevation risk which is essentially everywhere now in the UK it allows them to actually take specific action under the town and client country planning act.

And also I think this is really important and Amendment 181 including hierarchy guidance we saw in the recent heatwaves and we saw a great deal of discussion about air-conditioning. Why don't we have air-conditioning? Why don't we install air- conditioning? The problem with air- conditioning is that it is innately counter-productive. You are cooling the home and heating the outside. Whether that is through the electricity used or even very indirectly in terms of the heat I'll et cetera.

It initially is not the answer. As well as the policy issues that arise from that. 181 talks about a hierarchy the Secretary of State providing guidance for the planning authorities to client a cooling hierarchy and provide guidance on how it is applied. And this is where, again, it is kind of the problem with the politics of meeting being related to everything else, I have to cross-reference back to our discussion about nature, one of the best ways to look at cooling environment is to actually have trees and greenery.

Much better than concrete reflecting back that heat, heating up the area around it. And so it took that approach, looking at greenery, looking at passive and sustainable design elements, we think about, for example, the people of Yemen. Who have a traditional art teacher which is in the hottest temperatures that humans can just about stand, it is actually cool and comfortable based on centuries of knowledge of how to building ways that encourages breezes, brings the coming over, we come back to the Noble Lady baroness with us not currently but the value of water as a key cooling element, the breeze coming across water, circulating through a house and cooling it down having the shade in the right direction and the right places, obviously the thermal mass of the House does not heat up to quickly but ensuring that it can also cool itself down, all of these things that really need to be addressed.

This bill is a crucial point where we are making sure that people, again, we were talking about health before, people who have houses that they can comfortably live in. And that all of the imminent in this group bring this together. I really hope we are going to hear positive directions from the Ministers, as I said, I am not attached to a particular way of doing this, but I really think we need to think more and it is not just me saying that about Climate Change Committee saying to the Government on how it plans to deal with the overheating issue, particularly in residential buildings.

Although I will just went out because it is not just residential buildings. Just across the road the Portcullis House in recent times they have found that it is actually too hard for people to work in some of the officers over the. There other recently rebuilt the. There other recently rebuilt

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed I think. I presume the noble Lady wishes to propose her amendment. After clause
21:17
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

propose her amendment. After clause 51 insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled List. I declare my interest as a chief

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for Atkins real us and as a director of Peers for the Planet's and thank my supporters on Planet's and thank my supporters on amendment 127, Lord Krebs and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I'm actually very pleased to be bringing this amendment back which I originally raised as part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act couple of years back. The reason I'm pleased to be bringing it back is that it is a reminder that we have made a lot of progress in this area over the last couple of years.

Noble Lords may remember the great progress we made following ping-pong on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act and we started that process of embedding net zero and climate into our planning system, and since then we've had the updates of the National Planning Policy Framework, again embedding climate further into the system which is all really good progress. But as ministers and noble Lords like to say there is always more to do. Despite this progress it is vitally important that the government goes further because players from all parties across the House of worked extremely hard in recent years to embed climate and our nature goals across a whole range of sectors and regulatory regimes and that includes the health service and the Health and Care Act 2022, our skills framework, Ofwat, Crown Estates, Ofgem the Energy Act 2022.

For our planning system it's vital that we take those same steps, embedding this into that shoots. Not only to help the government deliver upon its own overarching climate and environment goals, but also to support the 2030 electricity system target and the target to build 1.5 million homes. Track it's particularly important in planning and the reason is there are so many different issues to content with when decision makers are considering a planning application. That's part of the problem at the moment, it's that lack of strategic guidance and direction on which factors are important.

That's part of what is leading to paralysis in our planning system. Because indeed in recent years we have had legal challenges which have actually delayed sustainable homes from being built for years, for example the salt crust developed into not Oxfordshire without pushback on solar farms and other aspects of our electricity grid because of a lack of clarity in the planning system. I'm sure when the Minister responds she will come back to the NPPF as I mentioned earlier, but I think many noble Lords today in previous groups have set out the limitations of relying on the NPPF for example Baroness Willis in the guidance that has been there on Greenspace's for many years but that just hasn't delivered.

We really need that strength and really need that strength and statutory duty in this area because guidance in the NPPF isn't future proofed, it's only guidance, doesn't refer to our targets. It's also worth saying the way that we have structured the amendments, it is a statutory duty but it's worded around special regard, that's a well tested legislative approach is not saying that climate environment must be considered because there may be other material considerations that on balance override that, but it saying that it should carry weight within the planning system.

This perspective is fully supported by perspective is fully supported by the recent Corrie review undertaken for Defra and I would quote from that review. Defra needs to find a way of ensuring clarity from a spatial perspective how the multitude of nature in planning strategies come together in a way which local authorities and combined authority can understand and deliver in partnership with regulators. The duty would provide exactly that, it would provide that golden thread running through the whole planning system, the whole Town and Country Planning system ensuring that it delivers for our national goals.

We've heard earlier in the debate today about the future homes standard coming up in the autumn and this duty would really complement and work together with that future homes standard to make sure that our targets are delivered upon and is the simple vocation clarity that is going to help the government and has targets to build those 1.5 million new homes in " $$CAPITALISEFrom the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 stated that local plans are currently too complex which results in delays alongside which results in delays alongside introducing time limits on planned making processes the government should produce standardised definitions and simplify guidance for local planning authorities and that some of the case and will also make community engagements with local plans.

My final point ultimately that's helping local authorities and local areas deliver, it's all about that devolution of power because in many areas local authorities want to play the part that they are being blocked. Fundamentally because there is little integration joined up at local level whether that's local area energy planning, rollouts or clarity in our planning system and what this leads to Islington inconsistent approach and really a patchwork quilt of responses across many local authorities in terms of their approach the environment and net zero so again that's red throughout the system would help fix that.

To summarise this amendment will have really important practical effects to ensure the planning and country planning system delivers against the UK strategic objectives. 1.5 million homes fit for the future, unblocking and supplying the system and critically giving local To play their part working context -- in concert with the future homes standard. Rather than the current piecemeal mention that climate change in planning policy scattered through the legislation and the NPPF, there is a fantastic opportunity for the government to update the bill to fully embed these targets within statutes and ensure there is a coherent thread running through the whole planning system.

Very briefly I've added my name to amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Bennett and Femi this just another case there is work being done with an industry, we need a central function to coordinate these efforts and bring that consistency to reporting I won't say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any more about that at this stage. I rise to speak in this group of
21:23
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in this group of amendments and I move my amendment 145B and 216 all in this group on overheating on private change. That climate change. This is a relic important group of amendments in this bill and we generally support all the amendments that have been put forward. We've just had the warmest summer on record, the war warmest since 1884 summer temperatures were 1.5 degrees above the London meteorological Avenue average. All five of the hotter summers have been since the year 2000.

Samar is one of the one we've just had it is now 75 times more likely due to climate change. Obviously continuous exposure to Obviously continuous exposure to heat as a slow motion killer and is bad for populations under homes are not built and fit for the future which is here and now. Buildings are responsible for over 40% of the energy demand in the UK 80% of the buildings that will be occupied in 2050 of audio under gone construction so we must all do more to make sure the homes we build today and planted a fit for the future.

My amendment 145 be asks that where spatial development strategies includes provisions relating to housing that also includes provisions for housing to meet recognise high-efficiency and climate resilient standards including but not limited to passive house standards. This is a review to reducing energy consumption, improving temperature controls and ventilation is particular response to extreme heat and contributing to a regional climate change mitigation and adaption objectives we have to do more, the climate change committee has also been clear in his point the UK will not meet submission targets without near complete decarbonisation of the housing stock the houses we build our place as a shelter and they need to provide long-term affordability, they need to be resilient and the need to cope with the warming climate.

This is about asking simple questions about the houses that we are building, are they fit the future? Each new home we built without proper standards leads to higher emissions, higher heating costs, greater vulnerability for those that live in them. Conversely if we build high-efficiency standards then we can curb our emissions, reduce future retrofitting costs, protect families from the risk of heatwaves and reduce the energy bills. The Particularly passive house, but it is not, it allows flexibility is not restrictive, it's not telling local authorities what they have to do it's to have regard to these things, so it's not prescriptive.

We believe that's a good way of doing these things. It can save people money, can give them a better quality-of- life and we think this is a good amendment. Turning to amendment 216 this proposes that every new home built in the country should meet a net zero carbon building standard and be equipped with solar power generation standard. I take a moment to thank Aaron is young of old skin, Baroness Jones of and Lord Grantchester for adding their names. This is not a radical net -- measure this the recent practical response designed to support government policies which are either in development or are being developed but have not fully been put forward.

Again it was exactly the same points, retrofitting as we know is five times more expensive when we don't have the time and we can't afford to wait. That is just too expensive. I do it acknowledge the work the Labour Party is doing the space they do thank them for that. Look forward to the future home standard are we welcome the moves government is making uninstalling rooftop solar there are various different strands and elements of policy we all need to come together there is a one-time plan, there's the overheating requirement the Minister has referred to as well and there's general building regulatory reform is around zero carbon buildings but all of these measures are either not here or they are not strictly laid down in planning law with certainty that my amendment has.

Why do welcome the measures the government is doing and I know the policy will be published in the autumn I do want to pressure government as to when those policies do come forward whether they will have A-level of certainty to meet the actions we need to stop my moment hopes to solidify the work the comment itself is actively doing but in strengthening some of those measures was to my question really to the government is if you are not supporting my measures than what certainty can you give around around what measures that you will put forward in law.

Turning to some of the other amendments in this group I give my support to amendment 127 AB spoken to by Lord Redesdale and unsupported by Lord Hart Hunt thinks Easton and Lord Krebs and Lord Archer stuff. I won't speak to it too long this is really an essential amendment as the noble Lord said, it puts a golden thread through the stuff and have regard to is good wording. This stuff needs to happen all too often, these issues are ignored satisfied and they don't have the clear weight within planning law that they need to.

We welcome this amendment stuff that needs to change, this is a sensible and well reasoned amendments. I also want to speak in favour of a man 180 table by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle which reduces the carbon assessment as required for larger developments so we are no longer blind to one of the most significant drivers of climate emissions. The climate sectors responsible for 1/4 of the U.K.'s climate footprint. That is set to rise so these omissions remain largely invisible within the planning system and we need a proper system to take better account of them and to regulate for them so we also support this is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sensible amendment. I beg to me. -- My Lords, I wish to speak in
21:31
Lord Krebs Portrait Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 127 which I add my name to and which was so ably introduced by my Noble Friend Lord Ravensdale. And I also support the other amendments in this group. I was glad to hear both the noble Baroness Lady Bennett and the noble Earl Russell referring to the work Earl Russell referring to the work of the Climate Change Committee. And I am going to think it is so I am going to think it is so important that we understand the expert advice from our statutory body.

And I am going to just quote a few sentences from the April report few sentences from the April report on climate adaptation and your if you sentences. The U.K.'s you sentences. The U.K.'s preparation for climate change are inadequate. In terms of adaptation delivery we do not find the evidence to score a single outcome as good. to score a single outcome as good. But with regards to building Stacey six to 3.5 million properties in six to 3.5 million properties in England are at risk of flooding from rivers and this is predicted to write about 8 million, 25% of write about 8 million, 25% of properties by 2050.

Towns and cities will become increasingly hot and a will become increasingly hot and a large fraction individual will reach uncomfortable and potentially dangerous temperatures in summer dangerous temperatures in summer heatwaves, a point made so ably by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett. And in table 1 of the summary of the adaptation committees report they have a scorecard for delivery and implementation on policies on the other and if you look at the other planning system prioritises climate resilience for delivery and implementation, unable to evaluate.

There is no evidence. And on policy and plans if you look at buildings they do not overheat. And unable to evaluate, policies limited, buildings are prepared for flooding. Partially. That is a good score, partial for both. Delivery and for policies and plans. Buildings are resilient to other climate risks. Unable to evaluate proposed policy and plans. Here we have it from the statutory expert on the Government that we are not doing enough to prepare our loadings, houses and commercial buildings to the impacts of climate change.

Now, for May, the remarkable ring is none of this is new. I chide the adaptation committee between 2009 and 2017 and we were saying exactly the same things 15 has a go. Nobody is listening and it will be very nice to hear from the noble Baroness the Minister that this Government is actually listening and does understand that this is not just some pie in the sky think for the future but is urgent and needs to be addressed now. And another important point was made by the Noble Lord riven deals introduction when he said that things may be written in the NPPF but what we need is to strengthen the commitments by putting them firmly into the statute and it struck me listening to some of the debate earlier on this afternoon about green space, about sport and recreation, these wonderful facilities and we heard a word from the Government that actually when I look at that new housing estates around Oxford where I live there nothing like that.

They are simply identical houses jammed in as close as possible with no green space, no recreation facilities, no climate resilience. No plans to deal with overheating as the noble Baroness Lady Bennett said. Even very simple things, if you go as I sometimes do to the south of France and rent a house, the House has shutters, so in the middle of the day when it is hot you close the shutters and it keeps the heat out, so why are we not building new houses with shutters as a mandatory requirement? It will not cost much money and it could be a very simple and effective tool to reduce the chance of overheating.

I do hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will confirm that the Government has listened to the Climate Change Committee in the adaptation committees latest report and is going to do something about it where they have scored inadequate or zero points on various assessments. And that the Government is minded to firm up what is guidance and make it statutorily and obligation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I speak to Amendment 127 and 216? First of all, Amendment 216. Led by Lord Russell,
21:36
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Amendment 216. Led by Lord Russell, to which I put my name on that standard for new homes. It feels if the Noble Lord feels that the adaptation committee reports are cyclical in the same way and getting nowhere, zero carbon standard discussions feels like Groundhog Day, to be frank. Because we got so close to having a zero carbon home commitment in 2015 we were within two weeks of it becoming effective when George Osborne stepped in at the last minute when the commitment was due to come into effect and when the housebuilders who despite some initial grumbling had took up to deliver it, all of a sudden the Chancellor summarily cancelled it.

It was the biggest letdown for everybody. And what it meant was that for 10 years we built houses that could have been zero carbon, which could have significantly contributing to reducing our carbon footprint, which could have helped people have more rooms, and could have helped the communities have lower bills, but we did not, so we have lost 10 years delivery, and we have now got to grip that one and make sure we do not lose any more ears.

Under current policy and that standard only requires new homes to be zero carbon ready by 2025. That does not go far enough and also does not have anything required on solar panels which this amendment addresses. Now, I know this will be able to have a shift in thinking in Government over the last few months on the question of distributed silver. And so can we press that Noble Lord the Minister to tell us what improvements we are expecting to see on the future home standards to reverse what was done by Mr Osborne.

And before that can I also commend the Noble Lord Ravensdale which would give a clear climate change duty to mitigation and planning authorities and I very much enjoy everything the Noble Lord has said and was honoured to serve at least for a brief period on the adaptation committee and help to get legislation through to this House after they had been appointed to it, as they say, it was a good idea to as they say, it was a good idea to me.

The whole role of planning authorities and climate change is absolutely crucial, not just for mitigation but also adaptation to the impacts of climate. And can I draw the attention of the Minister and to the House of the recent Local Government Association report which went out extensively to widen the consultation and, as a result of that consultation, with a whole range of consultations not only local Government authorities came back with the proposition that there should be statutory duties for regular authorities for action on climate change litigation and adaptation.

And there's a bit of schadenfreude in that for May because we did originally get the climate act through, it did prescribe rules for local authorities, and, indeed, it had a reporting arrangement from local authorities that meant that they had statutory requirements to report, that was cancelled when the Conservative Government came in 2010, and so we are now in a position where local authorities, many of whom are very committed to the idea of their place in Climate Change Act with litigation and adaptation, but they're under no duress to report on that.

In fact, the only thing that they have to do is if asked by Government to report they have a requirement to do so, but only if asked, which strikes me as a very strange way of keeping track of delivery on this. As the Noble Lord has said in his recent report by the adaptation committee, assessing the nations level of preparedness to adapt to the impacts of climate change was very gloomy and quite rightly so. Dictation is kind of like Cinderella, the climate kind of like Cinderella, the climate change if it, it is not going to get any better.

It is going to get worse. Heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, it has been so cheerful at night it keeps me going. So Amendment 127 to clarify the Climate Change Act adaptation duties of planning authorities or something like it very important and I hope that Noble Lord the Minister will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider it seriously. Very briefly, I support the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, I support the noble Lords amendment and it is a very Lords amendment and it is a very important one and I want to pick up at my Noble Friend said which is that many local authorities are very keen to drive policies and climate change. And particularly on this
21:41
21:44
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
, I rise to speak on this important group of amendments which touches on crucial matters of climate change and, more specifically, overheating, energy efficiency, and net zero carbon developments. I think the noble Lords Baroness Bennett, Lord noble Lords Baroness Bennett, Lord Ravensdale, and Earl Russell, who have tabled these amendments. The recognition of the pressing challenge of climate and the role that planning and development must that planning and development must play in addressing it is both impactful and timely.

I doing so, I wish to express our appreciation of the sentiment behind these amendments in their name and the amendments in their name and the desire to ensure the built environment is resilient and sustainable in the face of changing sustainable in the face of changing climate. My Lords, we on these benches recognise that need to address climate change and overheating risks in our built environment, however it is also environment, however it is also essential that we balance aims and need to avoid introducing overly burdensome mandates and excessive burdensome mandates and excessive regulation that could hinder how regulation that could hinder how much-needed housing delivery and the achievement of the one and 1/2 million homes.

And also economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness the Minister on how the Government intends to address these important and pressing issues, ensuring that both we protect our environment and support sustainable development in the homes
21:45
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
sustainable development in the homes It is OK, don't worry. I would like to thank the noble Lords who have tabled amendment relating to Climate Change Act overheating, because obviously the biggest issue facing not just the Government and the not just the Government and the country but the world, and I would country but the world, and I would first turn to amendments 125, 126, first turn to amendments 125, 126, 181 and 216, which concerns efforts to adopt new homes and buildings to account for the risk of overheating and the need to drive energy efficiency.

The Government agrees that action is needed to address the risks but we must be mindful of the existing regulatory and legislative regimes and action in these areas. regimes and action in these areas. The building collisions already set specific performance targets for new specific performance targets for new homes and under Mr buildings in compliance with these relations is mandatory. Whilst the construction concern with the energy efficiency are best addressed through these regulations the Government is using regulations the Government is using them to progress on wider issues.

For example, in 2022 new part of the For example, in 2022 new part of the building regulation introduced pardon all which is specifically designed to ensure that new homes are designed to mitigate the risk of overheating. We are all considering without the associated guidance can be improved. Often the call for evidence as part of the consultation in the future homes and building in the future homes and building As those building standards that will deliver the net zero ready buildings the country needs and that Of the amendment.

These updates to the building regulations will be published in autumn this year and will ensure that new homes and buildings are future proofed with low carbon heating such as heat pumps and in the majority of cases solar panels. As the grid decarbonises these homes and buildings will be zero carbon in operation without the need for expensive retrofitting. I will now turn to amendment 127 which seeks to require the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaption in national planning local plans and national planning local plans and planning decisions.

We agree with the notion that both central and local government should be held to high account in considering climate change throughout the entire planning system. However much of the content of this amendment already forms part of planning policy or is covered by existing statutory requirements stop to highlight just a few instances, it is already a requirement in the planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that local planning authorities include policies in the local plans that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. The mitigation and adaption.

The Consideration of environmental factors in the planning system. This includes local planning authorities have regard for factors like local nature recovery strategies in planning decision-making as well as the environment and suppose duty, which apply to government ministers and making policy. Additionally risk management authorities such as district councils or internal drainage ports for example are required to act in accordance with the flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy which is produced by the environment agency in line with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

As mentioned previously the principles of sustainable development are also already embedded in the national policy planning policy framework. In case there were further matters in the EDP to be taken into account, section 70 part two of the Town and Country Planning Act already requires planning decision makers to have regard to all material considerations. I therefore hope with this explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw her amendments. Turning to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

145B it is vital... I thank the noble Lord for giving way, I appreciate his response and way, I appreciate his response and he has highlighted a number of different areas of policy where this is mentioned throughout planning policy, but the point I was trying policy, but the point I was trying to make, there is no central duty that is tying all of those areas of that is tying all of those areas of policy together into a framework and having that thread running having that thread running throughout the whole planning system.

Does he agree that perhaps that is something that is needed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is something that is needed? Is of this is something we should look at but the warm homes plan for example which is going to be published in October, which is just a few weeks time, it will be, will a few weeks time, it will be, will look at our approach to home heating in homes and mitigation we need to in homes and mitigation we need to implement for climate change, we are looking at this and everything obviously we will continue to be under review.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

under review. Can the Minister explain I don't understand why the Minister has not referred to the intended provisions referred to the intended provisions of new section 12 D 10 describing the content of a spatial development strategy where the government is proposing that a spatial develop and strategy must be designed to secure that the use and element of land in strategy area contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change will stop and the Minister not say with some certainty that the effect of that would be to ensure that mitigation and adaptation to climate change does form a central part of planning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making? I would just like to say to the noble Lord that climate change mitigation does play a big part in all the planning arrangements that we are going to introduce its one of the central points of the planning the central points of the planning and infrastructure bill that we take and infrastructure bill that we take those aspects into consideration. I those aspects into consideration. I just want to turn to amendment 145, it's vital that you homes are energy-efficient and designed to mitigate the risk associated with overheating and spatial develop in strategy to stop particularly as strategy to stop particularly as climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme heat events.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act already allows changing Purchase Act already allows changing power doesn't planning authorities to introduce policies to make standards on energy efficiency and can climate resilience in their spatial develop strategies provided the strategic importance to the the strategic importance to the strict debt strategy area. As I mentioned previously the spatial develop and strategies are intended develop and strategies are intended to be high-level documents, energy to be high-level documents, energy efficiency and climate resilient standards are more detailed matters that are better suited to a Local Plan.

We intend to go further in autumn this year and will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes through the future homes and building standards. These standards will set new homes on a path that will set new homes on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels and homes built to the standards will you sustainable energy sources for their heating and hot water for this means there will be zero carbon ready and will need no future work to achieve zero carbon emissions when the activity grid is fully decarbonised.

Finally turning to amendment 180 I thank Baroness Bennett for proposing this amendment which would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for development of the specific, the specified size as part of the planning applications. To reiterate, a point I made throughout the debate, the National Planning Policy Framework already makes clear that the planning system must support the transition to a low carbon future. It calls for a proactive approach to both mitigating and adapting to climate change in line with the long-term goals set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.

In our consultation on changes to the framework last summer we sought views on whether carbon could be reliably measured and accounted for in plan making and decision-making. We wanted to understand the sectors rustiness -- readiness and identify practical barriers to the wider use of carbon assessment in planning for the back we received was wide-ranging and constructive, after carefully considering those views we concluded that it would not be appropriate at this stage to introduce a mandatory requirement for carbon assessments given the current state and the need On applicants where additional information is mandated.

However we do recognise the need for greater clarity and guidance, that's why we've committed to updating the planning practice guidance to help both decision-makers and developers make better use of available tools to reduce embodied and operational carbon and the built environment. We also acknowledge that embodied carbon is not just the challenge for buildings, it's a systemic issue across the construction and supply sector. That's why decarbonisation efforts take hold when industries evolve, we expect to see a natural reduction in the embodied carbon of buildings over time.

These reasons I kindly ask noble Lords to beg leave to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Minister sits down may I ask a small question. With regard to overheating which was so to overheating which was so eloquently introduced by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, does the Bennett of Manor Castle, does the government have any measurement of what proportion of houses that are what proportion of houses that are being built now as we speak have within the measures to prevent within the measures to prevent overheating. Part B is when all this new guidance does come into place new guidance does come into place that we heard about, what proportion of homes will in the future from now onwards incorporate measures to protect against overheating?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect against overheating? The first part of his question I think there's an energy follow-up survey which said that energy efficiency measures that have been efficiency measures that have been taken over recent years have not significantly increased the risk of overheating and on his second point, overheating and on his second point, what I will do is right to the noble Lord and give him the specific

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answer to his question. This has been another rich and full debate and I thank the Minister for his answers and for everyone who for his answers and for everyone who have taken part in this debate. It have taken part in this debate. It will I'm sure please the whips to say I'm not going to run through the whole lot but I want to pick out a couple of highlights. The creed of couple of highlights. The creed of core from Lord Krebs, nobody listened, I can't help feeling that listened, I can't help feeling that we are here rather late in the evening talking about what truly evening talking about what truly matters of life and death and this is perhaps not the ideal way to do it, but we are doing the best we it, but we are doing the best we possibly can.

I want to apologise to Lord Ravensdale for failing to acknowledge his signing, I think I lost the page in the pile after a lost the page in the pile after a very long evening, I want to thank Earl Russell for particularly picking up the embodied carbon point which is so crucially important as we have just been discussing. I want we have just been discussing. I want to highlight what Baroness Young of to highlight what Baroness Young of Old Scone said, in reminding us how close we got to net zero carbon homes...
21:56
21:57
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
Amendment 126 Baroness Bennett not moved. Amendment 127 Lord Ravensdale not moved. We now come to amendment one Amendment 127 Lord Ravensdale

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. We now come to amendment 128 Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. That can I pay tribute to Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That can I pay tribute to Lord Banner for his outstanding work in relation to judicial review reform and this clearly had a big impact on the bill. At the risk of quoting the bill. At the risk of quoting Lord Banner to Lord Banner he did say at our earlier debate on this it say at our earlier debate on this it seems a long time ago in relation to seems a long time ago in relation to judicial review that his review concluded that evidence demonstrated that the overwhelming majority that the overwhelming majority failed.

It follows from this the problem is not the law, nor is it about activist judges, it's about the time it takes for bad Jr's to the time it takes for bad Jr's to meet their doing -- Duma. Obviously the proposals in this bill go quite some way to meet the noble Lords recommendations in the review. What recommendations in the review. What I'm tried to do here is with some probing amendments test whether we can go a little further and I'm grateful to Lord Banner for putting grateful to Lord Banner for putting his name to my amendments 129, 130.

And 130 5D and these restrict to the And 130 5D and these restrict to the Court of Appeal where the High Court has certified the application has been totally without merit in relation to decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the listed buildings act and the hazardous substances act again noble Lord banner actually asked for clarification at the government second reading as to whether the changes that are made here could be made are going to be made infrastructure judicial reviews or have short statute reviews in planning generally.

It does seem to me there is compelling case for doing that and I hope my noble friend maybe positive about this. Men and 127 concerns the period within legal challenges to planning positions may be brought if opposes the current six week time limit to be reduced to 21 days, I used 21 days as a starting point as it reflects the standard finance for civil appeals. Purpose is to probe the six week period continues to serve its intended purpose I'm aware Lord Banner on balance and is independent review did not support the shortening of time limits and I would be interested in the Minister's response.

Turning to amendment to clause 110 moment despite seven despite 7358 remove clause 12 from commencement by regulations and instead provide the clause 12 should come into force two months after Royal Assent. This is from long experience of the endless delays there can be in actually activating piece of legislation whereas to wait for the government whereas to wait for the government to actually either bring regulations or Secretary of State having to make decisions to commence a particular provision. It seems to me we need to avoid uncertainty, this after all this bill is all about trying to speed up planning decisions in relation to the infrastructure, I don't think it's acceptable for us, we know regulations take an awful long time to produce you have to go through statute consultation, it takes long time because it's less of a priority with in departments, drafting is often delayed and I do think that actually two months is a fair balance, it gives time to do it it avoids a cliff edge implementation, but it does prevent unnecessary delay and again I be unnecessary delay and again I be Movement 360 mirrors the approach taken on 358 and the new clause tabled in my name under clause 51 in terms of extending the restriction on public judicial reviews to country planning at 1990 listed buildings act and Housing Act.

These are very sensible in my view probing amendments. Just trying to see if the Government is prepared to go even further, perhaps to consider this between now and report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having said that, I beg to. And then proposed articles 51
22:02
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

And then proposed articles 51 And insert the word is printed on the Marshall list. I would start by speaking in support of Lord Hunt amendments 129 support of Lord Hunt amendments 129 and 130 and, indeed, 135D which extrapolates those amendments as the substances act. The background in brief is that in clause 12 of the bill following with the recommendations of my independent review of the legal challenges are 26 removes the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review application feature which are not totally without merit.

My view did not align with that should be rolled out to this because it was outside the remit of my review but it is, of course, within the remit of this House and this Bill. I agree with everything that the Noble Lord has said in relation to rolling this out to other proceedings to my mind there is no meaningful distinction in this context between the infrastructure project and say, for example, 2000 homes. Both of them are fundamentally important to the objectives of the planning system.

I firmly support those amendments and I support the other amendments associated with those to the one exception as Lord Hunt has foreshadowed, I have thought long and hard in independent view about whether the timeliness of the review should shortened. And at my starting point they should be, but on reflection having taken soundings That may actually prove counter- productive because there is too little time, claimants and their advisers may feel it is better as a precaution to bring a judicial review claim and then review it and repent at leisure.

In this context, I felt that I would have said less but I did not have the time. It was a finely balanced conclusion, however, so this will be interesting to hear the government's view. My next one I speak to amendment 168 which is in my name. The effect of that amendment would be to stop the clock for the deadline for implementing planning permission was judicial review is under way. So, sections 131 under way. So, sections 131932 of the country planning act have the effect of the full planning permission.

Ordinarily one has three years to look at the data commission and from our client it is the same period of three years to ring forward the application of those matters, however currently it can take the best part of three years for judicial review to review its costs and the planning court the planning commission can take the best part of half a, during which time no rational developer or funder or land promoter would have to spend money when they have a planning permission at risk and this has real consequences for the status of planning permissions were a number of planning permissions that have been put at risk have essentially been timed out or are at risk of being timed out, there's will none ones were a few years ago the landowner had to do a dummy application.

These kids of applications can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, sometimes more, wasted money that could be better used. For example, in providing a high amount of affordable housing contributions. It is also an incentive to bring judicial review as claimants at their well honed employers know that you can cause distress to commercial parties by bringing the judicial review and effectively tire them out and seek to extract and do concessions, so I would urge the Government seriously to consider this amendment.

I do not understand what political capital or any kind of capital could be lost and there is not really any downside, so I asked the Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to consider that. I support amendment 128. And the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support amendment 128. And the prominence of this amendment, certainly it will align with the government's agenda. The amendment government's agenda. The amendment seeks to extend the provisions of clause 12 of the bill which apply to
22:06
Viscount Hanworth Portrait Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-
clause 12 of the bill which apply to nationally important infrastructure projects and other projects, notably to those sponsored by local authorities. Amendment 1286 limits the time available for the police against planning orders from six weeks or 42 days. I do support this amendment which I think is entirely reasonable. More significantly, it proposes an appeal to the High Court under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990 may not be made without leave of the court. As with earlier stages I have spoken to another amendment 52 that sought to limit the scope of judicial reviews that frustrates national importance and infrastructure projects of the proposal of that amendment is to bring the development orders from the nationally significant infrastructure projects into Parliament.

After a proposal has been passed and parliamentary scrutiny, then by an act of Parliament it should become legally incontestable and therefore it should not be subject to the houses judicial review. And Parliament must not be overburdened by such legislation but, nevertheless, local reporters also require a greater protection against frivolous legal challenges. I describe the chicanery that has disrupted the plans to eliminate a bottleneck on a major road 303 when it passes close to Stonehenge on Salisbury plain. The legal wrangling has seemed almost interminable.

The first grant of consent for the bypass in 2020 was quashed by the High Court in July 2021. Then it was given the green light again that reissued the development order and consent to years later in July 2023. And this was put on hold again because another series of judicial review is were dismissed by the High Court in February in February 2024, by the court of appeal in October 2024 as well. And undeterred by these two claimants they asked the spring court of appeal again but on 29 January this year the Supreme Court refused the motion to appeal on the grounds of the challenge not raised by any arguable point of law.

However, this decision was immaterial since within weeks of taking office in July last July the Labour Government scrapped the plans for a 2 mile tunnel to bypass the money met on regards that the cost of the project had become unaffordable. The decision was made 3 1/2 years after this had been given after a very full and detailed examination of all of the issues. In this case, it might be said not by virtue of the strength of the court but the legal chicanery and delay.

More of the same causes available to other parties who, for various reasons, wish to stand in the way of important development projects. It is worth noting the circumstances that made the project unaffordable. They were recruited but largely to the appeals, major work was being undertaken and by the time the legal issues had been settled, that work had been completed and the contractors had moved on stop to call them back in order to complete the project to ignore the costs of re-establishing the project.

And amendment 128 is reasonable and I think long overdue and I strongly committed to your Lordships. committed to your Lordships.
22:10
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I am really concerned about amendment 128. And the reason I say that in this bill is at the hands of the Government we have already had an attack on democracy in terms of substantial decisions being removed and there are critically elected. And now it feels like we are having an attack on communities. The reason I say that is six weeks is already pretty short from a determination to then bring about putting a challenge when you have something may be done unlawfully to a number of factors.

In order to actually do a judicial review, the costs between £150,000, just to get the process going, that, in itself, can be quite substantial, to get that funding together. Normally you would do a pre-reaction protocol. Which the courts expect the Government on both sides to comply with, quite a lot of that will imply quite significant extractions of information from the Government. And, as a consequence, three weeks would just end up timing out the opportunity, generally, for communities that are concerned that something is being run through for them to have a genuine opportunity to challenge the Government in this previous administration will know that quite often, I would not say all the time, that significantly there are times when the courts have found the court proceedings to be unlawful.

That might be frustrating for the Government, but nevertheless still there is that opportunity to do that. I very concerned about how think the opportunity, the time for communities to be able to consider how they might challenge a particular decision. We have seen that in a variety of ways, whether that is about housing, whether that is aspects of the energy infrastructure, about transport. And the Government will often get frustrated but unless it is still an unnecessary adjustment for amendment 128 in particular and I was delighted particularly that my Noble Friend did say in his speech my Noble Friend was sympathetic and had not actually put his name to it.

But building on that then we get that we get to other considerations to the get to other considerations to the Court of Appeal. We have a lot of sympathy and the amendments that have been put in the group in order to just not have never-ending regulatory challenges in the courts and are used to represent Suffolk Coastal and I know that they have had a lot of challenges that seem never-ending, somewhat ridiculous, so I have some sympathy to that, but I also have experience as a Secretary of State, not necessarily on infrastructure but on other judicial matters aware a judge has found against the Government despite, by the way, it having been through both Houses of Parliament, and determining a particular aspect of legislation.

For the judge in the High Court to rule against Government and then initially say you cannot appeal to the Court of Appeal. There is a process that allows the Government or anybody, currently, to go around that to say that is a bit ridiculous, you have found against us and now for the good of you are actually accepting that you do not want your decision to be challenged, so that is where I have a little bit of concern on where that particular aspect may go.

In terms of thinking, sorry, I have dropped my piece of paper. Now, the noble Viscount just happened to refer to the A3 three. I am still quite new to it. And while I am not try to do a second reading speech and I conscious of the advice of the Noble Lord Watson of Sedgefield, I just want to remind the House and our Lordships of some of the earlier amendments that have already been put through this bill. Which is trying to limit the number of different reasons on how a judicial review can be brought to an What Saudi gone through this place is for example on the issue to do with Stonehenge, if somebody had under the new rules which we are debating that somebody who had already challenged aspects of the environment when it comes to the issue around Stonehenge, and I can assure the noble Lord I have actually spent plenty of time sat on the A3 three just after the roundabout waiting what we have lots of rubbernecking going on about how marvellous this is and it is marvellous, but under some aspect of this legislation that would restrict the opportunity for other people to bring a judicial review nothing to do with the environment, but something completely different whether it was about roads, archaeology and so on.

I am nervous on certain aspects of not necessarily using the A303 is a great example, but what we are doing in our desire and understandable desire to build whether it's homes, other aspects of infrastructure, that we are almost creating this fortress which will just in effect allow the government to build anywhere and everywhere they want regardless of the consequences going back to this particular group I'm very concerned about the three weeks vs six weeks, Lord Hunt will know quite how let's put it this way, not all of government is quite so efficient in responding to these pre-action protocol record -- letters and the like, and as I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it would be unfair if not unsafe to try and insist on this change. Opposition of Baroness Coffey

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opposition of Baroness Coffey seems to be that the consideration of a project by those that might of a project by those that might oppose it subsequent to the admission of a developed order, in fact usually the opposition long predates that. So if the limitation predates that. So if the limitation we are proposing is not a denial of the opportunity to consider and to the opportunity to consider and to oppose the project. oppose the project.

Is drastically remit reducing the amount of time if you want to bring, if anybody want to bring a judicial review ebony mentioned the barriers review ebony mentioned the barriers of raising money, assuming you can raise that, but quite often perhaps this will be a change, but the High Court will not like this. The High Court will not like this. The High Court will absolutely kick off if there is some concept, right now there is some concept, right now governments really struggle to not do the whole amount of forgive me, I forgotten phrase...

It's disclosure but there's a particular phrase that but there's a particular phrase that goes with candour I can't quite remember the phrase. If that is the way we are going to go with three weeks then honestly the delays will get worse. Be careful what one wishes for. In regards to this three weeks vs six weeks. I think this is an unnecessary amendment whereas I'm somewhat supportive of the other amendments that Lord Hunt has table First of all can I thank Lord Hunt
22:20
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
of Kings Heath and Lord Banner for of Kings Heath and Lord Banner for the careful thought and experience the careful thought and experience in tabling these amendments. On amendment 135D I recognise the concerns expressed by Lord Hunt in concerns expressed by Lord Hunt in seeking to restrict appeals to the court of appeal where the High Court court of appeal where the High Court has deemed an application to be totally without merit, this is of course a delicate balance between ensuring access to justice and preventing the courts from being preventing the courts from being encumbered by hopeless claims.

I am grateful for him for placing this important matter before your important matter before your Similarly his amendment 357, 358 and 360 raise pertinent questions on the commencement provisions of various commencement provisions of various causes particularly in relation to the new measures on planning and legal challenges. It is often the case that commencement by regulation case that commencement by regulation can leave uncertainty. Proposal to provide for an automatic commencement two months after Royal commencement two months after Royal Assent is at the very least a reminder of the need for clarity and timeliness in the law.

These points which merit careful reflection and I look forward to the Minister's response on these. If I may I would like to turn particularly to Amendment 163 tabled by Lord Banner. This amendment addresses a very practical difficulty. Namely the risk of development consent are lost through the running out of time in the course of judicial statutory reviews. By stopping the clock ensures that the permission does not simply expire while litigation is pending, this is important not only for developers and investment, investors who require certainty, but also for local communities who deserve clarity about the projects affecting them.

Without such a measure there is indeed a danger that merit this legal challenges might be deployed as a tack to run down the clock, thereby frustrating legitimate development. I believe my noble friend is right to highlight this problem and I warmly welcome his amendment. I conclude once again thanking Lord Hunt and Lord Banner for their thoughtful contributions on these benches, we will listen very closely to the response of the Minister on these matters. Minister on these matters.
22:22
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions in this group. I turn to amendments 128 first tabled by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, spoken, also spoken to by Lord Banner which seeks to reduce the time limit for bringing a legal challenge against planning decisions And statutory review of planning decisions all the subject to a compressed six week window within which a claim may be brought compared with three month time limit in which judicial reviews. It's the government's view that the current time-limit strikes the right balance between providing certainty for developers and local communities and preserving access to justice.

Further shortened the time limit for bringing claim would risk restricting the public's ability to hold the government and planning authorities to account in relation to planning decisions. Shorter time-limit would also leave less time for meaningful engagement between the parties to potentially resolve matters out of court or to narrow the scope of any claim. Claimants who fear being timed out may also feel compelled to lodge protective claims just in case. This could inadvertently lead to a greater delay due to a potential increase in the number of challenges.

The government is taking forward a wider package of reforms to improve the efficiency of the planning system, including measures to speed up decisions and encourage early engagement. These changes will have a far greater impact than trimming a few weeks of the judicial review timetable. Whilst I recognise my noble friend intention to reduce uncertainty in the planning system, I believe the three-week time-saving from the shorten time-limit is outweighed by the risk of restricting access to justice and the practical implications of such change.

Therefore I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. Turn next to amendments 129, 130 and 135D. Also tabled by my noble friend which seeks to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court stop the effect of these amendments largely reflects that of clause 12 which make provision specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure project under the planning act 2008.

The measures being taken forward in clause 12 follow a robust independent review by Lord Banner and a subsequent government call for evidence which made clear the case for change with regards to these major infrastructure projects. We currently do not have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of the changes made to clause 12 would be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.

With regards to the amendment which seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court this is not necessary as the process is set out clearly in the relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for his amendment 357, 358 and 360 concerning the commencement of clause 12 and the new judicial review provisions which he is proposing. The amendment seeks to ensure that these provisions all come into force two months after Royal Assent, with regard to clause 12 this requires changes to the relevant civil procedures rules and practice directions.

The current power which allows this measure to be commenced by regulation is designed to ensure the necessary provisions are in place before the changes come into force. I would like to reassure my noble friend that the government intends to commence the measure by regulation as soon as practicable following Royal Assent. With regards to my noble friend amendment linked to his proposed new provisions I think he would agree that this amendment is no longer required as the related provisions have now been withdrawn.

For these reasons I kindly ask that my noble friend withdraw his amendments. I thank Lord Banner for amendment 168 which would extend the time period to commence a planning permission if the permission were subject to judicial proceedings the government agrees with the policy intention behind this amendment. The statutory commencement provisions under section 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are an important and long-standing part of the legal framework for planning permissions to ensure permissions are implemented in a timely manner and lapsed if they have not done within the prescribed time limit.

However we recognise it would be unfair on the applicant of judicial proceedings where the courts have confirmed the lawlessness of the permission led to delays which mean that the commencement period of the lawful permission has effectively curtailed legal challenges on the validity of the permission should not seek to timeout practical implementation of the permission. implementation of the permission. That's why section 91, 3823B was introduced to automatically extend the commencement period for a four planning permission for a further year if there were further judicial proceedings questioning the validity of the planning permission.

This extension of one year is sufficient to cover the typical planning case at the High Court, so applicants whether planning permission has been lawfully upheld should not lose out from the delay caused the legal challenge. In light of these points I would kindly ask my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw his amendment. Thank you to the noble Lord for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to the noble Lord for those comments, does the Minister except -- accepted that if it's only except -- accepted that if it's only one year to cover the period of High one year to cover the period of High Court proceedings that gives unsuccessful claimants in the High Court an incentive to perpetuate the proceedings and by taking to the proceedings and by taking to the Court of Appeal and pension potentially there after the Supreme

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Court to drag out the threat to the implementation of the permission in the way I describe? Not being a legal expert on these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not being a legal expert on these issues I'm more than prepared for to issues I'm more than prepared for to sit down with the noble Lord to discuss this specific point but it seems to me that we are extending it by a full year I think what he was by a full year I think what he was wanting to do was to stop it? That's right. Which means that it could right. Which means that it could actually go on and on anyway.

It's a point that perhaps we could discuss

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point that perhaps we could discuss if the noble Lord wants to do so. Very grateful to my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to my noble friend for his very responsive windup. 129, for his very responsive windup. 129, 130, 130 5D, he said the government will need to consider this further and I'm very grateful for that full stop on 128 I'm grateful to my noble friend for his support but I didn't get much other support around the House. Let me say to Baroness Coffey, listen, it's not an attack on democracy, as someone with mainly an NHS background I'm only too well aware of the importance of judicial review in the case of local people concerned that NHS bodies have not followed proper procedures and I'm followed proper procedures and I'm afraid there are too many cases and I have to many very rich lawyer friends who have made a lot of money out of the NHS as Happily approach sometime.

I do understand what she sometime. I do understand what she is saying, and the other hand I was prying to -- trying to press whether prying to -- trying to press whether we could spend -- speed up some of the processes, but I will obviously reflect on what has been saddled that finally 357 throughout 360, my noble friend said that commencement depends on changes to Civil depends on changes to Civil Procedure Rules that we have done it sooner practicable. I'm trying to think back to what it meant when I said as soon practicable at the said as soon practicable at the Dispatch Box I think it is better than as soon as possible and I will take that as a win.

I beg leave to take that as a win. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
22:30
22:31
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
development company, so I am on both sides of planning and nature issues. This, I would say to the Minister, is really a probing amendment and quite a specific one and it comes on to the area of planning enforcement and generally the planning system is meant to be a permissive one. Unless there is a good reason to stop development and it should happen. In fact paragraph 60 of the MV PF, that National planning framework states that planning is discretionary, the planning system is discretionary, and it is proportionate.

It also makes the point that the planning system in terms of enforcement is there to maintain public confidence, and it is that area, really, that I want to concentrate on, particularly, this evening. In that many of us and all of us, I am sure, will know of residents concerned that people that are overhead with developments or getting developments that are not in planning permissions feel that those individuals are cheating the system or are moving ahead of other people that are trying to go through a system legally and properly.

And causing a great deal of discontent. Now, planning enforcement at the moment is not a duty of local authorities. And when I have talked to this area about local authorities they have made it very clear that they are not funded to enforce, so it is not an area that is always given a great deal of emphasis because there is no return. But one area that I came across particularly in terms of one of my own principal local authorities is that when it comes down to environmental conditions on planning, the track record.

40% of those conditions in terms of environment were never actually implemented over quite a long period of time. And that is why in this amendment that I have particularly stressed environmental climate and conditions on planning that are widely ignored in development and because they are relatively minor on individual cases are not enforced, yet on a broader scale because that is the case then the Ari edge a threat in terms of biodiversity, of net gain in terms of nature.

And all the things that we need to do in terms of environment and climate to move that agenda forward. And as we all know in the built environment if we do not get it right to begin with there is a problem with that length and typical age, but what I am trying to find out from the Government is how do we get out of this issue and that on the whole local authorities do not want to enforce and I are very clear that on other things on minor infringements that are not to do with this we do not want a system that looks like a police state, but I think we have the balance wrong at the moment, particularly around those planning conditions that seem minor that are really important on a macro scale, so that is my question of how we do get out of this.

And I do believe that there is a way forward on this that there is a way forward on this if we are able to reflect costs on people that do not comply with planning if those particular issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then have to be enforced. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after close 51 insert the following new clause and helped before we receive the Government might make a brief statement about the progress of business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, thank you. Just to confirm we are going this evening and I would urge brevity from and I would urge brevity from everybody in making speeches as we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make progress. A 10 minute speech in response to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A 10 minute speech in response to that, if the Government decides it wants to go to such a ridiculous length that really is for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government. Agreed, apologies, I should have added it was agreed through the added it was agreed through the usual channels, that would be an appropriate way to bridge this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate way to bridge this. I accept it has been agreed by the usual channels, but this is a the usual channels, but this is a rising trend. A serious bill taking rising trend. A serious bill taking its provision seriously. If the Government wants to get through 20 Government wants to get through 20 today then it will take the time takes. Nonetheless, when it comes to this amendment, I shall be brief. The main reason that I hear from planning processes taking longer than they should that planning authorities take longer than they should.

I think the Minister, the Government should have the power to accept this and that is what my Sorry, I just wanted to shine a bit Sorry, I just wanted to shine a bit of light on my speech. My Lords, may I begin by thanking the Noble Lord Tennyson and my Noble Friend Lord Lucas for bringing their amendments to the attention of the House. They have raised a number of important points and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to addressing the noble Lords concerns.

Turning to the amendments in my name, amendment 135, its purpose is to reduce the costs and delays in the planning system by putting this beyond doubt of legislation the principles that currently rely on case law bed planning permission has already been granted and remains extent decisions on subsequent planning applications relating to detailed matters, whether determined by an officer or a committee should not reopen issues that were settled in the original planning permission. This matters because uncertainty in the system not only increases costs for applicants but also creates unnecessary duplication of effort for planning authorities and applicants.

Greater clarity would enable both sides to proceed with confidence, efficiency, and speed.
22:39
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment 135H that age tabled in my name and the name of my Noble Friend Baroness Scott, this is a probing Baroness Scott, this is a probing amendment intended to test whether the provides uncertainty once permission has been granted and to explore how necessary changes comforted by new national comforted by new national legislation might be handled without reopening matters that have already reopening matters that have already been settled. The principal is essential particularly where significant workers have already significant workers have already been undertaken and applications are well advanced.

This amendment well advanced. This amendment invites the Government to consider whether clear statutory guidance on finality could help improve efficiency and reduce delay. Finally, I wish to speak to amendment 185 tabled in my name. amendment 185 tabled in my name. This amendment aims to provide clarity to the system so that clarity to the system so that project delays are minimised and legislative changes necessitate legislative changes necessitate modifications to an already approved commission. For instance, as we discussed earlier today, legislation discussed earlier today, legislation that might require solar cells on that might require solar cells on all new homes, in such circumstances these modifications should be deemed to have planning permission in principle.

It is vital because projects can be significantly delayed and cost increases developers are required to seek fresh planning permission simply to comply with new legislation that has come about after they received their original planning permission, but ensuring that those modifications are covered in principle we can save our progress while maintaining the integrity of the planning system. If we are to achieve the government's objective of 1.5 million new homes, the planning system needs to deliver. These three amendments are guided by the same underlying principle, clarity and certainty of planning law, reduce unnecessary delay, avoid waste or duplication and allow applicants to focus their energies on what should be their priority which is delivering high quality development of high quality homes and support for residents and communities.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the Noble Lord sits down I would just like to add I realised would just like to add I realised what he is going to say for this matter and I wish to support his A-Z matter and I wish to support his A-Z G and A-Z H amendments because I do
22:41
22:42
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
raised important aspects of the planning process in this amendment. Planning enforcement can be a neglected part of the planning system. Partly because this is part of the statutory discretionary function and as such is not necessarily funded to the extent that it ought to be. Effective enforcement is absolutely vital in the planning process, anyone, both the developer, counsel, and local people, and they have trust that what has been agreed will be fulfilled. And I will give you won example from my role as a counsellor.

When I was contacted about a housing developer and which is adjacent to a motorway. The concern that a resident raised with me was that the developers were not adhering to the agreed siting of units. Planning enforcement went on site to investigate and discovered that the construction was undermining the motorway banking which would have had catastrophic consequences if that had continued. A stop notice was issued at the matter solved. This goes on to say major housing development.

So, enforcement is absolutely key, both for the integrity of the planning system, the conditions that are applied to a application when it is giving consent and to those residents that have asked questions about this. And therefore enforcement is key to maintaining trust of residents, as my Noble Friend has said. And the democratic decision making can be relied on to check the planning condition. And that requires adequate funding. What I would like to hear from the Noble Lord that minister is whether the Government is of a mind to make a move from a discretionary function to a statutory one that would then be adequately funded and the very important role that planning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforcement plays. I would just like to thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just like to thank the noble Lords furnace Lady Scott for
22:45
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
noble Lords furnace Lady Scott for their amendments, I turn first to amendment 131 which would place duty on local planning authorities to take enforcement action in relation to certain breaches in the system of penalty payments. The Government recognises the frustration that many people when they see development being carried out we understand, therefore, that effective enforcement is vital in maintaining public trust and confidence in the planning system. I can appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment as it represents a fundamental change to the enforcement system and is not something that could be introduced without very careful and detailed consideration, including consultation with interested parties.

Furthermore, I believe that the current approach to reinforcement gives local planning authorities discretion about when authorities discretion about when and how they use their enforcement powers, distractibility is important as local planning authorities are best placed to consider the particular circumstances of each case in which a balanced and I can assure the committee, the house that we will continue to keep the operation of the enforcement system under review. Turning next to amendment 135G, this would enable a Secretary of State to prescribe the timeframes for determining planning applications and where these are not met the Secretary of State may set the process used by which applications may be granted deemed consent.

I agree with Lord Lucas on the need to speed up planning decisions stop provision for deemed discharge of planning provisions already exists within the Town & Country act 1990, this was introduced in 2015 to incentivise local planning authorities to speed up dealings with these applications. But it is little used. When faced with a request for deemed discharge local planning authorities often simplicity refuse the application. Based on this exercise the deemed consent apply to applications for planning permission is likely to result local planning authorities issuing more refusals which would lead to more planning appeals resulting in further delays.

In particular when applications for large-scale developments amendment two proposals are needed to make sure these complaints, can play -- comply with planning policy was section 1 negotiations also needed to ensure that affordable and other infrastructure provided on deemed consent would adversely affect this, creating a deemed consent regime would we believe require set of standard conditions to be applied which would further compare take the planning process. Instead we believe it is better to focus the underlying reasons for delays to decision- making of which capacity pressures within local authorities has been a key one.

That is why we are scaling back the roller statutory consultees, increased planning fees for older applications and certain other applications and are empowering local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to cover costs. Turning to amendments 135 HZ G and... I may have misunderstood what he said that I thought the noble Lord was saying that reducing the power of certain statutory consultees, I know we are probably advancing the consideration of this bill because we going to deal this next week but the entirety of power three rates entirely new burdens for an entirely new set of quangos.

It's actually going to slow things down I just wondered whether in light of this consideration he might like to review what he said because if we truly are going to reduce the veto the statutory undertakings have then that is absolutely to be welcomed, it's just the thrust of this bill is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going in completely the other direction. I wouldn't accept that, I think it's got to be a balance between it's got to be a balance between what we can do to make things more flexible and also to ensure that we have the right kind of have the right kind of infrastructure to ensure that things can lead to the growth we want in the local economy. What have a the local economy. What have a factual system and I think what we try to devise is that.

Turning now try to devise is that. Turning now to amendments 135H and 135 HZ H to amendments 135H and 135 HZ H which cover the important technical issue of decision-makers visiting matters which have been established matters which have been established through the grant of planning permission when determining applications. The mental consent applications. The mental consent such as reserved matter approvals. I recognise that these are probing recognise that these are probing amendments and I understand the concern about matters being revisited when they should not be.

We want to see supplementary consents being determined as swiftly as possible. Case law is long as possible. Case law is long established supplementary consents must focus on the specific matters must focus on the specific matters directly related to the consent. Not revisit wider matters which have been addressed by the original grant of planning permission. However we of planning permission. However we are sceptical about the merits of putting this case law on a statutory footing suggested by amendment 135 HZ J of the principles well established among planning officers and putting it on statutory footing will not speed up their decision- making, indeed it could create new grounds for legal challenge to planning decisions which we want to avoid.

Similarly I'm not convinced we need a review on this matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate your answer the noble Lord has given but I want to understand a bit of clarity, he made two comments there. The reason for two comments there. The reason for this and I accept it's a bit of a probing amendment, is to really bring in to the planning process absolute clarity that a decision absolute clarity that a decision that has been made has been made and cannot. Visited, that certainly seems to be the case with case law. The reason we have case law is because people are actually making because people are actually making decisions in the planning system decisions in the planning system which then has to go to court, making it much more clearer it will enhance the role of those who are enhance the role of those who are saying hold on, we have already decided that there has planning approval for X.

Just because you are now changing the colour of the door now changing the colour of the door doesn't mean you can revisit the original planning permission again. I'm slightly puzzled why he should say, and making a clarification it say, and making a clarification it may even result in more legal processes. Not necessarily expecting an answer tonight because I appreciate has valiantly stepped in appreciate has valiantly stepped in at the last minute, but if you could just think a little bit about that and and maybe we could have a conversation afterwards.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maybe what I can say is that I will reply to him on that specific point but it seems to me that the point but it seems to me that the principal is well established and when planning officers are putting in a statutory footing will not in a statutory footing will not speed up decision-making. Similarly I'm not convinced we need a review I'm not convinced we need a review on this matter, we have course are always looking at opportunities to improve the planning system and if there is evidence that supplementary consent might reserve matter approvals were unnecessarily approvals were unnecessarily revisited matters we would want to take action but we do not think a review would be proportionate.

Finally I turned to amendment 185 SE which seeks to ensure that changes required to extend planning required to extend planning permissions to comply with changes of legislation would benefit from automatic planning permission. I can see we share a common goal which is to ensure that developers are not delayed or new legislative requirements. When the government requirements. When the government reduces changes to planning legislation now usually not applied retrospectively to avoid the uncertainty this would cause. To To other To other regular To other regular Tory To other regular Tory regimes To other regular Tory regimes like Building Regulations Part M impact on approved development and this may require subsequent amendments to the planning permission which can be frustrating for developers.

However we do not think this amendment provides a solution, it is to broaden some regulatory changes can have a material impact and approved development which warrant further consideration from a planning perspective. Instead we are keeping, keen to ensure when you legislation has developed which could impact on development of the consequences planning are recognised and minimised. There are already a number of mechanisms available within the planning system which allow changes to planning permissions in a proportionate way such as light-touch applications or nonmaterial amendments under section 96 a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and we are keen to see these mechanisms being used to address the consequences of any wider regular trade changes on approved development.

For these reasons I hope the noble Lords will beg leave to withdraw their amendments.
22:54
22:55
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blidworth. May I once again declare my interest as a practising barrister and mediator in a set of chambers which specialises in public and which specialises in public and planning law. The government's objective and the overriding objective of this bill as I understand it is to speed up the planning process build more homes. One way I suggest the best way of achieving this would be to reduce conflict. And to avoid lengthy litigation about planning matters with all the delay and expenditure which results.

I venture to suggest that amendment 133 and my name could do more than any other single measure in this bill to achieve that objective. It's a big claim, but I make no apologies to the committee for making it. I've been most heartened by the positive reception that the suggestion has orally had from the government frontbench. -- Already. This amendment can I believe achieve what numerous amendments to planning legislation have never focused on, namely giving a clear legislative steer from government that all stakeholders must now seek to engage in a constructive conversation rather than defaulting to confrontation and ultimately to litigation.

The alternative to this amendment is that the status quo of delays, confrontation and forced outcomes will be perpetuated. An alternative which is certainly not in the public interest. The present system in which mediation is permitted by, but not encouraged frequently allows polarised positions to be perpetuated and too often they are related toxic conversations simply lead to the greater likelihood of confrontation and litigation in the planning sphere. With all the attendant division, costs and delay. As I say, mediation within the English planning system is presently known and has been successfully deployed.

However it continues to be significantly underused and underappreciated resource. In contrast, in other spheres of litigation mediation has now become central to the civil justice system. Greatly encouraged by repeated appellate court judgements, and it is increasingly becoming mandatory. This is all the case despite the planning system recognising that the potential of mediation has long acknowledged. In the recent case of Churchill against Merthyr Tydfil County Counsel Bor a decision in 2023 in the decision of the Court of Appeal comprising the Labour chief justice of the Master of the Rolls and deputy Master of the Rolls it was decided the court can order the parties to engage in non-core space dispute resolution and can order stay of proceedings to allow that to take place.

Of course that applies in ordinary litigation but this amendment would mean that it would apply with force -- full force within the planning sphere. Planning law lags behind almost all other areas of the law, there have been earlier efforts to try and incorporate mediation in the planning sector. As I explained to the House when first raising the possibility of this amendment at second reading, there have been really for major examples, the first was the 2006 Barker review of land- use planning, the second the government 2009 response to the Killen pretty reform which urged investigation of the use of ADR at all stages of the planning process, thirdly the 2010 report commissioned by the National planning forum and the Planning Inspectorate called mediation in planning have -- and fourthly the national forums 2011 mediation in planning a short guide endorsed by the then Minister for planning.

In 2012 Lord Pickles introduced something called section 106 brokers, an initiative introduced when he was community secretary. This system was designed to facilitate the agreement of section 106 agreements whereby a mediator sat with an independent surveyor and would discuss with landowners and developers under local authority what agreements could be reached on section 106, this was to have and did have the effect of accelerating development projects. The initiative was then taken into latest legislation through the short lived sections 106 BA.2 BC of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and disallowed for renegotiation of section 106 obligations in respect of affordable.

-- Affordable. The sunset provision expired in April 2016. The real problem with that model was that the Treasury was paying for the mediator and the Then have another legislative provision brought in under so Brandon Lewis when he was planning minister and that led to due sections 106 a and 106 said the two allow for a form of adjudication discourse, however those measures were never implemented. And then in 2021 the Government initiated a To reduce the enforcement backlog. One of the reasons that felt was that many local planning officers were less than enthusiastic to engage in meaningful discussion because they did not understand the process.

And that lesson has also been experienced in Scotland and it is only with necessary efforts to overcome that lack of familiarity that the mediation process can work through the governmental offices. There will need to be consequences to this amendment and indeed for education in this regard and this is something that we can consider further in negotiations with the frontbench. However, it is abundantly clear that where former remediation has been deployed in the scenarios it has often been successful, even where its techniques have been deployed formally due to the presence of Chair, negotiations have been accelerated and produced better outcomes and consequently both public and private resources have been received and the stakeholder relations have improved.

And, crucially, earlier delivery of new developments, houses and infrastructure results. Accordingly, the capabilities of remediation and planning are in fact well- established and align clearly with the government's objectives of this bill. Turning briefly to the text of the amendment, this amendment inserts a new clause in the Town and Country Planning Act and to an extent it is modelled on section 40 of the enforcement act on this version that is broader and promotes remediation and other techniques that requires the Secretary of State and the Minister to issue formal guidance on the provision and use of remediation and other methods of resolving planning disputes.

And the important part, looping back to my earlier remarks in subsection 3 that were introduced as an essential requirement the local planning authorities must have regard to the guidance issued under subsection 1 and that further guidance is issued and that further guidance is issued there must be wide consultation both with the local planning authorities and, more widely. That would mean meaningful engagement with key meaningful engagement with key players on the trot at opportune Institute is and they are suitably and better informed to the outcomes of the new provision.

In that way, hopefully the historic experiences of low engagement can be successfully overcome and the technique of alternative resolution allowing troll sharing and neutral evaluation will hold parties with issues in the dispute and bring on the faster construction project with less consultation and less waste cost and less delay. As I say, I have interest across the House and this measure and I look forward to hearing contributions from the Noble Lord the Minister. This is a change of approach that could make a real difference and cannot come about soon enough.

I begged him. Wye amendment proposed article 51 insert the new clause as painted on the Marshall list.
23:05
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak broadly in support of this amendment by Lord Marie of Bedworth. The amendment would embed the promotion of remediation and alternative dispute mediation in our planning system. To start with, I would like to just inform the House that I have been both elected local councillor sitting on the planning committee and I have also worked as a community mediator helping with the community mediation service specialising in the disputes for a number of years. For too long, our approach to resolving planning disputes has been overly adversarial, leading to court battles, mounting costs, lengthy delays, and frustrating development in communities and local authorities alike.

Too much of our planning process revolves around zero-sum games. Talking to people, doing to them resulting in formal legal processes when things go wrong, as they inevitably do. The amendment is an invitation to do things better for the benefit of all people and the interest of better Governments in speeding up the process itself. Mediation is no longer an un-trusted novelty. It is widely used in all sectors of society. Its benefits are well established in many sectors and many areas of everyday life.

It is used fairly infrequently, but it is used in the planning process. Properly structured and supported mediation interventions and processes can result in specific contentious issues at an early stage reducing hostility helping to build trust. Positive relationships in a way that the litigation simply is not capable of doing. When used, it produces high satisfaction, more creative solutions, and results in the results that last beyond the immediate dispute. As opposed to the legal processes that are imposed from on high, mediation resolutions are designed and tailored by the parties themselves to fix exactly their individual needs.

These outcomes can be transformative, and because the parties designed them themselves, they tend to work more for their specific needs and they are more committed to the outcomes that they have helped to create. Mediation will obviously not working all cases, but it can work in some stop to certain is that if mediation is not widely available, if it is not explored, then it is not something that will work in the planning processes. What I will say yes whereas in some areas I do disagree with the noble Lords, my view is that mediation should be wholly a voluntary process.

Every dispute kept out of lengthy appeals or court hearings is saying to local councils that with the government's stated aim of the planning processes, studies have found that as many as 73 % of mediated cases avoiding appeals cut expenses and help to reduce times. It is not just about saving money, this is about making the system more accessible and making the work better for the people involved and making it more inclusive. Mediation enables genuine dialogue and empowers communities to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process.

It is especially effective in complex cases, major developments, local plans, section 106 negotiations, compulsory purchase disputes where misunderstandings and mistrust can easily escalate into the conflict. Mediation offers confidentially, confidentiality, tailored solutions and better Governments. Some worry about the cost, I believe that these costs savings could be overcome and lead to savings. What I would call for is the Government to look at this and to take it seriously and for this system to work it would need some dedicated funding and support from the Government.

Could I just, to conclude, ask a couple of questions? We know that we have some mediation processes around the planning, but there rarely used and not very well embedded. Could I ask because the Government any assessment on this remediation? Whether that has helped speed of processes or resulted in better outcomes and whether those outcomes have listed longer? And could I perhaps encourage the Government if they are not going to support this amendment today to consider doing a larger scale trial on the use of remediation in the planning process so the outcomes can be properly monitored so the Government can make a fair assessment on the use of mediation in the planning process.
23:10
23:10
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I thank Lord Murray for his amendment on statutory guidance and remediation of planning. This would require the statutory of state to publish guidance on the use of remediation in the use of different planning activities, including land making, decision taking and the purchase. The thrust of this amendment is to ensure that issues are dealt with front as opposed to relying on issues that adult with throughout the courts. The Noble Lord set out in his speech at second reading of this bill, this is not a new issue.

The previous Government have explored this approach multiple times but it has borne no fruit, so while we completely agree with the underlying objective of the amendment we regretfully cannot accept it and feel that the statutory duty with regard to such guidance would not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. In particular, when determining planning applications, planning law requires the decision- maker to consider all planning matters set out in the local development plan were other planning material considerations. Given this legal framework it would not always be possible to reach consensus in all matters.

This is not the exercise when determining whether development should be granted permission. We are a planning permission refused by a local panic authority there is a well established procedure but by the applicant can't make that decision. In an appeal from the Independent planning inspector after the Secretary of State would consider planning matters fresh. The procedures used in relevant parties give them the opportunity to start their case, to state their case further. Once these cases are carried out in public it ensures that the process is transparent and fair.

This process provides a considerable benefit compared to mediation that mediation is carried out behind closed doors. It is common practice and encourage to the NPPF that when determining applications the local planning authorities work positively and proactively with applicants. Because it is often the case for large-scale and complex developments, applicants, and local planning authorities in their performance agreements that would help manage the process and provide a form of dispute resolution. There are some areas where we do encourage mediation already. In relation to compulsory purchases, the Government has already published guidance on the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, including mediation, to help parties resolve concerns on the principle of compulsorily purchasing land by CPO.

The Government is also committed to strengthening the system of developing contributions, including the section 106 planning applications to ensure new developments provide necessary and affordable homes and infrastructure and we are considering a range of options on that commitment. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord can withdraw his amendment. I am very grateful to the Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to the Noble Lord Russell for his support of the
23:14
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Russell for his support of the amendment. And I rather agree with the questions that he asked and I look forward if I may see a copy of that letter which I am sure the novel of the Minister will write to us by the noble Earl. Turning then also I am grateful for the support from my Noble Friend on the Frontbench. Turning then to their response from the Minister, I must confess that I am rather disappointed with the tone of the reply.

Clearly it is out of kilter with the approach taken by the senior court of this country in terms of encouraging the use of alternative resolution, but I have to say I find the reasoning as to why this particular route should not be explored unpersuasive. It is unpersuasive because saying that it has not worked in earlier iterations is a reason not to try a better formulation that does not stack up. The second reason is that obviously planning processes occur in public and mediation occurs in private and that is a reason that it is true in also litigation where mediation is possible and encouraged by the courts.

The point is that if we had enabled the parties to negotiate in advance we could avoid litigation massive public money, and avoid delay. I have to say that I hope the Government will revisit their resistance because I would consider returning to this issue and I look forward to my meeting with the Noble Lord the Ministers colleague which Lord the Ministers colleague which may or may not result in a different position. With that, I beg to withdraw.
23:16
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is ideologically pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, with one. Amendment 134.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment 134 with a butchered watered-down 134 with a butchered watered-down but shorter version than the one I was going to say, so forgive me if it is a little bit sort of you know it is a little bit sort of you know it is a little bit sort of you know This amendment is to reverse the decision of previous governments to give permitted development rights to allow the conversion of non- residential properties into dwelling houses.

In otherwise to get back to where we were when they would have had to apply for planning permission. The incremental changes were brought about over 10 years ago, now there is loads of evidence including the governments own, that this is failing. And it is failing this is failing. And it is failing on three main grounds. Given that in future with more working from home future with more working from home there is likely to be and already is there is likely to be and already is a lot more empty office blocks so we feel that it really really does need to be looked at fully and seriously to be looked at fully and seriously before our town centres and business centres are hollowed out.

Firstly quality. There is no doubt that many of these conversions are substandard, and indeed a case study in my own borough in Watford where a small factory had been made into several flats with no windows, it actually happened with PDR's and it was that case that was brought to government and obviously a body of other things that actually made the previous government include that such dwellings should have windows. Secondly and really close to our hearts and I'm looking at Lord Best here, we have actually lost loads of affordable.

Had planning permission keep -- been collected we would certainly have had more, and indeed the LTA reckoned that we've had a the LTA reckoned that we've had a loss of -- LGA, a loss of thousands of affordable. Think how many could have been housed from that temporary accommodation list had we had those homes. Thirdly, it actually rides roughshod through local plans, policies on design, sustainability and accessibility have been worked up with local councils, with communities, to build a place that they want to see.

Amendment 134 is not anti-housing, it is pro-quality housing. The amendment drawn up by the LGA and many councils and development partners have contributed. Some 39 organisations and many individuals have signed an open letter to government and I heard only today that Maia Burnham has added his name nightmare Burnham has added his name to the letter to ask the government to seriously consider rescinding PDR's. This shows the strength of opposition. In opposition several government members including the noble Lady the Minister also had strong feelings and concerns about PDR's so my question is very simple.

What has happened? I will listen carefully to the Minister's response, I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Moment proposal to close 51 insert the new clause is printed on
23:19
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List. I am delighted I'm delighted to see I take affect of the opposite point of view affect of the opposite point of view to the Baroness Lady Thornhill. I see permitted development rights as in my private members bill and is in my amendments to this bill as a, having a large pretension to contribute substantially to housing contribute substantially to housing expansion. Like Lady Thornhill I will curtail my remarks in the hope that what the Minister says will be so enlightening that I will not need to ask further questions.

What I am proposing in my amendments is a targeted set of expansions to permitted development rights to boost uptake and delivery by methods such as removing unjustifiably owner us restrictions, for example the ability to convert commercial buildings in areas of outstanding natural beauty or the inability to extend upwards on pre-1948 buildings of no defined heritage value or buildings post dating an arbitrary date. Verifying the wording prior approval conditions to remove vagueness which leads to a lack of consistency in decision-making between LPA's and more uncertainty in their application.

For example natural light, flood risk, transport impacts. Removing the subjectivity thoroughly allowed for within external experience, appearance conditions for upward extensions which are regularly used to refuse or frustrate upward extension in classes a to A.D. It puts a strong distance of these permitted development rights by SME developers and housebuilders. Instead, the local design code base conditions in my amendments provide certainty and consistency to decision-making. Permitting the defined use and application of class MA and classes a aa to A.D.

To maximise the development potential for existing buildings to deliver new homes. Design codes are hugely important in this. Mandatory local design codes already supported by the NPPF are essential to make permitted development rights work at scale. They would replace subjective judgements on external appearance with rule-based certainty, define acceptable height, density, daylight, standards to reduce the risk to developers. Capable of delivery by public private partnership with some costs recovered through planning the reforms which can target PDR applications.

Reforms would bring consistency, reduce risk and make PDR a viable route to delivery. Local design codes will improve outcomes and boost developer confidence and certainty in the uptake and use of PDR. PDR allows for greater numbers of conversions and extensions of existing buildings to provide new housing and sustainable urban environments. This helps reduce the demand and strain of granting housing in less sustainable greenfield locations. Together the amendments I suggest would unlock new housing capacity in most sustainable and accessible locations and benefit smaller building firms while still maintaining quality and control over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the urban environment. I briefly rise to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I briefly rise to support Baroness Thornhill with the government's ambition to increase the supply of socially affordable
23:24
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
the supply of socially affordable and the reforms to improve the capacity of the planning system, now seems the right time to reform PDR. The government has rightly made the quality and safety of housing a priority, but conversions to PDR are not subject to the same standards compared to developments through the full planning system, the Royal Institute of to to and the report on the impact of extending permitted development rights or public authorities and communities found that the quality of office to residential conversions was significantly worse than those which had been brought through the planning process.

Other than the nationally described space standards and requirements around natural light there are no minimum standards for these converted homes related to safety, facilities, communal space or connection to our manatees. It is essential -- amenities it is essential to make a positive impact on the life of residents. It is necessary to make it a viable solution for addressing the housing crisis. At a minimum the version should meet the healthy homes principle brought forward by the Town and Country Planning Association's, the healthy homes campaign and I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to these points.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill for bringing these matters to the attention of the House. Permitted development rights raise significant area of policy as they play a crucial role policy as they play a crucial role in both the supply and the quality of new homes. It is important not of new homes. It is important not only to the delivery of more housing but also to ensuring that those homes meet the needs of the communities in which they are built.

The rules which govern permitted development therefore deserve careful consideration and the careful consideration and the contributions made in today's debate have highlighted the balance that must be struck tween delivering more homes and protections for local communities and ensuring quality communities and ensuring quality homes. My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised the point of particular has raised the point of particular frustration for many homeowners in his amendment 185A, this actually reads across the other areas of reads across the other areas of reads across the other areas of government policy.

I know owners of heritage properties and homes in conservation areas face particular challenges with increasing energy challenges with increasing energy efficiency of their home, my noble friend is right to put this challenge to ministers. She also note the government have announced that as of 2030 or private landlords would be required to meet a higher standard of energy performance certificates C or equivalent in the properties up from the current level of EU. Given the fact that many heritage and listed properties including those in conservation areas often not permitted to install double glazing and I refer to my comments on the previous amendment group, can the noble Baroness the Minister confirm that the new EPC rating requirement will not apply to the listed and heritage properties? We look forward to hearing the government's view on these amendments and to understanding how they propose to address the concerns have been raised.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I address the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I address the amendments in this group can I just say correct and are that I made earlier when I was responding to Lord Young who has was responding to Lord Young who has kindly pointed out my error when I kindly pointed out my error when I said the £39 billion allocated for social and affordable was for this Parliament, it is in fact a 10 year Parliament, it is in fact a 10 year pledge of funding. I would like to correct that.

Make sure that's corrected in Hansard. All of the corrected in Hansard. All of the amendments in that group tabled by amendments in that group tabled by Baroness Thornhill and Lord Lucas seek to amend permitted develop and seek to amend permitted develop and rights. I should firstly note that changes to permitted develop and rights are brought forward through secondary as amendments to the General permitted develop mental General permitted develop mental order generally following public consultation. This ensures that the consultation. This ensures that the use of the public including those that would benefit from or otherwise be impacted by the rights created or be impacted by the rights created or removed are taken into account.

We will continue to keep permitted development rights under review and I'm grateful for the views put I'm grateful for the views put forward by noble Lords in this regard. Turning first to amendment 134 which seeks to revoke the nationally omitted development rights that deliver new homes through the change of use or by extending upwards and that allow dwelling houses to change use to a small house of multiple occupation and vice versa. Of course the sustainable solution to the housing crisis is to accelerate the delivery of affordable safe and decent purpose-built housing.

As Baroness Porter will know, I understand the intent of these amendments of which intent of these amendments of which We are in a housing crisis and these permitted development rights have provided over 130,000 new homes in the last nine years, permitted develop and rights are subject to prior approval by the local planning authority to allow for local consideration of specific planning matters will stop we absolutely acknowledge that concerns exist about the quality of some of the residential units created through permitted development rights, particularly those created from commercial to residential conversions and we have all seen the booklets with pictures of some very horrendous examples of those conversions.

Absolutely would not want to advocate that type of practice. All new homes should be delivered, or new homes delivered under permitted development rights are now required to meet nationally described space standards, provide adequate national -- natural light in all habitable loop rooms, all new homes whether delivered through permitted develop and write following a planning occasion required to meet building regulations. Small houses in multiple occupation we all know complain important part in providing low-cost accommodation, the permitted develop and write for change of use from the dwelling house to a small house in multiple occupation helps provide flexibility and it can be removed and the permitted develop and aspect that can be removed by making an article 4 direction where the local planning authority considers it necessary and in line with national planning from --.

The amendment will create it harder to create new homes from existing buildings at a time of acute housing need, I've not seen the letter the noble Baroness Thornhill referred to, I look forward to receiving that. For all the reasons I explained I hope she This allows for the installation of double glazing in consolation areas under nationally sanctioned development rights. The household permitted development rights already permit cases for Windows and conservation areas with double as Windows subject to a condition that the materials used must be of a similar appearance to those used in the existing dwellinghouse, however, where necessary, local planning authorities are able to remove specific nationally accepted planning rights in their area, as I said before, by making an article 4 direction and some areas have chosen to do so in respect of conservation areas in such cases a planning application would be required.

I did have a meeting today with colleagues from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport Committee and various heritage property organisations. And we have agreed to have further roundtables with them to debate the issues around to debate the issues around conservation properties. So, I will continue to update the House and where we are getting to in those discussions. Turning to amendment 185Q and 185T, these were both changes to the committed right, new changes to the committed right, new Or by extending and that would require all local planning authorities in England to introduce local design codes in relation to the development committed by those and other related rights.

I would like to reassure noble Lords of the importance I attach to ensure a planning system that ensures well- designed development to the codes and a clear framework already exists through the national planning policy framework and national model design code of the local planning authority design codes at the most appropriate level to provide maximum clarity about design expectations for development. As I have explained that knowledge around the residential units that have created through the development rights and not therefore to make changes to the rights to remove or weaken some of the protections which are currently set out in the rights.

Overall changes to the development rights come forward in secondary legislation, as I have explained, as the development order generally following on from public consultation, so that ensures the views of the public that would benefit from the rights are taken into account. Of course we all continue to keep permitted development rights under review and development rights under review and we are very grateful for the views that have been put forward in this regard and the discussions that are taking place this evening, but for older reasons I have given hope that noble Lords will see fit to beg leave to withdraw their amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness gave an Noble Lord with Inkheart and what she has Lord with Inkheart and what she has said and I totally understand, they have a way of dealing with these things through the bill, but I do things through the bill, but I do urge them small things, small urge them small things, small improvements, lots of them do, as the noble Baroness has pointed out in terms of the last few years due in terms of the last few years due make a difference and they do really make a difference and they do really nourish the low end of the small end of the builders market and give some of the builders market and give some lens to the nomination house building, housebuilders, so it is really important that this works

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. A quick comment. First of all,
23:35
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

A quick comment. First of all, article 4 directions are actually a very challenging process. And the Secretary of State does really give Secretary of State does really give you a hard time about it. And you usually have to justify covering a larger area. The problem with PD hours is that they are all over the place. And that makes an article 4 direction little bit more difficult. But I would like to challenge a fundamental misconception, the Noble Lady the Minister talked about the 130,000 homes that we have already had created.

The misconception is that they would not have happened anyway .I am sure some of them would not, but the majority of them if they have gone through the planning process they would have had things as suggested, altered, improved, to pull up the standard. And, of course, it would not have happened quite as quickly. I will go on a slightly tangential anecdote that to me shows that we really do need to look at this. The House next door to me, they have informed me that they will be renting a 12 m x 20 m single story building in their garden directly adjacent to mind.

12 x 20 m. They do not need planning permission. It is half the size of the garden and they are allowed to do that. If I want to direct a fence to actually cover that hideous wall of brick that I am going to be looking on instead of a beautiful garden with mature trees, I will have to apply for planning permission. Therefore, I think it is time to review the whole set up, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly office to residential. I wish to withdraw my amendment. It is your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is your Lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn, the imminent is, by leave, withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

imminent is, by leave, withdrawn. 10 groups done, tend to go. I now turn to amendment 135 that I beg to
23:37
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
turn to amendment 135 that I beg to move. And actually I am doing this in the name of a friend of mine, Richard Bacon, who retired in the last election and he is watching the proceedings now, so I am delighted that he is and he has spent a lot of time doing this particular issue regarding this which is what this amendment is about. And to pay credit to my honourable friend Richard he had managed to get into primary legislation issues about the build and being commenced but now there are still elements that seem to be holding back this potential of self build which recognising that as the Minister said earlier that Woods of her Secretary of State build baby build.

In that case, we should unleash the self builders and where it is appropriate rest across the country. And as my honourable friend has pointed out, this is 10 year neutral, there are great examples, anyone can read his report that was commissioned by the last administration and they have written extensively on this, so I do not need to repeat everything that he has put out in the public domain, but to give you a sense, there are good examples of this in the Netherlands where groups of people have come together and they have actually built high density and multiple stories with some housing being particularly desirable, may be overpriced like the penthouse, I think you have seen multigenerational homes being built, so, to some extent, recognising what has already been pointed out in several parts of the debate not only today but in very a consideration of the bill, the self is certainly a sector that needs to have the opportunity to at least be given ago, and I recognise what the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill has just said about the development rights with her neighbour which sounds rather extraordinary.

That's it, having a large garden, perhaps that persuades them. This was a way to reduce the amount of gardening they had to do. That is a different story. They can review recommended a range of regulatory reforms be brought forward to support the scaling up of self build and help much needed house building. I have already referred to the fact that the amendment to the 2015 act through the law to be clear that only planning permission that is specifically for self build can count towards meeting and authorities statutory duty and that amendments commenced last year.

Now, despite that amendment there remains, I understand, considerable uncertainty about what should the counted towards the duty imposed by local authorities and plots of land to meet the demand of their self old registers. And therefore provided for this new part around the Secretary of State specifying regulations, the types of development permissions that could be counted by relevant authorities to comply with its duty to meet demand as defined under section 28 subsection 2 of the 2015 act. And this has not been taken forward, yet, by the Government.

Amendment 135 proposes to insert new provisions into the bill to allow the Government to amend the 2016 self build regulations to clarify the times and development which must be counted towards the duty of local Governments to meet the demand for surface plots of land and people to old their own homes. The amendment has the effect of implementing the provision in section 123 brackets one brackets eight of the levelling up regeneration act 23 that enables the Government specifying regulations in terms of regulation amendment counted by local authorities to meet demand under section 2 a subsection 2 of the housebuilding act 2015.

The Government Plan for Change set an ambitious target to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament and said they are committed to the planning system, so it is progrowth, and also back to get Britain building. In May of failing at this year the former Deputy Prime Minister said smaller housebuilders must be the bedrock of the Government plan for change, getting working people on the housing ladder. She also said that she was committed to making the planning system simpler, fairer, and more cost-effective so that smaller hospitals can play a crucial role in building the homes we need, improving choice.

Boosting mix on large sites to improve build out. And delivering against these objectives the Government must surely look to operate all possible levers at its disposal will. Yet, so far, it has chosen not to bring forward the much-needed support to build their own homes. The Competition and Markets Authority housebuilding market study report from 2024 concluded that self build and custom housebuilding is one of the main models the UK house market with some 15,900 homes in 21/22. That was, frankly, just as we are coming out a variety of lock downs.

And it concluded that by enabling alternative private and non- speculative offers such as the self build house and development that dependence on the speculative housebuilders can be reduced and market diversity can be improved. Which, in turn, helps to speed up housing. So, this could allow for more homes to be absolved without housebuilders and thereby speeding up the delivery and local authorities in England to hold a register of people that want to acquire land to self or custom build in their area.

And to grant planning permission for enough plots of land permission for enough plots of land to satisfy that demand. To meet this demand and to grant them within three years and despite this the government's own data shows that the gap between consumer demand and plots of land for the supply continue to fall. And self building custom housebuilding data released by the Minister's department in February of this year shows that a number of individuals and the registers had risen by 4% to over 64,000.

And the group registrations aren't yet a 1,000 and despite the increase in commissions have continued to fall, reaching a mere just over 5,000 in a few years ago and that was the lowest level since legislation was first introduced in 2016. The key cause of the supply plot is because local authorities, I am led to believe, refuse planning applications on the grounds that the below demand, yet when they are tested it is often clear that there accept encounter applications to their targets and their plain enough for self build or customising in order to release, avoid releasing more land to meet demand.

These practices are frustrating to taxpayers and have thousands of pounds infighting for the councils it is not unusual for planning and local authority officers to debate at length whether a council has correctly counted the number of such permissions and inspectors then have to interpret the evidence submitted and decide what weight to give to This amendment removes the scope for this debate and bring much-needed clarity to help streamline the delivery in line with the government ambitions. It's possible the government may say develop and is not needed, broader set of planning reforms is bringing forward, will also help custom housing, but candidly that is not supported by the experience on the ground and indeed the government's own data.

As a consequence I hope the government will at least consider carefully these amendments was briefly I will say about the modular, it's very sensible, cheaper to do this by having an approved scheme in the amendment Lord Lucas has tabled. Regrettably the whole NHS building regime got dragged into the mire of again customised building as opposed to the modular if we want to make sure we have good quality homes for communities right around the country I suggest we back my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment as well. I beg to move. Amendment proposed articles 51 insert the clause is printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. I rise to speak in support of the amendment 135 in the name of the noble Baroness coffee. And declare noble Baroness coffee. And declare my interest as the sponsor of her
23:47
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
my interest as the sponsor of her amendment Richard Bacon was the Member of Parliament for South Norfolk where I rep than to the council for many years and I think it's worth putting in record that he devoted the greater part of his parliamentary career to pursuing the importance of self building in our nation. Self building isn't just the right thing to do because is going to deliver more homes but enables striving families to build a house of their dreams and of course they don't actually build it themselves, self building isn't about going in with the tools in your own right is about procuring and possibly designing a house be delivered in the long-term on the basis of community and empowerment in that sense.

And I welcome the amendment not least because we have slack walking to situation where a small number of national housebuilders have created for themselves the substantial monopoly not just in the building of homes but the design of homes. And local distinctiveness and vernacular has been lost in bungalow that Scott gone up in Barnsley as Bourton Mike Belton Barnwell 200 miles away and is the same design language full stop we need to have distinctiveness and I think the logical conclusion of the spirit of what the semantics to achieve is not only do we give those people wanting to build their own home or procure their own residents the chance but also local authorities can be very distinctive about making sure you're capturing the correct need for those people have the wherewithal to do it, not just the casual want as was the original case that has now been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tightened up. I got amendment 135H in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I got amendment 135H in this group this is another of my attempts to help the government make things slightly more efficient in the way slightly more efficient in the way the housing is delivered. I live in Eastbourne, Eastbourne Bor Council has a long-standing partnership with a modular housebuilders and they have produced some very effective houses. Looking quite different from each other because it's easier to each other because it's easier to customise the outside of these modular homes but the structure, modular homes but the structure, what's happening inside is the same.

This producing a factory and is This producing a factory and is staffed when you are producing identical goods to have to go identical goods to have to go through type approval for as if they through type approval for as if they were something that is being built were something that is being built on the ground. You got a design, is past all the tests has been approved past all the tests has been approved I suggest the site property assurance scheme but it could equally be someone else then you avoid all those processes and costs associated with either an acceptable design or place for someone to live
23:51
23:51
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
over time decrease the costs and increase the rate of housebuilding. increase the rate of housebuilding. I want to say word or two about custom housebuilding in support of my noble friend Baroness Coffey although just also to ask a question about precisely the terms on which about precisely the terms on which her amendment is phrased. I should declare an interest my nephew is declare an interest my nephew is seeking to build his own home, family home, has been on the register in tanned ridge for a register in tanned ridge for a number of years now and has received number of years now and has received nothing from them by way of any offer of any plot anywhere, he is entirely, he is entirely eligible including locally connected person and so on.

I think in a way I do remember that when we discussed this during the levelling up and regeneration Bill and the provision and I remember a number of times talking to Richard Bacon about it, my local friend noble friends absolute right we put regulations, regulation making power and with the objective of trying to ensure that the development permissions that were given, granted for self build and custom-built were genuinely for that and not for something else. I suppose the question release of ministers is at this stage will they use this power and are they intending to use this power and how they are going to use it.

I would say to my noble friend the phraseology in her amendment insofar phraseology in her amendment insofar as it says that the, that only the specific development permissions referred to are to be treated as meeting the demand may have the benefit of excluding some things which shouldn't be treated but also may have the this benefit of excluding some things that should be treated including people who are bringing forward their own plots for this purpose that don't form part of a wider development.

It is rather important we bring in what should be part of development positions that meet demand for self and custom- built and also exclude those that shouldn't and get the structure of it right. But then I think probably if I recall correctly where we need to think more is about what we do in relation to local planning authorities you have persistent unmet demand on that basis for self and custom-built housing. There is an enormous potential benefits here when you look at other countries like ourselves who have very large numbers of custom housebuilding and if the government is looking for an opportunity to add to the extent of building and indeed to support small housebuilders this is absolutely the right territory to be working on.

I think actually if I may just refer -- Return to Offender subject from my point of view use of national development management policies in relation to decisions on planning applications for people who wish to build for themselves may well be one of the roots that the government might like to consider taking this issue forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the noble Baroness Baroness Coffey is
23:54
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Baroness Coffey is amendment 135. I piloted self build and custom housebuilding act through your Lordships house in 2015 so I have an ongoing vested interest in the progress that this has made, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness not just for a very full account of where this has come from where it might be going to, but for the technical detail that she explained very fully saves me struggling with trying to do the same. I think I can add two things, one is why should government be interested in this, it is, it has so much merit I think the self building custom housebuilding sector, and it is so undeveloped.

It does the following things, it adds additional homes toward the 1.5 million target, it introduces diversity and competition to the speculative housing model that has let us down so many occasions, it brings back the small and medium housebuilder, it makes use of small sites that are of no interest to the large-scale developers, it supports the fledgling modern matters of construction MMC sector, and it enables people to create the homes they really want, not what is served up to them by the volume housebuilders.

It does so many good things all at once. And it is certainly worthy of support especially as it doesn't cost the government anything to provide their support. That is a rarity. I think the government did initiate an equity loan scheme through Homes England which enable people to borrow on preferential terms. That finished in April 2025 leaving the sector with, without any extra support, any governmental backing and this amendment would be one step forward, one helpful step forward to a sector that is providing between five and 10% of all of the homes that we are creating, say not insignificant in its scale.

Could I ask the Minister if this particular amendment isn't the way in which government could be more helpful in the future, is there any intention in government to do anything at this particular stage that would support the self building custom housebuilding sector because it is deserving of a bit more backing? I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the amendment. I rise to speak briefly on amendment 135 and 135A and I think perhaps I should declare an interest perhaps I should declare an interest in that I think I'm in the middle of building one of these self build houses and well I know I am, but I houses and well I know I am, but I didn't think of myself as being self build because I'm not actually out
23:57
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
build because I'm not actually out there with bricks and mortar. More there with bricks and mortar. More seriously, the amount of complexity and time it takes for an individual to get through the planning system to want to convert their own little cottage, two-bedroom cottage is unbelievably, it takes, probably took me 2.5 years, that's not acceptable and that does put people off I am sure. But anyway on these amendments first of all 135 table by Baroness Coffey, modern housing delivery and particular self building custom housebuilding are important because they can add to supply, they can provide homes that better meet local or individual better meet local or individual needs and they can also encourage innovation.

Too often individuals as I have said face barriers in accessing land or securing timely permission. May I ask the Minister to set out how they intend to make the existing right to self build more effective and ensure that local authorities bring forward and encourage more sites to be built out in this way. Next amendment 135H tabled by Lord Lucas addresses modular and off-site construction. Where homes are manufactured to a set design then assembled on site, these measures my Lords, I have spoken when I was a minister many times on this, can improve speed, quality and sustainability, yet planning delays can hold them back.

Can the Minister please set out how they will support modern methods of construction in the planning system and whether they will streamline processes to encourage their wider use? Critically in making modular use? Critically in making modular and off-site construction companies successful and to help them survive, successful and to help them survive, you need a pipeline of contractors putting in contracts. I ask how the putting in contracts. I ask how the government is proposing to support the sector in this issue, because I the sector in this issue, because I think it is a critical sector for building these houses, these 1.5 building these houses, these 1.5 million houses out as quickly as possible and for them to be sustainable into the future.

I look forward to the Minister's reply. forward to the Minister's reply.
00:00
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank Baroness Coffey and Lord Lucas for these amendments. Amendment 135, by the way our hope it is not Lord Landis nephew who is building the structure in Baroness Thornhill's garden next door to her garden. Good. I'm door to her garden. Good. I'm The types of development permission that may be counted by relevant authorities in meeting their duty to grant development permission for self build and custom housebuilding, under the self build and custom housebuilding at 2015 to set out on a new clause 4 top the government recognises that self and custom built housing can play an important role as part of measures to diversify the market and support There are concerns that the implementation of housebuilders legislation is not supporting self and custom built homes.

We are also aware of concerns that develop movement permissions that are not intended to be built out as self and custom built housing have been counted towards a relevant authorities statutory duty to grant permissions in line with demand in their area as evidenced by the custom-built registers. While I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, the definition of the development permission that can be counted by relevant authorities to meet their duties under self build custom and house building act 2015 was amended through the levelling up regeneration 2023.

The changes strengthen the definition to ensure that early development permissions explicitly for the carrying out of self build and custom housebuilding qualify towards the statutory duty to grant planning permission. These changes came into force in January 2024 and there has been limited time so far for the actor be found. The Secretary of State also already has the power under the self build and custom house building act 2015 to make regulations to specify the types of planning permission and permission in principle that can be counted by a relevant authority in meeting their duty should he choose to exercise his discretion to do so.

We are not currently persuaded of the need to use planning for the conditions to further tie permissions granted by relevant authorities at this stage. We believe that this approach may be more burdensome for local planning authorities requiring conditions or obligations where they may not be necessary. And creating the potential for delays to be introduced into the planning recess at limited benefit. We believe that currently the right approach is to set out how planning conditions and obligations May be used to secure permissions for self and custom- built in planning practice guidance.

We therefore intend to bring forward updated guidance, self build and custom housebuilding which reflects this letter shift. For these reasons, we do not believe this amendment is necessary and I hope noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. Turning to amendment 135H tabled by the Noble Lord locus which proposes that the Secretary of State may appoint an organisation to give type approval to designs for the modular and construction buildings. I thank the Noble Lord for raising this issue. Modular construction offers an important opportunity to improve activity in the construction sector.

I have spoken about it for in the chamber and I am a great supporter of modular construction. And it will help to deliver high quality energy-efficient dance while creating new jobs in the sector. However, design specification for modular construction is insufficient either for planning control or building control purposes. Both control systems take into account the local environment and conditions of the building. Designed for planning purposes is about much more than just physical characteristics. It is also about how a building relates to its surroundings and Layout and access.

Building Regulations are intended to protect people safety and welfare. They said minimum acceptable standards for new building work including when a building is being designed and constructed. And which are enforced through building control process. And all new building work including modular construction needs to meet the functional requirements. It may be assessed as having done so by registered building control approval. That is the distinction of the planning process that it takes note of the property and its impact on the local environment and the building control takes note of the actual physical requirements of their requirements.

We recognise the opportunities and that is why we and the British standards institution published a publicly available specification for April this year and it offers greater clarity to the warranties market that supports the delivery of quality homes and we may have some more work to do on this but I think that we can get there and I think that the industry is very keen to move this in and we are happy to work with them to do that. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the Noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
00:05
00:05
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank noble Lords who have spoken, sorry, not both, my Noble Friends Lord Fuller and also the Noble Lord best. Very conscious in response to my Noble Friends Lord Lansley -- perhaps there is a proper definition of this, so I can reflect on that and see what we can go through, but he is absolutely right in saying that the policies are the way forward. I am conscious that the Minister has basically said and what I have heard from what she has said that it is early days and we will see where it goes.

What I will say is there is a group of willing people that want to get on. This is designed to make it as straightforward as possible for people to have homes. I know she supports that outcome and I know I A bit more with her and the Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord best in order to make this a reality, but on this I beg to withdraw. Is a geologic pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, finally, withdrawn. Amendment 135 a, Baroness Coffey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

135 a, Baroness Coffey. My Lords, this may look purposefully a bit innocuous but it is actually critical in considering is actually critical in considering how part three of this bill works. And, by the way, I will say to the And, by the way, I will say to the Noble Lord chips that I did not determine whether this appeared in the Bill. That was done by the the Bill. That was done by the clerks. But it has arisen due to evidence given by the Chief evidence given by the Chief Executive of Natural England who was Executive of Natural England who was asked by the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons to Committee in the House of Commons to address part three of the bill.

I appreciate this is because the government's backtracked and made a government's backtracked and made a number of changes to try and address the significant number of concerns which have not been fully mediated in regard to the potential in regard to the potential environmental damage. But I am very pleased to see this set out pleased to see this set out amendment to the bill which would, in effect, put into place what the Chief Executive of natural England, the body which is being allocated, all this power, and not only to create but to deliver the increase in bio diversity in conversation that the Government wants to see.

Now, Marion Spain when asked about these powers in Natural England said the writing and reporting and delivering. Responded by saying that developers will be able to choose not to pay the levy if they do not have the confidence in the relevant EDP. And also that planning authorities can refuse tiring permission to developers if they are not convinced that the EDP woodwork. Now, that is not what is in the bill today. But the Chief Executive, the accounting officer of Natural England has said to Parliament that is what this bill is doing, so this amendment, in effect, puts that into place.

She specifically said that in terms of not choosing to pay the levy, there is a risk that developers if they do not have confidence even peas is worrying. It means that if developers promoting seen through the planning system they will not know if there EDP or a landlord, where it will add, what environmental factors then cut and they do not with levies will be run to voluntary or how much the levies will be they will not know whether the local authority considers an existing EVP to be ineffective, developers would need to add navigating the very real risk that planning permission is refused because a planning authority does not trust that EDPS will be delivered, and so as a consequence of what the Chief Executive has said, planning authorities see a need to increase the effectiveness in their local authority areas.

My Lords, that was not in the government's impact assessment. And it may not be the intention of Governments at all. Or I would say to the Minister that the very person who is going to deliver exactly what is set out in part three of this bill is saying that is the case. So, frankly, if that is the case, that is what the Chief Executive has told them, then this is going to be exceptionally swift for developers. Developers already access strategic decisions furniture repeatedly brought forward by a range of charities and private companies and these alternative solutions will be herded out by APs and we will get to that more substantial debate next week in part three.

But, at the same time, there is a risk that the planning permissions will be held up because the local authorities will not trust an underfunded, unscientific will actually be delivered. Now, I have greater concerns about the whole concept of part three. However, what I think is good is that by my amendment that we brought back in exactly with the Chief Executive that of Natural England sees his legislation is supposed to do, and that is why I move this will remove this amendment, rather.

And speaking to my Noble Friends amendments to do with planning information, I would say that this is a very straightforward amendment that I support former Noble Friend, basically saying we are looking at what the biodiversity is, we need to what it is, why don't we just get it already and then we can shape the development so we all know what the basic party is. I am sure my Noble Friends will explain it far more eloquently than I have tried to do in 15 seconds, and with that I beg to.
00:12
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 51, insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have two amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 135F is basically saying look, we are generating a lot of quality biodiversity information within the biodiversity information within the planning system. We, as a previous Government, this Government to, I believe, are committed to restoring believe, are committed to restoring biodiversity in this country. Very biodiversity in this country. Very unfortunately to do that, well, we unfortunately to do that, well, we need really good data.

There are a number of potential sources of that data. A great majority of the quality biodiversity data that has quality biodiversity data that has kind of absolutely been believed by kind of absolutely been believed by people that are qualified, it has been done carefully, the majority of been done carefully, the majority of that quality data comes and is generated by the planning system and generated by the planning system and the majority of the data collected by the planning system never finds itself going anywhere else.

We have a system in this country of local environment record centres where this data should be deposited. It is not, so what I want the Government to do I know that there are those within Government data working in this direction and hopefully there DEFRA and not the huge sea MLG, so what I would like HM LCD to do is to say yes, it is important with this data we will mandate that. When it is created as part of that system it funds its way into the national data.

This is not something that incurs huge costs because the data will almost always be in an easily acceptable format, if you are applying for in commission and you have done a biological survey you have to say about you found and what. That's basically all that is needed. Environmental records centres. What we need to do is get it flowing. The other side of this is within the limitations of this bill my second amendment to 53 is saying actually we ought to be using this data, what can we do? We go and we create things, we make decisions, without accessing the best possible data that we already hold and we will not be doing that.

We ought to be making the best possible informed decisions when it comes to that. Because otherwise we all do stupid things, we know the damage to the environment even further. Best possible data, best possible decisions. That requires that when we are taking a decision that affects the environment, we go and cut the data and again the planning permission and planning permission is essential that there ought to be an application within the planning system which does not use the best data and my amendment asks to put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm greatly concerned, normally I agree wholeheartedly Baroness Coffey and perhaps I have missed red hair amendment which case I apologise and amendment which case I apologise and she will correct me in the winding. But in trying to impose upon Natural But in trying to impose upon Natural England this touching faith for the evidence that she gave to their Lordships Built Environment Lordships Built Environment Committee 18 months ago, the Chief Executive of Natural England in the same session said he had no regard whatsoever for economic growth in whatsoever for economic growth in determining their position on development proposals, it was purely solely and entirely for solely and entirely for environmental purposes.

Of course this growth is the principal and number one objective of this government then these things need to be balanced. The amendment puts a be balanced. The amendment puts a touching faith in the professionalism of Natural England which I think we will discover next week as may be misplaced because Natural England and its provision of Natural England and its provision of EDPs as I read in the bill will be given monopoly powers, to be a monopoly regulator. A monopoly provider. And also a monopoly price provider.

And also a monopoly price maker of environmental schemes in this country. These EDPs as I see it, could be any number of different conceptually 100 different EDPs on a national basis for 100 different species each of which may be in a less favourable condition also. I want to pay to picture that a developer -- paint a picture, I want the experience of neutrality is to go by it will take Natural England years to come up with mitigating programs, that's what it's done and we are still waiting in some parts of the country.

I have no faith that Natural England, vested as it will be in part three of this bill, will be prompt and complete in its provision of EDPs. As I read this amendment what I see is that it will be an excuse for local authorities not to grant an otherwise appropriate permission that would in normal cases sale through because every other obligation and stipulation has been met. I think we can contemplate not only could this come up and slow down the development but there is a second problem.

The risk is that the developer who may have made his own enquiries and found his own local solution to a particular local requirement for an especially local problem, whether it be for species or environment or ecology or whatever, he's got his own solution. I can see that the consequence of this amendment would be that he might have to pay twice, actually three times. Once for the delay, once for his own mitigation which means as far as he is concerned and any reasonable person or the regulations, and then thirdly to wait for the DP which may or may not be coming from Natural England on a prominent -- prompt situation.

I'm really concerned about this amendment, I do not believe that Natural England are the appropriate people to be doing this, the government takes a different view that is their prerogative. What we shouldn't do is vested in them monopoly powers that cuts out private provision, private delivery and especially local delivery and sacrifice it on the altar of some national scheme of hugely inflated values. values.
00:20
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness coffee, firstly for ensuring that one person is watching tonight, thank you very much for that much appreciated, and the noble Lord Lucas for raising these really interesting debates regarding amendments 135A, 135F and 253 a in the context of biodiversity protections through environmental delivery plans or EDPs, capture and use of that data. EDPs must do more than simply mitigate harm, they must require the active protection and enhancement of biodiversity with clear, enforceable timetables and measurable outcomes.

Our own concern is that EDPs risk becoming instruments of upsetting impact rather than delivering real local environmental recovery. We need a strong legal framework that prevents development related damage to irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodlands and short streams and that these habitats receive the highest protection in planning decisions, we welcome these amendments to look forward to some level of timetabling and monitoring of EDPs and the introduction of an overall improvement test seeking to ensure conservation gains significantly outweigh harm.

However for us questions remain about whether these provisions are sufficiently practised to guarantee meaningful biodiversity outcomes. The reliance on compensation rather than upfront prevention remains a concern. As does the limited timeframe for public scrutiny and EDPs. I think we all know within this committee part three of the bill includes some new measures on EDPs including as discussed powers for Natural England to oversee and design conservation strategies. But it is still unclear how these changes will translate into on the ground improvements or prevent the loss of vulnerable habitats.

So it is useful even though the hour is late to ask the Minister to what extent these recent changes to part three address the deep concerns about EDPs being used as a compromise rather than a solution. Will we see stronger enforcement, longer public consultations and better integration biodiversity data into our planning decisions? EDPs that guarantee biodiversity need to ensure our natural heritage is foundation not a casualty of sustainable development. I welcome this debate therefore and look forward to clarification if not tonight then certainly when we debate part three next week to ensure that the bill delivers the nature protections that we all Does seem to me we are getting ahead of ourselves, we are yet to reach part three and these seem to me to
00:24
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
mostly be considerations relating to the content of part three and how the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy are the nature restoration levy are intended to work. I understood my local -- noble friend Baroness Coffey's amendment to be where it is Coffey's amendment to be where it is and say what it does because nowhere in part three is there something in part three is there something that tells us otherwise how the making of an environmental delivery plan fact a local planning authority plan fact a local planning authority in making its decisions.

It seemed in making its decisions. It seemed to me that therefore she had tabled a rather useful amendment that did a rather useful amendment that did precisely that. I don't think it is relevant whether a developer has to relevant whether a developer has to pay a levy or not that they can request to pay the levy, or as you request to pay the levy, or as you can see in schedule six clause 66 of can see in schedule six clause 66 of schedule for Natural England under the terms of this can make it the terms of this can make it mandatory to pay the levy.

Either way it doesn't really matter, the point is if the environmental point is if the environmental delivery plan is made, a local authority should clearly take into account in determining any planning permission in the same way as they permission in the same way as they would be required to have regard to war the legislation made to protected sites and protected species. Schedule for simply tells us that when they make planning decisions -- schedule four, they may disregard those because there is an environmental delivery plan in place.

It seems to me that what Baroness Coffey is saying at least is a useful addition in a technical

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sense to the bill. I would like to begin by thanking Lord Lucas for his thoughtful and ongoing contribution to our debate
00:25
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
on this bill. His amendment raises some significant questions about how biodiversity information is gathered, shared and used within the planning system. This sparked a few questions we wish to ask the Minister today. Could Minister clarify first how the government sees the balance between requiring robust biodiversity data and avoiding unnecessary burdens on applicants? Particularly smaller developers or individuals making household applications. Secondly, what consideration has been given to the readiness and capacity of local environmental record setters or other organisations to provide such information should regulations of this kind be introduced.

Thirdly has consideration been given that this be addressed as part of the special development strategy or Local Plan? Lastly how would the government proposed to ensure consistency and standardisation in biodiversity data collected? So that it is meaningful for -- meaningfully informs local and national policy in the future. Turning to amendment 135 in the name of Baroness Coffey, seeks to ensure that environmental delivery plans relevant to the land question considered when making planning decisions. This seems to be in sensible and pragmatic measure that joins up the EDP process with planning decision-making.

However this amendment also does raise the important point which I raised at second reading so to speak the chicken and egg question. How can you develop and EDP without knowing what the spatial develop and strategy is that it is seeking to mitigate? Conversely, do you need an EDP to make a special development strategy deliverable? It would seem sensible that they are done in parallel, and if so why would an EDP not be part of the spatial development strategy? Could the Minister please provide a clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answer than at second reading. Can I thank noble Lords for their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group, Baroness Coffey and Lord Lucas. They will of Coffey and Lord Lucas. They will of course be I'm sure a very full debate on all of the wider issues around EDPs, the role of Natural around EDPs, the role of Natural England and so on next week, so I am intent on answering the specific points today and in view of the hour I think we will leave the wider I think we will leave the wider discussions until next week.

Turning first to amendment 135A, the six to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan is taken into account by a planning decision maker when making a plan decision maker when making a plan decision under the Town and Country Planning Act, while it is of course crucial that EDPs are fully integrated into the wider planning system I would like to assure the noble Baroness like to assure the noble Baroness that the way in which EDPs working practice means the amendment is not necessary where a developer makes a payment into an EDP the making of that payment discharges the relevant environment, environmental obligation.

This means that planning decision-maker won't need to consider the specific environmental obligation covered by the EDP when deciding on an application and to respond to the points about the differences that came forward after we'd met with the environmental NGOs and the response of the OEP, what the government amendment set out to do and we did meet with noble Lords to discuss this was make changes that we thought were explicit which appeared were only implicit, but to make those changes explicit in the bill.

We set that out now with government amendments on the face of the bill. Turning now to amendment 135F this would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about the bio diverse information required that applications for planning permission and enable specific bodies providing this information to applicants to charge for it. The government agrees its critical developers reduce and mitigate their impact on biodiversity. We also agree that to achieve this robust by diverse information should be provided with planning applications where habitats and wildlife are affected by development proposals however I'm not convinced that we need further powers to achieve this or that we should specify precisely where and how such information needs to be sourced.

Since 2024 subject to certain exceptions by diverse teen net gains have been mandatory the new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in by diverse value. As part of this framework developers are now required to provide a baseline assessment of predevelopment by diverse devalue of the site using the statutory biodiversity metric published by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Natural England provides considerable guidance and support to development and local planning authorities on the use of this metric. The biggest infrastructure developers will also be required to do so from May 2026 when BMG is extended to nationally And now to the amendment tabled by the Noble Lord locus which would establish a new power by the Secretary of State to make new aggression setting out circumstances where an EDP be required to be accompanied by certain information related to biodiversity, I agree it is vital that this is underpinned by the best available scientific evidence.

We have made that point in number of times. That is why, as I said, the Government introduced the amendments making clear what was already implicit when drafting making and implementing EDPS, both Natural England and the Secretary of State must take out the best available scientific evidence and it is for that reason I hope we can issue other committee that the bill already ensures the appropriate environmental is provided as part of the EDP insofar as that information is related to the environmental feature in question.

Clause 55 already requires EDPS to include all necessary information on the environmental feature and the impacts of development to which the EDP relates. The collection of this information is part of the process of drafting an EDP that will then be recovered by the Nature Restoration Fund levy as provided for in clause 71 which states that regulations may provide for the levy to be used to fund administrative offences in connection with the new DP. These information gathering provisions are supported by clause 88 which included duty on public authorities to cooperate with Natural England which includes the provision of information.

Excuse me. The proposed amendment would take this further and would require Natural England to gather information that is not specifically relevant to the environmental feature that the EDP is to address and when drafting EDPS that would then be passed on to developers through the levy. Broadening the scope of information required is risking drawing the focus away from their targeted focus on specific environmental features and with that explanation I would kindly ask that the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the Noble Lord would withdraw their amendments. I am grateful for the answer by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for the answer by the noble Baroness and perhaps she did not go as far as I hoped my
00:33
00:35
00:36
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
moved. We come to amendment 135 135E, Baroness Thornhill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 135E. Which is another streamlined contribution another streamlined contribution from me which is self explanatory. from me which is self explanatory. And also to speak to 135H said the name of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering who is sadly not in her Pickering who is sadly not in her place due to the our. We believe place due to the our. We believe that has definitely some areas. My Lords, the emphasis for this amendment comes very strongly from amendment comes very strongly from our commitment on these benches to community engagement.

And, more community engagement. And, more importantly, from the fact that never before has the community been so apparently disengaged from the so apparently disengaged from the need to build houses and engage instead in full-blown opposition. The pandemic changed everything and The pandemic changed everything and the one positive thing that was said is that remote council meetings is that remote council meetings actually increases the opportunities for planning committees to hear from for planning committees to hear from a far more diverse group of participants and their views because they were more accessible than a they were more accessible than a wider audience.

My amendment simply states that the Government would require local planning authorities to make their meetings available for observation online and it is that latter with that I think is key. And in the way that it decides to allow such participation, it is not the intention of the amendment with the purpose of another and the purpose of the amendment is that meetings have to be recorded and should be kept for prosperity used in public appears and genuinely is an accurate record of what was actually said.

The public being able to contribute is the key thing and I believe unless this is mandatory the councils that are not doing this would not choose to do so without compulsion. And there are still a number of councils and they do not record their meetings and even of the 85% that do they are not always webcast in a way that people can participate. But it should also be said that many councils recognise a range of benefits for providing online availability for questions at meetings.

We must ask ourselves why these other councils are dragging their heels. Surely the more means the public have of being able to participate in a much less formal way than giving a five minute presentation at the beginning of what can be for many a daunting meeting which is what is afforded at most planning meetings that I have experienced has got to be a benefit and to make communities feel that their voice is being heard. It should something that we want all councils to do.

We know that there is plenty of research, particularly that done by the RTPI that shows that digital transformation can help various groups. The young in particular. And half of the people in their most recent survey actually said that being able to respond would make them more likely to get involved in the system. And maybe we might actually get some then joining in the housing debate. Certainly the Greater London Authority and the Local Government Association have been pioneering this.

There are lots of good examples. And good practice that we can learn from. It is going to particularly help people living in rural areas. The amiable have a long time to travel to actually get to meetings or be disadvantaged by public transport. It also better accommodates the needs of those with work or caring responsibilities. And people with personal or protected characteristics who may find online attendance or viewing much more accessible than turning up to the fairly stiff formal council meeting which is why we believe that this clause should be mandatory across all authorities.

The situation with regard to the public banning has never been worse. And anything we can to improve that has got to be tried. But we fear some of them will need that final push of mandatory division to make it happen. I look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 51 insert the following new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

51 insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshall list. I want to just say on behalf of
00:41
00:43
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I just want to make a brief comment. I very much sympathise with the thrust of this amendment, but I am anxious about the term members of the public. Because for those of you that sit on the planning committee you North are decision-makers that are the councillors that sit around the table and will pass judgement one way or another on the application. As I understand it the amendment contemplates those decision-makers will be in the room. And then members of the public outside looking remotely and might contribute.

I just want to ask the Noble Lady is it her intention that some of the special participants who are not members of the public and are not decision makers, will they be able to participate, not from within the room? What I have in mind is the local parish council, perhaps, or the local neighbourhood group who have special status in the sense that they are consultees. Whilst I can see that decision makers need to be in the room and the members of the public might be outside, perhaps you could help us by saying what is special and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members of the council that are not decision-makers. I think that is not for us to decide. I think that the special stakeholders, it is up to the council to decide with that they are council to decide with that they are allowed in the room, in my council they certainly are encouraged to attend. I think that the key issue attend. I think that the key issue is the involvement of people who would not dream of turning up to a council meeting.

And, of course, the local member and the people you mentioned would not be going in to a council meeting and could get there council meeting and could get there easily enough. It is those that are normally excluded. I genuinely normally excluded. I genuinely believe that by expanding the voice of people who contribute we just may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take some of the heat out of these really controversial planning decisions. The special stakeholders are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The special stakeholders are not permitted to participate, unless permitted to participate, unless they are in the room. And I take your amendment and say they might be able to put the outside of the room, and that is what I was really trying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to get at. I could certainly give more pressure from the council to allow that which I think they should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that which I think they should. Before the Noble Lady sits down, she said there are people that would not dream of dissipating, but I not dream of dissipating, but I think it is also with stressing that there are people that would not be able to participate because of their disabilities, because of care responsibilities, whatever other reasons. In fact, I would have to question why given the responsibilities the Government has in terms of protected characteristics, surely that would make the argument for this
00:46
00:47
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank Baroness Thornhill and Lady McIntosh for the amendments related to planning authority meetings. Amendment 135E would require councils to stream their meat planning meetings online, to publish records of these meetings and to allow members of the public to speak at these meetings via online participation. I have to say well remembered to Lord Lansley on the levelling up bill, I think all of us that worked on that bill deserve a little badge to say that we survived the levelling up bill.

I did indeed support this issue, the government our government is committed to legislate to allow councils to meet remotely in response to our consultation. We are working with sector representatives like the Local Government Association and others to clarify how this would work in practice including how to ensure that existing rolls around meetings are applied appropriately to remote and hybrid meetings without undermining democratic accountability or procedural integrity. We want to get this right and that might mean taking a little longer to work through the detail of the proposal to make sure that the changes are legally robust, practically workable and aligned with the expectation of both local authorities and the public.

We are committed to ending this micromanagement of local councils from Whitehall, decisions about how councils run the day-to- day affairs should be taken locally and we don't think at the moment it's appropriate to make streaming meetings compulsory as this amendment proposes. Councils can of course already stream their meetings online and can if they wish make amendments make arrangements representations online many councils do this. The government does encourage councils to consider how they can make local democracy accessible to their residents that includes for reasons of disability as Baroness Bennett pointed out.

Streaming meetings may be helpful step to make local decision-making more transparent however making that a locally operational decision and not because of addict at is important. Turning to amendment 135 HZ a this would allow planning committees and subcommittees to meet remotely or in hybrid form in circumstances to be specified in regulations. Outdated legislation has the implied effect of requiring all local authorities to hold their meetings in one physical location only, this was confirmed by a court case several years ago. As I mentioned earlier all local authorities and independent bodies for their own democratic mandates for their own democratic mandates and as Baroness McIntosh has raised several times this House in recent years local authorities should be able to decide how they want to organise their own meetings, Parliament shouldn't stand in their way.

That's why the government has committed to allowing councils to make decisions about whether to hold their meetings in person or whether to do them fully online or whether to have a hybrid form. And to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those decisions themselves. Has the government looked at any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has the government looked at any legal opinion as to whether a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legal opinion as to whether a planning meeting is different from any other council meeting because it is because I judicial? I think that's exactly the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's exactly the detailed work we are doing now with the Local Government Association with other advisers to make sure we with other advisers to make sure we get all of the regulations right so get all of the regulations right so we don't breach any legal duty that we don't breach any legal duty that councils have as we go through this process. We think this choice should process. We think this choice should apply to all council meetings are not just planning committees and planning authorities.

Don't think there should be conditions attached there should be conditions attached to the decision so we trust that local authorities will make arrangements that work for themselves and for their residents themselves and for their residents but we do need to carry out further work that I've referred to in order to bring this forward. However I'm very committed to moving it onwards. We don't believe the amendments are therefore necessary and I would therefore necessary and I would kindly ask the noble Baronesses to
00:51
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was quite positive about the noble Ladies response because I do noble Ladies response because I do feel that the work she has outlined is happening and I understand why she says it may take a little longer she says it may take a little longer than I think that will give good than I think that will give good councils, council saw a little bit fearful of doing this but need that extra guidance, I think that will extra guidance, I think that will give them confidence to go ahead and give it a try.

What I'm not convinced is we know, we all know convinced is we know, we all know that there are a group of councils let's just say who give rise to let's just say who give rise to concern within the Department for them not completing their Local Plan, we know there are issues in council meetings that are reported council meetings that are reported every week in the planning newsletter that comes out and I think they will be allowed to drag think they will be allowed to drag their heels and we will continue to cause concern.

I also had a right smile when the Minister said they smile when the Minister said they didn't want to give diktats because there are certainly not averse to there are certainly not averse to giving diktats in other areas. I do thank the noble Lady for her thank the noble Lady for her positivity on the subject and let's hope more and more councils do start to do this. To withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn amendment by leave withdrawn. amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 135F Lord Lucas not moved. Amendment 135G not moved. Amendment Amendment 135G not moved. Amendment 135H not moved. Amendment 135 HZ a 135H not moved. Amendment 135 HZ a not moved. Amendment one 13 HZ be Baroness Scott not moved already Baroness Scott not moved already debated. 135 HZ E already debated. debated. 135 HZ E already debated. 135 HZ D already debated.

135 HZ E 135 HZ D already debated. 135 HZ E already debated. 135 HZ F and 135 HZ already debated. 135 HZ F and 135 HZ G also already debated. 135 HZ H Baroness Scott not moved. We now
00:53
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Scott not moved. We now come to 135 HZ I Baroness Coffey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill in its entirety is designed to paraphrase the government to remove all the barriers that are stopping homes being built. The reality is there being built. The reality is there are about a million homes across our country that have consent to be country that have consent to be built but haven't been built. I've explained to the House before my explained to the House before my concerns to your Lordships house my concerns that more and more land is being allocated to be built upon being allocated to be built upon while we are not doing anything about the homes that haven't been built.

We are in this odd almost built. We are in this odd almost Catch-22 situation where we are chasing our tails, meanwhile there chasing our tails, meanwhile there are plenty of families as we have are plenty of families as we have That don't have a home of their own and are living in temporary accommodation or indeed worse so what I set out and by the way I what I set out and by the way I should say to the House I did actually group these amendments together so the government didn't originally suggest they be separate.

originally suggest they be separate. The reason I bring 135 HZ I and 135 HZ J together and I appreciate that 135 HZ J may seem a bit odd which is basically giving power to allow direction to repeal planning permission when we are trying to get homes built, but the combination of the two is designed to be very transparent and allow a lot greater frankly getting to grips with the situation we have around the country with the ministers, or mayors or other bodies being developed in order to deliver the outcome which by and large people share.

By reporting where planning consent has been granted and either building just hasn't started at all or it hasn't been completed, that would give some clarity. We know the government has established a variety of taskforces to try and help local councils get on with what is proving a problem, this would make it clearer not only for ministers it That by the way you can probably access that information anyway, make it clearer for the public, make it clearer for Parliament and then getting into the reason perhaps I haven't identified the right piece of legislation but there is certainly legislation existing already where councils can basically say to developers use it or lose it.

But the ministers do not have a way of trying to, where councils aren't using that to overreach them, so this is away and I would say it's analogous to actually something we have just put through earlier in this bill when it comes to energy infrastructure where the convention has been I want to connect, I can generate energy, give me this and I can think about how I will eventually do it in detail. Government has realised as had the previous administration staff just wasn't getting done.

Meanwhile it was clogging up the system, it was clogging up all sorts of issues so therefore this is in effect giving ministers the same power to say we need to get these homes built, we want to make sure in different ways that those developers who are going to build get the consent, meanwhile get out of the way those people who haven't actually bothered. Some of that has traditionally been done to get home value or whatever it is but nevertheless we know that land is getting stuck.

My noble friend getting stuck. My noble friend Baroness Hodgson has put in perhaps quite how can I put it, I won't say aggressive but a demanding timeline for developers to get on with it but ultimately I hope that the Minister recognises the intent of this to amendments I have tabled is to make it far more straightforward, not entirely to take us stylised approach but not far off, to actually make the Secretary of State's words build baby build

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually come to fruition. I beg to me. Amendment proposed articles 51
00:58
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed articles 51 insert the following new clause is printed in the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed in the marshalled List. I rise to speak to amendment 227B and my name on the Order Paper. and my name on the Order Paper. Following my noble friend Baroness Coffey it is a reasonably similar amendment, I hope not aggressive but ambitious. As the explanatory statement sets out this amendment inserts a new clause after clause 106 explanatory statement sets out this amendment inserts a new clause after clause 1062 seeking to prevent land banking. The practice of purchasing undeveloped land and holding it for future development or resale rather than immediately building on it.

Subsection 1 of this new clause will create an obligation on the developer or company to declare if they hold planning permission for similar developments within a 10 mile radius of a new site they are seeking permission to buy or lease. Subsection 2 gives the power to refuse development if any similar sites identified by subsection 1 have not activated for over a year. The point succinctly make at second reading was that we must not conflate housing delivery with granting planning permission. Planning permission will not meet targets if it is not acted upon, indeed Competition and Markets Authority working paper into the housebuilding market in 2023 highlighted that a number of stakeholder voice concerns around the impact of housebuilders at the land banks and the way that the housing market functions.

According to the CPRE is staggering, 1.2 million homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Others report that there are between half a million to a million land bank plots currently being held by the big house developers with eight of the major companies holding land over value in excess of £198 land over value in excess of £198 billion. In 2023 the big issue argued that the amount of land banking by the eight leading housebuilders has increased by 49% since 2018 with all eight companies having enough land to build for more than 11 years based on the rate they build homes in the last full trading year.

Indeed it has been argued before any other place that the timescales involved in land banking in the UK seem to be long impaired to other countries such as Germany and Japan and the USA even France. The government states they want to build 1.5 million homes whilst this is not the only issue impacting the housing market I argue simply by refusing to give the big companies more planning permission until they develop what they were ready have we can unlock sites already approved rather than risk urbanising our vital greenbelt, something this Labour government is attempting to Labour government is attempting to The upmost importance we make sure that we do not lose let more of our countryside by allowing more planning permission when there is already planning permission not utilised in the area.

This would, arguably, invigorate the market, compelling homes to be altered without having to go through the timely requirements of getting planning permission or force forward the decision to sell surplus land and projects that are no longer viable. The Minister failed to reply on this point at second reading, what assessment has the Government made of this potential building pipeline and ability to lead? It's housing targets if all and was brought into service. So, have they attempted to map if the show were demand is needed most? The House has long been a strong one and I hope that the Minister will agree to meet with me to discuss the practicalities of the proposed amendment ahead of the next stage of the bill and I can only reiterate that we must not lose any of our countryside and agricultural land than necessary.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is 1 o'clock in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is 1 o'clock in the morning, and here we are, debating morning, and here we are, debating actually a very important group of actually a very important group of amendments. Whether or not all our brains are going to work well enough
01:02
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
brains are going to work well enough to give this group of amendments the justice it deserves, we will see. I have considerable sympathy with the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness coffee and the noble Baroness Hodgson. The reason that if the Government wishes to achieve its targets of 300 new homes per year, then one of the easier ways of doing that is by ensuring that those sites that already have planning consent are built out and built out rapidly.

However, that is not in the interest of the developers, and I will perhaps give one or two examples that I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister, who put is noble Baroness the Minister, maybe not. It is. Excellent. The noble Baroness the Minister will be able to respond to. So, we have already heard that the ONS report from last year, I think it was, assessed the 2.7 million homes that were given planning consent since 2015.

Of the 2.7 million, only 1.5 million have actually been constructed. Which obviously leaves 1.2 million which, interestingly, is four years work of the government's targets of this Parliament, so there is 1.2 million homes already with planning consent which have yet to be constructed. So, what are the reasons for this inactivity? Obviously there are some that are valid. A lack of skills, that are valid. A lack of skills, lack of materials, which causes developers to be unable to get going from their sites.

However, my experience, one cause is that major housebuilders deliberately phased construction of a big site over many years in order to keep the selling price of their units as high as possible. The words, they do not want to many new units housing on the market that may depress the value, the selling value, that they would be able to get. One simple example of where I live in a developer house I think it is three years for a site of nearly 300 homes which the developer claims will take 10 years to build out.

If the Government is genuine about getting these homes this is an easy way of making progress by putting some behind these developers in order to get the sites built. That is one. And I just noticed the Government chief on this side and it is not my fault we are here. Another way that housebuilders delay construction is having gotten planning consent they delayed the start of it by then putting in a series of amending planning applications in order to keep their original planning consent alive, but running out of time of that consent.

By amending these applications. And that to is those sites will be in that 1.2 million. What is the Government going to do about it? Because the tactics create considerable delay in meeting the housing targets that we are all concerned are met. The only beneficiaries of it are the housebuilders. And they also benefit in a further way from the way that the planning system is designed, so councils when they develop their councils when they develop their local plans have two have a five year housing supply.

So, what housebuilders do is quickly gobble up the housing sites that are indicated on the local plan. When the five year supply, they do not always build them out, they keep them on, and then when the five year supply has run out, then they can say you have not got a five year supply of housing, we will now build on any site because I can agree and that is what the Government permits. So, there is a big problem here which the Government and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to address.

As they promised to able to address. As they promised to respond. There are issues about the amendments that they heartily addressed in the. Planning, sorry, developers and they got planning consent and that is why they got quite a lot of sympathy by the noble Baroness Hodgson, putting a bit of oomph behind all this to get things going. Housebuilders should them once they have got planning consent. It is easy, that is what should happen, and if they do not, they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be deprived of the consent. Sorry for the response to the debate. I just wanted to take an
01:09
01:11
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank, sorry, I thought you were not getting up. Apologies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. I will not be long. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. I will not be long. My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the spirit of the principle of the amendments tabled by my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey and my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey and my Noble Friend Baroness Hodgson. Which directly Baroness Hodgson. Which directly targets the heart of our shared ambition to build further in this country. These amendments do not seek to burden the system, but to seek to burden the system, but to shine a light upon it, through requiring the Secretary of State to publish on a quarterly basis the number of planning consents where buildings have not started or have buildings have not started or have not been completed.

We bring much- needed transparency to the process and we are not here to punish but ensure that the mission is targeted at homes on the ground. May I also suggest that allocated through her suggest that allocated through her local plan but not yet to have planning commission also be looked at. Previous research by the LGA estimated that this could be in the region of one million units and it is this land that often has the is this land that often has the greatest delays.

Too often the perception is that land is ranked perception is that land is ranked rather than built upon. Whatever the reasons, the effect is the same, consenting sites stand Idlewild need for housing grows ever more acute. By monitoring and publishing this information, we will equip local planning authorities, communities, and indeed developers themselves with the clarity to drive progress. This is about getting on with the job and ensuring that when Parliament grants a framework for development the outcome is not paper promises but X and mortar.

Transparency will only build trust, not only will it build trust but also trust in the planning system and what delivers. So, may I ask the noble Baroness the Minister if the Government plans to enact part of the Lord that an axis penalties on those that conveniently lack bank sites planning permission. These are modest, proportional measures that carry a powerful signal, the permission should lead to homes that we are committed to building not land banking and that the public deserves nothing less than openness and delivery.

Above all, we await to the next generation, to those that are striving for a secure roof over their heads to turn words into places that they can call their
01:14
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to think Baroness Coffey and Baroness Hodgson for this amendments related to the builder development. Turning to the first and of course it is really important that we make sure that there are sites that have permission to be built out quickly, we are desperate for homes and to have over one million permission set in them that are not built that is just shameful, so we need to get on with this. Turning first amendment 135H that are, the 60 improve the transparency of the build of data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis but the number of planning consents rented when biz building has not started by the local planning authority and 227B seems to stop land banking by developers by requiring planning permissions by them to be refused if they have not commenced another development in the year.

I would like to reassure the noble Baronesses that I fully agree with the objective on improving the buildout raised the presidential development and increasing the transparency around buildout. But I do not think that these amendments are necessary to achieve this and I will explain why we are already taking action and this sets out a more comprehensive approach to this issue and once this has been granted permission we expect to see this built out as quickly as possible and we recognise the frustration that is slowly delayed or slowly build sites that can cause to communities, that is why we are changing incentives in the housing market to give local authorities the tools they need to speed up delivery.

First, the working proposal that we would require developers to commit to delivery timeframes before planning permission before this is granted, alongside annual reports of progress, implementing the act. The technical consultation was also published alongside the working paper setting out our proposals for implementation in more detail. This reform will ensure greater transparency about the start and completion of individual developers and coupled with our wider digital reforms, this data will become available at local planning authority level, so amendment 135H Second we propose will give planning authorities to decline from developers who consistently failed to build quickly enough by implementing the power introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, we will make it easier for them to issue completion notices a form of use it or lose it that requires developers, I think Baroness Coffey mentioned these, to complete their development within a reasonable period of time or the planning permission will cease.

We believe the power to decline applications where developer has a track record of slow building in the area is a better approach than the one proposed by amendment 227B as it focuses not just when a developer has commenced but also how fast they are building out. Third the working paper stated we wanted to support more mixed tenure developments Lord Lansley referred to the CMA report, it's very important we have a greater mixture of 10 years because they can build out faster and they deliver more affordable, we will seek to strengthen planning policies to achieve this.

Fourthly it also emphasised we want to make it easier for local authorities to acquire land through CPOs unlocking stored sites and making land assembly easier when it's in the public interest. Finally the working paper made clear we were exploring as a last resort a delayed homes penalty paid directly to local authorities paid directly to local authorities Preagreed buildout schedules. We are now analysing the responses to the working paper and we will be setting out our next steps in due course but I want to emphasise these measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the buildout of the housing development we all want to see.

Turning to amendment 153 HZ J it would enable the Secretary of State to direct local planning authorities to make an order under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act to revise or revoke permission in principle. I hope I can provide the Baroness with assurance this amendment is not needed. Permission in principle is not a way to seek an in principle planning permission for small-scale housing led development impaired to the traditional approach of preparing application for outline planning permission which could be costly and particular for an SME builder.

Importantly permission in principle is not planning permission . Following the grant of permission in principle and applicant still needs to obtain technical details consent from the local planning authority to secure planning permission. At this stage important matters such as design and layout access and so on are determined. As part of the framework for permission in principle the Secretary of State already has powers through section 100 of the Town and Country Planning Act to make an order to revise or revoke a planning application or mission in principle so further power to direct local planning authority to revise or revoke a permission in principle is unnecessary.

I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baronesses to withdraw their amendments.
01:19
01:20
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Scott Lord Jones. I rise to speak to a series of amendments in my name and in the name of my noble friend Baroness name of my noble friend Baroness Scott by brick. Amendment 135 HA is a probing amendment which seeks to explore the government decision to move from an optional approach to mandatory requirement for designated strategic authorities to prepare spatial development strategies. We have a number of concerns. First making SDS is mandatory removes the discretion that local councils currently hold.

It risks overriding principle of localism. Secondly the bill provides for Secretary of State to intervene or produce an SDS directly. This shifts influence away from locally elected representatives and hands it to Whitehall. Thirdly, requiring every designated authority to prepare an SDS risks producing frameworks that are inflexible and detached from the distinct economic environmental and social needs of different communities. Finally there is a question of consistency uncertainty in opposition Labour accused the Conservative government of chopping and changing planning rules so often that sectors never knew whether they were coming or going.

But is this not also chopping and changing? This amendment does not seek to strike down the principle of strategic planning, it asks the government to justify why compulsion is necessary. Amendment 135 HB seeks to probe the definition of a strategy area in relation to a spatial development strategy. We need clarity on its geographic scope, the criteria for designation, and critically how it interacts with existing local and regional planning boundaries. Amendment 136 a addresses the uncertainty facing local authorities over the geographical scope of SDS particularly during periods of local government reorganisation.

Planning authorities faces the dilemma of pressing ahead with local plans or pause to event SDS is rather than risk duplication, wasted effort and delay. Amendment 136B raises an equally pressing issue, planning capacity. Authorities will be tasked with delivering SDS as yet many planning departments already operate with limited staff, too often the solutions being secondment from lower tier councils, but that simply robs Peter to pay Paul. It drains district and borough councils the very staff they need to deliver their own local plans, creating knock-on delays across the systems.

If we are serious about spatial planning we also need a workforce planning we also need a workforce strategy. I now turn to amendment 151 a, this seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide clear timetable the preparation of SDS. Timetables give participants realistic expectations of delivery and avoid drift. Linked to this is amendment 152 a probing amendment, which seeks to clarify as to how competing objectives regulations and aspirations will be prioritised when preparing the strategies stop as we have had tonight there are many competing objectives for development.

While these may all have merit it is often not possible to achieve all of these by having to achieve all of these by having clear priorities and clarity of what these decisions are how the decision-making process is will enable and facilitate decision- making and help local councils and those producing strategic development, sorry spatial development strategies to deliver on time. Finally amendment 153 a asks about the phrase from time to time. I do note that the noble Baroness the Minister has frequently made comment about this will be delivered soon.

Or it is in the works, or other such phrases. It would be great if we could have greater clarity on what such phrases from time to time might mean. Does that mean annually, every five years, or only when it suits the Secretary of State? In conclusion these amendments also to achieve the same thing, parity, certainty and capacity in the planning system. Without them we risk inconsistency, delay and inefficiency, exactly what our communities and developers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot afford. I move amendment 135 HA. Amendment proposed clause 52 page 69 leave outlined 34 and 35.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

69 leave outlined 34 and 35. In this group we have arrived at clause 52 and introduced the clause 52 and introduced the important issue of spatial development strategies. Wearing my levelling up and regeneration bill badge those who are, those who
01:26
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
badge those who are, those who recall it well will recall the debates on joint spatial development strategies. Which were of course to be yes, Baroness Scott of Bybrook will remember very well. Which of course form part of the act and allow local planning authorities to seek to engage in joint spatial strategic planning. So it comes to the point that my noble friend Lord Jamieson was just making, the principal distinction here I suppose is that instead of that option for local planning authorities the government has determined instead that there must be a national structure of strategic planning.

Again with my levelling up bill hat on, the Minister and others will recall that I was very much in support and have been for a long time, in support of strategic planning. It is indeed the court to envisage how spatial genuine strategic planning is to be accomplished, if it is to end up as a patchwork world. For the purposes of this debate, especially looking at it now I'm not going to engage on the debate on whether it should be mandatory strategic planning across the whole country, as assume that there should be and that's just the how well it can be put into place.

Of course some of the drafting of the spatial development strategies in clause 52 rather draws directly on section 97 and schedule seven of the regeneration act so I assume that is not going to be brought into force stop if I'm wrong about that I think it would be very helpful to know otherwise but I think I'm right. If I understand it again it would be helpful if the Minister would disagree if I am wrong about this, it is the governments intention to achieve a national structure of strategic planning by 2030.

In order to achieve that, they wish to commence the process of strategic planning next year. The significance of that of course is at the same time in the other place, the legislation to create strategic authorities is following after the spill. -- This bill. Whereas logic might have said that at the same time as one creates strategic authorities who will have the responsibility to produce strategic plans and the English devolution and community empowerment bill says that, that that would be incorporated into the same legislation, theme we might return to number of times before we conclude that in consideration of this bill is the extent to which it might be better in some cases to leave it to that legislation in others to bring it forward.

The point however is the government needs to make progress and isn't prepared to wait, the point is passing the English devolution community empowerment bill and turning it into enact sometime next year will not be sufficient to create strategic authorities, there is a process that we will have to go through of creating the agreements for the necessary authorities to come together in determining what the scope and scale of strategic authorities would look like. I think to that extent it is necessary to envisage that we create strategic envisage that we create strategic planning and we then retrofit it into or prospectively fitted into is perhaps more accurate, into the structure of strategic authorities structure of strategic authorities as they emerge.

Later groups will enable us to look at the content and the procedures for strategic development strategies, I don't propose to dwell on those at the moment. Turning to, let me take if I made two examples, I've mentioned and drawn out attention to my registered interest in development forums, let me take the examples of Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. Think there is no question that a strategic development strategy would be for the compound of and the geography within temperature. I think my noble friend's question about geography is much more illustrated by reference to Oxfordshire.

That Oxfordshire on the face of it under the bill as we see it would have a strategic development strategy for Oxfordshire the county. That is how it is written at the moment. We have, at the moment, however, in of The Chair,! -- Oxfordshire, for those authorities, one of those options would entail samples in the Vale of White horse, merging together into a signatory authority with West Berkshire. On that basis, it is very difficult to see how a strategic development strategy from Oxfordshire made sense in relation to global planning for a unitary authority with not contiguous geographical area.

So, we have got a rather interesting question about what is the sequencing of this? And maybe now is not the moment. We probably can in later groups when we look at this comeback to the question of how this is to be sequenced and without the Secretary of State who has the power to require the strategies to be implemented would therefore simply hold back and hold back in Oxfordshire, for example, and say no, do not produce the strategic strategy as the unitary authority or a single foundation authority in the way that the bill first because we are intending to have a larger are intending to have a larger strategic authority which could be Oxfordshire, Berkshire, it could be Oxfordshire Berks, Bucks, there are a number of unknowns about the overall scale of the authority.

And, indeed, the implication of the government's intentions is that the strategic plan and strategy should be aligned with strategic authorities. Anything else does not authorities. Anything else does not really make sense. OK, if we come back just in a moment to this group I think I talked about the issues relating to difficulty relating to geography. I think that the previous debates have told us it is rather important that we do not undermine the capacity and the resourcing of local planning authorities to deliver local plans.

That, I think, is the burden of the point that my Noble Friend was quite rightly making. I do not think the solution is to take the councils out of the process there being involved in but I think they need some assurances from Ministers there is, I think, some commitment of the order of £46 million overall to the delivery of the planned reforms, but how much of the planned reforms, but how much of that is available to strategic authorities for the purpose of strategic strategies? I do not think that we know yet that much.

And so the commitment to resourcing the strategic strategies to be informed. Timetabling, there is a power in the bill to set a timetable and to require timetables to be set, so I will not: that. I hope we will return to it in the later group that there is not yet and there should be a power in this bill to require the cooperation of neighbouring authorities and other bodies in the processes of making a strategic development strategy. That was in the levelling up generation act and section 100 and I hope if Ministers will not bring into force section 100 which they have not yet brought into force that they would put a fairylike provision in this bill to ensure that we can have cross-border cooperation and cooperation with utilities and other public bodies or that the planning, utility planning and local planning across borders and local planning across borders and on a larger scale is achieved through strategic planning and I very much in favour of strategic planning as the Noble Lady the Minister knows and I think that with my Noble Friend we were in favour of national targets and in favour of strategic planning and I hope that we can successfully deliver both of these stops these stops
01:36
01:38
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
really important issue and with a lot of potential to really transform the process. Turning first amendment 135H a table by the noble Baroness Lady Scott cheeks to probe by the Government is providing for a mandatory system of strategic planning instead of a voluntary system as provided for in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. I was aware of the voluntary system because at the noble Baroness Thornhill will recall, in Hertfordshire I worked for many years across 11 local authorities to deliver to strategic plans, one south and one for the North based on the economic clusters within Hertfordshire.

I felt always that was a very successful process, it went very well, a lot of data collection and so on, but like the Noble Lord Lansley I am a big fan of strategic planning and although there were lots of issues around the regional planning process, it was very successful in identifying both the housing and economic development that was needed across the region, so I think it is an important step for this. The Government has been very clear we can't meet the housing need without planning for growth under large and local scale.

We are not persuaded that the voluntary system would deliver this outcome and the strategic planning authorities could say not to repair the spatial develop strategy and this would, in effect, continue the current opposition that is only limited coverage of strategic lands with only London having a Spatial Development Strategy in place. To the bill we will introduce national coverage of Spatial Development Strategies so that all parts of the country can benefit from that more effective cross boundary to strategic planning, enabling us to meet our housing needs, grow the economy, and improve the environment stop turning next to amendment 135HB which seeks to remove part of the bill that defines the area for Spatial Development Strategy.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government has been clear we need strategic planning coverage nationally so the bill provides for this. Within clause 52 of the Bill new section 12 therefore sets out the spatial strategy must cover the entirety of any strategic planning authority and in the case of a strategic planning board that the SDS must cover the entirety of all of the constituent authorities to that board without such a definition the extent of the SDS coverage will be unclear and a strategic planning authority can choose to produce an SDS but only part of its area or can produce multiple covering its area.

I feel our puzzles are the most straightforward definition of the coverage and I would be concerned that this amendment could cause confusion and potentially make that legislation in honour of and may not achieve the ambition of national coverage of strategic plans first turning to amendment 136 first turning to amendment 136A, the setup to the impact of local Government reorganisation plan making and whether authorities should prioritise preparing a special strategy or a local plan. Now, festival, it is important to emphasise that the Government reorganisation is the once in a generation opportunity to work together to put local Government on more sustainable footing, create simpler structures that would deliver the services that local people and businesses need and deserve.

Spatial Development Strategies been prepared by strategic planning authorities and in the case of combined of combined county authorities and upper tier county councils, these are distinct from local planning authorities who obviously have the duty to compare the local plan, however where unitary authorities are in place, these will have the responsibility for producing both the local plan and the SDS, albeit that the SDS may be produced in partnership with other authorities as part of a strategic plan. As we move forward on this distinction it becomes clearer, however I do accept there will be some authorities that will have to balance local plan production and producing SDS, including as part of the strategic planning goals.

The production of this should not however be seen as being in competition with local plant production. SDSs are intended to deal with strategic cross boundary issues that many local plans have struggled to address successfully over the past 15 years, therefore the production should make the local plant production more straightforward. In addition, we expect noble Government reorganisation to lead to possible efficiency savings as we move to a single tier of unitary authorities in all parts of the country and this will reduce resource pressures on local authority planning teams.

I do not want to overestimate that, but there is some statement to be made. The Government also expect the usual functions of the Government to continue while reforms to both the planning system and local Government are being implemented and continue with these functions will put the successful authorities in the best position to be able to continue service delivery post reform. Turning to the amendment itself, over the stated lines from the new section 12 C for would inhibit Secretary of State's ability to establish strategic planning boards in areas not covered by strategic authority.

Turning to amendment 136B and 1352 a, the six to look at the authorities for securing sufficient planning staff to repair SDS and raises an important issue about how strategic planning authorities will balance companies objectives, policies, legislative requirements, one preparing SDS. I have previously set out what the Government is doing to support capacity and running. We envisage all strategic planning authorities that will have a dedicated planning team which will aid the preparation of Spatial Development Strategy regardless of that there is a combined of in place.

Uncertain topics we would also expect the core team and individuals within the constituent authorities, for example in environmental or economic issues. Whether our capacity constraints, capability gaps, strategic planning teams can't use consultants. It is important to size once again that important to size once again that strategic planning will make the job of local planning authorities easier in terms of producing local plans. Furthermore, as we look to the next two to three years we will see the process of local Government reorganisation which will see a move to a single tier unitary authority in all parts of the country.

Through this process, we expect to see simpler structures and the potential for efficiency savings and that would mean overall there will be fewer local plans which, again, could reduce resource on local authority planning teams. Turning to amendment 151 a 153 a which would require the publication of guidance about the timetable to which an SDS should be produced and how regularly they will be reviewed. It is important to acknowledge that strategic planning authorities that will produce the SDS are at varying stages of readiness.

In some areas, established and prospective strategic authorities are keen to get on their SDS and some authorities have a form on that already, so it is not such a big leap for them. Recognise the benefit because they recognise the benefit the strategic plan will have on creating more certainty about the development investment In other areas new strategic authorities are being set up will be set up from next year and have a period where they gear up for delivery. In other parts of the country when you strategic authorities may be further off, SDS is will be produced by partnerships of county council is and or unitary authorities operating under While the government will work with and support all areas to begin the SDS as soon as possible this will have to be a tailored approach recognising the particular circumstances in different parts of the country.

An effective spatial development strategy will be pivotal to delivering the housing and infrastructure that local people and businesses need and deserve. They are intended to plan for the long- term and provide certainty for communities, local planning authorities and investors on web development should come forward. It is therefore important they are not changed regularly as this will introduce uncertainty and undermine the ability of local planning authorities to bring forward local plans that accord with SDS this. However there will be occasions where a review of the spatial development strategies necessary to ensure it reflects significant changes and national local level.

For example substantial changes to national policy to respond to new evidence of development needs or opportunities like the announcement of investment in a major piece of infrastructure which could unlock development. We don't think it's appropriate to mandate a specific review. In legislation given that the need for review would depend very much on local circumstances. We very much on local circumstances. We will however consider setting up local guidance on the circumstances were review may be appropriate either in the national policy planning practice guidance.

I hope I've given a clear explanation of that, I thank the opposition frontbench for their probing amendment because I do think they are useful in enabling us to set out how this is going to work. For the reasons I've set out I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wonder, the clock says 10
01:48
01:49
01:50
01:52
01:54
01:54
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This set of amendments on the composition of strategic planning boards is actually very important. Currently will vary as the noble Lord said across the different arrangements and local authorities that currently exist. His reference was to areas where the devolution bill has not yet helped create strategic authorities whereas from my perspective it would be a mayoral combined authority that would be the strategic planning board. West Yorkshire mayoral combined authority covers 2.5 million people.

The board would as I understand it from reading the bill and if I have it wrong I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will put me right, is that that would consist of the elected mayor and then the leaders of the mayor and then the leaders of the five constituent authorities. I have concerns about the small number of people who will be taking a very serious decision that will affect the whole area. Without having any wider ramifications.

It would seem to me that what should happen in a large strategic authority like that there has to be reference back to there has to be reference back to the individual councils to confirm that decisions that are being made. What the government are saying is that no single council can disrupt the creation of a spatial development strategy, but that the majority view will hold. I would urge the Minister to have a mind to urge a consensus approach in strategic planning boards because as we have heard the spatial development strategy will influence the Local Plan, if that is pushed through without consensus, consent across the constituent authorities, that will lead to very difficult decisions being made at Local Plan stage which could disrupt the spatial development strategy.

Or challenge it. That has been the experience currently in Manchester. Combined authority mayor area. Nobody wins in that situation. If we want spatial development strategy to work and most of us do, then it has to be by consensus. Because otherwise you create the situation where there is more controversy further down to individual councils as they create their local plans and I urge the Minister to consider those points because none of us want
02:00
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
those points because none of us want I would like to start by speaking briefly to the amendment 1351 tabled briefly to the amendment 1351 tabled by Lord Lucas I'm not sure I'm going to be quite as brief as he is but I will try and keep my words to a will try and keep my words to a minimum. I can see the logic for the minimum. I can see the logic for the proposal National Park should be included, they are by their very included, they are by their very nature areas of national significance and local sensitivity.

However the amendment does raise some important questions for the government, firstly how do ministers envisage that the balance being struck between National Park struck between National Park authorities and their statutory duty to conserve and enhance natural beauty and the often very different -- different pressures felt by surrounding authorities to accommodate growth and development. Secondly where joint committee has Secondly where joint committee has established how well accountable -- accountability operate? Moving to amendment 13 Moving to amendment 136 ZA in my name the six to ensure the ZA in my name the six to ensure the And of any committees it establishes properly reflects the constituent authorities and the populations they serve in order to guarantee fair representation, appoint the noble Baroness Pinnock was raising.

The principle is important because without it there is a risk that the voices of smaller authorities or communities could be diluted in favour of larger ones. Strategic planning is about bringing areas together to shape the future collectively to think about housing, infrastructure, transport and economic development at a scale that makes sense but such cooperation will only succeed if all partners feel that the government's arrangements are balanced and legitimate, ensuring fair representation is therefore not simply a matter of equity, in its narrow sense it's about the very foundations of good governance.

Finally I'd like to thank Lord Lansley for bringing forward amendment 136 it's only right that spatial develop and strategy should also look at employment sites as well as housing is without these how can one truly consider the real can one truly consider the real

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is 2 o'clock in the morning.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right. I do apologise, I have jumped a page, I have gone a bit too far ahead, so I will just leave it far ahead, so I will just leave it and say we do need the fair representation. Thank you very much.
02:01
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

representation. Thank you very much. I think that is completely understandable at 2 o'clock in the understandable at 2 o'clock in the morning. I would like to thank noble Lords for the amendments related to strategic planning first of turning first to amendment 135 not sure if that is or I? One? Thank you. That seeks to ensure that strategic planning laws can be established by the Secretary of State, whither it is a national park area and I commend the Noble Lord for his very brief moving of his amendment and the SDS strategy area as defined in new section 12 a which the bill will insert to the purchase at 2004 as the area of the strategic planning authority preparing the Spatial Development Strategy.

The strategy area includes all local authorities including local planning authority such as the National authorities, therefore the Secretary of State could already use the power in new section 12 B to establish a strategic planning blood covering an area of the national or part of the national and I hope this gives him the assurance he is seeking and he will be able to withdraw his amendment. I think the Noble Lord for tabling amendment 136 which will make formal provision of principal authorities to enforce a strategic planning board and while I understand the intent behind the amendment I do not think it is necessary or to insist provisions prevent authorities from doing this already.

Ultimately for the Secretary of State to decide which authority should reduce the Spatial Development Strategy through strategic planning law, however I would like to reassure noble Lords that the Secretary of State may only make regulations establishing its strategic planning law after consulting the proposed constituent authorities, so any principal authority will have a say in the establishment of anything are part of. Turning to amendment 136 tabled by the Noble Lord Jamieson, this will require provision into strategic planning regulations about the composition of the strategic planning board and any associated committees to be representatives of the authorities that constitute a strategic planning board and their population.

I broadly agree with the noble Lords in his amendment that in principle I want to see what I think he described as a fair and legitimate representation on strategic planning laws, however there are a range of potential scenarios for the planning boards, for example in some cases strategic planning board cones could consist of another County Counsel representing a large population alongside one or two unitary authorities representing much smaller populations in stoppage could be that a balanced representation would simply mean the larger authority would always get its own way.

Alternatively, attempts to even out representation could mean that relatively smaller authorities could thwart the will of authority representing much larger population. I expect there will be a wide-ranging of situations with possibly note to strategic planning boards in alignment. As such in the circumstances I feel it would be better to discuss and agree a resolution for each strategic planning board on an individual basis with the relevant constituent authorities. The regulations that will be needed to establish each strategic planning Board will be subject to statutory consultation as required by clause 52 of the bill that will insert new section 12 before into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.

Given this explanation I hope noble Lords will be able to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. My Lords, I thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her and separate I do not understand it. If I can take the
02:05
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
not understand it. If I can take the example of the future Sussex unitary which will be a principal authority this can be a strategic planning authority. This actually is not the planning authority, for a huge chunk of its territory in the National Park. If you are going to have a strategic plan which is a planning document covering the area of the principal authority you have two surely involve the national park infrastructure. I can't see how you can have the strategic planning authority which is not the planning authority for 1/3 of its area.

It does not make sense. You have got to find some way of bringing in the national. This is as my Noble Friend said, not the simplest of structures but surely if you are reducing a strategic plan for the whole area it has to involve the planning authority.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may just briefly respond to that, while national authorities are that, while national authorities are similar, they will have a very important role to play in the preparation of the SDS. We will preparation of the SDS. We will expect boards and other authorities with national and earnings to engage with national and earnings to engage very closely with National Park authorities to ensure the valued areas remain protected. National areas remain protected. National Park authorities will continue to prepare which will set out policies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in that development. The strategic plans at all, they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The strategic plans at all, they are just, you're not actually are just, you're not actually producing a Sussex strategic plan at all, you're producing a North Sussex strategic plan. And there is no strategic plan. And there is no provision for it, it is just the provision for it, it is just the ordinary planning functions of the National Park. Thus we are trying to National Park. Thus we are trying to reduce a unifying structure across the UK and we really want to the UK and we really want to fracture this way.

The solution fracture this way. The solution proposed of using the strategic planning boards and having the main authority and the national part on that board, there is no reason why they should not have the authority that they should be part of that and produce as a structure that is a strategic planning authority which covers the whole of the area. And that surely is a sensible way of doing it. This is really something that we have got to return to in the report might is ridiculous the way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is. And I'd beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 136, not moved, amendment 136, Lord Jamieson, not moved, 1368, Baroness Scott, Norton, 20 6B, not Baroness Scott, Norton, 20 6B, not moved stop 137, Baroness Thornhill, moved stop 137, Baroness Thornhill, not moved. 138, Lord Gascoigne and Tennyson, not moved. Lord Moynihan, Tennyson, not moved. Lord Moynihan, 138A, not moved, Baroness witness, 138, not moved. We now come to 138, not moved.

We now come to amendment 139 in the name of Lord
02:09
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
amendment 139 in the name of Lord Best. OK, in clause 52 amendment 139, Lord Best's alter ego.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I like the word best. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I like the word best. My Lords, the reason I have stood to move these amendment is I have my move these amendment is I have my own amendments the end of this short group of three amendments. And if that noble Lords wish to move the that noble Lords wish to move the amendments then that is fine by me. I have discussed the issues of accessibility with the Noble Lord best on many occasions because I feel as strongly as he does that this is an area of housing policy this is an area of housing policy that is neglected.

We have an ageing that is neglected. We have an ageing population. In need to try and enable people who are getting older, enable people who are getting older, perhaps less mobile, and who need a perhaps less mobile, and who need a bit of support to retain their bit of support to retain their independence. And they can do that if the right provision of housing is made within their locality. For example, currently in the place where I live it is being built, and 80 unit housing with extra care by a registered social landlord.

Housing 21, I think it is. Two the people that are older who have a home with social rent and on-site provision and support where they need it. Now, it does seem to me that the Noble Lord best in his second amendment makes that point that within the housing policy that it would be important for that provision to be included. And that means that in the Spatial Development Strategies to have a requirement to consider the needs of our ageing population and to move it forward through so people could retain their independence, so that is amendment 152 in the name of Lord Best.

His first amendment, 139, is simply to say that if 300,000 homes are being built it is important that all of them are designed, so that people with disabilities are able to use those at home. Not to restrict disabled people to only a handful that have been converted. That makes good sense and it is in line with all the other proposals that we have been considering to date. Just look ahead and make the right provisions for the population rather than trying to retrofit the later.

The amendment in my name, whatever number that is, my name, whatever number that is, 153, is designed to try to get more involvement of the public in the Spatial Development Strategies. In considering them. And what I have asked in this amendment is the strategic planning authority prepared and cancelled on a statement of community involvement which provides for people affected by the strategy that have the right to be heard at an examination. And if that, if the noble Baroness the Minister can agree to that, what that will do is take away some of the anxieties and frustrations that were built by people who see a plan being developed, see that it will affect local plans, and therefore in a very practical way, their lives.

And yet they are not going to be able to have their say at the right level, at the strategic plan level. Now, most of us who are practical in the practical world of politics know how hard it is to engage people in consideration of theoretical planning, strategic planning, and local plans, there less than theoretical, but still in the minds of many people, they are because they are not actual practical planning applications. So, that is what might amendment in my name asks for.

And any way in which we can encourage involvement with people who are affected by the strategic plan has only got to be good. So, with that, those few words, I move that amendment whatever it is in the name of the Noble Lord best and I look forward to the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed at the end insert the words as printed in the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. Baroness Pinnock to great job of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Pinnock to great job of channelling Lord Best and I'm just going to make two very brief points in addition to what the noble Lady
02:16
02:18
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Having previously sat on the government's older persons housing task force so ably chaired by Julian task force so ably chaired by Julian Meier. We have an ageing population, this is great news as we are all living longer to which I'm sure a living longer to which I'm sure a number of people here will attest number of people here will attest to. However it does come with significant issues for example significant issues for example increasing cost of Social care and how do we ensure everyone has the opportunity for an active and healthy later age and be part of their communities.

Housing is a key factor during the availability of factor during the availability of appropriate housing and in the key factor enabling all of us to retain independence and lead happy active independence and lead happy active lives. While it may not be right everyone there is a huge shortfall of this type of housing. An ageing society makes this question unavoidable, it's not simply a matter of numbers or pensions or the matter of numbers or pensions or the strain on the NHS though these are real and pressing, it's about how people live their lives are about whether they can remain independent, safe and connected to their communities as their circumstances change.

Too many older people find themselves in homes that are ill suited to reduce mobility and the result is avoidable hospital admissions, preventable accidents and unnecessary moves away from familiar surroundings. Again many around this House have been involved in delivering this kind of housing and we've seen personally I can attest to myself that transformational impact it can have on older people and those with disabilities, I have to say I was almost in tears with one small develop and we did for a person with very severe disabilities who was stuck in a wheelchair and no use of his hands.

He was able to open his front door for the first time in his life in his 50s through an IR activated door that he could operate. It is transformational we need to think about these things. I'm grateful to banner Aaron Escandell for moving forward Lord Best amendment 139 on this group and indeed the Lord Best's personal advocacy on this issue that he has done time and time again in this House. Also Baroness Pinnock through amendment 153 has underlined that process matters as much as outcome, notifying involving disabled people in the development of spatial strategies ensures the voices of those most affected by poor design I heard at the stage when change can actually make a difference.

Taken together these amendments call attention to an essential principle that housing is not just about shelter but it's about enabling people to live their lives fully, safely and with dignity. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to how the government will bring forward more housing for an ageing forward more housing for an ageing population and those disabilities. population and those disabilities.
02:21
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank noble Lords the moments in this group Baroness Pinnock for moving them, the government is clear that provision of appropriate housing for older and disabled people is crucial in helping them to live safe and independent lives. Turning first to amendment 139 tabled by Lord Best this seeks to ensure that new housing meets the needs of older and disabled people and spatial develop and strategies. Local planning authorities orally have the means to support the delivery of accessible adaptable homes, planning policy is regulations through planning conditions.

Where there is a demonstrated local need authorities are expected to make use of the technical standards to help bring forward inadequately, adequate supply of accessible housing. Which can include setting out the proportion of new housing that will be delivered to M4 two and M43 standards. The government is committed to ensuring everyone has access to a home that makes the individual needs and we will soon outline our approach to accessible new build housing. Turning to Lord Best's amendment 152 on the same topic while I agree with the need to ensure the housing needs of older people are considered when preparing spatial development strategies the existing provision for strategic planning authorities to have regard to the need to ensure that developing strategies consistent with national policy will ensure this objective is met.

As I have previously said national planning already contains clear expectations on assessing and reflecting the housing needs of older and disabled people. I now turn to Baroness Pinnock's amendment 153 on the issue Pinnock's amendment 153 on the issue of community engagement in the process. The amendment seeks to ensure that disabled people are aware of the publication of a draft STS and have the opportunity to make representations at examination hearings. The government is committed to ensuring that local communities are actively involved in shaping spatial development strategies in the area which is why under the bill everyone has the right to make representation on a draft strategy.

We do however think it's appropriate to learn strategic planning authorities determine the most effective approach to managing their engagement with local communities and their facial developing strategies. Local planning authorities will no longer be required to produce a statement of community involvement following the implementation of changes produced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. In light of this it would not be appropriate to impose a similar strategic planning authorities, likewise I don't believe it's necessary to confer formal right to examination of the spatial development strategy, the spatial development strategies are intended to be high-level document that provide a strategic framework for subsequent road plans which must be in general conformity with them.

Unlike local plans STS has do not allocate specific sites for development, it is therefore more appropriate for individuals to have the right to appear in plan examinations when examining examinations of spatial development strategies proportionate to their strategic role. Grateful to noble Lords for tabling their amendments in facilitating an interesting debate on the subject for the reasons given I hope the noble Lords will beg leave to withdraw their amendments.
02:24
02:25
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 139 ZA Lord Jamieson. It's a pleasure to open this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to open this group. I shall speak to my amendment group. I shall speak to my amendment 135 ZA and set out my reasons. This requires spatial develop and strategy to set out clearly how essential infrastructure will be funded and to assess the consequences it's infrastructure is not available. Our purpose is to ensure that necessary infrastructure is properly planned and delivered as part of a spatial development part of a spatial development strategic plan. This is important because we know from experience that because we know from experience that Proceeds without the schools, GP surgeries, transport links, utilities and other vital services that people rely upon, the result is pressure on existing provision, frustration for local residents and frustration for local residents and in many cases communities that feel shortchanged.

Housing numbers are met on paper but without the independent, without the independent, without the underpinning infrastructure. These are not sustainable place to live, are not sustainable place to live, the homes do not meaningfully contribute to the economy and in many instances this is why we have the lack of trust and why so often local community subject to new housing. Because they have no faith that they will get all those promises. Spatial development strategy is by its nature long-term and strategic. It is precisely the level at which instructor planning should be embedded rather than left to chance or fragmented negotiations on individual sites, by requiring a clear statement of how essential infrastructure will be funded we bring accountability and realism into the process.

Plans cannot simply assume that money will somehow materialise. They must demonstrate where the resources coming from and if gaps remain, they must assess the consequences. This is about delivery, strategy that sets out aspirations but is silent on how it can deliver is not a strategy at all. He risks becoming an expensive exercise in box ticking. But strategy that ties development to infrastructure planning and acknowledges the risks of failure is far more likely to deliver a sustainable balanced growth that we all want to see.

I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment strengthens the purpose of spatial development strategies and ensures they serve the communities they are meant to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support. Remove the amendment. Amendment proposed in clause 52

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 73 line 13 at the end insert the words as printed on the marshalled List. I would like to speak to
02:28
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to amendments 139 a and 140 a in this group and link them to 150 a in my name in a group earlier today which dealt with affordable social housing. Together these amendments seek to ensure that when strategic planning authorities develop their spatial strategies they do so on the basis of accurate assessments of housing need, including the needs of all those experiencing homelessness in their area. I'm grateful to Crisis and the National Housing Federation with a detailed and careful briefing on these issues.

The context of my amendments is the huge scale of homelessness people face across the country, homelessness including people rush and households living in temporary accommodation is high and still rising. The government £39 billion investment to build more social and affordable and its commitment to develop cross government homelessness strategy are very welcome steps towards addressing homelessness. However it's important that the planning purposes strategic planning authorities consistent the calculate to -- true scale of housing need and especially the need for social housing.

Homes for survivors of domestic abuse and housing with support in order that the government's ambition to build 1.5 million homes translates into homes for those experiencing homelessness. At present local housing needs assessments are a vital first step in determining how many homes should be planned for. However the Planning and Infrastructure Bill doesn't require those preparing spatial development strategies calculate the amount housing needed by the population using a consistent assessment of housing need. It also doesn't require specific breakdowns of the amount of different forms of affordable and housing support.

This risks a range of approaches being taken between different areas and underestimate of the new homes and types of new homes needed. We know the current calculation which begins with 0.8% of the existing house stock and adjusts for affordability is to blunt an instrument. It ignores the reality of the ground in many localities. For example work by Crisis rent Council and local partners revealed that the official Undercounting has been identified by the women's roof sleeping services that shows that when sleeping rough the members first to comment fact the most recent census found that more than 10 times as many women sleeping rough and identified by official Government figures.

If homelessness is underestimating the estimates then plans will not reflect the full range of housing needs of the population which means that too few homes and to few of the right kinds of homes are going to address homelessness. We risk undermining not only the government's welcome ambition to deliver the boost to social and affordable housing in a generation but also the goal of ending homelessness. The current drafting applause 52 of the bill is in view in such a way that will not result in cost assessments of housing need and the need for other types of housing in strategic planning bodies.

My amendments would make for changes. First, they would replace the discretion the maid with the Spatial Development Strategies to specify the amount of housing need in a strategic area. Second, it would explicitly require the calculation including those who are statutory homeless, sleeping rough, those in overcrowded housing, those in housing waiting lists and those who are homeless but not included in statutory data. And I know that my Noble Friend Lady Whitaker would want me to include those that are homeless not statutorily recorded in their area which includes those gypsies and travellers who find no authorised sites to live or have been evicted from unauthorised sites and are indeed homeless to ensure provision in their traditional homes.

Third, it would ensure that strategic planning authorities must also calculate the social housing using the same comprehensive assessment. This would have planning in line with the duties set out in the supported housing regulatory oversight act that requires local authorities to carry out strategic needs assessments for supported housing in their area and it would include the provision of social rent housing specifically for the purposes of preparing strategies that are currently drafted the bill encourages local authorities to consider the need for affordable housing in comparing there's social Low-cost ownership and affordable rent as high as 80% of the market rent.

And neither of these tenures are truly affordable or accessible and the creation of a new planning system delivers more unaffordable tenures that will only exacerbate the tenancy social has waiting lists. This is not simply about numbers, it is about the types of housing. Local plans must reflect the reality that many people need to cure social rent housing, or housing with tailored support such as with tailored support such as housing first. Without this we will not much supply to human need. In order to implement these amendments and make the same improvement to the assessment of local housing the crisis and others are calling for the Government to work with experts to inform the local housing needs methodology itself so that it captures the full picture of homelessness and housing need.

In the interim, Ministers can make use of the independent assessment of preparing the University commissioned by crisis of the National Housing Federation, this model also takes into account Newts relative to supply and has widely been used across the housing sector. The government's investment in social and affordable housing is both significant and welcome. And unless our planning system accounts all of those most in need, delivery of homes will remain disconnected for the lived reality of homelessness in our towns and cities.
02:35
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I wish to speak to two amendments in this group with my name, amendment 114 and 144. Just to see a quick word about 145 before the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill has a chance to intervene. The, I will be brief, not because, but I do want to emphasise their as a great deal that I could see and I am not saying, we may need to return to this report, not because I do not think this is a terrifically important thing, I think amendment 140 in particular.

And I have the benefit of having anticipated that my Noble Friend Lord Jamieson is going to agree with me about this. Put into the requirements for the content of the spatial awareness strategy that we should specify the amount of distribution of commercial employment logistics and industrial activity anticipated across the strategy area. Now, the very simple proposition is the Government and we are all focused on trying to deliver investment in employment and growth and very often the reasons why we have two specify the specific levels of housing is because there are significant rises in employment.

Government themselves suggested that the strategic authorities would be best structured around what are economically functional areas. The economic component of the development strategy is absolutely integral to an understanding of the requirements are going to be for housing and affordable housing because this is about people that are travelling to work and where they can live and how they can travel. And, indeed, I know that the Noble Lady the Minister if she is replying for the Minister when he is replying will also be aware no doubt and very often in local planning the best approach to creating an understanding of what the housing looks like to understand what the employment growth looks like.

This is no less the case when it comes to thinking about strategy areas and strategic development and potentially even more. I hope this is one of those amendments that the Minister might have agreed to consider rather than resist. 144 think likewise I will not elaborate but I think might and as I understand it trying to write a special development strategy for a substantial area while not taking into account what are the underlining values in the strategy and the extent to which those land values can support viable development can support developer contributions and infrastructure levies is a pointless structure of consideration.

But if you go about this without understanding all those things and incorporating them into the process of strategic plan making, then you will end up simply drawing lines on a map filled with optimism and hope and the like and without any reality that is rooted in deliverability. Deliverability is absolutely essential. Take this all that we do not need to invent this. The London plan does it, it looks at strategic develop movement strategies and looks at viability, deliverability, and related back to land values and development contributions and the receipts from the mayoral infrastructure which, of course, relates, of course, to my Noble Friend amendment 136.

About funding infrastructure. That actually is the same point, so I very much agree. Just one last point on 1458. We had a debate about this and I think that this is exactly the same principles all apply. It is just at a level of vision rather than detail. But I do not think that we should discount the possibility of many strategy areas working together on the design guides. Essex has a design guide that I think is very successful that is for a large county of 1 1/2 million people, so I think that the idea that there should be a design guide in the strategy area seems to be a very desirable thing.
02:40
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I think I will just say that I agree with the Noble Lord and sit down. My Lords, I rise therefore to speak very briefly to Edward 1548 and support it by Lord Carlile, Lord Lucas, and my Noble Friend Lord tells us in. Not to mention the Royal Institute of British architects who worked up this amendment. I thank them all. And regret that due to the our the exception of Lord Lucas that they are not here to give their contributions.

My Lords, it is absolutely clear that strategic development strategies are a key positive plank in this bill. And I agree with much of what Lord Lansley said earlier. And now there was also a lot of good commentary in the previous groups that I personally want to refer to by hoping that the Government will take much of it on board. But, at present, the bill does not require the SDS to set out that design vision. In addition that turns development into real places.

It might sound technical in the discussion we have had so far that is very technical about this here and that there. But actually, at their heart, they are about people and place. They allow us to step, look to the future, and plan with purpose. Design vision is a clear look at what an area should be in the future. Too often we have made decisions in isolation, housing here, employment there, school somewhere else. Transport between them and afterthought.

Without working out how it all fits together. But life does not work in silos. Families need homes near jobs, children need safe Routes to schools. Communities need high Street that thrive. In green space to enjoy. Laces we can be proud of. Without that vision, what are we left with? Scattering of housing estates, a road scheme here, a retail Park there, functional, meeting targets, perhaps, but also made the soulless. Numbers ticked off a list, not communities build to last.

A proper design vision is not a pit, it is actually the framework within which everything else sits. It is the difference between creating thriving neighbourhoods and repeating the mistakes of the past. Because we all know what happens without it, car dominated estates, no green space, no hard, no chance of belonging. Sadly, there is a lot of evidence to back this up. If this bill is to mean anything, it must be rooted in a clear design vision. Otherwise we will remember it not for building communities, but for building estates.

It will set out direction and principles for quality development. My Lords, including the requirement for design vision, strengthens the bill by putting design equality at the heart of strategic development. Put very simply, without design, it is like pouring concrete without foundations. It will not stand the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

test of time. My Lords, I thank the noble
02:44
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Thornhill and Lord Lucas and Lord Teverson for tabling amendment 145. It is one that I wholeheartedly support. As I touched on earlier in my remarks on amendment amendment 123143, design and what buildings look like are so important. You know they can enhance the community. They are sensitive to existing architecture and local housing layout, the use local materials, to be sustainable we must look and build homes that people will want to look at and living years from now.

Too often developers build houses that do not differ between communities and places. Although provisions are in place with local authorities to insist on local styles, it seems that frequently this is sacrificed in favour of lower costs per home. I would argue we should encourage new housing to be carried out more by small local builders. Who should be more responsive to their local and needed and invested in their local communities. And, as you well know, developments are allowed to appeal if they do not get the planning commission, and yet locals are not allowed to appeal against early designed and badly thought out applications.

We need to ensure that local people are listened to and brought alongside the process. There is reasonably set standards and the consultation could take months and be very well run and detailed or just the tick box exercise that you have when everyone is on holiday. And our consultations are always he did, I am concerned that they are consulted and just ignored. This amendment seeks to rectify these issues by creating a design into the Spatial Development Strategy of the high quality design to be prioritised in the strategic planning process to ensure that new development actually meets the practical and visual needs of residents and enhances communities.

I pleased that this amendment has been endorsed by so many key bodies been endorsed by so many key bodies
02:46
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I like to thank noble Lords for their amendments related to the contents of the spatial development strategy or STS, a term first of all to amendment 139 a table by the noble Lady which seeks to make it mandatory for strategic planning authorities to specify an amount of distribution of housing including affordable. I understand the concerns that authorities may interpret the current drafting under section 12 D5 as meaning they can opt out of addressing this important issue in their spatial development strategies or at least not fully address it.

However I think in practice it's very unlikely that strategic planning authorities will be able to justify not addressing this issue in their SDS for two reasons, firstly the bill sets out that the spatial development strategies must include policies that are of strategic importance to the area is very unlikely the SBA will be able to make a credible argument that housing is not strategic importance to the area, furthermore the bill sets out that SDS is a must have regard to the need to ensure consistency with national policy.

We intend to set out clearly in national policy that SDS is should address housing needs. If SDS is not consistent with national policy the bill gives the Secretary of State the ability to exercise intervention powers to rectify this. I hope for this reason the Baronesses reassured and feels able to withdraw her amendment. Amendment 139 Saturday from Lord Jamieson requires straight SDS is to set out how infrastructure would be funded and what potential implications would be of that funding not materialising.

I thank the noble Lord for his concern and it's a concern I share. It would be essential that SDS is based on realistic assumptions about the availability of in infrastructure and the likelihood of investment in infrastructure where that is required as I mentioned earlier it would also be important that SDS is are kept under review and updated to reflect changes in circumstances are one example of which could be where infrastructure improvements or investment does not happen or happens to a different timescale than anticipated.

However this is also important to acknowledge that as long as term spatial strategies SDS this will look, beyond Local Plan time horizons and many confirmed investment programs structured providers indeed SDS is will be part of a more integrated and joined up Roach to infrastructure provision that this government has already set out, notably by the 10 year infrastructure strategy published in June and the forthcoming spatial plan for specific infrastructure sectors such as the strategic energy plan.

We can expect a degree of between SDS's and these national approaches with each being updated to take account of other strategies. The bill already contains provisions about the need to keep SDS is under review and the Secretary of State has powers to intervene where SDS is are not being updated. SDS is would are not being updated. SDS is would be tested at examination and it would be for the examiners to determine the matters to be considered at examination it is likely the implementation of the strategy can be expected to be one of the key aspects to be considered.

One idea that was raised in an independent report by partners earlier this year about our strategic planning proposals is that instead of creating an infrastructure border each SDS whether main infrastructure providers engage strategic planning authorities stop this something I'm keen to explore and would give consideration to including in planning practice guidance for SDS is. While I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord amendment I think his concerns are already covered. On that basis and in the knowledge that I agree this is a key issue for SDS is just not one that requires legislative approach, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Turning to amendment 140 which would expressly enable a spatial development strategy to specify or describe an amount or distribution of development industrial logistics or commercial purposes whilst I fully appreciate and support the intention behind us amendment I don't believe it is necessary. This is because new section 12 D1 already requires an SDS must include a statement of the strategic planning authorities policies however expressed in relation to the development and use of land in this strategy area. Which are of strategic importance to that area.

In meeting this requirement I would fully expect strategic planning authority to plan for deployment, industrial logistics and commercial development as we have seen the London plan do which operates under similar legislative processes, provisions. Turning to processes, provisions. Turning to amendment 140 a table by Lord Warren -- Lady Warwick of Undercliffe which seeks to specify housing needs including those around homeless, sleeping rough or waiting lists. This government has taken some significant steps to address the issue of homelessness including making £1 billion investment into homelessness and roughly services this year which we confirmed at the Spending Review would be protected the next three years and £39 billion of the social and affordable homes program biggest boost in a generation.

I also like -- we also generation cross government strategy working with mayors across the country to get back on ending homelessness. While support the Baronesses goal in ensuring the needs can be done address through spatial development strategies Obi -- believe the story just in the bill. Section 12 D5 allows the spatial development strategy to specify housing requirements including affordable to meet the needs of homes people providing they meet the test of being at strategic importance to the area. I should also be clear that the government believes strategic planning authorities to plan for at a minimum cumulative total of housing needs for the constituent authorities of the SDS area completed using the standard method.

I hope this gives the noble Baroness efficient reassurances to withdraw the amendment. Next to amendment 144 which seeks to enable a strategic authority to consider the implications of viability on the SDS's approach to the provision of infrastructure affordable common nature recovery and restoration or biodiversity. Again I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord in principle, SDS is will need to consider the indications of viability for their spatial strategy and broad locations that they set and any policies that they include vice versa the applications at the SDS itself may have development viability would need to be considered.

However the National Planning Policy Framework and the planning practice guidance deal with our viability should be considered. Deal with our viability should be considered. Keen to allow a degree of flexibility here rather than use what inevitably would the rigid approach set down in primary legislation, especially as these SDS's are intended to be long-term strategies which in themselves may well affect what is currently considered to be viable. In terms of the last part of this amendment which seeks to enable the Secretary of State to set out guidance and benchmark land values or other aspects of viability, this is not necessary as the Secretary of State is already able to issue guidance on these topics or other matters.

Indeed there is already planning practice guidance when viability sets out the government recommended approach and includes reference to benchmark land values and developer returns. I finally turned to Baroness Thornhill to amendment 145 a which would require SDS is to contain a design vision for the strategy area which has developed with the community and stakeholders. Let me reassure the noble Baroness of the importance I attach to ensuring the planning system creates well-designed new development. To support this a clear framework exists through the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance on design including the national design guide and national model design court.

The encouraged plans at the most appropriate level set clear design visions and expectations through local design policies, and guides. The key aims for SDS is are a set of spatial strategy for the area but that is the development that will enable the economy to grow. The housing required of the environmental protection and restoration needed and for the strategy to guide local in through a subsequent local plans. As previously mentioned, new section 12 D1 already requires that an SDS must include a statement of the strategic planning authorities policy however expressed and in relation the development and use of land in the strategy area which are of strategic importance to that area which could include policies on design.

For these reasons I kindly ask noble Lords to beg leave to withdraw their amendments.
02:56
02:57
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foster of Bath. Can I begin by declaring my interest as chairman gambling reform interest as chairman gambling reform and can I congratulate the government Chief Whip for keeping us here to a point at which my hearing AIDS are now telling me that their battery is flat. I rise to move amendment 142 in my name particularly to speak to amendment 185 EE. Given the our I won't give the details but I suspect most noble Lords are well aware of the very serious concerns there are about the large number of gambling premises especially betting shops and adult gaming centres and so many of our high streets.

This is especially so in deprived communities, the NHS is own office of health improvement and disparities has illustrated very recently that the most deprived local authorities have three times as many gambling premises per head of the population than the least deprived local authorities. Research shows not only clear links with increased crime but crucially with higher levels of gambling harm. And all the problems that creates individuals, their families, their communities. As a result is a quick scan of local newspapers, community websites and so on will show, communities right across the country are demanding that their local councils take action to stop this proliferation.

But as we have seen in places from Peterborough to Brent and many many others, councils have come up against a stumbling block which is section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005. This is the so-called aim to permit section under which the default position is that a licensing authority must permit the use of premises for gambling unless there are very specific reasons not to do so. Councils who have tried to block new gambling ventures, venues have come up against the lawyers from the very wealthy gambling companies and as a result in most cases, they have lost the battle.

Quite simply planning authorities need additional powers to regulate the circumstances in which they authorise or reject the use of premises for gambling. Some years ago we had a similar problem when there was a growth in the number of premises selling alcohol. That problem was solved by coming forward with a solution which allowed committees, the licensing committees of local authorities which thinks there is already more than enough alcohol licences in a particular area, after consultation to publish a document called a cumulative impact assessment which says in effect that enough is enough.

It says that if you are thinking of applying for a licence for alcohol in this particular area don't bother. Because there is already enough licensed premises there, the community doesn't want there, the community doesn't want Similar when it comes to granting of the gambling licence and other organisations not the least other councils have been campaigning to have a similar cumulative impact arrangement in relation to gambling licensing. Eventually we persuaded the previous Government this is what should happen and they included it within their 2003 gambling white paper.

And it said will align the regimes to alcohol and gambling licensing by introducing cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows. And I delighted that the new Government has said that it agrees with that approach. Indeed in a parliamentary written answer on 9 June, the Minister from DCMS said, and I quote, cumulative impact assessments would allow local authorities to take into account a wide-ranging evidence to afford licensing decisions to consider the cumulative impact of gambling premises in a particular area.

We will look to complement local authorities and existing powers in relation to licensing of gambling premises when parliamentary time allows. Now, I am even more delighted that only last week during the Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said that he also agreed. I quote he said it is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments like those already in place around alcohol licensing and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and number of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets.

The Prime Minister said that only last week. And we do not need to wait for further Parliamentary time. We have the opportunity to do it within this piece of legislation. And, indeed, if amendment 185 in particular is accepted it means we can quickly give our councils the extra powers they need. It will ensure the Government can deliver the Prime Minister's promise and it will give the Government a quick and extremely popular win. Now, I am, of course, aware that it is in its final form additional amendments will also be needed to ensure cumulative impact assessment approach to gambling is in line with that for alcohol licensing discovered in section 5 a of the licensing act 2003 on which I have modelled this amendment.

But, today, I simply hope the Minister will confirm at least an agreement in principle to my amendment, particularly 185 a and will agree to work with me and other interested parties to use this bill as a quick and effective way to give councils and their communities additional powers that they need and have been promised by this Government to curb the proliferation of gambling with all the problems that they create in all the problems that they create in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the high streets and I beg to move. Amendment proposed in close 52 page 73 line 21, at end insert that
03:04
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
page 73 line 21, at end insert that words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to declare my membership and we have just heard from the leader of P is for gambling reform, an overwhelming case. I just want to make a couple of additional want to make a couple of additional points. One is that many earlier groups many hours ago we met the need for important improvements to need for important improvements to the bill to tackle this and this is a public health challenge. Noble Lords are unaware of this I would point them to the public health commission on gambling that reported commission on gambling that reported in 2024 which pointed out how much more we understand now likely of the more we understand now likely of the impact of gambling on our communities and so many individuals.

communities and so many individuals. At least including loss of employment, broken relationships, employment, broken relationships, suicidality, and domestic. And since a bunch of that harm actually found a bunch of that harm actually found among people that do not meet the diagnostic criteria for gambling disorders, it is a widespread disorders, it is a widespread problem. And I will point, I think I have to acknowledge here, the work of many campaigns, one of which I worked with particular called worked with particular called gambling with lives which is led by families that have been affected by families that have been affected by suicide and gambling.

And just seconding on the point made by the Noble Lord about the timing and the history of this, many members of your chips house were not here when the House of Lords Select Committee on social and economic impact of the industry reported in 2019 the title of that report was gambling harm, time for action. That was in 2019. As the Noble Lord has said, it is late, sorry, if the Government have seen yes, we are going to act, the Select Committee said that, the land is seeing act and here is the opportunity, so here it is, let's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

act. My Lords, the principle behind these amendments is one that I
03:07
03:09
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
him that the Government intends to produce impact assessments for produce impact assessments for . This will strengthen local authorities tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets. Local authorities have a range of existing powers and tools range of existing powers and tools and in relation to gambling premises such as specifying the local risks that operators must take risks to mitigate and attaching conditions to mitigate and attaching conditions to premises licences. The Government is also of the view that the most appropriate body to assess the appropriate body to assess the cumulative impact of the licences is cumulative impact of the licences is the local authority rather than the planning authority.

My concern is if the noble Lords amendment were to the noble Lords amendment were to risk creating cross systems in the approaches of the local authorities planning policies and the licensing authorities statement of principles, authorities statement of principles, local authorities already have the power to require health packed power to require health packed assessments and applications, introducing health impact assessment introducing health impact assessment and special development strategies would be cumulative. Spatial Development Strategies have been Development Strategies have been introduced to this bill to improve planning across local planning planning across local planning authorities and ensure that we are sustainably planning to meet that nations developing needs.

By setting out a high-level strategy and seeing the challenges challenging cross boundary issues, SDS makes the production of global pants straightforward and quicker to what are essentially more organised issues. While SDSs are not in the right place for this to be considered. The planning system allows for consideration of additional gambling premises which is the casino. The National planning is already clear that planning policies and decisions should empty achieve healthy places which enable and support health delivery and planning authorities are able to put in place appropriate policies relevant to their areas of support through their plans.

For these reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the Noble Lord to beg leave to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have listened to the Minister and he said that the Government is intending to move when Parliamentary intending to move when Parliamentary time allows. This is the time for Parliament. So, why isn't the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government moving now? I think the Government is. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Government is. We give the commitment to the impact assessments. I think we have got a assessments. I think we have got a large armoury of kind of regulations and ways that we can mitigate these and ways that we can mitigate these problems. There is something that we really take seriously and we see as really take seriously and we see as being important and I think also we just watch this space and see what happens in the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happens in the future. Because I could not do it if I am summing it up at the end, could the summing it up at the end, could the Minister just explain in detail? Because local councils across the land are listening to this debate so land are listening to this debate so could he explain in detail why he is could he explain in detail why he is saying that this amendment with the additional parts that would be necessary in line with the cumulative impact for alcohol cumulative impact for alcohol licensing, is not the appropriate licensing, is not the appropriate vehicle to do what local councils want, but the Government says it wants, and what the Prime Minister said categorically last Wednesday the Government wants?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this is unnecessary as national planning is clear that planning policies and consideration planning policies and consideration should be able to provide healthy places that enable and support healthy living. The local planning authorities are already able to put in place appropriate policies to support this. This includes policies support this. This includes policies they can implement through their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they can implement through their To reduce the healthy impact assessments and SDSs. Sorry to interrupt the Minister for Asia second time but I do genuinely apologise, but this is really important. I know that the hour is late. But is the Minister aware that there has only been one occasion and that is in Sheffield of occasion and that is in Sheffield of a magistrates court where a council a magistrates court where a council has been able to block a gambling premises application? That is likely premises application? That is likely to be overturned because of the huge power and resources of the gambling companies to get their licences to companies to get their licences to do it.

The Minister is frankly misleading the House in my view and misleading the House in my view and arguing that the current legislation allows councils to do what he is allows councils to do what he is saying they do. That is not the evidence that is available from all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the councils around the country. Honestly I not misleading the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honestly I not misleading the House in any way, and if the Noble Lord, I am sorry there is nothing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

else I can say. My Lords, as is the appropriate procedure at this stage, I will, of procedure at this stage, I will, of course, withdraw the amendment, but I can assure the House that it will be my intention to return to this be my intention to return to this matter. But it would be enormously helpful rather than this rather helpful rather than this rather negative approach that we have heard from the Minister if at least with a nod from a sedentary position he nod from a sedentary position he could agree that a meeting will take place as a matter of urgency with place as a matter of urgency with myself and other relevant bodies to discuss this further.

So that we can make progress and achieve with the make progress and achieve with the Prime Minister himself only a few days ago said he was desperately keen to achieve. I am still looking for a nod from a secondary position. for a nod from a secondary position. I think the House and others will doubt the absence of such a nod, and therefore the apparent breach of the promise of the Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

promise of the Prime Minister. The problem would be the Noble Lord, I would just ask him to calm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down, really. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is ideologically pleasure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is ideologically pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Enclose 52
03:14
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
is, by leave, withdrawn. Enclose 52 amendment 143.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise because I sent the amendment tabled by the noble amendment tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Jones and I note that Baroness Lady Jones and I note that the noble Baroness is here as well and probably has more extensive and probably has more extensive speech. Discuss back to me for the wider point about how it is that we wider point about how it is that we are pulling together land in order to somewhat maximise the amount of to somewhat maximise the amount of housing.

If it may be that we have different opinions on what the different opinions on what the density should be. But I made the point recently when I was point recently when I was considering offices, the sort of decision should not delegate another where the housing, where submissions are being made or planning are being made or planning applications are being made with the housing density considerably lower than what had been agreed by than what had been agreed by Matters because the amount of land is being allocated to homes, that is being allocated to homes, that land then not reaching the density that was expected for a variety of reasons, and therefore we have to keep allocating even more land.

This is a cumulative effect reflecting the comments made earlier about the fact that a lot of land is already allocated to the homes that have not yet been built and yet have consent. One of the reasons I should take this extra hour and 1/2 is to make this point about spatial development strategies because considering I appreciate we haven't quite finished concluding debating this it is the one clause in the House of Commons actually got substantial debate of this entire bill.

Nearly 4 hours and I can assure you in the comments nowadays that is unprecedented. It is vital that we get to the bottom because I think even at the other end the Minister was not as forthcoming perhaps as was wanted and that is reflected by the variety of state -- of amendments we have today. With that I'm conscious that there I set the doorkeeper's Hansard, the clerks, the press even being very patient at this time but it is right that we at least have the opportunity and I'm sure clause 52 will become very popular again at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report stage. I beg to move. Amendment proposed in clause 52
03:17
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause 52 page 73 line 21 at the end insert the words as printed in the marshalled List. I rise with pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise with pleasure to follow Baroness Coffey who both signed the amendment originally in the name of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb who is currently on medical leave and did enable if unexpected job of introducing this now group of amendments. Before I get onto this I feel like after the end of our last discussion I should declare my position as vice president of the Local Government Association since the baiters in that direction. I will also declare that I perhaps of a personal qualification to speak in this area of the bill that I wasn't otherwise engaged in since I can also like Lord Lansley and others dust off my veteran of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill going back in the day.

It's talking about ensuring the density of housing development and the effective use of land, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb has personal experience of this as a London Assembly member. What we saw what happened in London was the mayor was given the power to ensure greater density of housing and that had demonstrable positive impact in terms of London. If you go back to 1961 the very famous theorist Jane Jacobs in her book the death and life of great American cities said that one of the key things that helped cities thrive is sufficiently dense concentration of people, particularly a sufficiently dense concentration of housing.

We have gradually seen this being pushed forward. Of course we are as we saw in London going back to something we knew before. Georgian squares in London actually have a greater density of housing than many modern developments and they are great places for peaceful -- people to live. What we are talking about is quality and density together, this amendment in this really important part of the bill is Baroness Coffey just said, bring that forward. I'm hoping against hope at this stage we might hear something positive from the Minister, but I'm just going to say one sentence on amendment 224.

I would have signed it had I noticed in the name of Baroness Hodgson VAT costs and buildings will top and just going to cross-reference the amendment I had earlier about embodied carbon and how much because of our tax and VAT rules we are actually producing so much carbon emissions in the construction of bod

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- buildings in embodied carbon. I very much find myself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much find myself supporting the noble Baroness Lady Bennett which is not often the case.
03:20
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Bennett which is not often the case. We are lucky in this House to have the remaining two sane members of the Green Party. The proposition that her colleague is making in this amendment of advocating gentle density and as Baroness Bennett says of looking at the Georgian squares of London and how much density you get from them and beauty, but also you get a city which is capable of thriving as a city, you get an ability to hold a variety of retail and entertainment premises, you get transport systems that work.

Where you get something much more scattered like the town I live in of Eastbourne you get ridiculous inability to manage public transport because everything is spread out all over the place, the role -- roads all higgledy-piggledy nothing really hangs together and works which is why I have proposed amendment 159. Land readjustment schemes have been immensely successful particularly in Japan where they really found a role. About 30% of the urban land in Japan has been subject to land readjustment schemes stop what these schemes do is enable a bit of urban land which has been seriously sub- optimally developed to be transformed into something which is much better.

You have a promoter, someone who is capable of putting a scheme together, they put together a scheme which creates a large amount of additional value, you then work with the local authority and with the local people to the point where the local authorities happy and at least two thirds of the people who are going to be affected are voting for you then you do it. It's not an instant thing it takes the best part of a decade to go from start to finish but it is immensely effective in transforming urban landscapes.

And making good Carbone optimism of the past so that we can have something in which we are likely to be able to live in today. I would really encourage the government to look at this as a potential way forward and if it doesn't find a place in this bill I hope it will at least find a place in discussions and the government will be open to a meeting to pursue how this might become part of future policy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 160
03:23
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 160 in my name and in the name of Baroness Pinnock and given the Baroness Pinnock and given the debates and discussion we have had in recent groups I come to the conclusion that it is increasingly important. Amendment 160 proposes the implementation of a long-term spatial strategy turned a national spatial framework to bring together all the national plans across all sectors and across all Whitehall departments and one which would integrate plan making across the country at a local level.

As Lord Lansley said two or three groups ago we refer to the coming patchwork quote of spatial strategies and I think is absolutely right in that respect and I think framework which had been confirmed by the Royal planning Institute would be increasingly important. Currently there are several existing and emerging national strategies the national 10 year structural strategy recognises that national spatial strategies are needed similarly English devolution and community English devolution and community empowerment bill has collaborate and improve the economic social or environmental well-being of the people in the area so the national spatial framework would provide strategic direction and evidence- based to enable mayoral bodies to discharge such duties.

As new plans are developed and existing plans are updated in the future there would then be a clear connection between all existing plans through the framework and this would improve alignment of plans, wedding help the government to achieve its goals in building homes, growing the economy in the natural environment and in clean energy. It would mean the collaboration between Whitehall departments could be prioritised. This amendment originated with the Royal town planning Institute is I think very positive set of proposals.

Which I hope the government will be prepared to listen to and think about and adopt. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views because as I said a moment ago I've come to the conclusion given the complexity of all the different spatial strategies the levels, the places, I just think that they need to be brought together and the context of a framework to national level I think would it be extremely helpful for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government. I stand to speak to amendment two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to speak to amendment two to two and two to four in my name. Both of these amendments refer to regeneration, supporting brownfield sites and repurposed in buildings
03:27
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
sites and repurposed in buildings and in preference to the use of new sites and green belt cutting it into our countryside. Amendment treated to inserts a new clause after clause 106 to ensure there is a full brownfield review commissioned within six months of the day on which this act is advance. This puts us at the power to commission a review within this timeframe, and subsection 2 specifies what the review must investigate and amendment to do to would enable exemption scheme for building the purposes for redeveloping an existing building to provide housing.

Surely it should be obvious that focusing on brownfield and refurbishing sites first is a double environmental when saving a countryside and Greenspace is which are rich in nature and play a crucial role in responding to the climate emergency. This approach also clears up environmental issues on brownfield sites that so far have been ignored or put on hold rather than grasped. What could be more sustainable than that? Surely sustainability which has been used as an argument throughout this debate on planning and infrastructure should be at the heart of our planning system.

The CPRE reported in 2022 that there were a record-breaking number of brownfield sites identified the redevelopment and lying dormant, enough for 1.2 million homes over 23,000 sites adding up to around 27,000 hectares. CPRE highlight that the majority of brownfield sites are in town and city centres, whether as both the most need and scope for new homes and regeneration. As I have already said earlier in the debate it's not simply a question of more homes but it needs to be the right homes in the right places and much of the current urban brownfield land is known to blight the communities where they exist, leading to poor socio-economic indicators.

It's much better to reuse already developed urban land and buildings of the carbon emissions are lower per capita than greenfield development. capita than greenfield development. Urban areas also have existing infrastructure and services in place for when new infrastructure is needed it can be more easily provided unlike in remote rural areas, it also has the benefit of saving our Greenfields to be used for food security, preserving rural character and environmental benefits. Too often when I have asked why more brownfield sites are not being used I'm told that the cost of cleaning them up before they can be built on ease into profits and makes the housing less viable.

We need to break the cycle so that we can -- do not unnecessarily destroy more Greenfields and we are not left with derelict sites in urban places. Amendment two to forward help provide a tax break to those companies willing to refurbish empty homes and repurposed buildings to provide housing. Only is this cheaper but as has already been mentioned it's much better than tearing down buildings to replace them which comes at huge carbon cost. The high streets changing are often empty buildings no longer used, surely it's much more beneficial to be able to re-purpose them for housing? We need to have the priority of brownfield first and to bring existing empty homes in buildings back into use, we need to make it more attractive for make it more attractive for make it more attractive for
03:30
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
In country as small as ours, every acre of land must be put to the best and most fitting use. Housing regeneration, protection and natural environment, these are not discrete issues but facets of the same question. How do we steward the land of England wisely for this generation and those two ,? I think the amendments from my Noble Friend Baroness Hodgson amendments to 22 and two to four goes to the heart of and two to four goes to the heart of this bill we support brownfield develop, we oppose greenfield development, and we protect the green bills.

In our 24 Manifesto this may come into play in all of Not only means building the right Thomas would building them in the right places at the right density and with the right productions for our natural inheritance. Means preserving the short streams, unlocking urban sites with adjustment and upholding a national framework that ensures consistency and foresight. It means delivering the brownfield renaissance we had promised and means speaking plainly above what role the tax system can play.

And I look forward to the Noble Lord the Minister's reply on this debate. But I think that you to the lateness of the hour I certainly have not had the opportunity to say all that I want to say in this important group of amendments, but I think there are other members that feel exactly the same, so I will be bringing this debate back at report stage. But before I sit down and with the House as agreement I would just like to say very very big thank you, and put on record my thanks to all the staff across the House who have stayed until nearly 4 o'clock by the time they go home and I really appreciate it and I am sure well.

well.
03:33
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
First of all, I think I agree with all of the sentiments about the staff, the clocks, everybody else that is staying up tonight until 3:30 and it will be beyond 4 o'clock before they leave. And grateful to everybody who has taken part in this debate and put down the amendments. I appreciate the intentions of amendment 143 tabled by Baroness Jones. Amendment seeks to reduce panning authorities to specify what is described as specific density of housing development, so I have set out SDSs with the level of documents that we set out the locations of growth.

This amendment would not be article because SDSs do not allocate specific sites of development so would not be able to set specific densities at precise locations. New section 12 D1 already allows the policies and regulation to the development of the use of land provided they have strategic importance to the area. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 148 tabled in the name of the Noble Lord Jamieson would require special develop and strategies to the reduce the need to travel.

I agree with the intent behind the amendment, however it is already comprehensively covered in national planning policy framework with the promotion and reuse of land being a central part of Chapter 11 of the chapter on making effective use of land. The bill sets out the strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to be consistent with national policy when preparing their Spatial Development Strategies. As this issue has already addressed the national policy, I think this amendment is not necessary and I hope the Noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Turning now to amendment 159, Lord Lucas, the power of the Secretary of State to produce urban land and readjustment and I grateful to the Noble Lord for raising the important issue about regeneration and density development on fragmented urban sites and for proposing a means to do so. While there is potential benefit to this we need more time to come to an informed view given the importance of the human rights with the interestingly affected land, that is why the Government will be rejecting this amendment and committing to look at the issues more fully and we would like to work with the Noble Lord to do so.

I turned out to amendment 160 to do so. I turned out to amendment 164 providing further opportunity to look at the important issue of the national spatial plan which seeks to ensure better coordination and development infrastructure between national and local policy. While I recognise that there is interest in the national spatial framework as a possible solution I would like to assure him that we are progressing a number of initiatives to address this outcome. The Bill as drafted reduces the new national system strategic plans to replace the current piecemeal approach.

England wide covering the development strategies would provide a more effective way to plan across local authority boundaries and coordinate development and infrastructure delivery. Focusing on the 10 year infrastructure strategy describes the SDSs fit within a project approach to improve spatial planning. It was complemented by a set of special plans and key infrastructure sectors such as the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, the land use framework, and better decision-making on land which would publish later this year and the establishment of the National transformation authority will play a key role in providing strategic and spatial direction and supporting coordination between departments, regulators, local delivery partners who can lead the development of the Governments new national in spatial assurance.

In addition, the land-use framework will provide a long-term view of land-use change to support climate change mitigation, economic growth, housing delivery, food production, clean energy, and statutory targets for major recovery and layout of a Government intent to rely on the different incentives on planned for moderate decisions at national and local level and make it accessible and high quality data available. Together, these reforms will provide the necessary coordination between policy plans and the decisions that I needed to drive the delivery.

In light of this war, I hope the Noble Lord Shipley will beg leave to withdraw his amendment. The turnout amendment to 22 tabled by the noble Baroness which seeks to require the commissioning of a review of the brownfield sites. The Government is clear that the first port of call for development should be Branford land. This includes, for example, bringing to insights back into use in making better use of existing land and buildings which is why the Government is looking at the national policy to incentivise brownfield development and it is about 2020 for the revised policy framework set out the proposals for brownfield development should it be approved unless substantial harm would be caused.

The NPPF, therefore, provide strong support for making as much use as possible of brownfield land and sets a high bar for refusal. The Government also proposed options for a brownfield passport last year to ensure the default answer to suitable proposals is yes. We are now considering reviews received two decide what further action could be taken to support development of brownfield land. In addition, the public already provides funding to unlock suitable brownfield sites for housing where this provides good value for money.

The government's new national delivery fund will make around £5 billion of grant funding available for the next Spending Review. To unlock new housing and regeneration around the land. In addition to that funding the Department is making available £1.8 billion financial year. We also intend to establish a new permanent national plan to act as the Government investment arm in which it will be used to support the develop movement of brownfield land. As a result, the Government has already advanced in thinking and actions and how best to incentivise brownfield development.

For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and will beg leave to withdraw the amendments. I now turn to amendment to 24 tabled by the noble Baroness. The amendment proposes the exemption of the materials used in the re-purpose in of existing buildings. The Government recognises the importance of reusing existing buildings and already encourages this through the vet system. That is why residential renovations are subject to a reduced rate of VAT at 5% if they meet certain conditions.

Any reduction in VAT rates misrepresents value for money for the taxpayer, ultimately the Chancellor is responsible for making decisions on tax policy and these decisions are taken at physical events. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will kindly beg leave to withdraw her amendments.
03:41
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page